Slashdot Mirror
Do You Get a UNIX Workstation at Work?
Fished asks: "This may be a selfish question, but so far as I can tell it hasn't been asked before. I'm currently a Solaris System Engineer in a Very Large Company. This Very Large Company has predictably standardized on Windows as their corporate desktop. However, they are also of the opinion that nobody needs anything -but- Windows on their desktop. If you're a UNIX/Linux systems engineer/administrator in a large company, do they give you a desktop for the platform you manage? Do you have any tips on justifying your need for a second, UNIX-based desktop to the powers that be?"
"While Windows may be a truth for most employees, as a System Engineer I find that my productivity is much lower when I am forced to use Windows on my desktop. I spend way too much time overcoming the ways in which Windows is just different from UNIX, and not enough time getting my job done. Loading Solaris X86 is not an option, since we are required to use a bunch of software that is Windows only (much of it sloppily written, IE only internal websites, with fun things like ActiveX controls.) VmWare works, but is certainly less than ideal."
Google, HP, Oracle, Sun, IBM -- all use Linux desktops at work. But if IT is unwilling to make a special case and allow you a Linux desktop, just get PuTTY, run it full-screen, you won't even know you're on Windows. There are even some X emulators for Windows (Hummingbird?) but it's been a while since I used any and the command line is all you need anyway.
Go somewhere random
and reboot one of them with Knoppix in the CD drive.
I am in somewhat the same position, but it is recognised here that our Unix servers are a necessity. So everyone in our department gets WRQ Reflection as a standard application, and we run Samba on one of the Unix servers.
To be honest though I don't consider it a real unix workstation unless you have more than one monitor and nice displays at that.
I built my own computer at work, and if I hadn't there is no way I would be happy/productive otherwise.
Why would you need it? Where I work we've got a ton of Solaris boxes, and they are a lot of the core servers (LDAP, DNS, e-mail, web, among others). Our Solaris admin is quite good, and a fairly hardcore UNIX type. Not a Windows fan by any stretch of the imagination. However, his laptop that he uses to manage everything is Windows. Why? Well because that gives him Windows when he needs it and it doesn't restrict him in any way. Between Teraterm and the ssh.com client I've never seen him have any problems. After all, it's UNIX sever administration. It's all done remote, and through a text window. He could probably use a C64 and do just fine other than being slowed by having only a single window at a time.
So you need to first come up with a good reason or reasons as to why a Windows desktop doesn't work for you. Not liking it isn't a good reason, there's plenty about work I don't like, but then they are paying me so I'll do what I'm told. If you can't come up with a good technical reason, then probably you really don't need one. Pride and/or personal preference aren't a good reason when it comes to a work environment.
Also, since they are standardised on Windows desktops, you presumably have Windows support people. Get them to maintain your desktop and don't worry about it.
It's not about ideal, it's about getting your job done. Whether or not you can convince the higher ups that you need a Unix machine to do your Unix administration job is your own business, but I'd wager may be an exercise in futility. Me, I'd just install my favorite flavor of *nix, install Windows on VMWare (or VirtualBox or Bochs or Plex86), and get on with doing my job. I've personally found Windows to emulate pretty well (at least win2k or XP without Luna).
I've never seen a company that gave only one machine to an engineer.
I work at an Even Larger Company and the answer is absolutely not. Never in a million years. It's got nothing to do with Linux, Unix, or Windows. It's got everything to do with a corporate consistency. The thinking is that if everyone has the same tools and only those tools, then it's easier to manage the IT environment from a central ivory tower. Which is true. But for anyone in a technical position, it also makes the job considerably more difficult.
Where I work there has been usage of workstations but that has slowly died out. Partly because desks have got smaller as a consequence of trying to cram more people into the same space. However, there is fundemental inefficiency when you have a workstation for doing your unix admin and a PC for everything else. It's difficult to avoid the everything else and ultimately they tend to be the corporate applications you've got to have. The alternatives, and they are available in my firm, are Exceed and a RHES vmware image. Both of which are run on your existing desktop PC and fit in nicely with the corporate strategy. Someone above mentioned having the alternative of a Linux build on the PC with Windows running in a virtual machine. In my place at least, that wouldn't wash as the firm has a custom desktop build that I expect would have a few problems running in vmware.
That's it. ssh! Don't want to hear any more complaints from a supposed "UNIX server" admin. ssh!
If you cant get a dual boot machine, or better yet a mac, get exceed (or failing that cygwin *bleh*) and just run it full screen. You'll never have to deal with windows then. (Except of course when windows crashes...)
Most engineers I know don't have any desire for any specific machine. All they want is a piece of software. The machine is just a means to an end. What do you want to run? If it works on Windows, then part of your job is learning to use the equipment.
This is a complaint from 1996 :) I find it hard to believe this is still happening. Doesn't the OP have any way to write a business case for a last generation PC to run Linux or Solaris x86 and a KVM switch. I'd even write it up as a UNIX AV scanner...something the Windows guys would be all in favour of.
I last used it about a year ago, but remember it being appreciably better than I thought it would be. It even has an almost debian like (gui) packaging thing that ... works. Functioning X server too, but not rootless IIRC.
Dave
I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
Install http://www.colinux.org/> or http://www.virtualbox.com/>
You're in charge of them, make it happen and stop being a little girl about it.
At my ~auto parts~ second job, the "computer" I use most frequently is an AS400 dumb terminal, with one of those indestructible mechanical keyboards that go *KLOP* with every stroke, hence yanking a magic invisible electron-riddled cable in a secret room far, far across the complex. Yup, I get something other than Windows alright, with all the brilliance that green monochrome can offer.
Other machines have keyboards that were manufactured post-AT, and run RedHat with a slick emulation of the dumb terminal... but this is over the same old crusty cables. Off-site backup is simple, cheap, and internal for this small local company.
My primary employer emulates (infringes) AS400 with modest success, at great cost. The ability to subvert Windows' insecurity is a real plus (for me) there, especially when I involve my USB disk, but there really is something primal, satisfying, and tactilely delicious about that *KLOP* that no Windows, Linux, or any flavor box could ever replace.
*KLOP*
FairTax baby!
Current Job - Unix desktop, Windows laptop
Previous Job (HP) - Unix desktop, two windows laptops (two networks, each laptop was only allowed on one)
Previous Job (EDS) - Unix desktop, windows laptop
Previous Job - Unix desktops (Two SGI workstations!)
That takes me back to 1998 or so. I've pretty much always been on a Unix (like) workstation, with a Windows laptop for the odd cases that require it.
Even with EDS, who is very strongly partnered with Microsoft, I still had a Sun on my desk.
If you can get them to set up a Windows terminal server somewhere (which could be as simple as XP Pro or a sufficiently high-end copy of Vista), connect to it with rdesktop and use it for the IE stuff. That's assuming you don't have to spend a lot of time on it.
Another possibility would be running IE in Linux, under Wine -- there is actually a script (ies4linux, I think?) which does that very well.
Also, complain to whoever did the sloppy stuff. I don't mean pitch a fit, call the CEO, nothing like that -- just send a calm email, saying you'd much rather use Unix (Solaris, Linux, whatever), and suggesting that next time, they code cross-platform stuff. Expect a no -- you are not crusading here, just being a statistic, and maybe putting the idea in their heads.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Plug the keyboard and monitor into the company's mainframe and use it as your desktop :P
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
You don't need a "Workstation", you need a "Test Box". A workstation is an overpriced desktop used to make trouble. A test box is an inexpensive server used to prevent trouble. Aside from the label, they are identical, but it makes all the difference to the bureaucrats.
There's no failure quite as dissatisfying as a complete and total solution to the wrong problem.
Well, I am a UNIX admin at a large company and I have a lot of machines in my cube:
* One laptop running Windows
* One laptop running Linux
* One x86 workstation running Linux
* One x86 workstation running Solaris
* Two Sun Fire V120s (these will be moved into my lab racks eventually)
Unfortunately the budget's a bit tight these days, otherwise I'd be asking for an Ultra 45 to replace my older Dell.
The trick is to be good at what you do, and then say you can do better with more hardware (and prove it once you get it).
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
I haven't had a windows-based desktop since '98. I've been using rdesktop to access a windows machine when IE4Linux doesn't cut it. Just go and talk someone into giving you an extra desktop - since you connect to it with RDP - you won't need an extra screen or keyboard. WinXP supports RDP out of the box and you can run rdesktop on most Unixes. Cut'n paste even works. Per.
It really hardly matters whether you have Windows sitting on your desk if you're a UNIX system engineer; install an ssh, X11, or VNC client.
I am a *nix guy. But about 2-3 years ago, I was forced on a windows workstation (the last prior to that was a BRAND new OS called win95). I have tried Exceed and found it flaky and just so-so. OTH, I currently run cygwin and have NO intention of ever going back to hummingbird. Cygwin has been rock solid. Now there are times where it is SLOW. In addition, it has issues when I move the laptop to a docking station, move to monster monitor, start cygwin, then move back to the smaller res (it stops and waits). But the way around that is to run it in normal windows mode (which I will not do). My only complaints about cygwin is that things like link does not work correcly and the io speed SUX BIG TIME.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
What slashdotters don't seem to realize is you can't "just install such-n-such" or "ssh into such-n-such" or "boot from such-n-such" in a controlled corporate environment. If they say Windows, then it's Windows, and don't even think about installing something not in the standard load.
Say hello to Clippy.
Just upgrade the smallest Solaris machine. It's almost guaranteed that you can identify some box and reason to upgrade. Afterwards, move the old machine to your desk along with your Windows machine (for the Windows only needs) and use it. If you're lucky, there may already be an old Sun machine lying around that you can just take. In any case, asking for permission will only keep you running around in bureaucracy and it'll never happen but once a machine is on your desk and you're using it everyone will pretty much leave it alone if you just STFU about it.
I am a networking engineer - here's my NZ$0.02. I use the OS the fits my needs - Linux, well Debian. A lot of the tools that I use are native on Unix machines. Here's some to name a few - wireshark (aka ethereal), tcpdump, tcptraceroute, whois, netcat, dig, awk, grep, sed, gnuplot, mtr, nmap, amap, httpush, and a few others that I would rather not mention. Plus all other needs are met such as browsing, email etc required in any corporate environment.
Long story short, I guess there is a similar list of tools that might be able to match the requirements list but it is not pretty (with a string of 30-day evals that w1nduuz apps seem to be plagued with).
----
Note: All of above are excuses. I get severe allergic reaction when W1nduuz starts up with that silly intro music.
Another approach might be KVM (the kernel module, not the hardware switch) and Qemu. Then the OP could, in theory anyway, run Win32 and Linux side by side on the same box and switch between them at need.
As I understand it, the KVM works a lot like Xen, except it doesn't need a modified version of windows like Xen does. And apparently the in-kernel support clears up Qemu's performance issues.
That said: I haven't got around to trying this myself yet. Still it might be a better solution than VMWare, which is what I'm currently using for such cases.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
I get my own linux distro desktop, and I am very happy with it! Everything works perfectly! My colleagues have different linux distros on their desktops but this does not stop the speed of the workflow even for a sec! We are so happy now! We were not so happy when we ran windows! I dont say we could not get the job done, we did our job fairly well, but we were not happy!
sex is better than war!
I too am a mild mannered *NIX Engineer at a huge multinational. It's easy to baffle IT into coughing up a spare PC, then throw linux on it. Now I have a Corporate approved XP PC, and my Linux box. I can't remember a single shop where something like this hasn't worked work.
-- www.globaltics.net
Political discussion for a new world
If you're doing something complicated and drawn-out you don't want your machine to crash half-way through. Ever. Windows is decently stable for home use but at work, where a crash can easily cost me a day just to get everything back in place, or worse still fuck up a week-long simulation run, it doesn't cut it.
We get to run the operating system of our choice, though these days everyone runs either Debian, Ubuntu or Windows. When I do Windows development, I run VMWare - one virtual machine to compile the app, another to install and run it. I would hate to sit at a Windows machine for the most part - I know how to make my Linux box do what I want it to.
If I were forced to use Windows, I'd just VNC into a nearby Unix box and use that as my full-time desktop.
Xenu loves you!
I have never worked for a large company, so this may not be a helpful suggestion. However, where I work now (a Uni) does have a similar policy of Windows only, and specifically the Standard Build with specific apps only. This policy is relaxed a little for those who need to be able to install and test software. The issue is support: the IT Services people do not want to have to support anything that isn't known and understood by them. So by stating to management that we were willing to have no support from IT Services, and putting together a case for it to improve productivity) a colleague and I were able to persuade management that it would be worth their while to let us install Linux on our desktop machines.
Putting together a credible case is important; if you don't do this, you won't get anywhere, and even if you do get shot down, having one will make people question a decision that seems to go against common sense. (Which might help the next person, even if it doesn't help you.) The key issue is productivity. If you will be more productive, and the change will not reduce the productivity of others such as support staff, then it should be possible. Other issues to bear in mind when writing a case would include security and cost; no company is likely to be keen to have to resupply you with a desktop machine that costs three or four times as much as everyone else's Windows boxes.
You can rent this space for $5 a week.
All the alpha geeks at my workplace run UNIX workstations.
We all have Macs.
-----
PGP Key ID 0xCB8FF658
Do you work in the real world? the facts are that most Windows sysadmins are low skilled and are frightened of Unix and Linux which they see as destroying their little niche. Therefore they are ultra hostile to brining in these technologies.
They ask this because they realize that people are more productive when they use an OS they are familiar with. Supporting linux isn't that hard, since the OS is everwhere at work (indeed, there are people on the payroll who get paid to hack the linux kernel). Supporting windows is easy as well. Give engineers the choice and you remove one more barrier to quick productivity.
Anyway, the last company I was with gave me a windows box. It wound up having linux on it within a couple weeks. IT carped about it, but I was doing server programming, so we called my workstation a "dev/test box" and it was fine as long as I maintained it and didn't need backups or whatever. Uh, no sweat: everything in $HOME was on a netapp, and apt kept me plenty well steeped in whatever software I needed.
Present your case, tell them what you think you need, as a professional, to do a better job. Or, say "fuck it" and leave a Knoppix CD in the drive of your Windows PC, work off that...
-B
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
All of this to show your IT manager how easy it can be. Then show your homework, and you could likely get one justified for every UNIX administrator in your company. Want to make the argument, compare that to what it costs your company for 25 Windows stations for the same people. I think you'll find the argument compelling. Typical lifespan of a thin client is 7-10 years, you won't need to replace it in three years as you would with typical desktops.
Typical Sun Ray cost for 25 users (assuming they would use existing monitors/keyboards, estimated numbers):
Sun Microsystems T1000 w/ 8-core CPU & 8GB RAM w/ 3-yr Support: $8500
Sun Ray 2 Display Clients + RTU + Support (3yr): $500 ea ($12,500 for 25)
Your labour & time to install/manage: $55/hr * 2 hours/week * 3 years = $17,160
Total 3-year Cost: $38,160.00
This should justify itself.
Luckily, I work in the department that is responsible for dolling out PC's, and I keep a large farm of machines all around my desk, which if equipped with installation media, can be running whatever I choose. Right now, I've got a Win2k box (all our corporate certified stuff runs there) a WinXP box (for playing games with the office mates) and a SuSE 9.0 box (for running the servers that said games are played from) In the past I've had Ubuntu running, various versions of SuSE, DSL and I think there have even been a couple of Solaris boxes at one point. If you really crave being able to do what you want with your workstations, try working for the department that is responsible for imaging the PC's and rolling them out to the clients :)
Windows has more viruses because linux has more virus coders.
Try to persuade them. If you can't, look for a new job.
Sure, there are companies that behave like this. Lots of them, and many of them are large. Don't work for them. There are plenty of places - mainly smaller to medium-size, but including some enlightened larger companies - where you have the flexibility that you need.
...all the developers have a Windows XP box on their desk, which is nothing more than a glorified vessel for one's internet browser and e-mail client. Each of them also has a dedicated Linux box hosted at Oracle's data center at Austin - this is where development happens.
I just discovered this little gadget and let me tell you, it is the most transparent X Server on Windows I've seen. It just gives you a full-screen-with-windows-border X server that contains a desktop ran by your remote Unix machine. Short of having to do direct hardware configurations you won't see any difference between it and having an actual Solaris/Linux desktop. I hope I sound like a mouth-piece for the company because I am not. I am just glad there is a solution out there now that is this simple and yet this transparent. Rather than try to marry an X server to Windows Explorer, they just gave it a one big window. Brilliant yet simple. Try it. I bet it will get rid of all your headaches.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
I'm a developer at a small to medium size software company. I have both Linux and Windows machines. We support both, so it makes sense. I was told I could get a Sun box or an Apple if I wanted them (we support those platforms too), but I never tried. I believe the general rule is you get a Windows box by default, and can pick one other platform.
Does my MacBook Pro count? I have all the Unix tools and office apps that I need, plus the occasional Windows-only app (via Parallels) all in one portable platform.
Dump the IRS - http://www.fairtax.org
All they need is PuTTY and they are off coding up a storm.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
I am a programmer analyst for a Univ in the USA and They let me have a mac mini and a linux box in addition to my xp box, all tied together running multiple monitors using synergy over ssh. This is for 2 reasons really, to test browser compatability for any webapps, and to have an environment somewhat similiar to our server env. Especially if you do ANY web app design at all, you can push the need for browser compatability to get the other box. Another reason to get one is to have a test environment so that you are not writing scripts against a prod environment (i frequently write scripts for solaris boxes on either my mac or linux box). the only reason they even require us to have xp is for the state mandated Exchange client (outlook, but linux apps are catching up really fast compatability wise) and our call monitoring system.
Most large companies are run by folks who prefer mcDonalds to a local restaurant... extrapolate. You can install Cygwin without any privileged access, as long as you're not locked down to only specific binaries. There's a lot more to Cygwin than just it's X, so you can still overpay for exCeed if you want to, and still have your full unix environment work with it. I like being able to rsync CDs up to unix hosts from my laptop instead of walking back and forth to the server room, working on shell and perl scripts on my laptop instead of remote, sshing commands out to hosts and having the commands come back through my display, whipping out windows binaries for people who need some certain functionality blocked by websense but can get the source code, etc.. When security comes by accusing you of "making backdoors" by using ssh keys, hands off the keyboard and let them take a copy of your keys. The good ones get pretty pleased when they find out you're voluntarily using passphrase-protected keys. Of course, once you explain what you're doing, the bad ones want to forbid ssh-agent. Those are the same ones who equate loss of productivity with gain of security - the "the more it costs, the better it works" school of thought. For better or for worse, most of those work for the government. If you don't mind a lot of mousework, you can subsist on exCeed and putty, but why would you?
But then again, I am a geek. Not many people run 2 Sun servers at home. But that is where I have my ftp server, mysql database, and apache running... Starting to experiment with bind, but it is so security vulnerable that I havn't left it on much (same reason why sendmail is disabled). My next real project will be Solaris zones.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
Currently, I'm allowed to have my Gentoo workstation. Next month I'm off to a new employer and they said: 'Ok. So long as you can run outlook for your agenda.'. I'd figure it would run under wine, and most of the people on the net seem to agree. I'd like to ask this question to the /. crowd, though - does an install of outlook under wine come with any conditions, caveats or things that you can plainly have not that windows users have ? Thanks.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
As a real, sueable, engineer, yes I get a Unix box and a PC. My software will actually run on either, but the Unix box works much better with the supercomputer farm, and has access to much more storage. On the other hand a significant proportion of my analysis is in Excel, so it is good to run both at once. The PC is faster for single threaded numerically intensive tasks, despite being 4 years old, I'm guessing HP Unix boxes are about to vanish in a puff of smoke, as they seem to be getting slower at every upgrade. There again it has 2 cpus so if I am running two jobs simultaneously it is faster than the PC.
What would you get by having a Unix/linux machine as a desktop? You know when it all comes down to it you're going to be using a terminal anyways to get your job done. No different than using putty.
IT wants everything consistent for a reason. Having you as a special case makes their job more difficult than it does your job by having a Windows machine running a few putty terms.
Of course, my views are my own and are not representative of any employer.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
But seriously,
- Go ahead and make the case for a Linux box. Not because they'll give it to you, but just so that you know that you've tried to fulfill your professional responsibility.
- If you can, snag an old PC via "midnight requisition" or whatever. Hide it in or behind a file cabinet. That's your main box.
- If that doesn't work, start looking for a new job.
Good luck."Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
Um, no. We get angry at him because this is not Digg and that sort of behavior is not acceptable here. It may have been an honest mistake, but now he won't do it again.
i work for IBM (not of course a spokesperson for said company) and if I have business justification for getting exotic hardware i get exotic hardware.
I have Sun, SGI, Digital (an old Alpha box) and I have retired my PA-RISC at this point. As long as I can justify it I have never had a problem with it.
If you have to stay on windows (can't justify your unix box) then I'll sing with the rest of the choir; Exceed does the job.
When new computers for the company came in, I asked to keep my old computer (works if they weren't leasing it, but even then they can usually get it for cheap) and then I installed Linux on it.
I work at a small biosciences company. The IT and dev departments can run whatever they want, and are responsible for maintaining their own machines. All of our dev guys run some variant of Linux, and rdesktop to a VMWare server running Windows VMs to do testing of our Java apps. Other departments, however, have to run XP and use Outlook as the client for our groupware. It makes sense to only have one platform to support novice users on, but Outlook can be a real pain.
Software you request:
1. Microsoft Services for Unix (if your computer has hardware NX support enabled, skip down to 'Or:'
2. Xming X-server for Windows
3. the Interopsys GNU software distribution for SFU (www.interopsystems.com/tools)
Or:
1. VMware Workstation
2. Solaris 10 free DVDs.
Or:
1. Cygwin
Or:
1. the win32 gnu utils (unxutils.sourceforg.net / gnuwin32.sourceforge.net)
2. Activestate Perl
3. putty/pscp/psftp
You really don't need a unix workstation. With ssh and perl, what CAN'T you do? does 'ls : command not found' bug you? Request the unix utils.
It's business. Write up a document with your Need, your Proposal, and the Impact statement. List what you need. Mention it's all TOTALLY FREE WOOHOO.
Grow up and quit whining on slashdot.
Up until about a week ago, I used a self-provided PowerBook G4 as my work machine.
Not too long after starting at where I work, I was given the task of overseeing my employer's Linux boxes. Seeing as most users did their Office et al work via Windows terminal server, I loaded Linux onto my laptop and used rdesktop for the terminal servers. It was... okay, but the power management and various interface issues annoyed me. I ended up buying a PowerBook G4 for both work and personal use, and it worked beautifully for the most part. (Though, MS's Remote Desktop Connection for Mac software was crap, and for the most part I still used rdesktop on X11.)
However, I finally ended up switching back to a Windows laptop last week. I'm doing more and more remote site implementations, and I found that not only was getting my USB-to-RS232 adapter working with minicom something of a chore (for programming switches, routers, and the like), there were a couple of programs that I would need in Windows that ran dog slow in VirtualPC. Also, I couldn't justify the cost of a new MacBook when the old one still worked well for personal use, and I knew the company wouldn't buy me one.
So, for work purposes, I now run a Dell Latitude D620 with XP Pro. If I need to administrate the Linux boxes, I use PuTTY and Xming, and if I need to do some local testing I have VMWare Workstation installed locally. I still keep the PowerBook for personal use.
I guess the point in this is that I've been lucky to get employers who let me choose what I want to use, but on the other hand it's best to have all the tools you need. If it's *nix (whether Linux, BSD, or OSX), more power to you, and I hope you can get your bosses to agree.
Our corporate standard desktop is Windows + Outlook + a bunch of crap that lets infosec automatically monitor and update the machine. Fortunately, for those of us who can get managerial approval, exceptions are easy to get.
The bottom line is that we can't do our work in Windows, therefore we run something we can get our work done in.
It's your manager's job to make sure you have what you need to do your job. If you need Linux/Solaris/Whatever, talk to you manager.
*sigh* back to work...
Everybody ran WindowsNT, and the migration to Windows2K was underway, some of the Engineers ran IRIX and even fewer ran Linux, at my desktop I ran Linux (on a Dell desktop) with VMware installed and Windows2K workstation in a virtual machine. I scrounged up an O2 re-installed the appropriate IRIX image for it and just about NEVER used it, it was slow as molasses, a pain in the neck to find tools for, had a truly suckey window manager, etc.
Linux is way better for just about everything and for the rare time that I needed Windows I would start the virtual machine.
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
...no one would give a rat's patootie if you set up a Unix workstation as long as you didn't cause any trouble for the IT folks or get rootkited.
My company doesn't really give us workstations at all. We've got some early P4 IBMs that my department has been known to commandeer for our day-to-day use if needed (one of them became our tech server), but for the most part the tech department relies on personal laptops. As a small company (10 employees) we can't really afford high end hardware, and since all of our technicians have fairly powerful notebooks it just became normal for us to use our own gear. Due to my influence, we've pretty much standardized on Macintel hardware running XP and Debian through Parallels.
It's disorganized and would be an administrative nightmare for a larger company, but it works for us. I've got SSH and an X server when I need to work on any of our servers (all Debian), I've got Windows for the few times the web apps we have to use throw a fit under Firefox (damn Broadsoft), and the virtual Debian installs are very close to what's running on the server so we can test with ease.
I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
I saw several people mentioning better X implementations for Windows, but did anybody mention VNC? Create a virtual desktop on the Solaris box with VNC. Connect to the VNC session as needed from any OS at any time. I find the responsiveness is typically much better, especially since VNC can reconfigure color depth and transmission techniques on the fly to best match available bandwidth. I also love VNC because I don't lose state when I disconnect. Since the apps and the VNC server tend to be on the same machine, machines on which you only run the viewer can be shut down. I can leave emacs running for weeks, connecting as I need to and knowing I'm not accidentally getting two emacs sessions out of sync. I have a Linux box with VMWare to provide a Windows window. My project leader has to spend a lot more time in Windows land, so he uses Windows as his primary OS, but uses VNC to get a Linux desktop from a machine in the server room. I run a VNC server in my VMWare Windows session, which makes it easier to get the full functionality of Outlook whether I happen to be sitting at a Solaris box in the lab or my Office-less laptop at home.
I do. I work as a network engineer/web developer/a bot of everything for an ISP. We use Linux for all ISP stuff and I have only Ubuntu on my desktop. The only issues is I have to keep telling everyone to send spreadsheets as CSV, but they've learned to tolerate us techies by now. :)
Same story: windows on the desktop, internal websites that only work with IE, crummy internally-written applications (mainly on Notes). Installing Linux on one of the desktops wouldn't work too well because their all leased and you never know when your desktop will wind up on the refresh list.
The only good thing is that we have a lot of design engineers that were running CAD software on Solaris-based workstations so we have a bunch of them around. I've got an Ultra 60 and a Blade 1000 that I used for testing. My main machine, though, is an older Compaq running SuSE. My cubicle neighbor's got a slew of various type Sun workstations squirreled away. He runs Solaris all day. We typically switch over to the Windows boxes only for email and to run those crummy internal apps. The windows addicts don't understand why we don't want to use Windows for everything.
If you've got Sun boxes around, I have to wonder just why you're not being allowed to use one in your role as a Solaris engineer. Are you supposed to installed software and test it on the production systems? (Oops! Sorry boss!)
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
But will it blend?
and you can install software, just use VMWare.
I work as the sysadmin at a small engineering firm. We used to be completely a UNIX shop, with HP Apollos, HP 9000s, Sun Sparcstations, SGI Indigos, and IBM RS/6000s. A couple years ago the president decided that Windows was the way to go and he trashed all the workstations. This was shortly before they hired me. I discovered that they trashed all the workstations but kept all the old UNIX servers and added linux servers. However, there was now no way to safely test software because there were no workstations for development. There was also a lot of scientific software and expensive development tools that were now useless. I got so angry and flustered I dragged in a Sun Ultra1 that was sitting around at home and convinced the president to give me an SGI Iris Indigo that was collecting dust in his workstop. That helped a little. My craptastic Pentium 3 Windows XP workstation is the oldest, slowest, and least powerful box in the office and does maybe half of what I need, and when I say "I'm not performing effectively with this" I just get shrugged off. I think next week I'm just going to grab an Ultra 10 with Solaris 10 from my pile of machines at home and put it at my desk because I will be a hell of a lot more productive with the TOOLS I ACTUALLY NEED TO DO MY JOB. If I had an SGI Octane and a Sun Ultra 80 to supplement the Windows box, I'd be completely happy.
"... and that sort of behavior is not acceptable here."
Oh baby, you say that as if you had some authority. Ummm, what exactly are you gonna do about it? Put more replies under the first post comment?
Great strategy, that'll teach 'em.
You could try installing freenx on one of your unix boxes (call it a test box) and connect to it using the free client, available at nomachine.org.
...why not build yourself a custom Knoppix/Ubuntu/freesbie CD or DVD. Most "run from CD" distros allow r/w access to NTFS partitions and for customization files to be written to an USB memstick.
0 930/image/rescue22.jpg. I set up a PIII 600 powered one running FreeBSD in my friend's box at Boeing and nobody's the wiser. Some of her coworkers had wondered why there was a KVM switch on her desk, since they could only see one computer under the desk, but, now that she moved that out of the way nobody knows nothing and, she is as happy and productive as she can be.
Or, if you really need Solaris, and you can open your box, get the current day equivalent of one of these - http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/AKIBA/hotline/2000
"Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are the dead." A. Huxley
I've asked myself the same question recently. Since all of my development is for linux and solaris should my workstation be Unix as well?
I believe yes, but not because of linux zeoletry but mostly because of my style of development.
@ work I spend all my time using PUTTY/Exceed/XEmacs and screen sessions.
It just seams that Windows just gets in the way of getting my work done and it will be more stable in my case to run my consoles and some of Xapps natively.
Sooner or later during the day and for whatever reason (crashes, memory... etc...), I have to reboot my workstation and restart all of my xapps. This means that my work is interrupted and I have to restart my work. Hopefully, I've saved my work before it happens.
Exceed is a great application but I hate it when XEmacs crashes or when one xapp stalls all of them stalls.
I also loathe the way windows groups all of my Exceed applications into one column making it harder for me to switch between Xapps.
IMHO, putty stinks but it's way better than using xterm under Exceed only because windows will group my putty sessions seperately from Exceed!
"If a show of teeth is not enough, bite
At my job, my department is basically a team of linux administrators, responding to client issues with their various servers (twelve of us managing over a thousand servers for over a hundred clients). When I was first hired, I was told that my department was standardized on Linux on workstations as well as servers (the internal tools we use come as RPMs even). It's nice enough and beats the heck out of Windows, but then again, there's always something to complain about.
We're standardized on RPM-based distros, specifically Fedora, and so there's no end of griping about e.g. yum, broken RPMs, dependencies, and so on. Lately, the most recent trend has been complaining about the non-Macness of our workstations, to the point where I've been tempted to bring in my Mac Mini to replace my Linux workstation, just so I can get some work done (though in fairness, this is because my workstation is underpowered for what I need to do).
Amusingly enough, our UNIX sysadmin himself uses Windows, just as does the administrative staff and some of the other employees. Support, deployment, and R&D all get Linux though, and however much I might complain, it's a lot better than Windows.
I'm a Linux systems engineer for a company here in Austin, Tx and thankfully I was allowed to load whatever I wished for an OS on my personal workstation, with no pressure to even dual boot with Windows. While some of our programs (for instance a billing program for our time spent working for clients) are based solely on Windows, I find that I can always slide over to someone else's workstation and borrow it for a couple of minutes to make the entry, and no one seems to mind. Aside from that one particular application, I haven't hit any roadblocks yet. The company I work for realizes that I am more productive on Linux and leaves me be. The other Linux/UNIX guy runs two workstations, one Windows and one Linux, just out of personal desire to have one of everything we use at his fingertips. Our developers develop on and for the Windows platform, or develop net based apps, so they really only need to use Windows (that and they are comfortable with it) and really have no need to learn another OS and make the switch. I do find it satisfying that nearly every other computer they interact with on our network is UNIX based. Since I started working there, those who work in my department have been expressing a desire to learn Linux/UNIX at home. With the Monodevelop project, our programmers were pleased to find they can do .NET stuff under Linux.
I also found it funny that our IS manager said that if it wasn't for our .NET development needs we'd all be using Macs if it were up to him personally. I was happy to find out that Monodevelp runs on Macs too now.
I'm glad that I do work in an environment that allows me direct access to the tools I need, without having to virtualize or being bound to one particular platform. If your a UNIX guy, you should be allowed to use UNIX, same if you are a Windows or a Mac guy. It just makes more sense.
Just thought I'd throw in my information.
Randimal: AT-CG-CG-AT-CG-AT-AT-CG-CG-AT-AT-CG-AT-CG-CG-AT-CG-AT-AT-CG-AT-CG-CG-AT-AT-CG-CG-AT-CG-AT-AT-CG
I can only agree: as a Unix sysadmin (180 Sun workstations) who would occasionally be forced to use Windows, I used to positively hate Exceed: hard to use and manage, clumsy in all possible ways. I was truly relieved when X support was added to Cygwin and never use anything else these days.
That being said, Solaris was on the way out when I quit my sysadmin job some 8 years ago. PCs with Linux were not only much cheaper, but also better (more complete, easier to manage) as desktops. I really wonder how you'd justify a Solaris desktop for the general user these days. Since the arrival of Windows 2000 (rock solid, in my experience) it replaced Solaris/Linux as my desktop; Cygwin/X with ssh/VNC to a Linux box, or a VMWare/Virtual PC with Linux, provides all the Linux functionality I need these days. (Despite Cygwin's poor performance. I've never seen it crash btw.)
So to the original question I can only answer: as soon as I stopped doing system administration, I never had any much need for Solaris or Linux (except for server side stuff, for which I still prefer Linux over Windows). I still use xterms and the Unix commandline tools a lot, but I'd never use Linux as a desktop environment now. Just feel no need for it.
This argument is the strongest if you can back it up.
I18N == Intergalacticization
No
At every big bank (investment or retail) for which I've consulted, I always had either two machines or a windows box with Hummingbird Exceed on it. All the banks have heavy unix/solaris/sunOS (yes still!) infrastructures. Unless you're coding mini craplets in Crystal Reports Pointy-Haired-Boss Edition (I kid, I kid), chances are you'll spend much/most of your time in unixland.
As much as I hated the pressure-cooker environment, I loved the fact that I almost always had a sun box right underneath my desk, or at least an xterm away.
Nothing is inexplicable; only unexplained -Tom Baker, Doctor Who
People hate excuses, and some of the arguments that appear on the post, and arguably many of the answers from /.tters, sound exactly like excuses to refuse to do your job or to refuse to comply to your enterprise standards (you do now that, even if they have major disadvantages for you, there may some advantages four your management to create those standards). You should try to make a list of programs or features that are indispensable for your job, but are available only on Unix/Solaris. Saying something like "X (or whatever) is a better desktop, or I use tar files, or I'm faster on the command line than on Explorer" is just the opposite of what I mean, and that'll make you sound like a cry-baby. Instead: I need the fast command line ops in order to review my logs, or I need the stability of Unix to simulate a server environment, I'm working on that obscure library that's not on Windows, or our product has some precious customers that would like this feature ported on Solaris, that sounds much more mature. If you can't say that, you should question yourself and your motives to go against the mainstream: is it really a professional requirement, or just an immature need to make people comply to your independence needs ?
It depends on where you work and who cares - at my job, I requested Linux and my boss said 'Go.' I can do the same job 110% better in Linux than Windows because everything I need is usually there with little or no hassle, whereas getting a clean windows system up to par with my needs as a developer is irritating at best.
However, if I had spent my developmental years as a developer (lulz) on Windows, I would be completely on the opposite end. If you have a preference - Win, Mac, *NIX, BeOS, DOS - you should check with your employer/project manager and see if you can easily integrate your talents into the work environment.
Just to add to the stats... My workplace (www.gestalt-llc.com) allows Linux (I'm running Fedora Core 6 fulltime at the moment). Our intranet site is IE-only, but that's what IEs4Linux and VirtualBox are for :-)
I have to use Windows on my desktop and when I need to use Linux or Unix, I open a VNC session. It's not perfect but it gets the job done.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Thank the community for Firefox portable. The company I work for frequently does system audits for software and Firefox is listed as a no-no. I couldn't even inagine what it would take to get a non Windows XP operating system.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Meh, I just forgot to run off /.'s new stupid reply box thingy.
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
*looks up at user number*
Dude, I've been here LONGER than you have.
*wanders off*
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
I work for the local government. I'm sure you have the same problem where you live.
l e-dictators.asp.
We always get little dictators: http://theobjectivestandard.com/blog/2006/05/litt
It works thus: if you're inside the TI dept., you're accused of being arrogant to propose Linux, because you exist to serve the business area. I personally heard "our network is a Windows one" referring to TCP/IP + Ethernet 100Mbps, with dhcp etc.
Of course, if you're outside TI you must abide by their approved standards, because they were delegate with such "duties" by the powers-that-be.
An ill-intentioned M$-worshipping CIO can wreak a lot of havoc. And all that without risking any punishment, because most directors above are old and know nothing about free software or standard file formats.
As you said, it's the tail wagging the dog...
This is not Digg and that sort of behavior is not acceptable here.
And don't even think about using your ID as a metric of how cool you are, especially if it's over 100000.
My dev environment is *nix, my workstation is a MacBook Pro. My company's policy is you can run pretty much whatever you want - even Windows - but if it's not Win or Mac, you mostly need to support it yourself. In Engineering, Macs are probably the number one choice, with most other people running FreeBSD or Linux on a Dell. Recently, we've been getting Thinkpad T-60s. If they'd been available when I started I would have taken one and put Linux on it, but with a choice of a Dell or a Mac, the Mac was the clear winner.
As I stated above, I hit the wrong damn button thanks to the new reply system, that, and I was in a hurry.
I also don't even LOOK at digg.
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
By default everyone gets the Ubuntu preinstalled, if they chose to run another linux (or in the case of one poor lost soul Free DSD) that is entirely up to them. There are a couple of people who have grovelled sufficiently to get Macs, but I think of the 80 of us there are 5 windows workstations. But then I work for an Open Source Development company :-)
In the alternative, you could just get the box without keyboard and mouse and pay $80 for a KVM switch. That'll confuse the bureaucrats even more.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
I saw a 6 year old Solaris Sparc running empty, so I asked if I could use it. The answer was go for it. I remote in and do some development stuff on it as well as run a web server and database from it.
The simple truth of the matter is this... you work for a company that not only has a say over what job you do, but to a very large extent, how you do it. The reasons for their decisions in these matters are often counterintuitive from your point of view, and may, in fact, be provably wrong. But, in the end, after all the shouting is over, the paycheck only flows one way, which means you will need to suck it up and just do it the way they want, or make a personal change.
And in the grandest tradition of American freedom, you can simply choose to work elsewhere. Plenty of Solaris in the world, you know...
Mark J. Cecil -- Senior UNIX Engineer
New Orleans, Louisiana
http://notrealswift.blogspot.com
Definitely the way to go if you're stuck with a Windows desktop but need X apps. Free, easy to set up, can run as a service in the task tray at login, rock solid for me.
Constitutionally Correct
If it will help you do your job better, your boss should be insisting that you have Unix on your desk. Demanding, even.
Will it? Define "better". Make the case. Steal one, if you have to.
I have Solaris and Linux in my cubicle for my real work. I read my email on the "company standard" Windows 2000 box, and run a few brain-damaged legacy apps on an XP box in the lab.
I had the first Linux box in the company. We were a Solaris shop until the PHBs decided they preferred Windows. We have legacy products that are Solaris based, and still use Solaris for our new servers. I told my boss there was this whole new world out there, and if we didn't get with it, others would and we would lose. I was right, and our current flagship product is a direct result of that discussion.
...laura
I work for a major telecom company doing production support for in-house Java and C apps running on various UNIX flavors. My desktop is WinXP with Cygwin. It does me well.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Seconded. It's even available in a GPL edition as "freenx" if you're not willing to shell out some $$$.
My job is mostly admin of our departments *nix servers (40+ Linux, Solaris, HPUX, AIX etc). So I changed to Linux (Slackware) as my primary OS. I did try to live with Windows, but it was slowing me down (putty is good, but just doesn't compare to a proper *nix environment.
I use VMware Workstation to run Windows for all the corporate BS (I did try Wine, but didn't have much success with MS Office).
Its not perfect setup, but it works. If I could I'd run osX on Mac with Parallels Desktop.
---- Put Sig here:
g5 osx is a primary box, since we support several hundred mac users, with all of teh usual graphic arts applications. a windows box as a general purpose utility box, and a vmware instance of openbsd (on the windows box)for the actual X11 and ssh connectivity to our various solaris systems. it seems like i should be able to use the osx box for most things(including X11), but i've recently concluded that some R&D work that i've been doing requires more reboots on the g5 than i would prefer, hence the break out of several systems... frankly the bsd instance gets the most use, so i use it mostly in fullscreen mode. i really don't notice that i'm even in a vm, since 100% of the work is never graphic heavy.
three can keep a secret, if two are dead - benjamin franklin
hrm, no offence, but I think you are doing it wrong...
there are really only a couple of tools you need on your *desktop* to make you a fully functional Solaris sysadmin..a ssh client, a scp client and a X server. it may be handy to install something like 'plink' to automatically run commands on remote hosts if you want.
Beyond that leave everything on the servers (dev, test or prod which ever). There is no reason to have that on your desktop...
which problems are you having that can't be solved with that?
The basic sleazeware produced in a drunken fury by a bunch of UCBerkeley grad students was still the core of BIND. --PV
I know, Windows sucks. Windows gets viruses, yada, yada, yada. I hear it all the time. You can never convince a Linux guy into using Windows thats for sure. All kidding aside, I've been using Linux for the past 12 years and never really found a need for the Linux GUI anyways (was never really impressed either), since practically all Linux server apps don't require one. For everyday use, I find it's just more practical to stick with MS Windows and a telnet session. Unless you're specifically developing an X application or your company develops Linux products, then maybe the GUI would make sense. But even then, you can run a remote X session through Windows. People forget that the unstable days of Windows 95/98 are over. XP is pretty darn stable as far as I'm concerned. Never really had any major problems with it. Do yourself a favor and don't get too fancy. Besides, your not gonna impress the hot chick in the cubicle across from you by running KDE. For that, I recommend a fancy sports car.