Slashdot Mirror
Tales of Conversion - Using Ubuntu at Work
madgreek writes "Here is a short story about my switch to Ubuntu from XP at work. I have been Microsoft-free for 3 months now at a Microsoft heavy shop. Few people know I am using Open Office and Linux. I create countless documents that people open using Word, Excel, PPT and nobody can tell that they were created using Open Office. From the article: 'When I first started my experiment I was trying to keep it a secret out of fear of attacks from angry Microsoft worshipers (especially from the admins and desktop support). What I am finding out is that most of the folks that I was hiding from are sick and tired of supporting Windows and are proponents of Linux. Several of them are using Linux at home. One of the guys I talked to has Vista and XP installed on his laptop. He swaps out the hard drive when switching between OS's.'"
Some quotes from your sig:
Ok, now please go ahead and educate us on bias.
db
I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
I'm reasonably computer savvy,
No - you're reasonably windows savvy. The rest of your post makes that abundantly clear.
Try dual booting between windows XP & Vista & you'll find that your lack of knowledge about partitions was the problem, not linux itself.
it's still not user-friendly enough for the mass market.
By your own account, you didn't actually use linux, just attempted to install it - so you've no basis to make that judgment.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Let's have a look at the problem from another angle: What if your computer had only Ubuntu, or BSD, or Solaris, or OS X on it and your friend recommended this great new 'Windows' product to you. How easily do you suppose the Windows XP installer would make it to get your computer dual booting?
Does your XP installer disk offer to repartition your disk and fully explain what will happen to your existing partition, along with the risks?
Does the XP installer detect what OSes are already on the computer and incorporate them into the boot menu?
Does the XP installer offer to import settings from the existing OS?
Will it mount all partitions with read/write support?
The argument that Ubuntu or any other Windows-competing OS is inferior simply because it has failed or threatened to fail to leave every brick of the Windows shrine untouched is both stale and lame.
db
I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
Well, maybe it doesn't need to be compatible, but he's right: Apps are important. So if not compatible, Linux needs to have alternatives. By that I mean REAL alternatives, not stuff that you have to argue about. For many people, the apps alone mandate that a switch to Linux can't happen.
I'm like that at home. I haven't even looked at Linux for home because I know that, regardless of any other problems, it isn't usable because it doesn't support the software I want. I am not going to compromise my computing experience, it's a tool, and I'll use what makes it do what I want the best, which is Windows in this case.
Well this holds true in many cases. You can't expect someone to realistically switch to your platform if you can't offer them apps that they need. Also it needs to either be that app, or one that is just as good. You can't start demanding compromise. You can't tell a professional graphics artist that GIMP should be "good enough" and they "don't need what Photoshop has." That's lying to them and to yourself. You can't expect them to make a switch unless you are offering something that's at least as good, and probably better.
So really, it is a big problem Linux faces right now. In so many settings, it simply doesn't offer the apps that people need and thus can't be considered, regardless of other merits. One real way to solve this would be total Windows compatibility. If you could execute any Windows app under Linux, well then there's nobody who uses Windows that won't be able to get all their apps. Then the argument is purely about technical merits, cost, familiarity and so on. I'm not saying that's the only way to go or even the right one, but it is a legit thing to consider. People need certain apps. If you can't offer them those apps or something very much like them, you aren't a contender, regardless.
There are many comments on here presenting the sort arguments such as :
... that it has lost all ability to conform to international standards.
- "Open Office is not 100% compat with MSOffice"
- "My Visio docs cant be used on linux/other-non-MS-os"
- "I cant connect to our exchange servers without Windows"
- "Our company intranet requires active-x controls"
- "Yada Yada Yada, etc, etc, etc, ad-infinitum, ad-nauseum"
- "And therefore, linux is no good, and will never catch on until it does this and that, and anything else that Windows makes possible"
None of these arguments demonstrate anything lacking with Linux. The ALL demonstrate how very badly your organisation's IT policies and strategies has backed itself into a corner and locked itself so deeply into a closed and proprietary architecture
If Linux has a hard time co-existing in your current infrastructure, then that should be a huge red flag that there is something seriously wrong with the way you are operating, and the strategic decisions that have been made in the past. If your organisation doesnt have the agility to adapt to what is happening now in the wider world - then its only a matter of time before that lack of agility is going to hit you hard like a speeding train.
Thats all well and good if you are happy to thrive in isolation, like some extended family of inbred hillbillys far from civilisation, but in the meantime, the rest of the world will be passing you by. If thats where you want to be in 10-20 years time, then stick to what you are doing now, and ignore the obvious. Blame it all on linux if that makes you happy.