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.'"

Comments

Applications are more important than the OS

[dybdahl]

Most office workers use more apps than e-mail and websurfing, and if 100% compatibility with Excel macros is required, you're going to run Microsoft Excel, no matter what. The same principle can be applied to most other apps in an office.

Ubuntu is still far behind Microsoft Windows, when it comes to Windows compatibility.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[timmarhy]

"Ubuntu is still far behind Microsoft Windows, when it comes to Windows compatibility."

While i agree that linux isn't ready for most business desktops and certainly isn't ready to the general public, that kind of logic escapes me. why SHOULD linux be focusing all this effort on being windows compatible? isn't the purpose to escape windows? it's also majorly retarded to sit there and proclaim linux is somehow inferior because windows is compatible with itself.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[clarkn0va]

Ubuntu is still far behind Microsoft Windows, when it comes to Windows compatibility.

And Windows is still far behind Ubuntu when it comes to Ubuntu compatibility.

db

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[nrgy]

You just cant ignore compatibility with Windows. People will and do use different operating systems then one another, this is why you have to spend some amount of time making sure both can work with the same material.

Since Windows is the dominant OS as of today it is only logical for another OS to have some form of compatibility with Windows. An example would be applications for OSX or Linux that are used for XYZ, XYZ should/would like to make sure the application for Windows that is similar to XYZ can open XYZ files and also save them. This is only common sense, with your logic it would be like Apple only designing the iPod to work with Windows.

I think you maybe don't understand the purpose of compatibility. It's not about escaping Windows or Linux or OSX, it's about making sure whatever OS person "A" uses can create and share things with person "B" who uses another OS.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[martinelli]

"Ubuntu is still far behind Microsoft Windows, when it comes to Windows compatibility." This may be the case, but Microsoft Windows happens to be far behind Ubuntu, when it comes to Linux compatibility.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[Anonymous Coward]

What the parent is saying is that using Microsoft as the standard with which to compare everything to is simply stupid. They do not have, by far, the greatest standards in many, many areas.

Just because Windows is the dominant OS does not mean that we should therefore use it as an industry standard. Standards need to be developed for the industry as a whole, not just as Microsoft sees fit. This is partly why Microsoft has such control is because people just roll over and accept what Microsoft does as standard even if they don't like it or there is a far better way to do it.

If you continue to write to what Microsoft decides is best, why even bother with alternatives? Seriously? How does this point escape you?

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[mr_matticus]

Thin clients are a massive and undesirable infrastructure change. Parallels is different from running a VM because all the handoffs are transparent. You put in a Windows CD or launch an .exe file, and it takes care of it more or less like Windows. A VM in the background only works for completely managed environments set up by the IT staff, and even still represents an unnecessary amount of network traffic and overhead for what should be done locally. Installing and managing local VMs gets right back to the problem of being adequate but completely undesired.

"It can be done" isn't good enough. It has to be well-executed and seamless.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[abhi_beckert]

Just because Windows is the dominant OS does not mean that we should therefore use it as an industry standard. Standards need to be developed for the industry as a whole, not just as Microsoft sees fit.

That's all very nice, but in some fields Microsoft *is* the industry standard. You bitch about it all day, but Microsoft Office is the standard, and until that changes compatibility will be crucial.

For example, at my job (web programming) I'm required to record the times I spend on each client, so my manager can invoice the client. My manager uses MS Excel, and therefore I must use a document format that he can open, even though I'm not running windows on my mac workstation. Similarly, my css and javascript must be compatible with IE 6, and my server-side code mustn't trigger any security warning dialogs under IE 7.

The end result is, wether I like it or not, I must use an Excel compatible format (and I've found Excel to work the best), and I must run a virtual machine to properly test websites in both versions of IE. Excel is a memory hog and has terrible workflow, and IE is absolutely the worst browser to use as a standard.

But microsoft *is* the standard, and many many people have no choice but to follow that standard.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[jimicus]

TBH, as soon as anyone says "$PRODUCT is not as Windows compatible as Windows", you can probably stop listening.

Windows is a proprietary software product. Much of what goes on under the hood is completely unknown - enough information has been reverse engineered for some interoperability (cf. Samba, ndiswrapper), but expecting any product to ever be as "Windows compatible as Windows" is asking for the moon.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[1u3hr]

if 100% compatibility with Excel macros is required, you're going to run Microsoft Excel, no matter what. The same principle can be applied to most other apps in an office. Ubuntu is still far behind Microsoft Windows, when it comes to Windows compatibility.

"Paris Hilton looks more like Paris Hilton than any Paris-Hilton look-alike". Still, misses the point: Is Paris Hilton worth looking like, or emulating in any way?

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[INT_QRK]

This is no shocker. I've used Ubuntu exclusively on my laptop for work since 5.whatever - what was the version before 6.06? Now I'm on Ubuntu 7.04. Anyway, most people have no ideas that I suck their MS docs, spreads and presentations, etc., into OpenOffice and blow them back out as MS Office files routinely. We use spreads heavily, as an analytics/systems engineering organization. Spreads don't have to be 100% compatible (this vastly applies to most apps). What percent of MS Office feature do you think most people use? I have only occasional experienced interoperability issues with the following, all easily solvable: - One way issues (MS to OO) with graphics embedded in MS documents that were saved in MS Office proprietary format loading slowly or with distortion. I can usually ctl-x the graphic and paste special to an open standards image format. The problem doesn't go the other way. Any image created in OO and saved out into XP format does not create a problem (my experience -- exhaustive testing with all image fomats not performed). - Occasionally I'll get an MS document that becomes so distorted due to the accumulation of generational file junk (people tend not to use MS templates incorrectly and keep modifying old examples) that I have to recue it by opening it in oo, saving as ODT, opening it again, then saving it back as .doc -- this cleans the document. - On the few MS spreads that we use that contain charts, I'll concede that MS does some complex charts better. Occasionally I've had to open in Excel (use Crossover Office for those emergencies -- with my old MS Office that I bought and paid for when I bought this same laptop). - Same issue on Power Point when people use office graphics formats. Same solution. I also use the myriad of open source apps such as Umbrello UML, saving out to OMG *STANDARD* XMI or png for others, and several others to intake. I really have come to prefer Ubuntu Gnu/Linux over Windows, and have experienced no real down sides, although I don't play games, so don't experience the issues that I understand others have experienced using their computers as playgounds. However, occasionally somebody enters my office and stops and stares at my screen before noting that my "screen" looks funny.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[at_slashdot]

"You can't tell a professional graphics artist that GIMP should be "good enough" and they "don't need what Photoshop"

I don't know for others, but myself I'm getting tired to hear about Photoshop everytime switching from Windows to Linux is mentioned. Does anybody know what is the market penetration of Photoshop? 50%? 20%? 3%? of Windows users? Thanks!

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[that this is not und]

Well, we could list any other number of application areas where the OSS alternatives are far, far behind the commercial alternatives. In CAD, in Multimedia authoring and manipulation, in Finanacial Tools. These are all real applications that many people find important. And the OSS alternatives rank poorly in many regards.

Now, I use gEDA for a lot of things at home, and even if it were $50 per seat instead of free, it would be 200-500 times cheaper than the commercial alternatives. However, time is money when you're doing 'real world' engineering design work. Sometimes it pays off to delegate the software development to professionals who have been working on coding and actual honest-to-goodness Human Factors design, rather than whomever volunteers for a community driven project.

Ubuntu drive partition

[Bombula]

I recently downloaded Ubuntu thinking I might do a dual-boot with Windows. But I didn't get past the first screen: drive partitioning. I'm reasonably computer savvy, but the partition utility left far too many unanswered questions: can I create a new partition on any of my drives without destroying the data that's there? How big should I make the partition? Can partitions be shared between OSs? The online help was useless, as was the most popular Ubuntu-For-Dummies style book at Borders. So I binned it.

Moral of the story is: the reason why Linux doesn't have a wide user base is because even though it is supposed to be the distro for noobs, it's still not user-friendly enough for the mass market.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[sqrt(2)]

Strange, were you using 7.04? I remember, back before I reinstalled and went Linux only for this laptop, the default partitioning was setup to shrink my empty space of the windows partition and install Ubuntu on the freed space. Grub set up the dual booting (with Ubuntu as the default option) and both OSs booted and worked perfectly. I found myself booting into Windows less and less and about a month ago did a clean install selecting the second option, "Use entire hard disk."

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

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.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[nawcom]

Please don't take this as an offense at all. from what it sounds like, you seem to be reasonably windows savy, not reasonably computer savy. an easy to understand article on making linux partitions for the windows user (first one i found from a quick google search) : http://linux.omnipotent.net/article.php?article_id =11859 yes, deleting your ntfs/fat windows partition will destroy the data. you can resize it, using an advanced partition tool like partition magic, acronis partitionexpert, parted, im sure theres a few more out there. yes, you can share partitions between operating systems. you just need to have it supported by the linux kernel, built in or via module. anyway, i understand what you meant when you said that linux doesnt have a wide user base. it began in the early 90s, its main "commerical" focus is on servers, and its designed by open source developers in favor of open source developers/users. things seem to be changing though; i believe this is one of the targets that the ubuntu distribution is aiming towards. i think certain distributions of linux are getting closer and closer to the moment where it will "just work" for users. no troubleshooting needed, no driver hacking needed, no debugging needed. this is why i usually don't suggest the basic end user to try any other linux distribution than ubuntu. ok. rant done. its what, 2:30am where i am? i wont blame you if this whole message doesnt make any sense. for im tired. and out of coffee.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[clarkn0va]

the partition utility left far too many unanswered questions

True. I asked the same question when converting a Windows-only machine to a dual-boot.

it's still not user-friendly enough for the mass market.

This is a very Windows-centric conclusion, based on the generally needless assumption that "if it can't work with Windows, then it must not be any good"

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

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[siyavash]

Your reply is exactly why Linux has not gained market share. Who are you to dictate HOW I should use my computer? Some kind of nazi? Come up with a super easy GUI solution instead of telling the guy to fuck off and sending him to mercy of the OEMs.

Funny how Linux people dictate MORE than Microsoft ever done to its users. Specially when someone is asking "Why can't I" usually he/she gets the answer "You don't need to" instead of actual help.

And funny how he actually "can handle" "this" with windows and not Linux. Funny how you tell him to go to OEMs instead of admitting Windows is easier and stronger in this matter since the user can do it "there" and not "here".

Score me -1, what the fuck do I care. My IQ is probably higher than 90% of you... god damn Linux religious zealots.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Bombula]

99.9% of all Windows machines just have the one NTFS partition taking up the whole drive.

Actually, most new machines I see have a recovery partition. That's what I didn't want to mess around with. And no, there was no automatic partitioning option. I assure you, the following did NOT take place:

"Ubuntu has detected Windows XP installed on this system. If you would like to create a Dual Boot setup, click 'Create Dual Boot System' and Ubuntu will automatically partition your drives for you." Click. Done.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[xophos]

You might want to try Wubi. It's still beta, but reasonably safe, und you don't have to do Partitioning at all.
http://wubi-installer.org/
BTW: If you install Ubuntu the way one usually installs windows eg: Backup umportant data, Wipe Drive, Install, it is just as easy ;-)

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

In my experience, installing Windows hasn't ever been much more complicated than that.

That's because you're a troll - a sad, stupid troll at that.

Let me explain it in small words. You're comparing installing windows on a blank HDD, with installing linux on a drive shared with windows.

Installing windows on a HDD with an existing OS & preserving that OS is not easy, certainly not as easy as getting Ubuntu to coexist with other OSes.

By your standards, Windows isn't ready for the mass market (you dumbass).

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Daengbo]

I'm going to go out on a limb and support the GP. There are several options for partitioning when installing. They are

• Guided -- Resize Master and use freed space
• Guided -- Use the entire disk
• Guided -- Use the largest continuous free space
• Manual

You apparently know little about partitioning yet chose to use "Manual." That's akin to the Windows users who know virtually nothing about the filesystem yet insist on changing the install path for every program they install. Why didn't you use the (chosen by default) setting which would have handled everything for you automatically? Were you trying to make your life more difficult?

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Anonymous Coward]

It's quite humorous when ignorant people think they're smart.

Why don't you try comparing the flexibility and utility of disk druid that is included with many distro installers to that of the XP installer. You can do much, much more with disk druid than you can with the XP partitioner. The Vista partitioner has even less power.

What escapes so many people is that knowledge is helpful when it comes to using your computer whether its Windows, Linux, or OS X. The more you know about how to use it, the more use you'll get out of it. It doesn't matter which OS you use. That being said, Linux will give you as much flexibility as you're willing to learn about. I've learned far more than the average use need know for a standard desktop. When something breaks, it's because I was screwing around with something that I haven't learned about. Something that I don't need to mess with, but rather, I mess with it because I want to learn how it works.

Disk druid is not an insanely difficult application to figure out. 5 minutes of Googling will give you your answer...or you could use the automatic option to use empty space...just a thought.

Oh, and it's just plain ignorant to refer to "Linux people". Yeah, go ahead and generalize. While you're at it, learn how to debate intelligently. Linux is far less restrictive. Try comparing the EULA for Vista with the EULA for any major Linux distro.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Calling me a stupid troll and a dumbass isn't helping

*shrug* I don't think anything I say is going to affect Linux's market share, but calling you a sad troll & a dumbass is both satisfying to me & educational to fellow slashdotters who otherwise might take you seriously.

The evidence speaks for itself: Linux can't even capture market share with its software by giving it away for free.

Nonsense. Linux occupies (or dominates) many computing markets (embedded devices, servers).

I don't think its any stretch of the imagination to say linux is the most widely installed general purpose OS (I bet you run it on your router without even knowing). Pointing out it hasn't made much inroads into Desktops (or mobile phones for that matter) doesn't change that.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[aaronl]

Go try to install Windows on a hard drive. The second question it asks is about a fresh install versus a recovery. Will a fresh install trash your data? It doesn't say for sure. Next it asks about partitions, but doesn't tell you what happens if you do things, or what a partition is.

The Windows installer has less documentation than the Ubuntu installer. It *can't* resize a partition, and it has absolutely no online help. It makes no attempt to dual-boot with another OS. It can't share partitions between OS'. I'm guessing that you manage to use Windows, even though it has all the same problems in the installer as Ubuntu, and even though it is actually less clear about what is going on.

This isn't to say that Ubuntu couldn't be improved, because it certainly can be. I'm just saying that your excuses for not even getting through the first, incredibly basic, and very well documented step goes to show that you are certainly *not* reasonably computer savvy. I thought the installer was pretty obvious about what was going on, but I'm computer savvy, and wanted to do the partitions manually anyway. I also know a good amount about how my computer works, already.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[turing_m]

'Linux has to do more than just be as good as Windows once it's installed. It has to actively capture market share. To do that, the migration process must be no more complicated than a single click:"Ubuntu has detected Windows XP installed on this system. Do you want to install a Dual Boot System?" Yes. Click. Done. If it's not as easy as that, guess what? No market share for you. Not yours.'

That's setting the bar ridiculously high if capturing market share is all that's required. For a Windows power user, or Admin, Ubuntu as it currently stands is easy. And for the regular users, it is adequate if they can either buy a new computer with Ubuntu or they have a skilled friend.

Instead, there are two important metrics that will determine whether or not Ubuntu (or anything else) starts to take market share.

1) The rate of defection of Windows users to non-MS operating systems.
2) The rate of failed defections.

People leave MS for a variety of reasons. Some reasons include price, vendor lock in, dislike of MS business practices, limitations of MS operating systems in their area of interest, obsolescence of XP (and forced "upgrade" to Vista and associated drop in productivity as new methods are learned), idealogical reasons for open source, etc.

This rate is very likely to be a lot higher than the actual loss of MS market share to date would indicate. And the reason for that is because the rate of failed defections (#2) has been very high. It's a bit like a loser and an attractive girl stuck on a desert island. He thinks she's faithful, despite her markedly increased interest in boat building, long distance swimming and arranging every stone on the island to form a big "SOS". As soon as a boat comes anywhere near the island, she defects for good.

A drop in the rate of failed defections will spell disaster for MS. It's typically power users, admins, programmers and smart kids who will defect. If they stay in linux land, all sorts of wondrous network effects start happening. These people write howtos for others to lower the IQ bar. Others write GUI frontends to speed the process further. Others include these gui frontends in the default install. Many of these people will install some sort of non-MS on a friend's computer.

As the rate of failed defections reaches rock bottom, the rate of defection starts to rise, major PC manufacturers start shipping with default non-MS OS... and you can do the math from there.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[ricree]

The point you're missing here is that the fault is clearly with you, not Linux. For a fair comparison, I'd suggest starting with a single boot linux computer and trying to add windows as a dual boot. From what I've heard, it is certainly going to be harder than the reverse. Like others have said, there are quick and easy choices, but apparently you couldn't get those either. That's fine, most people just aren't able to deal with installing operating systems and partitioning hard drives, but that is what preinstalled machines are for. However, you seem insistent on setting up lopsided comparisons and creating expectations for Linux that aren't even remotely what you ask for from windows. Those are the sorts of reasons that you are rightly being called a troll.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Ash-Fox]

Why does someone who wants to use an OS for daily office tasks have to know more about partitions when using your operating system than they already know about your competitors.

Yes, why does Windows require me to know more exactly about partitions than Ubuntu/Kubuntu does? I can just click the resize partitions option (selected by default when it sees Windows partitions, so you can just push 'next' anyway) and install the OS needed, it'll even setup dual boot...

But then, try installing Windows for daily office tasks on a Ubuntu/Kubuntu system, where is the resize option? What is a unknown partition type?

If you figure this out and resize the partition in Linux so you can install windows along side with your Ubuntu/Kubuntu install, where did Linux go after installing it?
Where is the dual boot menu?
Where is the Windows application, registry entry, configuration file for setting up the Linux dual boot under Windows even?

You fail to see that he has been using windows and didn't need to understand more about partitioning to get the tasks he uses his computer for done.

I didn't see a need to understand partitioning with the Ubuntu/Kubuntu installer, I did for the Windows installer.

He is told: "You are the problem, not Linux."

No, he has been told that Windows is more difficult to setup with preinstalled Linux system than Windows being preinstalled and Linux being setup after.

Come on. You don't think that you can make a perl script that chooses from a few parameters like drive size and used partition space and makes a reasonable judgement call. Put a "just make it work" button on the installer and tell noobs to click it if they want a dual boot with their old stuff accessable to both operating systems. I thought Linux was better.

Here is the thing, Ubuntu/Kubuntu already do this, it's been in the installer for ages.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Ash-Fox]

But the reason I don't use Ubuntu is because there was no option to just put the CD in the drive, click 'OK' to the the "Do you want to set up a Dual Boot System?" and come back after making coffee to find everything done except maybe setting the time and the date. In my experience, installing Windows hasn't ever been much more complicated than that.

Err... For Ubuntu and Kubuntu, Just open the install icon on the desktop, click next all the way except where it asks you to enter your user credentials, machine name and timezone information and done.

The default options selected in the installer are to resize the windows partition, install it. The boot loader updater program is set to automatically probe all partitions for other OS installations and set it up in the bootloader, so dual boot is ready out of the box.

Ubuntu will even give you a migration manager to migrate your settings from Windows such as bookmarks, documents etc.

For all the linux fanboys out there, It's worth remembering that Linux doesn't just have to be user friendly to use in order to capture market share from M$, it has to be a one-click, no-brains migration process as well.

I honestly don't believe you tried Ubuntu from your descriptions.

So long as you don't have that, the evidence in the real world speaks for itself about Linux's failed strategy.

That's great and all, except the issues you complained about, don't exist.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[replicant108]

An even easier and less risky way to try Ubuntu is to use Wubi

How does Wubi work?

Wubi adds an entry to the Windows boot menu which allows you to run Linux. Ubuntu is installed within a file in the windows file system (c:\wubi\disks\system.virtual.disk), this file is seen by Linux as a real hard disk.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[SwedishPenguin]

isn't the act of failing to install what is supposed to be the most user-friendly linux distro proof that it isn't user-friendly enough for the mass market?
No. Is the fact that 90% of computer users can't install Windows proof enough that Windows isn't friendly enough for the mass market?
This is a guy who thinks himself a computer wizard, yet he doesn't understand basic partitioning. If he had put aside all his 1337 skillz in computers and selected the option of letting the installation program handle the resizing of his windows partition and partitioning of his Ubuntu partitions, he would be up and running by now.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[1arkhaine]

That could help, but it also implies that the person installing Ubuntu would have another computer handy to check websites and all that.

Perhaps another solution could be a 'case study' situation, where the Ubuntu installation screens have a button (or an automatic pop-up in a corner, I don't know) that says 'Bob wants to do x with his computer, so he chooses option A' or some such. It'd have to be plainspeak not geekspeak, but that shouldn't be a problem with Ubuntu anyway.

I guess an issue that arises from methods such as that is - why not just have the big shiny button in the middle of the screen? If it solves all of the problems for most of the people, then it's useful. Someone who wants more advanced options can selected it from an unobtrusive but visible button/menu/whatever. Even a timed 'You seem to be taking a while to select your options, do you need more help?' pop up box could be handy.

Argh, seems I've flipped within three comments. Ah well. Seems to me that it's more important to have my sister or mother on Ubuntu than it is to make it difficult and scary.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[turing_m]

Ah, the internet... where men are men, women are men, children are FBI agents and rich, successful, good looking guys with gorgeous wives spend their free time trolling on slashdot.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Anonymous Coward]

It already does. You claim to know nothing about partitioning, but you deliberately went and selected the "manual partitioning" option, then complained that it doesn't work, it's too hard, that nobody should have to know how anything works, and that the manual option should have done everything automatically (which is what the default automatic option does), then start making grand proclamations that, because you couldn't be bothered to read a simple screen and automatically selected the hard option, Linux is not ready for general use. Then bitch at anyone who says you shouldn't have selected "manual partitioning".

I posted a clamer response explaining this earlier, which seems to have been modded down into oblivion for no good reason. That was before you started acting like a spoilt brat though.

It's quite possible that the automatic partition options were unavailable on your machine. That would happen if your partition layout is significantly different than normal. In that case, what do you expect the installer to do? It's not psychic, so it can't possibly know what strange customizations or modifications you've made to your own partitioning scheme. Nor should it - if you're capable enough to have a really weird partition layout, you're capable enough to figure out how you want to modify it.

Just remember that Windows' installer completely chokes on anything more complex than a blank drive, or a single drive with a single Windows partition on it that you want to override.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[wikinerd]

I encourage you to read about disk partitioning and then try to install Windows yourself. You'll see that the Windows installer is light years behind many GNU/Linux installers. Most users from the mass market are unable to install Windows themselves, and some times even to configure it properly through the control panel, not to say be able to work with Windows through its command line interface, and would of course be powerless to navigate in its predecessor, MS-DOS, even if they had to do that in order to save their lives! However, I'll agree that most OS installers out there, and not only GNU/Linux's, could be significantly improved in terms of user interface. But the fact is that an OS installer isn't supposed to teach you the basics. If you can't acquire this knowledge yourself, then you need to find a computer technician, knowledgeable friend, or member of the open-source community to do that work for you. I'm sure there are many GNU/Linux fans near you that would be happy to come and help you install any distro for you, even for free. The good thing with GNU/Linux and other similar systems like BSDs is that it's supported by a helpful community whose members don't need to call each other friends in order to offer some help, and this is also a good way to make our communities grow and teach new members the values of volunteerism, copyleft, etc that made GNU/Linux possible. So, for every question about GNU/Linux you have, your best option is to contact your local LUG (Linux User Group), usually through their mailing list, or join a GNU/Linux IRC chat channel (eg on Freenode) while you are doing an installation.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[penix1]

For all the linux fanboys out there, It's worth remembering that Linux doesn't just have to be user friendly to use in order to capture market share from M$, it has to be a one-click, no-brains migration process as well. So long as you don't have that, the evidence in the real world speaks for itself about Linux's failed strategy.

Where to begin...

False assumptions:

1. Linux vs. Microsoft market share matters. Most Linux users couldn't give a hoot whether you are using Linux or not. If you can't handle Linux, stay in Windows. No sweat off my brow...

2. Linux has to be compatible with everything Windows but the reverse isn't true. Try the reverse and installing Windows as a second OS and see how far you get getting them both working without special hacks. Try opening an ODF document in Office and see how far you get with a default Office install. Hell, even try something as simple to implement as reading you Linux partition from Windows and see how far you get.

3. That the general user is unwilling to learn new skills hence will always be in Windows. This is the most insidious, and quite frankly insulting, statement I've ever heard out of Redmond. Repeat something often enough and people start to believe it. The "Linux is too hard" mantra is an attack on the intelligence of their users. Not everyone is willing to remain ignorant of that expensive paperweight on their desk.

4. The install process dictates the "user friendliness" of the entire distribution. In general, people don't spend all their time installing an OS be it Microsoft, Linux, OSX, whatever... I installed my OS (Gentoo) exactly once in 2000 and haven't had to do it since. Can you say the same about your Windows install? In short, install process != entire experience. If you can't install it then do as they do in the Windows environment and find someone who can install it. Conversely, you could buy one with it pre-installed just like you did with your Windows box.

What all this boils down to is your Linux shortcomings are yours and yours alone. Millions worldwide have managed to install and use some flavor of Linux yet your failing is somehow the fault of the OS?!?!?! To somehow suggest that the failure of Microsoft to inter-operate nicely with other OSes is the fault of those OSes is the height of hypocrisy.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[penix1]

Are you saying that with a straight face? On Slashdot? ha! Of course market share matters. If linux is to be successful on the desktop, it needs to increase its market share. In order to increase its market share, it's going to have to work to make the transition from windows easy

Actually, I am. "Market share" is a false measurement especially since it can't really be measured where linux is concerned. So to use it as an advocacy tool is an exercise in futility. Those that do are in for a long haul and eventually a rude awakening. In either event, it really is no skin off my brow whether anyone but me uses it.

Again, this goes back to the market share. Windows HAS the market share, hence they don't NEED to provide any transition options. Linux, on the other hand, is TRYING TO MAKE PEOPLE SWITCH. Ubuntu (and friends) are in a very different position than Windows. How do you not get that?

The knife cuts both ways. Only the distributors are worried about who is using it. This goes to my point above. I am not a distributor thus couldn't give a rat's sack if you were using it. It shouldn't be a race to see who can have a monopoly on the desktop but instead be who can produce the highest quality and best "experience" (whatever that may be). This whole "them vs us" shit is just that.

Years of desktop support say otherwise. There is a majority (not all, but a majority) of users who do not want to learn the different between a monitor, a computer, or a hard drive. There is a majority of users who get stumped by a frozen program and don't want to learn how to End Task. There is a majority of users who can be instructed verbally, or with detailed screenshot instructions, who refuse to learn simple, simple tasks for themselves.

And those users are the ones that should stay where they are. Why should Linux cater to the least common denominator especially for the reason of "market share"? Those users are a nightmare no matter what OS they are using so no sense in forcing something on them that will be an even worse nightmare. Again, it goes back to point one....

Since Windows 2000, I have never had to perform an OS installation of Microsoft's product -- yes, that was a ridiculous issue pre-2000, but it's been a thing of the past for 7 years, friend (caveat: I haven't played with Vista yet).

Let's see, since 2000 there has been Windows 2000, XP, XP SP1, XP SP2, and Vista all in their various flavors. Support for 2000 is ending (or has ended) so if you are going to be up-to-date your statement is false. In 2000 I installed Gentoo and have a current system through normal updates. I haven't had to install the base OS from scratch since. Again, if you followed the release cycle of Microsoft then you can't say the same.

No shit, sherlock. And no one ever said that. The new user post-install problems are well documented.

Nice piece of judicious editing you did there. The OP was saying install == Linux sux. Go back and re-read it. That is why I quoted him.

Who is converting from another OS to Microsoft? Who is trying to break into the market share? You need to re-analyze your "false assumptions".

Again with the "market share". Market share doesn't matter a hill of beans from a users perspective. Microsoft doesn't have this highly vaunted market share because of superior technology but because of their anti-competitive behavior. So it is your contention that Linux distros should use the same tactics to gain "market share"? I believe that was tried and soundly rejected via a license change (re: Novell & GPLv3).

Also, a P.S.: Fuck off for making me defend Microsoft. I need a shower.

Hey, I never put a gun to your head and said, "The two neurons get it unless you defend MS." That was solely your choice. Don't drop the soap or you may realize the screwing you are getting from Microsoft...;-)

Sorry but...

[SamP2]

Y'know, there's such a proverb: "To piss off the bus driver, I'll buy a ticket and then walk all the way instead of taking the bus". That's what you are doing.

As long as you are the only guy in your company who does things "your way" as opposed to "their way", as long as you use OSS yourself but adapt it to MS software when used for any collaborative purpose, you are helping nobody and doing nothing but wasting time and being an extra pain in the ass for the sysadmin.

Neither Microsoft itself nor it's dominance is impacted if the whole company uses it's software on the main basis. You can be the black sheep and avoid MS stuff, but look: you STILL have to synch with that MS server, STILL have to produce documents in MS format, STILL have to synch with MS print servers... And so on and so forth. Neither MS's grip on the company (be it the technological slavery, the lack of following standards, or the money going down the MS drain) are reduced by your activism.

Not only that, but you completely and utterly defeat the purpose of using OSS if you are forced to adapt to MS on every single turn. What's the advantage in open document format if you have to produce all documents in Word format anyways? As much as MS formats are bad, even you have to admit that MS software does a better job at following THEIR OWN formats than you can do at following THEIRS.

If you want to be truly MS free, get your company to drop MS. Get EVERYONE to kick the habit. Work to reduce or stop corporate-level contracts with MS. Make open standards the CORPORATE basis, instead of using OSS as a slave to closed source. THEN, and ONLY then, will you actually make a difference, and only then your actions will actually have some result instead of being a waste of time.

Yes, you made your point that you can have a rose grow in the middle o a pile of turd... But guess what, as nice as the rose smells, it won't make the turd stink less unless the said turd is removed.

Re:Sorry but...

[secolactico]

If the reason why you switch from Windows to Linux is because you resent Microsoft, its practices or closed source in general, then yes, you are pretty much doing nothing in the grand scheme of things. Of course, every journey starts with the first step, so you might "infect" your co-workers and maybe eventually the company.

If, however, you chose oss because you feel more comfortable with it or need to run a particular software that doesn't run on Windows *and* your company doesn't oppose it, go nuts and to hell with the anti-ms agenda.

Re:Sorry but...

[NickFortune]

As long as you are the only guy in your company who does things "your way" as opposed to "their way", as long as you use OSS yourself but adapt it to MS software when used for any collaborative purpose, you are helping nobody and doing nothing but wasting time and being an extra pain in the ass for the sysadmin.

Furthermore, there's no point in walking anywhere unless you can walk right around the world. So until someone gets around to draining those nasty, inconvenient oceans, you might as well just sit on your ass, because if you can't walk everywhere there is to walk, then there's no point in walking anywhere at all.

If you want to be truly MS free, get your company to drop MS. Get EVERYONE to kick the habit.

I can see it now:

Linux Guy: I think we should migrate to GNU/Linux
Chief Technical Officer: I'd be interested in the results of a pilot project. Will it do everything we need in the company?
LG: I... um ... I think so...
CTO: You only think so? You mean you haven't tried this out for yourself?
LG: I was going to, but this guy on Slashdot said not to install it unless the entire company did, and, um ...
CTO: You're an idiot! Get out of my sight!

Yep. I expect that'd work real well.

Good in theory

[kihjin]

I've been using Linux (LFS) on my home box since 2003.

However, at work I use Windows XP. The office I work in relies heavily on Nortel VPN + Outlook + Exchange for e-mail and calendar/scheduling access. Not to mention the application I'm working on is strictly for Windows (despite being written in Java, go figure). Most of the GUI code is WORA but there's some middle layer issues that will come up if not run on a win32 machine.

Too bad, I guess.

Wait wait wait!

[clarkn0va]

Some quotes from the linked article:

I am not saying that because I can be productive that everyone should abandon Microsoft and start a project to implement Linux corporate wide.

I don't hate Windows, although I am not a fan of Microsoft as a company. I do give Microsoft credit for creating a product that has changed computing forever. For companies with huge budgets it might make sense to continue down the Microsoft path.

If you take on a pilot, make sure you have a few people on the team who are not married to Windows or Linux. Get some folks with an open mind who are interested in the overall good of the company and are not married to a certain technology.

Some quotes from your sig:

Yes, I am a Microsoft Employee.

Ok, now please go ahead and educate us on bias.

db

Re:Wait wait wait!

[Anonymous Coward]

@Macthorpe: "Use this because it's more practical when you're working with other companies"

Actually, it's "Use this because we'll have to pay much more to Microsoft if we don't sign the preferred license that requires we pay by the computer, not by actual usage, and so the monoculture appears more 'cost-efficient' than using what's best in each situation".

The cost-efficiency ("more practical" in your terminology) is indeed a valid point, but not as cost-efficient as you'd think. For example, some of our subcontractors have already moved to Office 2007, and since we haven't due to the extended compatibility testing / application rework required, we had a period in which we received unreadable documents even within the MS monoculture. (The solution was rapid mass deployment of Microsoft's Office 2003 plug-in that let's us load Office 2007 documents - thanks, MS!) And most subcontractors deliver PDF documents (or better, XML data with schema for easy reuse) and thus are platform-agnostic anyway, as I personally believe the corporate world should be.

However, even though the article says major corporations aren't deploying desktop Linux, that's not accurate. For example, my corporation (huge defense contractor) has deployed Linux on desktops in several domains where Windows just can't do the job. For example:

• 32-bit desktop Vista consumes a huge portion of the 3 GB available RAM compared to Linux or XP, and some of our toolchains can't fit in what's left and aren't 64-bit clean. (Microsoft doesn't support PAE on desktops - we tried that.) Since Microsoft is pushing very hard to get us off XP, some domains are simply and successfully moving to Linux. Actually, Vista has been so helpful to Linux vendor's sales presentations that I'm not surprised that Microsoft is demanding royalties. ;-)
• Some government-off-the-shelf software is written for Linux, so those who work primarily with these applications require linux on the desktop. (Again, I favor platform-agnostic formats, but the sword cuts both ways.)

Widespread adoption of Linux on corporate desktops is likely to be the last bastion of the monoculture approach, since big IT departments read "change" as "risk". But Linux is on everyone's radar scope (it's unusual not to hear it's deployment discussed in IT meetings), and the small holes in the dams are beginning to outnumber Ballmer's fingers.

We live in interesting times, indeed.

Re:Wait wait wait!

[houghi]

Yes, I am a Microsoft Employee.

Ok, now please go ahead and educate us on bias.

I hope you say the same to people here who help Linux and other OSS projects.

Re:Wait wait wait!

[phoenixwade]

Strangely enough there aren't many people calling for your blood when you don't use a particular OS. You must be new here.

Re:Wait wait wait!

[maxwell demon]

That's not a bias in operating systems, it's an expectation about human behaviour. I'd also fear attacks from angry Linux worshippers if I tried to use Windows in an otherwise Linux-only business.
And yes, the huge majority of people won't care. But it's generally the minority of people you've got trouble with.

Re:Wait wait wait!

[datapharmer]

You'd be surprised... I was doing technical writing and documentation in an all windows shop and constantly got crap about it. Anytime something happened with the internet or a printer or anything the IT department would come yell (literally) at me and how my mac was screwing up their network. Never mind the fact that this was almost never the case and was usually a virus laden computer belonging to a boss who had a penchant for downloading porn at work. Strangely enough, I never heard a kind word when I was able to do layout and design work for a trade show that no one else new how to do with the windows computers. I decided there are better places to work and haven't heard a bad word about my mac since. So this may not be the norm, but it definitely happens!

Re:Wait wait wait!

[_Sprocket_]

Using Linux is not like being gay. Strangely enough there aren't many people calling for your blood when you don't use a particular OS. It's only when you try and force what you use on everyone else that they get testy. Most people don't care - or even notice. But that's not to say nobody cares. You have to be careful about who it is doing the caring.

I've seen Microsoft fanboys dismiss Linux (and Unix in general) as well as MacOS just as completely as the whiniest of Mac fanboys or fervent of Linux zealots dismiss Windows. Technology zealotry is very much alive in all aspects of the IT world. And when IT decision makers are also the Windows zealots, anyone who wants to use something different has a hard path ahead of them.

Again - most people probably won't care. But the decision makers will feel that their authority is being challenged. And various supporters of management will come out of the woodwork likewise affronted by such deviation.

Re:Worship...

[lukas84]

Disclaimer: I'm an MCSE and currently work for a Microsoft Partner - still, it's my honest opinion.

I would call myself "pro-Microsoft Software". Mainly because i actually like most of their software, and think that they currently the best Business Desktop and Collaboration products.

That doesn't mean that Microsoft software is perfect, or that Microsoft the company is a good company. There are many idiosyncrasies in their products, mainly to retain backwords compatibility (which is a key point in the Microsoft market).

The problem i've seen most often is that people think that Microsoft software is easy to use. It's not. It's just as complicated as every other operating system out there - and in some areas Microsoft offers much more features than the competition, making Windows even more difficult to learn. I've seen many people which lack the necessary clue to debug permission problems on Windows, while this usually isn't true for Linux admins.

Incompetent Microsoft admins are also what gives many Microsoft products a bad name. It's important to listen to users and solve their problems - most of them come from stupid default settings supplied by Microsoft, or from missing knowledge. Windows offers a GUI for most things, and thus it looks like it's easy. But it's not. In several areas, Windows is a lot more complex than Linux, mostly because it offers features that simply don't exist on Linux, like Active Directory (Active Directory is an umbrella term for LDAP/Kerberos/Central Policies/LDAP Replication). As soon as you start to implement something like Active Directory, you're much more developing than implementing, currently leading to many homegrown solutions. And the Enterprise market wants standardization. (I believe novell has a product with a similar featureset, called ZenWORKS)

A few years back, i've started my IT career with Linux. I'm still using Linux for infrastructure (Webservers, Routing/Firewall/VPN), but not on desktops. During my apprenticeship, i came to appreciate Microsoft software and learn how it really works.

Re:right tool for the job

[Swampash]

I personally don't give a sh*t what operating system and/or applications I'm using so long as the combination DOES WHAT I WANT. In my personal situation, that means Linux on the server, OS X on my desktop and laptop, and Windows in a VM so I can run a few Windows-only apps when I need them. But I don't use any of them because I have some sort of emotional or religious attachment to them.

I have to ask...

[SanityInAnarchy]

if 100% compatibility with Excel macros is required, you're going to run Microsoft Excel, no matter what.

Is OpenOffice not 100% compatible with Excel macros?

I ask because I remember hearing that it (or some other open source project) was 100% feature-complete, compared to Excel.

Anyway, 100% compatibility is never required, because you don't use 100% of the capabilities of Excel macroes. What you want is 100% of the features I need (be they parts of Excel macroes or otherwise), and as OpenOffice gets better, more and more people are finding that threshold has been crossed for them.

Even if you have 95% compatibility, it can be enough. Consider if you had to use a spreadsheet once a day or once a month for a few minutes that didn't quite work properly in OpenOffice. I realize many people would instantly abandon ship for MS Office at the slightest sign of trouble, but if it was just the one spreadsheet, you could probably fix it to work in OpenOffice -- or, worst case, you run one copy of Microsoft Office on a terminal server somewhere, and let everyone run Linux on the desktop for everything else.

Ubuntu is still far behind Microsoft Windows, when it comes to Windows compatibility.

Well, fucking DUH. I bet Windows is still far behind Ubuntu GNU/Linux when it comes to Linux compatibility, huh, Sherlock?

Re:I have to ask...

[jimicus]

The keyword here is "knowingly".

The type of spreadsheet I'm talking about, Excel making the odd incorrect calculation is the least of your problems.

Besides, my understanding of Sab-Ox is that it makes spreadsheets an absolute minefield - because spreadsheets make it trivially easy to change things, save it under alternative names and otherwise mess about with the numbers with no audit trail. My former manager has apparently succeeded in making a specific spreadsheet compliant - that was with a team of a few people basically reskinning Excel with VB macros and the like so the user interface looked similar but kept audit trails, enforced per-user access control on parts of the spreadsheet and removed functionality which was completely at odds with the regulations.

No, not really.

[BrookHarty]

I use linux in vmware and cygwin, I love the software, but linux and xorg has issues that make is so I cant use it as my main os. Cluster SSH is awesome, but I got it running under cygwin, so I'm happy.

1. Xorg crashs and takes out my ssh connections. I just cant have this issue happen to me. When I have multiple connections using putty on xp, explorer might crash, but my applications don't. (This is my main complaint, x crashs, all your apps die.)

2. Cisco VPN, my god what is it with IT using certs signed to the laptop name. I havnt tried hacking it enough, but if anyone knows how to copy an installed cisco install from windows to linux, please post it.

3 Exchange/Outlook. Ive found IE4linux runs exchange web pretty well, but outlook is just good at its job. And if you can script, vbscript (ya i know) is there, and can some cool things. (I save attachments etc)

4. Font's, I'm using a vga font for my terms, and the font hints are great, but I just don't find it as easy on the eyes as windows truetype.

5. Wifi, to be honest, my wifi has been crap under windows too, but on my 2 laptops, I just dont have the same quality or stability under linux.

6. File managers, I'm rather partial to Dopus or enhanced explorer, 2 browser windows. I can just navigate files quicker in windows. I find gnome to be a tad slower.

7. Taskbar, really, all i want is alt-tab and a taskbar, get out of my way and let me work. I don't want to have a million keys, just stay out of my way and let me work.

Missing the point

[steveoc]

There are many comments on here presenting the sort arguments such as :
- "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 ... that it has lost all ability to conform to international standards.

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.

Re:Missing the point

[Thanatos69]

I think YOU are missing the point. You mention that it is a problem with "my" company that we are MS reliant. Ummmm, no. I work for a company that deals with other companies... I know, go figure. We have to create documents, diagrams and whatever else to send to clients; on the flip side, they do the same. I suppose given your argument then, all companies have a shitty IT architecture.

So lets look at the apps I run on a daily basis:
- Outlook to connect to the Exchange server (yes, I can use thunderbird and some other apps for the calendar functionality but why use two or three when I just need to use one... you can also say that we don't have to use Exchange, fair enough)
- visio (we can't get away from it, it is the industry standard and asking other companies to use "Draw" is not an option.
- cisco vpn (could probably find a linux variant and it isn't really something required to communicate with other organizations)
- web presentation (I haven't really researched linux variants but the one that we use, also very cost effective, relies on windows)
- blackberry (need I say more? I have read some information on using multiple apps or having a vm for windows but not really a solution for moving away from windows)
- etc...

I could go on and on and on for things that I have to use because MS is the defacto standard. There is no moving away from it anytime soon and the sooner people realize this, perhaps better solutions will be created for moving away from MS. Unfortunately, my job requires me to be able to communicate with any and every company/person and asking them to use OSS applications so they can view documents/diagrams and the like is not an option.

I find that a lot of the people that say they can use Linux day to day without touching Windows just don't have the communication outside of the company that some do. Don't get me wrong, I would say at least 60% of our organization could go without Windows but moving over 60% just doesn't make sense when you have to train, administer them and also worry about the other 40% still on Windows.

I am not an MS pusher, I just don't see it as an option in my job. Once it is an option, I will try it out but I'll be damned if I run two OS' just to try and slowly move over to an open source solution when it just doesn't make sense. What I have now, works. Plain and simple.

Re:Missing the point

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

There are many comments on here presenting the sort arguments such as :
- "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"
[...]
None of these arguments demonstrate anything lacking with Linux.

On the contrary. If, by Linux, you really mean "Linux and the apps that run on it", then something lacking is exactly what each of those things demonstrates.

Take the corporate intranet example. We have various web pages that do rely on ActiveX, for useful things. What alternative do you propose based on Linux and your browser of choice?

We also use many of the automation and customisation features within MS Office to streamline our document creation and review process. Again, what alternative do you propose based on Linux and your office suite of choice?

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 ... that it has lost all ability to conform to international standards.

You miss the point, twice in fact. Firstly, organisations' IT policies are typically geared towards finding a tool that helps the organisation to do its job. If the tool they find does that job, it doesn't matter how many other choices there were. If they can pick between one good option and a choice of many inferior ones, they are always going to pick the one good option. Since they are unlikely to use more than one product for the same purpose, any theoretical choice provides a very limited practical benefit, and vendor lock-in provides a very limited practical risk.

And here's the kicker: you talk about international standards. Windows and MS Office are the international standards. If you run a business, it is close to a 100% bet that everyone you deal with will be using Windows and MS Office on their desktop. You can bleat about so-and-so's published formats all you like, but the simple fact is that IT departments want something that works with everyone else. Whatever works with everyone else is the standard for all practical purposes. It may be de facto rather than de jure, but it's still the most important standard in the game. Arguing in denial of this is just banging your head against a wall.

UNIX in a Win World

[TheeBlueRoom]

I have been doing this for 4+ years. I started as a contractor as a developer, they did not have a machine for me to use that day so I used my UNIX based laptop, I was able to print, share files and send receive emails. I have been doing this for years. I was using the other OS version Microsoft Office but when my laptop died I became MS free and loaded NeoOffice. The most common idea is that my flavor of OS is only for making pretty pictures. The out of the box OS flavor I have has most the tools I need to get my job done with out have to license 3rd party software. The other tools I use are made by small companies that charge a reasonable price for there tools. I never really tell any one what I am doing. One of the main reason I keep it this way is I have full control of my machine in any environment, the work supplied laptops are old and we are not allow to have admin rights, this is a good thing for an average office work but a nightmare if you are a field engineer on the other side of the world. Also the managers have disabled the DVD player in the work suppled laptop, this is a problem when most training videos are on DVD. The key is not to be a smug A hole, just do your job and let others do there...

Re:right tool for the job

[Bert64]

For many technically minded people, Linux does what they want and windows doesnt.
Remember, the more skilled you are at programming, the more linux will suit you because you can modify it to suit your needs. Similarly, the entire working environment is far more easily customised.
So you see, most linux advocates are technically minded people, who use linux for the above reasons, which fulfills the same basic requirements that you have.
Oh, and OSX is nice too but if the frontend doesnt suit you (and it cant possibly, one size never fits all) then your screwed unless you replace aqua with X11, and then you may as well be running linux.

Me too

[PinkyDead]

I work for a large company who seem to be of the mindset that if big companies don't support each other that the world will end. Ergo, Microsoft good, anything else bad. I know that in certain geographical (unnamed) divisions the use of Firefox is a sackable offence - or certainly warrants a massive slap on the wrists.

Where I am it's not so bad - however, my (illegal) Xubuntu installation is on an external drive with the Grub RW CD for booting and I can pull the plug (literally) if there's a problem. Originally, I had a linux paritition but I've moved away from that and restored all my partitions to the way they were delivered. Although I use rsync to keep copies of my home directory on the D: drive just in case and I have dallied with the Linux swap on the Windows swap file (still working out the kinks). Xubuntu on an external drive is slow - but it's actually faster than Windows on the main drive.

Anyways, I would have two complaints from the point of view of someone sneaking Linux into the Workplace (Undermining the bastards from the inside!):

1. OpenOffice sucks. Now the response to this is the obvious 'Hey Stupid! OpenOffice isn't Linux'. To which I reply, 'Hey Nutjob! Wake up to the realities of the market you are trying to get in to'. It matters not that OpenOffice is not officially a part of Linux - it is a fundamental part of Linux in a business environment. OpenOffice is not able to handle the full array of rubbish that Microsoft Word produces leading to the inevitable - 'Oh that's strange I looks fine on my computer' {scramble to reissue document using Word in Wine} 'Try that version'. That said Word 97 works great under Wine, so I use that a lot - although I do prefer AbiWord.

2. It'd be nice to have a stealth Windows skin for Xubuntu. Needs to have all those nasty startup screens, skin the GDM, skin the window manager - and the big one, skin Xscreensaver especially so it can load 'corporate mandated screensavers' and ask for the password in a Windowsy way. Oh and some yoke that could be installed so that anyone enquiring from the outside using network tools etc (i.e. M$ Administrator), would be told 'Windows Machine - nothing to see here'.

Re:Me too

[mackyrae]

I use PDF for files that are just being passed on and not modified.

For the rest of that, there's XPDE to make it look and feel like Windows, but then I guess you wouldn't want to be using it. You could screenshot Windows and then clip out a chunk of the taskbar and set it as the background on the panel. If you don't mind using a different window manager, I know there are Vista themes for Beryl. There may be an XP one too. Or just say you added a new theme in Windows if your company allows that. I'm not sure about the yoke, do you mean the way it shows your OS when you use something like nmap? Don't know how to get around that, but if they're just looking at the hostname you set during install and you left it default, you could just change it from "Xubuntu" to "Windows" or your name.

Re:why does this sound overtly bias?

[Fred_A]

This "bias" thing is quite silly to start with. I started using Linux back in the WfW days because back then I had grown quite fed up with the instability of the document preparation programs I was using (Word 2.Oc notably which had a useable lifespan of about 6 to 8 minutes before it crashed depite my being on a first name basis with numerous people of the local Microsoft crew). Since then I've become quite comfortable with my setup (I did know Unix before through SunOS and (urk) SCO). Recently I got an iBook since it was one of the cheapest "decent" laptops.
However I don't like it. It just doesn't work for me. So it's hopefully going to make someone happy through eBay while I get a Dell and stick Linux on it.

As for Windows, I still use it for games but never really get to see much of it (just the start menu and the games sub menu) and I find its interface rather confusing. My copy is licensed bought directly on-line from microsoft. I wouldn't use it for working though because like MacOS I probably would have to fight it to do what I want. Besides I have no idea what software is available (apart for the few games I follow) and I couldn't care less.

All this talk of bias is mostly people finding something comfortable and finally finding an environment that works with them instead of against them. For me it was a customisable X11 desktop (KDE currently) with all the nifty Unixy tools, for others it may be MacOS or even Windows. The lucky ones get to gravitate towards the environment that works for them. The others are stuck with whatever was forced upon them in the beginning.

The ones that fight their machine every step of the way are the ones that show no bias.

Tomorrow on Slashdot

[thegnu]

But Linux is on everyone's radar scope (it's unusual not to hear it's deployment discussed in IT meetings), and the small holes in the dams are beginning to outnumber Ballmer's fingers.

Tension Mounts As Eleventh Hole Is Plugged

Admin people

[gilesjuk]

They wouldn't be annoyed at you for using Linux. It's more the fact you installed it without them knowing. They have to plan these things, virus protection etc..

Also if your job suddenly requires the use of some software you can't run then you'll be stuffed.

Re:Admin people

[fluffy99]

Actually, I doubt the original poster is in a managed corporate environment or that they have admin folks of any quality since they didn't notice. In a corporate (not a small office setup), real admins monitor the network and clients for changes like this. Hell, I know when someone installs software much less changes the OS. I keep a master list of installed software and I frequently verify that it's all up to date. In a larger security-conscious environment you absolutely must be aware of whats running on your network and what your vulnerabilities are. Rogue users installing Linux without even talking to the admin guys as a security risk, period. Most Linux guys are woefully ignorant of how nice a well establish AD environment is. It's more that just domain services. It's the ability to assign privileges at a very granular level, set domain wide policies, domain wide scripts for anything unusual, etc. I manage both Linux and Windows networks (>400 each). The Windows side is far easier to manage than the Linux side. On the linux side, I'm constantly fighting stupid stuff like file permissions. amba sucks at letting users change file permissions and user-group-world isn't exactly granular enough. Despite the Open Office lovers here, it's a piss-poor replacement for MS Office. It can't handle any of the VBA scripting that is ever so present in Excel. Most word documents look different between the two. Forget even trying to use MS Access or MS Project files.

Me Too

[zafo]

I decided to ramp up my eBay and web sales activity and formed a company. I decided to use Ubuntu 7.04 Linux on the business computer. There are some challenges in terms of software because of lack of mature eBay software for Linux. I circumvented that by using browser-based services: Auctiva - Listing design and other services ProStores - Web Store PayPal - Payments and Shipping USPS and UPS - Shipping when not using PayPal eBay Selling Manager, My eBay, eBay Store Manager - Auction management and reporting (also Auctiva) I also use the following software: Appgen MyBooks Professional - Accounting ($59) Evolution - Business Mail Gimp - Photo Touchup and Re-Sizing OpenOffice - Various Documents and Spreadsheets xSane - Scanning Images Two other programs I may use in the future are Scribus (desktop publishing) and Nvu (web site creation) All this works extremely well on a six year old 1 GHz Sony VAIO computer (try that, Vista!). My day job, however, is 100% Microsoft and it is impossible to do what you did because of VPN, Outlook/Microsoft Exchange, IT Support (including remote desktop access), etc.

Re:I have been doing this for a long time

[mackyrae]

mozilla-plugin-vlc should handle your in-browser media needs.

Re:Two reasons why Linux cannot be used

[Krokant]

Let me jump in and add something to that: three years ago, I went through the entire process of setting up a 80 desktop environment using Linux. I set up an LDAP server, Samba, home folders on a centralized share, print servers using CUPS, mail server using Dovecot/EXIM, a centralized configuration system and a minimal level of failover redunancy... in short: the works. The system worked nice and stable, but it took me 2 months to get everything up and running (granted, at the time, I was new to LDAP and it took some time to set up the master/slave replication, integrate PAM & Samba into it and write my own scripts to keep Linux and Windows passwords synchronized). A year later, I configured a similar set-up using Windows Active Directory (which in the end is just a pimped LDAP server). This takes a day to setup a similar environment. Of course, you do not have the same granularity of configuration options, but it works quite nicely out of the box. This led me to the impression that even though Linux is very nice, stable, configurable and using all the OSS servers, it was in fact Microsoft who took these open technologies and turned them into an all-integrated environment. Note: I am aware of the similar attempts like SuSe Enterprise and several Ubuntu-based distributions that provide similar out of the box functionality. However, that was 2006/2007, Microsoft did that trick in 2000 and is currently 8 year ahead in development.

stop the bullshit

[oohshiny]

People modify all three desktop operating systems (Linux, Windows, OS X) to suit their needs, and it doesn't require programming. Windows and OS X desktops usually have dozens of little third party utilities installed, many of which cost money and many of which haven't been tested together. Of the three, Linux probably requires the least amount of tinkering, and all you need is included out of the box.

Re:right tool for the job

[Bert64]

Sure you can alter windows with a disassembler, but is it legal to do so? And is it legal to distribute the changes? You may still be able to change things, but it's harder, slower and possibly illegal. Linux is free for you to change it however you want, and contribute the changes to others.

As for third party addons, shell replacements may exist but they always seemed very clunky compared to changing your window manager on unix. As for changing the filesystems, can you actually boot the OS from a new filesystem? Can you access a CD thats formatted with anything other than ISO9660/UDF?

Linux exposes it's flexibility from the get go, and encourages people to make full use of it. windows tries to hide the possibility of changing anything major.

Can you port windows to run on a new, previously unsupported piece of hardware? Can you take drivers which only exist for 32bit versions of windows, and port them to 64bit?