Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Free, One Year Later
madgreek writes "Last year I wrote of my switch from XP to Ubuntu at work. Now a year later, I am back to reflect on one year of being extremely productive at work using (almost) nothing but open source software in a Microsoft world."
I'm sure that many people will point at his failures (IE6 for some activeX websites & visio) as proof that linux is still not ready for the desktop. But these apps aren't available for the Mac either & few are suggesting OS X is not ready for the desktop.
Unfortunately, what's preventing business's adopting Linux or OS X is the fact that the various 'solution providers' & VARs make more money reselling Microsoft products.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Linux has a Visio Clone: Kvivi
.vsd files. Unfortunately, neither Kvivio nor Dia can do that (not last time I needed it anyway).
The article was talking about interoperating with
Import the Cisco Symbols from DIA.
Why not just say "Linux has a Visio Clone: Dia"
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
I suppose all the 'Year of Linux' people will come out and say 'This is the year of Linux' and so on and so fourth.
Linux has had many years, and for what it has been up against, an illegal government coerced monopoly with more and more stress being put on it from every direction, it has not disappointed me in the slightest. With a dignity I hope that I have a tenth of when I die, Linux users and Linux developers have fought, and some died defending the vision of Linux and the FSF to preserve a future where some of us still do control how our computers are used.
To that end, every year Linux stays alive and relevant is the year of Linux. You see, Linux is fighting constantly a war against complete eradication. Not just Microsoft, but many software vendors, hardware makers, governments, and yes, a malevolent user base hate Linux, and every minute of every day seek to find ways of eradicating Linux from this world. A world where Linux is quarantined into certain sectors like server environment, is a path to extinction like Netware.
As far as Linux in the social arena. Linux as a social movement in its aspect as a social reform movement need not die out. In the Internet world, Linux is a symbol of transparency, of honest behavior, and accountability. Without Linux we would all be staring at a dark Palladium filled future.
So, in the name of the secular Linux social movement for transparency, property rights, freedom of speech and what not. Try and see what you can do to prevent Linux the OS from going into that quite good night. Develop. Write code, fix drivers, create new ideas. That driver for that hardware, that new application may be the driver or the program that changes history.
Yes there are aspects of Linux that are difficult. So, lets make sure this year isn't the last year of Linux, the year Linux became as obscure as DR-DOS, and Amiga, and the Z80. because, I'm sorry, but some things have to be fought for.
I find Linux more capable on the Desktop than Microsoft. There are often times when MS's (using XP) internal burning software is inadequate - like burning images. I don't know if it's fixed yet, but for a long time XP just would not burn an image with its built in software and you had to use something like Nero. Never had a problem burning an image running any linux distro. Same with mounting .iso right from the harddrive as a cd-rom. It usually required some pay-for software (Alcohol 120%) in Windows, while a 2 minute search yield a few command lines to do it in Ubuntu. I know I'd rather save the money.
A typical mainstream Linux distro is ready. It's often superior in many ways to MS, as MS seems to deliberately makes their OS do almost nothing useful beyond the basics it seems (or was it that Monopoly ruling that caused this?) It's now just 3rd party apps for most people. Web Browsing has reversed itself (there are enough people who wouldn't switch from Firefox due to plug-ins they can't get in IE).
On the Corporate Level, solution providers are slow to change if they're an MS only shop. I even know the university/college level has problems. Blackboard and other such garbage.
I suspect the oncoming economic shitstorm may finally get corporations to really tighten their belts and that company-wide OS licenses may just not fit in the budget anymore looking ahead 5 years in some places. I just hope the current/next generation of purchase managers learns from the past and looks to do away with vendor lock-in in so many areas as much as possible.
few are suggesting OS X is not ready for the desktop
While I wouldn't say that OSX isn't ready for the desktop, I would say it might not be ready for the corporate desktop.
One of the places Microsoft has put a lot of effort is into large-scale enterprise systems management. Features of Windows like Active Directory, Group Policy, WSUS, etc are what corporate clients really care about. They want to be able to easily and centrally manage users, permissions, operating system updates, and software restrictions. Unless/until there are tools that allow you to do these kinds of things with OSX and Linux, I think you'll see some hesitation on the part of large corporations.
I know you can do some of this stuff for Linux (user management with LDAP, customized package repos, etc) but I don't know about OSX. I do know however that there is a big difference between "ready for the desktop" and "ready for the corporate desktop".
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
Unfortunately, what's preventing business's adopting Linux or OS X is the fact that the various 'solution providers' & VARs make more money reselling Microsoft products.
It's not just the Microsoft products that keep businesses using Microsoft products...it's the business processes that are wrapped around the existing software. Upgrades are expensive, but less expensive than conversions to new software (and processes). There are also costs (and questions) regarding conversion of legacy data.
Until businesses can migrate to systems that are agnostic to specific processes (and applications) , it will be difficult to show a positive return on investment for the large expense.
Not to flame, just giving my perspective.
But...You are right...kind of... (you must be a CISSP?)
The funny thing is that the compliances you speak of, are from more respected UNIX/LINUX sources than you think (or care to Google). Just because "Microsoft" is stamped on the box doesn't mean you get a free pass from the NSA or other government security office.
True UNIX and Linux admins don't (and won't) fit into most company IT budgets. Which is why 90% of them are consultants (such as myself), and are treated like rogue warriors, and don't necessarily warrant a full time position. At $75-$125 per hour, they are the true guru's who fix your HP-UX and AIX machines that run your accounting software and gets your numbers to your "precious" shareholders. They are the admins who come in and do "forensics" to figure out where the DOS attacks came from, or how to get your systems running in a hurry.
MSCE's on the other hand ARE $0.10 per baker's dozen, and fit well within the 25K-40K budget for most company IT wages. (And they get the double bonus acting as Windows Help Desk personnel for regular end users.)
They are the ones pointing to the "mystery box" that holds the magical number software as I walk in. Quite often I deal with horrified executives that wonder "Why can't Joe Mcse get it up and running, he's got a certification?!?!" The answer is because it's above their "Geeks" head, and they don't have time to do the research because their phone is ringing off the hook, answering why Outlook isn't responding, or some guy lost his "Start" button.
If you want to compare raw out-of-the-box functionality, then I agree with you-- a default no-frills XP install is practically useless compared to the average default Linux install, which mostly gives you what you need, though there are exceptions.
"It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
Exactly. A Linux distribution is the OS plus userland applications.
The Linux OS itself doesn't provide any of the functionality the GP talks about.
Amnesty International
DT Pro is the version that you have to pay for, thus getting it for free from some shady website should at least make you think twice, in the same way that you probably shouldn't download kernel sources from untrusted websites without checking the MD5/SHA checksum.
I haven't been infested with malware in the last decade, although this is only anecdotal evidence.
It is indeed convenient for installing various software packages --- which is sorely lacking in Windows --- although the usage of a centralized software repository does not guarantee that the binaries will be free of defects/malware either, since someone could poison the upstream source of software(which already happened in the past) and the maintainer would have no clue.
Jean-Francois Im's blog
Yes. The Civic is cheap, fuel-efficient, probably more reliable than the BMW these days, and gets me from A to B without making a fuss about it. Why would I want the more expensive BMW? For a few extra toys? Fuck that.
Of course in this analogy the Civic is Linux and the BMW is Windows (though I believe everything I said is true about Hondas and BMWs too). I do have a real-life anecdote though to make this post more meaningful.
The Linux desktop experience today in 2008 has the appeal, driver support, and aesthetics of Windows 98. Oh wait, Win98 did have driver support.I got two pieces of new hardware recently. A Kodak EasyShare P850 digital camera and an Epson Stylus E66 printer. Neither is exactly new, but the Kodak is still available first-hand.
The Kodak was an easy one. The instructions for Windows entailed installing the software FIRST (bad things can happen if you plug it in first apparently) and then doing stuff with the camera. Under Linux, installation involved plugging in the camera. Kubuntu detected the camera, and offered to start up digiKam for me so I could get the pictures. Worked first time.
The printer was a slightly more involved issue. My mum and the seller (both Windows people) were fussing about drivers. They knew the CD only included Windows drivers, but I ended up with an e-mail linking me to the website, where one or both thought I may find Linux drivers. As I expected, nothing was present (only Windows drivers, not even Mac OS X drivers, shame on Epson). So I plugged it in, went through drivers in KControl, found the printer, selected Epson Stylus E66 drivers, gave the printer a name, and found that it now worked.
The lesson I've learned with all this is that Linux either works with your hardware, or it doesn't. There's no driver installation or anything. It it works, it works right away. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work and won't work until it's in the kernel. So it's either perfect usability, or no usability at all. My idea of hell being forever made to try and get non-kernel supported hardware working with Linux. It's that bad.
This is a 100% Linux laptop and still I need to rely on wine and Vmware to use the applications I really want/need.
That's all very well for you, but I still need to rely on Linux for my audio software, which just plain doesn't work in Windows. So, Windows isn't ready for the desktop either.
5? Informative? It's just FUD with a non sequitur example. Randomly downloading an executable and expecting it to be as advertised is not what this is about. He found free software for Windows, thus dismantling the OP's argument. What you did was to compare a software repository in Linux with anything randomly downloaded from the internet. That's not only inaccurate .. it's stupid.
Your example is furthermore flawed because if you'd downloaded DT from the original site (or any other repository you might trust, like Softpedia or FileForum) you wouldn't risk the trojan. There you have what you could call your precious "centralized repository". Add a rogue/unknown repository for, I don't know, MP3 support in Fedora and you're about as safe as you are downloading programs from the evil innertubes! Having a warning from the authors in the authors' site as an example of the benefits of "centralized software repository" in Linux vs freeware on the internet is *facepalm*. It's like saying communism is superior to capitalism because "it's centralized planning and thus perfectly safe and fun for the whole family". Yes. I can use stupid analogies too.
The "centralized software repository" you like is just convenience. Someone compiled software so you don't have to. It's not safe, nor is it for the greater good of the users. Don't find what you want/need in the main repo? You either do what the poor Windows users do and download a package from some evil random website, or compile yourself from some evil random website with sources. Difference being...?
Well, there is one thing. Microsoft isn't allowed to add too many freebies in it's OS because of monopoly allegations (Media Player in Europe for example). Linux just copies stuff they like from the Windows platforms and call it something funny//witty/similar and often get away with it. It's a "port" and not a "copy".
The OP argued about free software in Linux versus, what he believed, were only commercially available software in Windows. He's wrong, and your argument is too.
/* Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana */
, since someone could poison the upstream source of software(which already happened in the past [slashdot.org]) and the maintainer would have no clue.
True, but once the upstream project discovers the problem the distro repo. maintainer can release the fixed version as an update, which will automatically apply to all users of their distro.
With random Windows apps I'd have to keep checking their websites or news sites myself to keep track of these issues, or any other security issues with the app. And then manually download it.
The current method adopted by many Windows apps of each having their own 'update manager' process running in the tray is not a sustainable in any way.
Pre-canned Evolution Links for all those Slashdot holy wars.
These threads are always fun to read.
/rant
If an app crashes on a Windows box, it must be Windows fault. If it crashes on a l/unix box, it must be the app's fault.
If an app that runs on Windows has a price tag attached, it must be Windows fault. If an app that runs on l/unix has a price tag attached, the developer needs thier head checked.
If an app comes comes preinstalled in Windows it's bloat (and Microsoft's fault, even though most of the adware/shareware/freeware has nothing to do with them). If an app comes preinstalled with l/unix, it's a feature.
Yes, Windows is not free and it's not open source. When viewed purely as an OS, it certainly isn't perfect. But please, for the love of God, how is it Windows' fault that *any* other application is not free, and most app/security problems because of poor 3rd party coding? Yet every time this discussion rears its head, people trot out a list of free alternatives to applications that have absolutely nothing to do with Microsoft or Windows (as an operating system) as a reason for how much better thier lives are in Windows free world.
If anything, it's the community that should take the blame for the lack of free/open source software on Windows, not Microsoft.
*Disclaimer: I have nothing against either Windows or linux and use both. This rant courtesy of having had to work with some very rabid linux fanboys in the past. The kind that would regularly spend hours, or even days, fine tuning whatever shiny new app they'd discovered for thier linux box - and then turn around and use it as an excuse as to why thier actual work isn't done (and no, they were not sysadmins).
I find it interesting and a little aggravating that people always imply it is the open source software that isn't interoperable, i.e. "Kivio and Dia can't do that." Visio and the .vsd file format are the ones actively trying not to be interoperable, i.e. "the .vsd file format can't do that."
The problem goes away if the people you work with also use open standards. Even if they don't, usually all it takes is for someone to send you an exported image file instead of a .vsd file, as I rarely have to edit a file someone else controls.
This space intentionally left blank.
This is the key. They *approach* functionality, but don't *exceed* it. What's the point of a tool if it half-asses it? Just because it's free?
I personally think the biggest Achilles Heel wtih OSS (on top of the crummy user interfaces that seem to be everywhere) is the mindset that *almost* doing it as well as the commercial closed counterparts is good enough, because hey! it's free! We end up with a ton of software that mostly does the same job, if you fidget with it just right, but it's "ok because it's free and open". Firefox got it right - they offer a BETTER product than their competition. Most everything else just feels like it's perpetually playing catch-up.
I find the centralized software repos to be one of the big turn offs for Linux. Most of the things in the repositories are stuff the average user has no knowledge of and almost no way to gain knowledge about.
Someone should look at downloads.com for a model of how to present software to end users. It has ratings and reviews from the cnet editors and visitors, screenshots of the products, they test the binaries for malware and offer multiple download sites usually including the makers of the software.
If something like this existed for Linux, it would go a long way to getting more people on board.
I'm not idealistic about open standards. I use them because they are convenient and free, not to protest capitalism or something, and I fully realize some people feel a compulsion to use closed formats. More power to them. I'd just like the blame for lack of interoperability to go where the blame is due.
Having done it successfully through two engineering degrees and 10 years in industry, I can tell you that getting around the compatibility barrier is easier than most people think. 99.9% of the time the following magic words work: "I don't have visio, can you export it to a png or something and resend it?" When you send a file to them, do the same thing. Formats specific to a certain software application are meant for the author or a small group of authors to use, who are likely going to be in the same office and therefore can easily use the same software. Export formats are generally much better suited for "publishing" the work to other people who will not need to edit it.
This space intentionally left blank.