Bad news would be a total reversal and going with a full MS solution. This is an intelligent, well thought out migration. As nice as it would be to have all Linux based apps at the changeover, it's just not going to happen. As nice as it would be for all systems to be rolled out with Linux and everyone be perfectly happy with their systems and no retraining required, it's not going to happen. This is an excellent migration strategy. Start porting your critical apps over to Linux over a period of time (months/years), keep your existing legacy apps running on Windows in a sandbox (ie. VMWare) so that the typical crashes don't bring down the whole system (just restart the virtual machine), and, best of all, keep everyone happy and content. This shows that IT was thinking of the users throughout the migration and have their best interests at heart.
To everyone blasting this as a betrayal or a PR stunt, work in the real world and do this for a living. Wholesale switches from one platform to another is not an easy thing from the IT side of things or (especially) the user side of things. This is warranted, justified, and just plain right.
These guys don't need yelling and screaming, they need a pat on the back for thinking this through thoroughly enough to see that not all apps can be migrated over yet and people still need to work, otherwise, they could have 14,000 new bright and shiny systems with only a handful of people actively doing their jobs while all of the others sit and twiddle their thumbs for most of the day (besides to send emails, type up some documents, and surf).
I love linux (as I state all of the time), but a migration of that size (or any size) has to be thought through from the perspective of not only IT and monetary considerations, but from the user standpoint as well.
I don't understand why anyone would bother running Linux on a Mac. For $99 you can purchase Mac OS X and get real live tech support for problems that (probably won't) pop up. There's a lot of technical reasons you should run Mac OS instead of Linux.
PowerPC hardware, PowerPC operating system
Linux has its origins on IA32, Intel's 32-bit architecture. Every platform Linux has migrated to since then has been beset with porting problems -- Linux runs 32% more efficiently on Intel than PowerPC. This is very telling as PowerPC is in general much faster per clock than Intel. Somewhere in the translation from PowerPC to IA32 something got lost.
Mac OS is 100% native for PowerPC. The Mach kernel has been optimized for the G3, G4, and 970 since Apple began writing the operating system back in 1996. Why choose a hacked and kludged OS from another platform when you can have an environment tailor-made for the system you'll be running it on? Mac OS certainly isn't plagued by same driver problems Linux is (in)famous for.
Control over the source code
In Linux, the development model is highly irrational: anyone is allowed to submit patches, and one man (Linus Torvalds) sorts through gigabyte after gigabyte of amateurish code, attempting to integrate it into the kernel. Apple's model is much more modern and decisive: the code for the low levels of Mac OS is available for anyone to download and modify, while the more complex parts of the system (QuickTime and OpenGL) are kept closed-source so those that know better -- the Apple programmers -- are the only ones allowed to tinker.
The results because of these differing development models are clear. Apple released a major update to the OS once a year, and releases about five minor updates to the OS, as well as several dozen security patches and driver updates, in the interim. Since March of 2001 we've gone from 10.0 to 10.2.5, while Linux was still stuck at some sort of bizarre "in-between" 2.5 kernel patch and wouldn't move on to 2.6 until well after Apple had released Mac OS 10.3.
It's not hard to see the difference here is a bunch of kids playing with source code instead of doing their homework vs. highly qualified professionals pushing their skills to the limits. The Mac OS user benefits.
Graphical user interfaces
I don't even think I have to touch on this. While Linux offers several GUIs from GNOME, KDE, and Enlightenment, Apple offers only one. But here we have a case of quality vs. quantity. Apple controls the GUI for its operating system while anyone can hack and modify the various Linux GUIs as they please. This has led to a lack of desktop standards and a whole lot of bickering and flame wars over human interface guidelines. Most of the GUIs for Linux are simply poor knock-offs of the Windows 95 interface.
Apple's Aqua and QuickTime graphical interfaces are faster, more elegant, and very consistent. A Mac user can sit down at any Mac and (assuming someone hasn't installed Linux) get right to work. With Linux, it's hit or miss as to whether the user will know what to do when he logs in! Getting work done is the most important aspect of a computer. After all, it is just a tool. Linux fails in this area miserably you're forced to edit and tinker and kludge and hack to make things perfect. A Mac allowes you to just sit down and roll up your sleeves and get some work done. I don't have time to play at my job.
Software!
I've used Linux before and the headache of downloading drivers and libraries and making sure the versions all sync up are too mucvh to handle, especiallly considering one has to compile these applications. On a Mac, I mount a disk image and drag the.app file to/Applications, and I'm done. Hell, most software for Mac even installs it there for you.
To put this last point in perspective, let's look at a recent task I performed under both Linux 2.4 and Mac OS 10.2.
Sendmail and sshd were both cracked recently and needed updated. The guys who code
If you needed open heart surgery or a liver transplant, would you still go to India to do it because "it costs less money"?
Are doctors in India "certified" by the government? do they get inspected regularly for standards of practice?
I don't want to bash Indian doctors or criticise anyone's decision to valuate medical work purely based on its cost; I just feel the readers should be informed of the potential risks associated with getting major treatments done in other countries just because of financial reasons.
What if I pick a bad doctor and he messes me up or whatever? Who can I sue? In all likelihood hed be gone after I left.
..when so many corporations own patents on so many intangible things that a corporate dynasty like IBM can bring anyone in the world to their knees financially.
Even foreign governments.
Intellectual property in all of its various forms is being abused by the corporate world. The madness is the laws supporting this behavior continue to pass, bypassing the individual and wholeheartedly supporting the corporation.
Isn't the government supposed to be working for us? Aren't our rights supposed to be first and foremost in their minds? There is a balance to be maintained, and our rights are not unlimited, but more and more across the entire globe the individual is lost.
Not to be funny but has anyone considered the implications of all these recent intellectual property rights and how it seems more and more that we're being pushed into the draconian future of Johnny Mnemonic and Shadowrun? The only way you get information is to steal it. The only way for another corporation to get information is to hire you to steal it.
I grow more and more distressed at the world my son will grow up in, the conditions he will consider normal, the laws he will break just by trying to think.
I am a small independent game developer who handles 100% of distribution myself. It's not really all that hard, and there are advantages to keeping everything close to home. Not only do I not have to pay some ridiculous percentage of my profits, but I am 0 steps away from my users.
Put up a decent website with a way of getting feedback from your users (I use the excellent and free phpBB message board). This can also help create a community around your product. If you listen to what they say then your game will get better and better. Another thing that I have done is try to optimize my website for certain google searches.
I can't imagine any paid distributor putting as much thought and effort into such things for one of a hundred small games they are dealing with. By doing it myself I am confident that it is being done well.
Doing this I have seen my game grow from nothing into a steady stream of sales. I'm glad I did it the way I did, rather then trying to go the easy way and get some other company to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
Smartly of M$ to captivate the people individually.
Look,
Bad news would be a total reversal and going with a full MS solution. This is an intelligent, well thought out migration. As nice as it would be to have all Linux based apps at the changeover, it's just not going to happen. As nice as it would be for all systems to be rolled out with Linux and everyone be perfectly happy with their systems and no retraining required, it's not going to happen. This is an excellent migration strategy. Start porting your critical apps over to Linux over a period of time (months/years), keep your existing legacy apps running on Windows in a sandbox (ie. VMWare) so that the typical crashes don't bring down the whole system (just restart the virtual machine), and, best of all, keep everyone happy and content. This shows that IT was thinking of the users throughout the migration and have their best interests at heart.
To everyone blasting this as a betrayal or a PR stunt, work in the real world and do this for a living. Wholesale switches from one platform to another is not an easy thing from the IT side of things or (especially) the user side of things. This is warranted, justified, and just plain right.
These guys don't need yelling and screaming, they need a pat on the back for thinking this through thoroughly enough to see that not all apps can be migrated over yet and people still need to work, otherwise, they could have 14,000 new bright and shiny systems with only a handful of people actively doing their jobs while all of the others sit and twiddle their thumbs for most of the day (besides to send emails, type up some documents, and surf).
I love linux (as I state all of the time), but a migration of that size (or any size) has to be thought through from the perspective of not only IT and monetary considerations, but from the user standpoint as well.
Linux has its origins on IA32, Intel's 32-bit architecture. Every platform Linux has migrated to since then has been beset with porting problems -- Linux runs 32% more efficiently on Intel than PowerPC. This is very telling as PowerPC is in general much faster per clock than Intel. Somewhere in the translation from PowerPC to IA32 something got lost.
Mac OS is 100% native for PowerPC. The Mach kernel has been optimized for the G3, G4, and 970 since Apple began writing the operating system back in 1996. Why choose a hacked and kludged OS from another platform when you can have an environment tailor-made for the system you'll be running it on? Mac OS certainly isn't plagued by same driver problems Linux is (in)famous for.
In Linux, the development model is highly irrational: anyone is allowed to submit patches, and one man (Linus Torvalds) sorts through gigabyte after gigabyte of amateurish code, attempting to integrate it into the kernel. Apple's model is much more modern and decisive: the code for the low levels of Mac OS is available for anyone to download and modify, while the more complex parts of the system (QuickTime and OpenGL) are kept closed-source so those that know better -- the Apple programmers -- are the only ones allowed to tinker.
The results because of these differing development models are clear. Apple released a major update to the OS once a year, and releases about five minor updates to the OS, as well as several dozen security patches and driver updates, in the interim. Since March of 2001 we've gone from 10.0 to 10.2.5, while Linux was still stuck at some sort of bizarre "in-between" 2.5 kernel patch and wouldn't move on to 2.6 until well after Apple had released Mac OS 10.3.
It's not hard to see the difference here is a bunch of kids playing with source code instead of doing their homework vs. highly qualified professionals pushing their skills to the limits. The Mac OS user benefits.
I don't even think I have to touch on this. While Linux offers several GUIs from GNOME, KDE, and Enlightenment, Apple offers only one. But here we have a case of quality vs. quantity. Apple controls the GUI for its operating system while anyone can hack and modify the various Linux GUIs as they please. This has led to a lack of desktop standards and a whole lot of bickering and flame wars over human interface guidelines. Most of the GUIs for Linux are simply poor knock-offs of the Windows 95 interface.
Apple's Aqua and QuickTime graphical interfaces are faster, more elegant, and very consistent. A Mac user can sit down at any Mac and (assuming someone hasn't installed Linux) get right to work. With Linux, it's hit or miss as to whether the user will know what to do when he logs in! Getting work done is the most important aspect of a computer. After all, it is just a tool. Linux fails in this area miserably you're forced to edit and tinker and kludge and hack to make things perfect. A Mac allowes you to just sit down and roll up your sleeves and get some work done. I don't have time to play at my job.
I've used Linux before and the headache of downloading drivers and libraries and making sure the versions all sync up are too mucvh to handle, especiallly considering one has to compile these applications. On a Mac, I mount a disk image and drag the .app file to /Applications, and I'm done. Hell, most software for Mac even installs it there for you.
To put this last point in perspective, let's look at a recent task I performed under both Linux 2.4 and Mac OS 10.2.
Sendmail and sshd were both cracked recently and needed updated. The guys who code
If you needed open heart surgery or a liver transplant, would you still go to India to do it because "it costs less money"?
Are doctors in India "certified" by the government? do they get inspected regularly for standards of practice?
I don't want to bash Indian doctors or criticise anyone's decision to valuate medical work purely based on its cost; I just feel the readers should be informed of the potential risks associated with getting major treatments done in other countries just because of financial reasons.
What if I pick a bad doctor and he messes me up or whatever? Who can I sue? In all likelihood hed be gone after I left.
After spending any time in India (for medical treatment especially), this is a must.
..when so many corporations own patents on so many intangible things that a corporate dynasty like IBM can bring anyone in the world to their knees financially.
Even foreign governments.
Intellectual property in all of its various forms is being abused by the corporate world. The madness is the laws supporting this behavior continue to pass, bypassing the individual and wholeheartedly supporting the corporation.
Isn't the government supposed to be working for us? Aren't our rights supposed to be first and foremost in their minds? There is a balance to be maintained, and our rights are not unlimited, but more and more across the entire globe the individual is lost.
Not to be funny but has anyone considered the implications of all these recent intellectual property rights and how it seems more and more that we're being pushed into the draconian future of Johnny Mnemonic and Shadowrun? The only way you get information is to steal it. The only way for another corporation to get information is to hire you to steal it.
I grow more and more distressed at the world my son will grow up in, the conditions he will consider normal, the laws he will break just by trying to think.
I am a small independent game developer who handles 100% of distribution myself. It's not really all that hard, and there are advantages to keeping everything close to home.
Not only do I not have to pay some ridiculous percentage of my profits, but I am 0 steps away from my users.
Put up a decent website with a way of getting feedback from your users (I use the excellent and free phpBB message board). This can also help create a community around your product. If you listen to what they say then your game will get better and better. Another thing that I have done is try to optimize my website for certain google searches.
I can't imagine any paid distributor putting as much thought and effort into such things for one of a hundred small games they are dealing with. By doing it myself I am confident that it is being done well.
Doing this I have seen my game grow from nothing into a steady stream of sales. I'm glad I did it the way I did, rather then trying to go the easy way and get some other company to do it.