That's nice and all, but that machine doesn't do anything. Give me a price on setting up a machine with a full-featured financial package, including payroll and tax forms, billing system, etc. That machine also needs to run a point of sale system that has integrated credit card and debit card processing, and integrates with the financial package. It has to handle all standard point of sale hardware (card swipe, receipt printer, cash drawer, pole display, and UPC scanner).
I'm being obtuse? Oh, well, since this is so simple, let's see just ONE Slashdotter put his money where his mouth is.
I will pay any know-it-all Slashdotter $2000 US to set up ONE computer here at my business. It has to run a financial package that handles all business accounting, including payroll, and all tax forms. It must be able to import data from Quickbooks. It also needs to run a point of sale system that is easy to use (no more than 5 minutes of training), accepts credit cards, and works with all standard point of sale software. It has to have 99.9% uptime. Oh, and the point of sale software must be able to pass sales, inventory data to/from the financial package. All of this must be done in one day (cannot afford any downtime). Please email all offers to: chretailmgr@yahoo.com This is non-negotiable, since this can all be done (for less than $2000 and in less than one day) under Windows 2000.
I'm the owner and the IT guy. I'm too busy running my business to dick around with it. And, I fail to see how using Linux will give me an edge. If anything, it'll put me at a distinct disadvantage, since I'll have to spend a year or so writing basic financial applications that run on Linux.
No, I bill myself out at roughly $15/hour....and therin lies your problem.
That's being very generous. If I were to assume the going rate for IT work ($50/hour+), a Linux install would cost us *thousands* more than a Windows install.
What does the screen resolution have to do with installing apache?
It's 2005. A GUI is not a burden on any modern computer, and I expect that to be a basic part fo any modern OS. Sure, I don't *need* a windshield on a car, but would you spend your hard-earned money on a car with no windshield just because it did something else better? It also really says something about a product if they can't have working 1990 level capability right out of the box.
WIsh I could help you out with that one. Every *nix consultant I looked at started at $50/hour. That makes *nix expensive for our business, considering that they'd also have to write applications that don't exist on the *nix platform, too.
Why spend assloads of money doing that when you can simply use Windows THAT ALREADY HAS THAT SOFTWARE?
I agree completely. I was just responding to the parent poster who was upset that he didn't agree that there was no business software available for Linux.
No, I bill myself out at roughly $15/hour. I've done the math. And no, I've never successfully gotten ANY Linux install to work on ANY PC, so doing something like installing Apache is a moot point if I'm squinting at a monitor at 640x480 and 16 colors and I can't figure out how in the hell to fix it.
I've personally tried about a dozen times, and none of those installs worked correctly, and they all required a substantial amount of work to get them working even close to a Windows system working out of the box (none of the attempts ever yielded a 100% functioning PC). Thus, I know that a server would require a high-paid consultant to set up.
wtf is a business application(just about anything other than games?)
Ok, smartass. Show me one financial package equivalent to Quickbooks Premier that runs on Linux. Then, show me one point of sale system that is as easy to set up and use as, say, Intuit QBPOS or MS RMS. Until you can do that, then you are the one astroturfing, either that, or you're just talking out of your ass. As a business owner, I can't wait until Linux is stable enough, usable enough, affordable enough, and has at least ONE application that is useful for my business.
For many of us, there is no need to deploy a Linux server to know whether or not it's cheaper. All of our Windows support is done in house. Just to get a Linux box up and working would require hiring an outside consultant, which right there, adds a massive cost. It's like saying that a person who says that they can't afford a Ferrari is irrelevant since they've never bought one.
Well, I'd be an apologist if MS had committed some heinous crime, but they haven't, so I'm not. I've never seen a blue screened ATM, though, so I'm not sure what your point is.
What's more scary is that you are, I assume, at least, say, 12 years old and are just realizing this. Government has been tied to money since the beginning of time. If this really is news to you, then I have some other news for you: Water is wet and the Earth is round(ish).
Apps, apps, apps. Considering that there's not even a good off-the-shelf business financial package available, I'd say that "ready" is a bit premature. If all you do is basic secretarial stuff (email, documents, etc.), sure, it's fine.
The problem is that when installing a new version, you overwrite the old version and the name remains the same.
That's taken care of with CSLID's and Interfaces. Multiple version of the same library is a bad thing. That pretty much eliminates any benefit gained by code sharing/libraries/modularity. That's why people use libraries, DLL's, etc.
Yes. Absolutely. Their last version is less than one year old, and the company itself is only a few years old. That's not solid enough for me to bet my livelihood on. Do you run a business? Do you understand how critical stability is to a small business that doesn't have the resources to hire IT drones?
If Windows is no better and Linux is no worse at a given task, then why should Linux not be considered?
Let's say that printing is equally bad in *nix and Windows*. Well, then, you still have all of the other *nix hurdles... installation, hardware support, application support, yadda, yadda. Peopleare not going to switch en masse unless there are some MAJOR reasons to do so. Even if *nix works just as well as Windows in general, that's not enough. It takes a lot of time and money to switch an OS. I know I won't consider it for our company until *nix is substantially better, because even if Windows sucks the same amount, at least I know how it sucks, and so does the rest of the planet. At least we're not dealing with a relative unknown (any desktop *nix distribution)
I, for one, have never gotten apt-get to work flawlessly once. Not a single time. Hell, I couldn't even get Thunderbird to install under Ubuntu.
1. DLL's have versions. If Installshield or Wise or whatever installer that Application X uses screws up your DLL's, yell at Application X vendor. At least in Installshield, all you have to do is to click one radio button to tell Installshield that you only want to overwrite if newer, or not at all.
2. MS is coming out with their Trusted Computing thing. That's what it's out to fix. Install something that's in their list, and you'll be fine. Install something else, and you may not be.
I run a business. My business isn't anything high tech, but it revolves around software. I, as a business owner, am in no way going to trust my entire business, my livelihood, and the livelihood of all of my employees to software that we can only get to work on one distribution. No way in hell. Red Hat, arguibly the largest distribution maker out there is still entirely too new, entirely too unstable (as a company), and provides an insanely support time period for their products. If I knew that Program X that we need to run our business will run on ANY distribution, then I'm a lot more likely to consider something Linux-based. Right now, I'm not going to trust my business to a tiny startup, and pray that A. They don't fold B. They continue supporting my product C. Don't force me to buy a new version every year and D. Program X will always be supported on that distribution. To do so would be short-sighted, and a terrible business decision.
The Bible, while not a scientific document (and it does not intend to be one) does hold some VERY accurate, simple scientific truths. While his contemporaries believed the world to be flat (along with science at the time), the prophet Isaiah spoke of "the circle of the earth". Another scripture speaks of the Earth hanging by nothing, which is accurate.
Those aren't "truths" unless the definition of the word "truth" has also been twisted around by religious people. Those are simply a few phrases, which can be interpreted in many different ways. In no way are those "truths" and more than the "truths" in the Bible pertaining to stoning a disobedient wife or keeping slaves is. The Bible is simply a bizarre, violent, abusive fairy tale. It is no more relevant to science than "Jack and the Beanstalk" is.
So, can I get sued now? What if it had been some guy on the street corner handing out pamphlets, and I walked by repeatedly, taking his literature so that he'd run out and have no more message to distribute?
That guy would stop handing you flyers if he recognized you, or he'd beat the living shit out of you, both of which Google is entitled to do.
In case you have forgotten, greed also created the Net. Technically, the government created it, but it got to be ubiquitous because of greed, not altruism. Altruism got us as far as Gopher, and the first few months of the Web. How do you think that all of the backbone gets laid, by fairies? Nope. Greed.
Can you give me one, solid, ACTUAL (not made up) bad thing that can happen to you because of a cookie on your personal PC? Just one. I'd love to hear just one. I'm also curious as to whether or not it'll involve Elvis or aliens...
Slashdot Mirror
That's nice and all, but that machine doesn't do anything. Give me a price on setting up a machine with a full-featured financial package, including payroll and tax forms, billing system, etc. That machine also needs to run a point of sale system that has integrated credit card and debit card processing, and integrates with the financial package. It has to handle all standard point of sale hardware (card swipe, receipt printer, cash drawer, pole display, and UPC scanner).
I'm being obtuse? Oh, well, since this is so simple, let's see just ONE Slashdotter put his money where his mouth is.
I will pay any know-it-all Slashdotter $2000 US to set up ONE computer here at my business. It has to run a financial package that handles all business accounting, including payroll, and all tax forms. It must be able to import data from Quickbooks. It also needs to run a point of sale system that is easy to use (no more than 5 minutes of training), accepts credit cards, and works with all standard point of sale software. It has to have 99.9% uptime. Oh, and the point of sale software must be able to pass sales, inventory data to/from the financial package. All of this must be done in one day (cannot afford any downtime). Please email all offers to: chretailmgr@yahoo.com This is non-negotiable, since this can all be done (for less than $2000 and in less than one day) under Windows 2000.
I'm the owner and the IT guy. I'm too busy running my business to dick around with it. And, I fail to see how using Linux will give me an edge. If anything, it'll put me at a distinct disadvantage, since I'll have to spend a year or so writing basic financial applications that run on Linux.
We're a small company (less than 12 people). So then I'm assuming that Linux is only suited for Fortune 500 companies with massive IT staffs?
No, I bill myself out at roughly $15/hour. ...and therin lies your problem.
That's being very generous. If I were to assume the going rate for IT work ($50/hour+), a Linux install would cost us *thousands* more than a Windows install.
What does the screen resolution have to do with installing apache?
It's 2005. A GUI is not a burden on any modern computer, and I expect that to be a basic part fo any modern OS. Sure, I don't *need* a windshield on a car, but would you spend your hard-earned money on a car with no windshield just because it did something else better? It also really says something about a product if they can't have working 1990 level capability right out of the box.
WIsh I could help you out with that one. Every *nix consultant I looked at started at $50/hour. That makes *nix expensive for our business, considering that they'd also have to write applications that don't exist on the *nix platform, too.
Why spend assloads of money doing that when you can simply use Windows THAT ALREADY HAS THAT SOFTWARE?
I agree completely. I was just responding to the parent poster who was upset that he didn't agree that there was no business software available for Linux.
No, I bill myself out at roughly $15/hour. I've done the math. And no, I've never successfully gotten ANY Linux install to work on ANY PC, so doing something like installing Apache is a moot point if I'm squinting at a monitor at 640x480 and 16 colors and I can't figure out how in the hell to fix it.
I've personally tried about a dozen times, and none of those installs worked correctly, and they all required a substantial amount of work to get them working even close to a Windows system working out of the box (none of the attempts ever yielded a 100% functioning PC). Thus, I know that a server would require a high-paid consultant to set up.
wtf is a business application(just about anything other than games?)
Ok, smartass. Show me one financial package equivalent to Quickbooks Premier that runs on Linux. Then, show me one point of sale system that is as easy to set up and use as, say, Intuit QBPOS or MS RMS. Until you can do that, then you are the one astroturfing, either that, or you're just talking out of your ass. As a business owner, I can't wait until Linux is stable enough, usable enough, affordable enough, and has at least ONE application that is useful for my business.
For many of us, there is no need to deploy a Linux server to know whether or not it's cheaper. All of our Windows support is done in house. Just to get a Linux box up and working would require hiring an outside consultant, which right there, adds a massive cost. It's like saying that a person who says that they can't afford a Ferrari is irrelevant since they've never bought one.
Well, I'd be an apologist if MS had committed some heinous crime, but they haven't, so I'm not. I've never seen a blue screened ATM, though, so I'm not sure what your point is.
What's more scary is that you are, I assume, at least, say, 12 years old and are just realizing this. Government has been tied to money since the beginning of time. If this really is news to you, then I have some other news for you: Water is wet and the Earth is round(ish).
For new companies or users, it's ready to go.
Apps, apps, apps. Considering that there's not even a good off-the-shelf business financial package available, I'd say that "ready" is a bit premature. If all you do is basic secretarial stuff (email, documents, etc.), sure, it's fine.
The problem is that when installing a new version, you overwrite the old version and the name remains the same.
That's taken care of with CSLID's and Interfaces. Multiple version of the same library is a bad thing. That pretty much eliminates any benefit gained by code sharing/libraries/modularity. That's why people use libraries, DLL's, etc.
Red Hat too new and unstable?
Yes. Absolutely. Their last version is less than one year old, and the company itself is only a few years old. That's not solid enough for me to bet my livelihood on. Do you run a business? Do you understand how critical stability is to a small business that doesn't have the resources to hire IT drones?
If Windows is no better and Linux is no worse at a given task, then why should Linux not be considered?
Let's say that printing is equally bad in *nix and Windows*. Well, then, you still have all of the other *nix hurdles... installation, hardware support, application support, yadda, yadda. Peopleare not going to switch en masse unless there are some MAJOR reasons to do so. Even if *nix works just as well as Windows in general, that's not enough. It takes a lot of time and money to switch an OS. I know I won't consider it for our company until *nix is substantially better, because even if Windows sucks the same amount, at least I know how it sucks, and so does the rest of the planet. At least we're not dealing with a relative unknown (any desktop *nix distribution)
I, for one, have never gotten apt-get to work flawlessly once. Not a single time. Hell, I couldn't even get Thunderbird to install under Ubuntu.
1. DLL's have versions. If Installshield or Wise or whatever installer that Application X uses screws up your DLL's, yell at Application X vendor. At least in Installshield, all you have to do is to click one radio button to tell Installshield that you only want to overwrite if newer, or not at all.
2. MS is coming out with their Trusted Computing thing. That's what it's out to fix. Install something that's in their list, and you'll be fine. Install something else, and you may not be.
I run a business. My business isn't anything high tech, but it revolves around software. I, as a business owner, am in no way going to trust my entire business, my livelihood, and the livelihood of all of my employees to software that we can only get to work on one distribution. No way in hell. Red Hat, arguibly the largest distribution maker out there is still entirely too new, entirely too unstable (as a company), and provides an insanely support time period for their products. If I knew that Program X that we need to run our business will run on ANY distribution, then I'm a lot more likely to consider something Linux-based. Right now, I'm not going to trust my business to a tiny startup, and pray that A. They don't fold B. They continue supporting my product C. Don't force me to buy a new version every year and D. Program X will always be supported on that distribution. To do so would be short-sighted, and a terrible business decision.
The Bible, while not a scientific document (and it does not intend to be one) does hold some VERY accurate, simple scientific truths. While his contemporaries believed the world to be flat (along with science at the time), the prophet Isaiah spoke of "the circle of the earth". Another scripture speaks of the Earth hanging by nothing, which is accurate.
Those aren't "truths" unless the definition of the word "truth" has also been twisted around by religious people. Those are simply a few phrases, which can be interpreted in many different ways. In no way are those "truths" and more than the "truths" in the Bible pertaining to stoning a disobedient wife or keeping slaves is. The Bible is simply a bizarre, violent, abusive fairy tale. It is no more relevant to science than "Jack and the Beanstalk" is.
So, can I get sued now? What if it had been some guy on the street corner handing out pamphlets, and I walked by repeatedly, taking his literature so that he'd run out and have no more message to distribute?
That guy would stop handing you flyers if he recognized you, or he'd beat the living shit out of you, both of which Google is entitled to do.
In case you have forgotten, greed also created the Net. Technically, the government created it, but it got to be ubiquitous because of greed, not altruism. Altruism got us as far as Gopher, and the first few months of the Web. How do you think that all of the backbone gets laid, by fairies? Nope. Greed.
Can you give me one, solid, ACTUAL (not made up) bad thing that can happen to you because of a cookie on your personal PC? Just one. I'd love to hear just one. I'm also curious as to whether or not it'll involve Elvis or aliens...
Suck it up, if a company's business model relies on annoying people it probably won't be effective in the long run.
Ever heard of a little thing called "TV"?