specific desktop software that licences for thousands of dollars a seat then it can be easily replaced with a Linux box.
It is getting rare to see a user 'just' use the basic (printing, office suite and email). The software solutions are basically a must in any modern business, now if an alternative came out that ran on Linux, that would be a big bonus for the 'Linux on the Desktop debate'. As it stands now, there are some solutions, but alot of them are Open Source, and the majority of Open Source products are not ready for Businesses or at least look so 'Mickey Mouse' that scare away consultants, unless the business is ready to spend big bucks supporting it/custimizing it.
If a government website requires internet explorer, there's usually a work around (such as calling them).
Yes, but again another work around, seems like Linux is just one work around after another, where Windows just works.
As for the Lock-in issue, well all of my clients are locked in, but it doesnt cost them anything and their Business run smoothly. To move a business to Linux, it involves a lot of work on our part and on the clients part, and a very long adjustment phase...This is where the expensive comes in. You are correct though, if the company is not using a Business critical application, the move is not really that bad, but most are. Its a tough sell for us, trying to convince people to move just wouldnt fly.
Solaris doesnt cover as many systems as Windows, please dont try to compare them.
1. Windows covers a lot more areas then Solaris, and more people use it, thus screwing up a patch for Windows will really screw up a lot of people compared to a Solaris.
2. Windows Works with proably 1000x more software packages then Solaris does, thus rushing patchs has a much higher chance of screwing people up then a rushed Solaris patch.
3. Solaris is a dying product, sounds like these 'beta' patches are more of a marketting thing, what admin would push out beta patches to an entire network? By the time he was done 'testing' the patch, the real patch would be released and he would have to start the test all over again.
This statement does not parse. You've been using it for 5 months, setup was hell, but when you recommended it to your friend you couldn't remember? Doesn't make sense.
You are putting words in my mouth, I didnt once say setup was hell, the setup is a piece of cake with Ubuntu, which is why I recommended it. There are dozens of issues when a person starts using Linux from a Windows enviroment, WIndows just works, Linux doesnt. I had explained the ins and outs of using a Linux enviroment to my friend, I had installed Ubuntu because its the cleanest install (only 1 CD, as aposed to 3-4 for other distros), nice hardware detection, and it was the easiest time Ive ever had setting up a dual boot machine.
No, there was no point. -Ubuntu- might be not simple enough for those general users that need multimedia. If you tell your friend to use Ubuntu if you know that it does not support the features he needs, you are crazy. Other distros like Xandros or Linspire support multimedia out of the box, you recommended to use the wrong thing.
If he expects to play, Linux probably wouldn't be his choice at all, or did you also forget that most games are Windows-only? At least you should have told him about Cedega.General users expect multimedia to work and games to work, thats usually the reason why people purchase computers for non-business work. You are missing my point of my post. I am NOT a Linux consultant, I am a Linux hobbiest. I have a real job and most of my free time is taken up researching stuff that is needed for my real job, thus I dont have time to try the 100 different distros that are out their, if Linux was ready for the desktop, one wouldnt have to do so!
I have no idea how you got the idea it would do all these things.
From years of using Windows, people expect certain things to work.
Buddy its alright to admit Linux has weaknesses, everything in the IT industry does.
Evolution is a very nice email client, but its not as good as Outlook. Keep in mind Outlook really shines when used with Office, Exchange, Windows Mobile.
For starters its an additional cost where Outlook comes with Word, Excel and Powerpoint. Nice to have 1 cost and 1 product to install, by adding additional products, you have to add additional support/install time... this basically drives away any cost reason to stay away from Office.
There is no integrated (or its not obvious if its there) with any Office suite. Evolution is a single product, where Outlook was built to work closely with other Office products, Exchange and Windows Mobile.
Seemless integration with a PDA, Ive supported both blackberrys and Palm PDAs, its a pain to support to sets of Contacts, or try to make these OSes work with an email programs, sure there are plugins/addons to make it work, but its not native to both the Email and PDA, thus not as seemless and buggy. In 2.5 years Ive never had an issue with a Windows Mobile device that was software related, where as Ive had a hell of a time with Palm and sync issues.. drives me nuts.
OWA 2003 and Outlook 2003 look almost identical, which is nice for non-tech users, they can basically use the web access with very little support from IT.
Yes its true its compatible with Exchange, but it costs like $70.00 (I think that was american, so like $100 Canadian) per license... a bit pricy for just an email client to work with Exchange.
I agree with you about the gaming concept, but when I think of Linux on the desktop, I also consider home computers, and its hard to sell a home computer that cannot play games.
Linux is a perfectly functional operating system
It does all the basic functions like: Print, file share, Internet browse, email work processing/spreedsheet. There are very very few business out there that only do these functions though, most companies have a mission critical system that they use, either an accounting system, POS system, CRM, ERP...etc (insert Buzzword here). There are litterally 1000's of these programs, but only a very small percentage run on non-Windows Operating systems. Not to mention all the solutions that require Windows (ie, IIS, SQL Server,.NET is really growing, Office or IE) This is my main reason for not going with Linux on the desktop. It would be near impossible to justify switching to Linux, think of the cost of:
1. Retraining people on Linux and Office apps, hell most of them cant even use Windows properly, they would be lost if they were in a completly different enviroment.
2. New software, and porting existing data to the new system.
3. New training for IT staff or hiring new IT staff. IT personel is in very hard to come by in certain parts of Canada.
This is just to name a few of the cost.
In closing its not that Linux isnt good enough to replace Windows, its that there is no reson or benfit to switching. Once hardware and Software vendor start making items for Linux then there will be that reason, once the cost of switching drops there will be a benifit.
An example of needing Windows is:
Last year (I havent had to check since) there were several Canadian Government websites that REQUIRED Internet Explorer, and even 1 that required MS Java, just would not work with Sun Java! I was baffled that this site required MS Java, mind you it could have been ( probably has been ) changed since then.
Actually no, I have been using Ubuntu for about 5 months now, and I did go through the same thing when I first started but since it was so long ago I had forgotten about it.
I have to agree with you though, it is Quite stupid.
One would thing that by default it would be able to play MP3 or even install a Video player (I prefer VLC on both Linux and WIndows) player that actually plays most videos by default.
No, you are expected to search online for the answer. Luckily EVERYONE that uses Ubuntu has gone through this so the answer is not hard to find for anyone who can use Google.
The point of the post was that Linux is not simple enough to be used by the general population.
Or we can just deploy Windows and save ourselves a lot of work / support. Once you start to use Terminal Service stuff it gets expensive with licenses, even if you dont go with Citrix. You still have to get a CAL for each user accessing the Terminal Server.
I Agree there are ways around any possible issue that may arise (just read any Windows vs Linux post), however Open Source requires way too much work to work with, it wouldnt be bad if we had 50 clients wanting the same solutions, then we could specialize in certain products, but I would never want to support 10-20 different Open Source products (Way too much work for the amount of money we could charge). Unless there are more usefull business applications for sale that support Linux I dont see many SMB companies using Linux on the desktop.
You often hear the term 'Killer App', Linux really needs this 'Killer App' So far Windows has Internet Explorer, Outlook and Excel...These products are almost a must in any business, if you look on the Linux side: They have Firefox, Evolution, Calc; all of which are good products, but if you use them side by side with the Windows versions, you can clearly see why they dont compare. Only close call would be FIrefox and IE, if people would stop using ActiveX, Firefox would gain a lot of ground.
Ubuntu is a very nice distro, I finally got a friend to try it out.... a day later he asked me why he couldnt play MP3s on the machine, then the next day he asked me why his porn wouldnt play on it... The next day he asked why he couldnt play his brand new game (Age of Empires ) on it.. Safe to say he was a tad pissed that he spent 60 bucks on a game that he couldnt play.
Even though Ubuntu is the nicest distro I've ever used its still not a good thing for the non-tech unless they have an inhouse tech or do nothing except email browse the net.
My biggest fear for a corp enviroment is that I push to have 100 desktops covered in Linux, then 6 months later they require Internet Explorer for online businesses (Considering 60%+ of my clients require Internet Explorer for business transactions, this isnt an absurb concern)
I understand what the issue is, however I read through of the posts before reply to this message and I came to the conclusion that most people didnt understand what Microsoft is doing and why. Thus my reply subject: 'It wouldnt matter if it was released under the GPL'. The point of my reply is that MS can try to help other businesses / Increase sales by releasing their format, but they dont have to GIVE their format to the public, its just plan bad business and wouldnt make sense.
If their product is superior, it will stay on top even without the format lock-in,
Of course their product is superior, however if it was released I am sure Wordperfect would gain some market share, depending on how they played their cards. This would probably be a reason why Microsoft has some limitations on the way they release the format.
People would still criticize it and make comments like 'Its not open enough, we need the previous versions!'
Of course there will be provisions if Microsoft claims to 'open' something to the world, unlike Sun (Star Office) they dont have a dying product, thus releasing "Open Source Office" is bad business and does not benifit them in anyway.
No other company as ever give away a billion dollar a year product, does anyone really think Microsoft would be the first one?
Convincing Dell to sell a server without the OS shouldnt be that hard, mind you I am from Canada, so I am not sure how things work in Europe. Out of the past 200 servers Ive ever setup, not one came with an OS installed, but they were IBM or HPs, again, Maybe Dell doesnt things differently in terms of Servers.
Why would a company purchase a server with Windows server installed on it then wipe it? Wouldnt they just purchase a server without an OS installed on it and save the OS cost?
Well if you want an OS that will keep up-to-date with new Networking technologies (among other technologies) Linux is the last thing you want to be using....well second last next to FreeBSD. Try a MAC or Windows box, they do and will continue to keep up with technologies.
If your not willing to go the extra yard, then Linux is not for you, wireless will just be the first hurdle...
And wireless security is optional, stick a MAC address filtering, hide the SSID, use a WEP key, and a firewall. This will stop the majortiy of people even noticing your Wireless network. It takes a person with the knowledge and will to hack your network, with all the open wireless networks out there, why would they even bother with you?. If your in a business situation, then its not up to you do deal with the notebook or network, so not your problem.
If you cant deal with this, then plug your notebook into your router and download the WPA update...
Not detect the networking correctly?, WTF you talking about? I am talking about WPA, what are you talking about? WPA is an 'optional' security setting for wireless, MANY cards on Windows XP dont work with WPA.
SO your argument is that if Ubuntu cannot stabilize any feature it shouldnt ship? Our it shouldnt ship if it doesnt support everything you require?
I know now why Linux freaks think us Windows lovers are idiots
No it doesnt because its NOT STABLE! Look it up, if you have to change the settings / servers for 'GET' then its not stable or supported (probably not supported for stability reasons) by UBuntu.
Its not support if its from the Universe/Multiverse, thus not in the default install. You are countering your own complaint.
You ask why one distro can do a Live DVD but not a Live CD, then you ask why they cant have a feature YOU want by default... Well they have to make cuts to make a distro small enough for a CD.
Personally I like Ubuntu because most of the crap isnt on the OS CDs. I still dont understand why other distros require so many CDs for the installation (ie, RedHat.. at least the old versions required like 2-3 CDs.. thats insane.)
Sorry if I am wrong, but I dont think there is a more recent version of Visual C++ that isnt.NET, I could be wrong though. I even opned VS 2003, but no option for a non-.NET project.
I doesnt really make much sense to reprogram Windows or Office from scratch, as it would take forever, plus there would be a huge hit in performance.
.NET or even Java are not ment to be low level languages for writting performance sensative applications.
MS is actually doing research (cant find the link now) and writting an OS from scratch using Managed Code, but I doubt it will be of much use for a few years.
For some of MS current products using managed Code check out the GUI for Sql Server 2000 and VS 2005, plus alot of the Web stuff is using.NET such as Biztalk and SharePoint Portal.
In closing, you wont see many of the old products ported to.NET, but you will start to see more new products built in.NET (especially with VISTA coming out). As for Web Applications, it doesnt make much sense to keep any old Web product in ASP form, as ASP.NET is a huge improvment for both interop and maintenance.
PS: MS pissed off a lot of the VB developers because they are no longer extending the life of VB pass version 6. Possible this is the same for Visual C++?
If your not programming against.NET Framework then anything after VS 6 isnt really for you in the first place.
MS probably does alot of their platform development in EMACs like other low level programmers (at least they did for Windows Vista, as there was no IDE for the new framework.)
As the speed of computers and VMs grow the resource issue will fade away.
I am not saying this will happen soon, but when you purchase a home PC from Dell and it comes with a base configuraton of a 64bit processor and a 2gig mem chip I doubt the cost of even the slow Java VM would make much of a difference to the avg user.
C will probably never die though, what else are we susposed to write those OSs and VMs with?:)
I cant seem to get the Proof of Concept to work... All I get:
Windows XP fully patched: Prompt box, but it never actually loads, its just white after 5 min I kill IE in the Task Manager.
Windows 2000 SP4, missing last 30 critical upadates: Same as XP, but the prompt box actually gets loaded so I can read the text, but it locks up if I click ok or cancel. Then I kill IE In the task Manager after a few minutes.
Could my firewall be blocking this type of attack? (WatchGuard)
Right now it doesnt seem like a Proof of Concept, rather just bad website design.
Lets make Office 12 open OpenDocuments formats, lets open our own format to the public, then people will see that ours is better, is already in use by 90+% of users around the world and we will provide such good documentation / Developer support that there would be no reason to use OpenDocument format.
There are many ways to beat the compition, and Microsoft is a very smart company.
Slashdot Mirror
It is getting rare to see a user 'just' use the basic (printing, office suite and email). The software solutions are basically a must in any modern business, now if an alternative came out that ran on Linux, that would be a big bonus for the 'Linux on the Desktop debate'. As it stands now, there are some solutions, but alot of them are Open Source, and the majority of Open Source products are not ready for Businesses or at least look so 'Mickey Mouse' that scare away consultants, unless the business is ready to spend big bucks supporting it/custimizing it. If a government website requires internet explorer, there's usually a work around (such as calling them).
Yes, but again another work around, seems like Linux is just one work around after another, where Windows just works.
As for the Lock-in issue, well all of my clients are locked in, but it doesnt cost them anything and their Business run smoothly. To move a business to Linux, it involves a lot of work on our part and on the clients part, and a very long adjustment phase...This is where the expensive comes in. You are correct though, if the company is not using a Business critical application, the move is not really that bad, but most are. Its a tough sell for us, trying to convince people to move just wouldnt fly.
1. Windows covers a lot more areas then Solaris, and more people use it, thus screwing up a patch for Windows will really screw up a lot of people compared to a Solaris.
2. Windows Works with proably 1000x more software packages then Solaris does, thus rushing patchs has a much higher chance of screwing people up then a rushed Solaris patch.
3. Solaris is a dying product, sounds like these 'beta' patches are more of a marketting thing, what admin would push out beta patches to an entire network? By the time he was done 'testing' the patch, the real patch would be released and he would have to start the test all over again.
You are putting words in my mouth, I didnt once say setup was hell, the setup is a piece of cake with Ubuntu, which is why I recommended it. There are dozens of issues when a person starts using Linux from a Windows enviroment, WIndows just works, Linux doesnt. I had explained the ins and outs of using a Linux enviroment to my friend, I had installed Ubuntu because its the cleanest install (only 1 CD, as aposed to 3-4 for other distros), nice hardware detection, and it was the easiest time Ive ever had setting up a dual boot machine.
No, there was no point. -Ubuntu- might be not simple enough for those general users that need multimedia. If you tell your friend to use Ubuntu if you know that it does not support the features he needs, you are crazy. Other distros like Xandros or Linspire support multimedia out of the box, you recommended to use the wrong thing. If he expects to play, Linux probably wouldn't be his choice at all, or did you also forget that most games are Windows-only? At least you should have told him about Cedega.General users expect multimedia to work and games to work, thats usually the reason why people purchase computers for non-business work. You are missing my point of my post. I am NOT a Linux consultant, I am a Linux hobbiest. I have a real job and most of my free time is taken up researching stuff that is needed for my real job, thus I dont have time to try the 100 different distros that are out their, if Linux was ready for the desktop, one wouldnt have to do so!
I have no idea how you got the idea it would do all these things.
From years of using Windows, people expect certain things to work.
Buddy its alright to admit Linux has weaknesses, everything in the IT industry does.
There is no integrated (or its not obvious if its there) with any Office suite. Evolution is a single product, where Outlook was built to work closely with other Office products, Exchange and Windows Mobile.
Seemless integration with a PDA, Ive supported both blackberrys and Palm PDAs, its a pain to support to sets of Contacts, or try to make these OSes work with an email programs, sure there are plugins/addons to make it work, but its not native to both the Email and PDA, thus not as seemless and buggy. In 2.5 years Ive never had an issue with a Windows Mobile device that was software related, where as Ive had a hell of a time with Palm and sync issues.. drives me nuts.
OWA 2003 and Outlook 2003 look almost identical, which is nice for non-tech users, they can basically use the web access with very little support from IT.
Yes its true its compatible with Exchange, but it costs like $70.00 (I think that was american, so like $100 Canadian) per license... a bit pricy for just an email client to work with Exchange.
Linux is a perfectly functional operating system
It does all the basic functions like: Print, file share, Internet browse, email work processing/spreedsheet. There are very very few business out there that only do these functions though, most companies have a mission critical system that they use, either an accounting system, POS system, CRM, ERP...etc (insert Buzzword here). There are litterally 1000's of these programs, but only a very small percentage run on non-Windows Operating systems. Not to mention all the solutions that require Windows (ie, IIS, SQL Server, .NET is really growing, Office or IE) This is my main reason for not going with Linux on the desktop. It would be near impossible to justify switching to Linux, think of the cost of:
1. Retraining people on Linux and Office apps, hell most of them cant even use Windows properly, they would be lost if they were in a completly different enviroment.
2. New software, and porting existing data to the new system.
3. New training for IT staff or hiring new IT staff. IT personel is in very hard to come by in certain parts of Canada.
This is just to name a few of the cost.
In closing its not that Linux isnt good enough to replace Windows, its that there is no reson or benfit to switching. Once hardware and Software vendor start making items for Linux then there will be that reason, once the cost of switching drops there will be a benifit.
An example of needing Windows is:
Last year (I havent had to check since) there were several Canadian Government websites that REQUIRED Internet Explorer, and even 1 that required MS Java, just would not work with Sun Java! I was baffled that this site required MS Java, mind you it could have been ( probably has been ) changed since then.
I have to agree with you though, it is Quite stupid.
One would thing that by default it would be able to play MP3 or even install a Video player (I prefer VLC on both Linux and WIndows) player that actually plays most videos by default.
No, you are expected to search online for the answer. Luckily EVERYONE that uses Ubuntu has gone through this so the answer is not hard to find for anyone who can use Google.
The point of the post was that Linux is not simple enough to be used by the general population.
I Agree there are ways around any possible issue that may arise (just read any Windows vs Linux post), however Open Source requires way too much work to work with, it wouldnt be bad if we had 50 clients wanting the same solutions, then we could specialize in certain products, but I would never want to support 10-20 different Open Source products (Way too much work for the amount of money we could charge). Unless there are more usefull business applications for sale that support Linux I dont see many SMB companies using Linux on the desktop.
You often hear the term 'Killer App', Linux really needs this 'Killer App' So far Windows has Internet Explorer, Outlook and Excel...These products are almost a must in any business, if you look on the Linux side: They have Firefox, Evolution, Calc; all of which are good products, but if you use them side by side with the Windows versions, you can clearly see why they dont compare. Only close call would be FIrefox and IE, if people would stop using ActiveX, Firefox would gain a lot of ground.
Even though Ubuntu is the nicest distro I've ever used its still not a good thing for the non-tech unless they have an inhouse tech or do nothing except email browse the net.
My biggest fear for a corp enviroment is that I push to have 100 desktops covered in Linux, then 6 months later they require Internet Explorer for online businesses (Considering 60%+ of my clients require Internet Explorer for business transactions, this isnt an absurb concern)
If their product is superior, it will stay on top even without the format lock-in,
Of course their product is superior, however if it was released I am sure Wordperfect would gain some market share, depending on how they played their cards. This would probably be a reason why Microsoft has some limitations on the way they release the format.
Of course there will be provisions if Microsoft claims to 'open' something to the world, unlike Sun (Star Office) they dont have a dying product, thus releasing "Open Source Office" is bad business and does not benifit them in anyway.
No other company as ever give away a billion dollar a year product, does anyone really think Microsoft would be the first one?
Convincing Dell to sell a server without the OS shouldnt be that hard, mind you I am from Canada, so I am not sure how things work in Europe. Out of the past 200 servers Ive ever setup, not one came with an OS installed, but they were IBM or HPs, again, Maybe Dell doesnt things differently in terms of Servers.
Why would a company purchase a server with Windows server installed on it then wipe it? Wouldnt they just purchase a server without an OS installed on it and save the OS cost?
Lets face it, most Open Source solutions are 'good-enough'.
Its hard to compete with a IBM, MS, ASP, Oracle..etc product, they are solid, supported and name brand solutions.
If your not willing to go the extra yard, then Linux is not for you, wireless will just be the first hurdle...
And wireless security is optional, stick a MAC address filtering, hide the SSID, use a WEP key, and a firewall. This will stop the majortiy of people even noticing your Wireless network. It takes a person with the knowledge and will to hack your network, with all the open wireless networks out there, why would they even bother with you?. If your in a business situation, then its not up to you do deal with the notebook or network, so not your problem.
If you cant deal with this, then plug your notebook into your router and download the WPA update...
SO your argument is that if Ubuntu cannot stabilize any feature it shouldnt ship? Our it shouldnt ship if it doesnt support everything you require?
I know now why Linux freaks think us Windows lovers are idiots
No it doesnt because its NOT STABLE! Look it up, if you have to change the settings / servers for 'GET' then its not stable or supported (probably not supported for stability reasons) by UBuntu.
You ask why one distro can do a Live DVD but not a Live CD, then you ask why they cant have a feature YOU want by default... Well they have to make cuts to make a distro small enough for a CD.
Personally I like Ubuntu because most of the crap isnt on the OS CDs. I still dont understand why other distros require so many CDs for the installation (ie, RedHat.. at least the old versions required like 2-3 CDs.. thats insane.)
Who is gonna take advise from a Dell user?
I doesnt really make much sense to reprogram Windows or Office from scratch, as it would take forever, plus there would be a huge hit in performance.
.NET or even Java are not ment to be low level languages for writting performance sensative applications.
MS is actually doing research (cant find the link now) and writting an OS from scratch using Managed Code, but I doubt it will be of much use for a few years.
For some of MS current products using managed Code check out the GUI for Sql Server 2000 and VS 2005, plus alot of the Web stuff is using .NET such as Biztalk and SharePoint Portal.
In closing, you wont see many of the old products ported to .NET, but you will start to see more new products built in .NET (especially with VISTA coming out). As for Web Applications, it doesnt make much sense to keep any old Web product in ASP form, as ASP.NET is a huge improvment for both interop and maintenance.
PS: MS pissed off a lot of the VB developers because they are no longer extending the life of VB pass version 6. Possible this is the same for Visual C++?
MS probably does alot of their platform development in EMACs like other low level programmers (at least they did for Windows Vista, as there was no IDE for the new framework.)
I am not saying this will happen soon, but when you purchase a home PC from Dell and it comes with a base configuraton of a 64bit processor and a 2gig mem chip I doubt the cost of even the slow Java VM would make much of a difference to the avg user.
C will probably never die though, what else are we susposed to write those OSs and VMs with? :)
How long is awhile?
I cant seem to get the Proof of Concept to work... All I get:
Windows XP fully patched: Prompt box, but it never actually loads, its just white after 5 min I kill IE in the Task Manager.
Windows 2000 SP4, missing last 30 critical upadates: Same as XP, but the prompt box actually gets loaded so I can read the text, but it locks up if I click ok or cancel. Then I kill IE In the task Manager after a few minutes.
Could my firewall be blocking this type of attack? (WatchGuard)
Right now it doesnt seem like a Proof of Concept, rather just bad website design.
Lets make Office 12 open OpenDocuments formats, lets open our own format to the public, then people will see that ours is better, is already in use by 90+% of users around the world and we will provide such good documentation / Developer support that there would be no reason to use OpenDocument format.
There are many ways to beat the compition, and Microsoft is a very smart company.
If you get somethng nasty on your computer at work I can say with 99% accuracy that you probably shouldnt have been on that site in the first place.