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.'"

Applications are more important than the OS

[dybdahl (80720)]

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 (659436)]

"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

[nrgy (835451)]

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

[Sycraft-fu (314770)]

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

[at_slashdot (674436)]

"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:

[jimicus (737525)]

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

[clarkn0va (807617)]

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:

[mr_matticus (928346)]

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

Re:

[martinelli (1082609)]

"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.

I have to ask...

[SanityInAnarchy (655584)]

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:

[jimicus (737525)]

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 fe

Re:

[1u3hr (530656)]

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?

Ubuntu drive partition

[Bombula (670389)]

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) (786011)]

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

[replicant108 (690832)]

An even easier and less risky way to try Ubuntu is to use Wubi [wubi-installer.org]

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

[Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289)]

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:

[Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289)]

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

[Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289)]

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:

[turing_m (1030530)]

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

[ricree (969643)]

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 (726320)]

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

[penix1 (722987)]

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

[Daengbo (523424)]

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

[Ash-Fox (726320)]

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

[clarkn0va (807617)]

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:

[turing_m (1030530)]

'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,

Re:

[aaronl (43811)]

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 betw

Re:

[wikinerd (809585)]

I encourage you to read about disk partitioning [wikipedia.org] 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 t

Re:

[Bombula (670389)]

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.

Sorry but...

[SamP2 (1097897)]

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:

[secolactico (519805)]

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 t

Re:

[NickFortune (613926)]

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

Good in theory

[kihjin (866070)]

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.

Missing the point

[steveoc (2661)]

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:

[Anonymous Brave Guy (457657)]

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 pr

Admin people

[gilesjuk (604902)]

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 (870997)]

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.

Wait wait wait!

[clarkn0va (807617)]

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:

[houghi (78078)]

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 (997892)]

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:

[datapharmer (1099455)]

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

Tomorrow on Slashdot

[thegnu (557446)]

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

Re:why does this sound overtly bias?

[Fred_A (10934)]

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.

Re:right tool for the job

[Swampash (1131503)]

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.

Re:right tool for the job

[Bert64 (520050)]

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.

stop the bullshit

[oohshiny (998054)]

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.

Me too

[PinkyDead (862370)]

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:

[mackyrae (999347)]

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

Re:

[mackyrae (999347)]

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

Re:

[Krokant (956646)]

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