Office-Worker Linux: It's Here and It Works 615
A few weeks ago, dot.kde.org featured a great why-should-this-be-amazing story about Linux being used as the day-to-day desktop operating system for city employees in Largo, Florida. Roblimo got a chance to see the system in action to find out how ordinary office workers are proving that the old "Linux is tough to use" shibboleth is nothing but FUD, and how a medium-sized city is saving buckets of money by minimizing the tax dollars spent on licenses and hardware. Oh, and they've also pre-empted the kind of costs (in hassle and money) that can face any organization that Microsoft suspects may have some licenses out of order. This is the kind of thing every elected official should have politely waved in his or her face by concerned taxpayers. The Largo system uses KDE on Red Hat, but since both KDE and Gnome are paying much attention to user interface, similar systems could easily be running on various combinations of hardware / distribution / desktop system.
Re:So Robin, I gotta ask (Score:5, Insightful)
Man what type of crack are you on? I've been a sysadmin here for 2 years, and tried to push out linux to users who wanted it on several occasions. And guess what? Linux is great -- that is if, and only if, you have perfect hardware and perfect setup and a standalone system. The minute that something is out-of-spec, linux goes AWOL and the poor desktop user is SOL because they don't know the difference between KDE and dd. OTOH, I've plopped in the install CD for W2K, filled in a few simple details, walked away, came back 30 minutes later and had a system up-and-running without any problems. Sure back in the day of WinNT4 (I humbly agree that Win9X was a POS, but don't get me started on why those existed and why customers demanded Win98SE and WinME...) there were a bunch of problems, but I have had very few problems installing windows 2000 systems (and *zero* on reputable machines (i.e. Dell), well there was that 1 problem, traced to a defective HD)... And secondly, as soon as the user wants to do something new with their system, they're SOL again, not only because installing isn't as simple as "click here to download, run setup.exe and you're installed" (albiet lately in linux it has gotten a LOT better), but also because the apps simply aren't out there.
Oh BTW -- check out my W2K Server, up for 131 days without a reboot, and also survived CodeRed without a scratch because I set up security properly from the day that I installed the server. There's a cool realtime stats program up on the CodeRed attacks and other neat things: here [ohmygodmyarmfelloff.com].
To recap, simply, I like linux. I think that it has a lot of potential but it simply isn't anywhere close enough yet to be a mainstream system. Remember this [slashdot.org], and the fact that it's manhours spent with linux as well. I hate to be the harbinger of news here, but windows is much easier to use, period. There's no debate about that one, and with XP it just gets easier. Try putting your mother down in front of a linux machine, and then do the same with a windows machine. There is a reason why windows is used on 90% of desktops, and why Microsoft is the software giant that they are (reasons beyond the typical slashdottery about squishing competition and cheating and crap), more than just "being in the right place at the right time".. It's because, for better or worse, they have the best set of software products out there. Office and Windows are extremely successful because they're good, and people like them and use them a lot. That's a fact, hard to dispute.
I don't think that linux will make it as a mainstream OS anytime soon, or at least until most of the linux users (BTW, I think that part of the reason of linux non-acceptability is because of the typical i-love-linux-and-hate-windoze attitude and immaturity, not everyone, but just enough are immature and slander and swear and yell and scream and kick and fuss and act like children to give linux a bad name. Don't believe me? read our very own CmdrTaco [slashdot.org]. I think that he made some really good points there, the thermostat in hell must have broken that day...:> ) are part of the reason.
Oh well. I think that until linux users give up the I-want-everything-for-free-as-in-beer-as-my-god-g
Ahh... I'd seriously like to see a competetor to Windows and Microsoft products, but unfortunately right now I just don't see it, and
{/end rant}
Re:I submit to you (Score:3, Insightful)
we removed all floppy drives over a year ago. It solved tons of problems IS wise and it eliminated the fired-employee taking files syndrome.
Work is for work, it stays there. If you want to work at home, then apply for a laptop.. if your super approves it then we give you laptop+docking station. (no CD drive or floppy but 2 extra batteries.)
Configuring it is the snag. (Score:5, Insightful)
Easily, my non-tech-savvy friends could get used to KDE and become comfortable in it, but I don't think they could set it up to be usable (nor do they care, and rightly so, they shouldn't have to). They could actually install easily--the Redhat install was exquisitley easy--but as far as installing programs, setting things up the way they like, etc., I don't think they could.
Then again, many people can't do the same with Windows (installing programs and configuring it to their liking).
Not "varius combinations ..." (Score:4, Insightful)
I am all for being nice to "the other side" on these things but what I see is people strugling to use Gnome for ideological reasons and other people getting work done with KDE for financial reasons.
You know Finacial reasons like "Less money spent on Asperin", "fewer monitors shot at" and best of all you can fix the problems that do come up for less than it costs to fix the stuff you pay a grand more per seat for.
Re:total cost of X-Windows (Score:2, Insightful)
what that does is install a specific instance of windows on a particular client, but keeps the disk storage remote. This can be a big improvement, but it requires that all the clients be identical (impossible to maintain over time) or that each worker sit at the same desktop (which defeats one of the main benefits). It also keeps the support work at the client end which undermines the main benefit that Largo was enjoying.
No, Microsoft's OSes really are quite limited in the network world. X-Windows was designed for networking and handles this stuff without a sweat.
Re:Masturbation (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can change their views and switch them over to Linux, then and only then can you claim some sort of victory.
I thought the point of articles like this were to show those people that it can be done. In order reach that point other companies have to show they can do it first.
Re:Masturbation (Score:4, Insightful)
And I don't think that the rest of the articles make for a mutual admiration society. I can use information like this when I discuss things like licensing terms, alternative solutions to problems with my co-workers. These are pertinent stories that can be used to advocate linux.
where is the redundancy? (Score:1, Insightful)
If I had mod points... (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)
The complaint that Linux is hard to use is not one necissaryly of GUI per se, it's set up. Basic quality assurance questions are hard to answer: What hardware are you going to use? What software are you going to use? Where is that software located? How do you install that software? Where is the software located on the Hardrive after you instal it? How do you get OpenGL to install? Why did it take me 15 minutes to find the PPP dialer? How do you set up a network where hard drives are shared? How do you put things into the menu?
If a sys-admin takes the time to form a planned approach for Linux installs, makes a custom CD for installing the "supported apps", then Linux can be usable. Problem is the Linux approach of shipping not only with the kitchen sink but 10 different kitchen sinks to choose from, all of which are disassembled and in their boxes is not one for newbies.
more! more!! (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a big hurdle though. Every bit helps.
If Openoffice [openoffice.org] gets up to speed, the transition will be even easier.
Re:total cost of X-Windows (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously though, I was administrating a company which all users had roaming profile - and it's a PAIN in the ass if a user move from one machine to another - you simple have to wait until of his desktop will be copied from the server - sometimes is few megabyes, but some heavy users have gigabytes of data to move...
On Linux/Unix it's different - nfs mount, finished...
Re:total cost of X-Windows (Score:2, Insightful)
we all note that you use the euphemism "an appropriate place" instead of saying something simple like "in your home directory". You do this because there is no appropriate place in Windows. It depends on the app, and the apps are overwhelmingly not designed for multiple users.
I've worked at several places where all work grinds to a halt because everything is nfs mounted and there are network problems; problems I've never had with roaming profiles.
lemme see... nfs is screwed up because the net is down, but windows shares are not screwed up because the net is down. This could only happen or is only believable, like you said, "if you are an idiot". Because, like you said, "How is an nfs mounted home directory any different from a windows share that gets mounted with the user logs in?"
Legitimately, you should brag about the things Microsoft products are good at. But networking is not one of them. To brag about MS Windows in an network environment is to show that you don't know anything about the alternatives.
But in any case, read the rest of the threads here so you can learn that the benefits of running X Windows have nothing to do with the benefits of NFS.
Re:So Robin, I gotta ask (Score:3, Insightful)
Where the network admins get involved is usually when it comes to interfacing with the main databases. With 400 seats, you _need_ a database system that makes MS Access look like a toy. (And I speak as one who has attempted to take Access right up to the limits MS admits to...) So unless you've somehow managed to put your whole database onto a IExplorer-compatible website, you are going to have to install a database client on each machine. The front-end one I'm familiar with (for a Progress database running in Unix) is a one-floppy disk 5-minute install, which is a heck of a lot easier than installing Win or Linux.
IMHO, the best way to provide corporate desktop computers is to buy hundreds of identical boxes, find the optimal installation for Linux and required applications, and then clone that configuration. But if they won't give you the budget to buy computers and put them in the closet until needed, then you wind up ordering one at a time for new hires or to replace broken down machines; almost every !@#$% machine is different (at least from lowest-bidder sources), so in Linux you'll spend hours on each one downloading drivers, setting up the configuration, etc. Windows pretty much requires the same time if you install it yourself and bother doing it right, but when you buy pre-configured boxen, it certainly looks like you've saved all that labor -- except for the six times that box is going to crash or catch a virus and have to be re-installed, but that cost comes later, and management isn't going to add it up and realize that buying the alleged industry standard was really boneheaded...
Re:hahahahahaha (Score:2, Insightful)
Each install took about 15 minuts for copying.
BTW, I'm on a SMP system causing myself even more pain.
You mucked up the Quake install.
Re:This reminds me of... (Score:5, Insightful)
2) This is a done deal, not a "someday" or "we plan to" thing. I wandered around Largo city hall and talked to actual, everyday users.
3) I'd like to go back and speak to Dave and Mike in a year, yes -- to see how their plans to use OpenOffice pan out. The biggest holdup (as I wrote in the NewsForge story [newsforge.com] linked to above) is the lack of a good OpenOffice filter for WordPerfect files.
- Robin
Re:Not "varius combinations ..." (Score:4, Insightful)
What are you basing this on? As a consultant in St. Louis, MO, I have had the pleasure of working with a few firms who provide Red Hat/GNOME solutions for corporate desktops and workstations. And GNOME use is rapidly expanding from Red Hat (and other distributions such as Debian and Turbo Linux) to other Unix variants. With Solaris switching to GNOME 2.0 in place of CDE as the default desktop environment, and HP-UX likewise embracing GNOME, you're going to see even more validation for GNOME on the desktop in the next 6 months to a year.
All this is to say, where are the facts that support your statement?
skeptical (Score:3, Insightful)
It sounds like the system definately meets the City's needs, but it also seems like the Newsforge article is trying to overstate what those needs are. Lets look at the system specs.
400 Clients (800 Users)
Dual 933MHz system
3GB of Memory
18GB Hard Drive Space
Peak of about 230 concurrent users (from the first article)
Each concurrent user gets 11 to 12MB of system memory in which to work. They stated that they designed the system so they didn't have to hit the swap space. The 18 GB of hard drive space needs to be split between the OS application software and user storage space. Some users will need less space than others, so lets just ignore the space for the software and divide the total by the number of users. 18 GB/800 users = roughly 22.5 MB. How many people can here can honestly say that they don't have more space than that used for their email. The numbers tell me that the secretary they interviewed that was using Word Perfect, and email at the same time was one of their power users. I wouldn't be surprised if several hundred of their users don't even know how to access their email.
The big question is, so what? It's still a real system, that's meeting real users needs. The problem I have is that the article goes on to make tons of apples to oranges comparrisons.
It compares the cost of a thin client system in which users have very limited needs to a system with Windows desktops for everyone. How about Windows Terminal Server or other solutions that are more similar. I just don't buy the $300,000 a year hardware savings either. THese users have very limited needs, they don't need a new computer every year and a half, and $300,000 / 400 = $750 a year. Even if your buying new systems with monitors, that's way too much. $400,000 or $500,000 to run Exchange for their user base? Bullshit. I'm not saying that a Microsoft solution is cost effective, or even better excluding costs. It sounds like they found an exelent solution to their needs. The Sourceforge article however was too full of FUD to have much credibility.
Re:That's not FUD Ti-MAY (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, I'll accept that.
Linux isn't hard to use. It's a pain in the ass if you screw with it for fun. But it isn't hard for most users. They just need Email, a Word processor and solitair.
And those run just fine.
Joe Shmoe doesn't mind KDE?! Run with it! (Score:5, Insightful)
While this issue has been in full-fledged war mode for years, I think *nix proponants such as myself would have far more success focusing on the suitability and usability of KDE and Gnome than always boiling it down to a Xwindows vs Windows debate. Sure, Windows does the job, I run it at home; but if this article proves that End User X, dumb as a post, doesn't mind KDE (I'd use it daily if my audio-apps ran in *nix), force it on em! Well, at least in situations where it's my tax dollar
Of course, the long term upside is that newbies 'n average users would finally have some variety in their computing experience before they blindly pledge allegience to the only OS they see commercials for; thus helping solidify *nix and KDE/Gnome as a viable platform for the Everyday Joe in the minds of the consumer.
Re:So Robin, I gotta ask (Score:1, Insightful)
Do you ever shut up? The facts are, simply, that this system is working fine in Largo, and would probably work fine somewhere else with similar requirements. Did you even read the article? They're using thin clients not high-maintenance money-sponge PC's on every desk.
BTW, any administrator that lets users install their own software is a moron. You're either a moron or not an administrator and thus full of shit. Your long pro-Microsoft rant suggests both equally. They have plenty of money for lawyers and marketers... they don't need your drooling testimonials.
P.S. Slashdot autospaces so idiots like you don't force us all to constantly scroll horizontally after you fucked up the page width with your ridiculously long, hyphenated verbal diarrhea.
Re:That's not FUD Ti-MAY (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Invalid comparisons (Score:4, Insightful)
You can compare these apples and oranges because, simply put, in the end the job they are to accomplish is the same. Supply the required office/administrative capabilities to 400 people in a work environment for the least amount of support headaches and cost.
There are a dozen of ways to try to accomplish it. This just happens to be one way that works well.
Re:So Robin, I gotta ask (Score:2, Insightful)
It's quite appearent by now that only seasoned veterans know how to download and apply IIS security patches too.
Heck, my office of 50+ Windohs users regularly need professional assistance. Not a one of them installed Windohs, the office suite, or setup the file & print systems, mapped network drives, etc etc etc. When the acctng dept gets a new app to access an online banking service or something the first person they call is the Net Admin.
Re:Linux surpassed W$ in ease of use long ago (Score:1, Insightful)
Invalid comparisons (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at how they talk about backups: it sounds as though their concept of backups in the Windows world is to have users saving documents on their local hard disk, rather than to a server. The users have become accustomed to system crashes and network failures. I'll address at least part of the former complaint in a moment. The latter is the fault of either poor network administrators (as opposed to systems administrators, or a flaky server that hasn't been set up correctly. One of the biggest reasons people think NT is unstable is because the pretty GUI encourages rank amateurs to call themselves systems engineers. Blame this on the paper-MCSE syndrome, or on Microsoft's psychology, or whatever: but let's at least be honest and admit that, should the quality of admins increase, so would the quality of experience.
The other problem I have with this, and what really prompted my subject line, is that the comparison is between a Linux-based thin client network and a MS-based fat client network. Hello? If you took away all the Windows desktops and put in something like Citrix MetaFrame, then guess what? You'd realise several of the same benefits that the article touts or implies as being advantages unable to be put forth in a Windows-based system.
If you take the article as being a good example of how simple it is to migrate users over from Windows to Linux, then fine. But the system level comparisons are obfuscatory at best, and dishonest at worst. Yes, there's no way you could get the same level of performance out of the hardware they use if you went with a Windows implementation; but an article that compares a 10-person IT staff supporting Linux (or any OS) on 400 thin-client devices with supporting that many devices all running Windows on individual desktops is simply not a valid comparison. Is that really fair? By all means, let's point out the advantages for Linux in terms of ROI, open-source, and so on -- there are plenty of valid bases here -- but let's also be intellectually honest. Pretty please?
StarOffice Worked for Me, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
At least 95+% of the time someone sends me a Word file or Excel sheet, it is something that I only need to read, not edit, modify, and send back.
I'm an independent contractor, and whenever I receive a Word or Excel file that I cannot read in StarOffice, I politely reply back that I don't have Microsoft Office and I cannot read their files. I suggest that they resend the document either in PDF format, or RTF if they can't generate PDF. For Excel files, If they can't save as PDF, I suggest saving to an older version of Excel that StarOffice can read, albeit with some loss of formatting.
I have been able to change the file sending habits of a surprising number of people, especially when they realize that PDF files actually look more consistent on other people's systems, especially if they use non-standard fonts.
I do have one system with VMWare and one copy of Office for those very rare occasions that I receive a Word or Excel file that I actually have to modify and send back, or if the sender absolutely refuses to send another format, but this option doesn't get used very often, so I don't need it on all my systems.
Re:Linux surpassed W$ in ease of use long ago (Score:3, Insightful)
I have to say this to people all the time. If you think Linux is hard to install, try installing Windows sometime. I have to reinstall Windows a lot at work and at home (mostly due to hard drive / processor upgrades), and it's a very laborious process. Even once you do get it running, you have to grab drivers (and reboot), reinstall all your apps (and rebooot, and reboot...). Linux, on the other hand, I just answer a few questions, take a 30 minute break and do something else, and come back to a ready-to-go box. Depending on the distro's age, I might also run LiveUpdate for Mandrake or apt-get for Debian. The best part is that none of these things requires rebooting, which means I don't have to sit in front of the machine while it works, wasting my time.
Re:I submit to you (Score:2, Insightful)
Salesman: "You'll save $100 if you don't have Winderz(tm) installed on this computer. But to play the newest games, you'll have to go buy that $299.95 Playstation 2." Great argument folks. Glad to see the gene pool in the Unix world is getting better
I submit to you (Score:2, Insightful)
One of the biggest problems Dave and Mike have run into when teaching new employees, most of whom are accustomed to Windows PCs, to use Largo's Linux-based network has nothing to do with the operating system: It is weaning them away from floppies. "How can we take work home without floppies?" is a frequent question they hear. Answer: "Email the file to yourself."
These people seem to sort of be the poster children for why linux can be used on the desktop.
This next bit was just downright funny:
There is also the problem of teaching new employees not to worry about backups . Many are so used to system crashes and network failures in Windows environments that they have trouble realizing, at first, that all their files are stored on reliable servers -- with backups -- instead of on a desktop PC where a crash can wipe out hours or days of work. But these doubts are typically overcome after an employee has used Largo's network for a little while. "I was skeptical at first," one receptionist confides, "because [the place I worked before] had a Windows network that was always having problems. Now I'm comfortable with the network here. It's very easy to use once you get used to it."
The only problem they seem to have is with OpenOffice still being in its early beta stages. Any suggestions for them?
Linux on the desktop (Score:2, Insightful)