Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business

Part II: Corp. Desktop Linux - The Hard Truth 35

Posted by timothy from the been-my-desktop-for-several-years-now dept.
comforteagle writes "I've published Part II of W. McDonald Buck's essay on Linux TCO. In it he looks at the scenario of a company having already moved to Linux in the server room and also to open source software on Windows desktops, but "...now wants to know, how much extra can be saved by the final step of changing the operating system itself? And, what are the other costs, risks and benefits of doing that. To keep the scenario simple, we're assuming too that this will be done at a time when the desktop equipment is also being replaced. The news is good, but not as good as we like to believe." Part I was discussed previously on Slashdot."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Part II: Corp. Desktop Linux - The Hard Truth More

Part II: Corp. Desktop Linux - The Hard Truth

Comments Filter:

  • Article text, in case of slashdotting (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Article text, in case of slashdotting:

    Part II: Corporate Desktop Linux - The Hard Truth

    Enterprise Linux / Article
    Date: Feb 11, 2005 - 06:39 AM
    by W. McDonald Buck (slashdotting-resistant version)

    In Part I (of IV) of Corporate Desktop Linux: The CTO's Hard Truth retired CTO of World Bank W. McDonald Buck wrote about the difficulty of making accurate real world assessments of Linux vs Windows TCO analyses: If Windows laden computers are less expensive or equal vs. no OS in cost for Joe Hacker.. where's the

  • Honest question (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Gob Blesh It ( 847837 ) <gobblesh1t@gmail.com> on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @06:37PM (#11693838)
    I didn't start looking into this recently. But is it really impossible to: (1) encode MP3s and AACs, (2) render text using TrueType kerning tables, or (3) take advantage of subpixel rendering, on Linux desktops, without breaking patent laws? With all the hype surrounding Linux on the desktop, I have trouble believing these common activities could be illegal, but nor have I seen anything indicating otherwise. What's the deal?

    (And please, no Stallmanesque rants about how intellectual property should be abolished. I don't have the patience for these ill-conceived prescriptive arguments.)

    • Re:Honest question (Score:5, Informative)

      by bersl2 ( 689221 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @06:41PM (#11693894) Journal
      I know that #2 is certainly false. Freetype2 uses autohinting by default, which is not covered by the Apple(?) TrueType patent.
    • How necessary are these activities on a corporate desktop? Are they worth the IP hassle to implement on a office desktop?
      • Well, I think if you were Johnny Cochran you could probably argue that proper kerning and subpixel rendering reduce eyestrain and contribute to an ergonomically correct work environment. But I was actually just thinking about the Linux desktop in general, for home/consumer use. Sorry to have posted in a slightly offtopic discussion.

        • Pixelate (Score:3, Interesting)

          by QuietRiot ( 16908 )
          It did seem offtopic at first... but...

          Out of the 3 you mentioned, subpixel rendering is actually the one I was thinking could prove most useful in a corporate environment. It *does* help, and with the number of LCDs making their way onto desktops today, this feature would benefit free systems (free system users) in a big way.

          Whether or not the boss will take your eyestrain into consideration when choosing a business platform is another question altogether.... :)

    • Re:Honest question (Score:3, Informative)

      by ratboy666 ( 104074 )
      Yes, but violation of patents has NOTHING to do with what platform you are on...

      Eg. MP3 usage. Patent is "free", even for commercial programs, until you sell 10,000 units a year. At that point, it will cost you. Doesn't matter whether is Windows or Linux, or XXX.

      Ratboy

    • Re:Honest question (Score:5, Informative)

      by msaavedra ( 29918 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @10:51PM (#11696079)
      And please, no Stallmanesque rants about how intellectual property should be abolished.

      Are you implying that Richard Stallman has said that intellectual property should be abolished? I doubt he would say that, considering that he doesn't even think "intellectual property" is a useful term, since copyright, patents, trademarks, trade secrets, etc. are all separate concepts governed by separate laws and having varying effects on an individual's freedom.

      Perhaps this is not what you meant, but I wouldn't be surprised. It seems that every day here on /. someone inaccurately attributes all sorts of loony beliefs to Stallman. Most of his opinions are fairly cogent and reasonable. Of course, he doesn't help himself, with his unorthodox appearance and behavior, lack of social skills, and pedantry regarding unimportant topics like the whole GNU/Linux thing. Still, unlike Joe Sixpack, I would think that the typical geek would be more tolerant of such things.

      Anyway, to keep this post on topic:
      1. MP3 is definitely patent-encumbered, and I believe AAC is as well. For this reason, Fedora and probably other distros do not include MP3 players/encoders. I don't know if using a free encoder in and of itself is breaking patent law, since the patent holders have not indicated any wish to forbid this (at least in Fraunhofer's case). After all, patent holders aren't required to charge you a licensing fee. Also, there is nothing specific about Linux that forbids using licensed apps; I believe there are some proprietary media apps for Linux that have purchased licenses for MP3.
      2. There have been some issues with Freetype's bytecode interpreter in the past violating an Apple patent. I'm not sure if this has anything to do with kerning or not; I seem to remember it dealing with hinting. The last I heard, the Freetype developers had worked out some new ideas that don't violate the patent and gave better results anyway. On my Fedora desktop (and Fedora takes patents very seriously), the fonts look excellent, much better than on Windows. OS X may still have it beat, though.
      3. I've heard nothing about patents on subpixel rendering one way or the other. I know that it works on my Fedora desktop, and I can't imagine they would enable it if it violated a patent, considering their stance on other patent-encumbered technology.

  • Kind of an old issue. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by fm6 ( 162816 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @07:23PM (#11694368) Homepage Journal
    The TCO issue is kind of worn out by now. For years now, Linux advocates (and before them, the advocates of network computing [javaworld.com]) have tried to convince IT decision makers that they needed to get their TCO down by moving away from Windows. I've always thought the argument was a pretty good one, but it's never been convincing to the decision makers, who just haven't been willing to make the necessary paradigm shift.

    Microsoft's current inability to handle security issues is much more persuasive. Linux advocates should focus on that, instead of beating a dead horse.

    • Microsoft's current inability to handle security issues is much more persuasive. Linux advocates should focus on that.

      Only if they want to continue to be several steps behind. Most still consider the security to be "good enough." Indeed, the "good enough" argument makes it very difficult to win most arguments on the technical merits of Linux over MS. MS is also making very public moves to improve the security of Windows. You really do have to attack their model & try to force a paradigm shift, rathe

      • "Several steps behind"? It's not clear what you mean by that. Are you talking about all the elaborate attempts by KDE and GNOME to out-feature Windows? That's all secondary. Desktop Linux is stuck on one simple, but seemingly insurmountable step: convincing people that moving away from Windows is worth the hassle.

        The "good enough" argument is dead, because the spyware crisis has made it abundantly clear that Windows security is anything but. When somebody sits down at their computer and finds it unusable

        • "Several steps behind"? It's not clear what you mean by that.

          You said that the TCO argument hasn't worked. I meant only that IF the security argument could work now (I don't think it would), it won't work for very long. The argument is dated before the community would make it.

          The "good enough" argument is dead, because the spyware crisis has made it abundantly clear that Windows security is anything but.

          I am the first to criticize Windows security. But it is clearly good enough to the PHBs who sign the c

          • I am the first to criticize Windows security. But it is clearly good enough to the PHBs who sign the checks. If it wasn't, we'd all be using something else already.
            In the past we haven't ... oh, go back and read my previous post.
    • I think you hit the nail on the head about TCO. Any switch is going to be painful and expensive in the short term, making TCO comparison only useful in the long term. The problem is TCO is extremely difficult to predict in the long term, especially for a highly customizable environment like Linux.

      I also think that most people that use Linux didn't originally switch because of cost. For myself, I put Linux on a spare laptop when I was doing contract cgi programming and wanted to be able to work offline.

      • Re:Kind of an old issue. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by fm6 ( 162816 )
        I don't really think focusing on security is going to do it either. Microsoft is making daily improvements in that department.
        No, they're making more noise about security. As far as I can see, they're actually losing ground, even though they're throwing more and more resources at the probem.
        • Agree. It is beyond me to see people all over the place still, after all these years, falling for this sort of stuff. I am finally convinced that the only reason we haven't seen mass migration from Windows is collective stupidity on a PHB level. Ignorant fuckwits who are not good enough to ever move up the ladder and certainly not smart enough to leave technology to professionals and trust their expertise.
          • Your attitude towards people who resist the move away from Windows is both ignorant and patronizing. Retooling your business process to that extent is hard. Everybody has to learn new ways of doing things, new software solutions have to be found, etc. Even if everybody made the decision tommorrow to move to Linux, it would be a long, painful, expensive process.

            Your "ignorant fuckwits" comment is particular offtarget for two reasons: (a) you can't just tell people, "shut up, we know more than you do, do as

  • Go thin. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by QuietRiot ( 16908 ) <cyrus&80d,org> on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @07:28PM (#11694415) Homepage Journal
    One way to aproach this situation is to put a large multi-user box in each individual department or workgroup. Keep the windows desktops there, add X-servers, and run some apps centrally.

    If the question is licensing, a net-booted corporate (Linux/FreeBSD/NetBSD) desktop wouldn't be too difficult. Run locally what the machine can handle, make sure the network is super fast, and run the apps requiring performance on the workgroup server.

    This would reduce the need to upgrade lots of hardware (which will surely be obsolete again soon) and minimize downtime in the process. If need be, some legacy apps could survive under Wine locally or, again, at the workgroup server. Keep storage centralized to facilitate backups across the entire organization (OpenAFS [openafs.org]?).

    It's an old way of doing things but overlooked far too often. You've obviously got to run the numbers but, surely, "a few good men" handling things on the server (they would handle the app server AND the centralized, consistent-across-the-organization, netboot image(s)) would be much less expensive than the workload on an IT staff required by an office full of people and their problems on Windows machines.

    Maybe not *THE* solution, but certainly worth a look for many.

    • Back in the mid 80s, we had centralized IT and terminals run by greybeards. Then came the PC and centralized IT got the boot. Now the PC guys are the greybeards and some of them are getting a kick in the pants by young Turks who advocate more efficient centralized IT!

      I think that in large enough cities, a Linux person doesn't have to spin his wheels in a Windows shop anymore. There are enough Linux/UNIX shops around these days. The WIndows shops are the ones who are wasting money and are stuck in their old

  • Leaving Windows is probably not a huge TCO savings (Score:4, Insightful)

    by LWATCDR ( 28044 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @08:38PM (#11695073) Homepage Journal
    Right now you are not likely to save a huge amount of money dropping Windows. The big savings will come from dropping Office for OpenOffice, dropping Outlook for Thunderbird and IE for Firefox. Once you are not tied to Windows only apps then you are free to move to an other OS easily. Be it Linux or Mac.
    It is a matter of freedom.

  • The real question one should be asking is (Score:3, Insightful)

    by xenocide2 ( 231786 ) on Wednesday February 16, 2005 @09:10PM (#11695355) Homepage
    How much and in what ways can a switch improve employee productivity? The author makes a valid point that the 100k saved is minimal in transitioning the OS, but anyone seriously looking to promote Linux from within must be prepared with a host of reasons that translate into a more productive employee. Saving money on IT operations is one thing, but one can be quick to lose sight of the function of computers in the workplace-- make smarter decisions faster.

    I get the suspicion that part IV will be the article that discusses this.
  • My definition of "real world assessment" is a case study of a real business operation. These dueling sets of hypothetical numbers pulled out of various zealots' butts strike me as completely pointless.
    • there's no point in looking at RW Case Studies. By comparing "hypothetical numbers pulled out of various zealots' butts" you at least have comparable scenarios.

      You seem to be forgetting that real world companies have special wants and needs that aren't likely to be easliy compared against various other situations.

      The goal here is to provide a general figure, not an exact amount for What Your Savings Will Be.

      • Yeah, but you need to establish broad outlines before worrying about details.

        If there were substantial evidence that large Linux desktop deployments perform at least roughly as predicted, it would be time to start controlling out "special wants and needs that aren't likely to be easliy compared". But as long as it's still "City of Largo, Ernie Ball, uhhh, City of Largo", pricing purely hypothetical systems strikes me as pointless.

  • We're keeping a close eye (Score:3, Informative)

    by mnmn ( 145599 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @02:11AM (#11697199) Homepage
    We're about 80 machines including 10-ish servers, almost all MS except the firewall thats OpenBSD, and a specialized Unixware box that cant be touched. Two apps are really keeping us from a 100% Linux rollout, Lotus Notes and the ERP software. The ERP company has promised linux binaries, and we've seen some test cases, but thats about it. Please dont ask us about iNotes, we use Notes far too heavily to attempt that (and we have).

    So we're just keeping a hopeful eye out, especially on Lotus Notes, and the desktop distros. The server bases are covered, between SuSE, samba and sybase, a majority of our operations can be moved. What we want from the desktop distros is that it should look and feel a LOT like the windows NT/2000/XP interface. Notes shouldnt be hard to port at all, its all java based anyway, IBM is dragging its feet for linux there, despite some customers asking for it.

    We'll probably not be the first to go all Linux (or FreeBSD, or BeOS, or SkyOS, or ReactOS etc), but its interesting to know how far in the future we can expect it.

    Complaints:
    (1) Theres no single Linux distro that really looks and feels like win32. Training dozens of people to use a different interface from what theyve been using for 10 years, is something we cant stomach. Tried Fedora3 and Xandros, will try Linspire soon.

    (2) Application seriousness. Everything is made for win32 first, betas appear for linux and stay beta. That doesnt fly with corporate networks. We need a FEW critical app vendors to really support Linux, once the market floats, the rest will follow suit.

    (3) $$$ and energy. It takes a LOT to switch ERP systems. Takes a LOT to replace network system. Takes far more to replace everything. Sure we can do it in steps, but collectively the steps are all manhours to attain OSS nirvana, but not profit in the short term. We cant just aim for everything free, somehow, in some ways, theres still a difference between debian and readhat. things get patched in redhat and developers have to listen and work. With debian, the design and philosophy is awesome, but you cant really ASK a developer to fix that bug that is stopping your company. He'll just say fix it yourself.

    (4) Assurance. Not an issue since our mgmnt hates MS, have hated it since the DEC days (which is why we ended up with lotus instead of exchange).

    So we're all getting closer to the 'threshold', still not there yet.
    • (1) Theres no single Linux distro that really looks and feels like win32. Training dozens of people to use a different interface from what theyve been using for 10 years, is something we cant stomach. Tried Fedora3 and Xandros, will try Linspire soon. If you do like windows you can stuck with it. Nobody will abuse his dominant position on the OS market in order to force you. If you want Linux to "looks and feels like win32" I think you REALLY should stuck to windows.
    • (1) Theres no single Linux distro that really looks and feels like win32. Training dozens of people to use a different interface from what theyve been using for 10 years, is something we cant stomach. Tried Fedora3 and Xandros, will try Linspire soon.

      If you do like windows you can stuck with it. Nobody will abuse his dominant position on the OS market in order to force you. If you want Linux to "looks and feels like win32" I think you REALLY should stuck to windows.

  • One important point is missed here. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by shaitand ( 626655 ) on Thursday February 17, 2005 @03:20AM (#11697400) Journal
    The author talks about the OS transition being "risky". In what way?

    The servers and desktop OS are changes that the user is not much concerned with. It is changing the applications which impacts the users. Once you have changed the application set to one that is not windows dependent I have trouble believing that changing the underlying OS would have much impact at all. Basically being able to get rid of the OS fees is an inherient benefit to getting rid of OS dependent applications. After that the workstation OS can be changed at will without significant retraining of users.

    Like the servers, the users do not interact with the OS directly, only with the application icons on their desktop.
    • You could have some troubles, perhaps stupid troubles. Those aren't critical and won't destroy your data, but could destroy you time. For instance several months ago I changed my filesystem, I purposely switched from ISO-8859-15 to Unicode and this messed up several dozens of filnames.

Slashdot Top Deals

Elliptic paraboloids for sale.

Close