Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Announcements Software Linux

German Linux Migration White Paper Updated 122

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the true-path-to-enlightenment dept.
TheRealDamion writes to let us know that the German Federal Government Co-Ordination and Advisory Agency (KBSt) has released an updated version of their Linux Migration guide whitepaper. This guide, originally released in 2003, is incredibly detailed offering assistance on a wide range of issues that could be faced in a migration from Windows to Linux.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

German Linux Migration White Paper Updated

Comments Filter:
  • Shhh (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Don't mention the browser wars. I did once, but I think I got away with it.
    • by WesG (589258)
      For some reason I read the headline as they are migrating from Linux to white paper.

      And for a short period of time I actaully believed it and didn't think I had to re-read the headline.

  • by hernyo (770695) <laszlo.hermann@gmail.com> on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @05:15AM (#13710980)
    That's quite an idea: releasing an official guide on why and how should companies switch to Linux. CEOs rather trust an government-released official guide rather than geek speech.

    • by leonmergen (807379) <{lmergen} {at} {gmail.com}> on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @05:34AM (#13711028) Homepage

      releasing an official guide on why and how should companies switch to Linux.

      I find it quite remarkable how the "if" is always missing from these statements... couldn't this guide also be used as an indication whether it's even profitable for companies to switch to Linux ?

      There are companies for which it's simply not financially advicable to switch to Linux, you know...

      • Shhh! We know they exist, but we mustn't speak of them!

        The zealots are watching. Always watching.
      • by Trelane (16124) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @10:06AM (#13712781) Journal
        I find it quite remarkable how the "if" is always missing from these statements... couldn't this guide also be used as an indication whether it's even profitable for companies to switch to Linux ?

        And rightly so!

        Maybe if you read it, it'll give you insight into whether you should switch some/all of your computers to Linux. However, the question of if you should migrate some/any software to Linux (or any other OS) is terribly situation-dependent and being argued constantly by pundits, armchair pundits, zealots, and paid shills every day. Indeed, reading such an article might well give you more information on whether you should switch than all of the TCO/ROI/WTF else studies together!

        That is outside the scope of what these papers address. You're right that this doesn't (directly) address if one should or should not migrate to Linux. That's not what it's intended to address, as that question's already been settled for them.

        IMHO, there is already too much arguing (mostly in generalities that make you feel good but don't actually inform, some downright misleading) by the above list of suspects about if and not how, so I think this comes exactly right--a paper on How We're Migrating to Linux.

    • It's nothing new though.
      IBM came out with Theirs [ibm.com] a while back too. The more the merrier I suppose.
      • It's nothing new though.
        IBM came out with Theirs a while back too.


        Yes, but I have not heard of it yet. And if I have not heard of it I bet many CEOs neither did.

        The more the merrier, I agree.
  • No mention of GNU (Score:1, Interesting)

    by ReformedExCon (897248)
    They discuss the GPL at length in some of their whitepapers, but they don't seem to mention GNU or the FSF once.

    I think it is quite a BAD sign when governments decide that the creators and maintainers of the GPL are not significant enough to mention in their documents. On top of that, they use the term "Linux" to describe the OS, and though they mention in pdf_datei.pdf that "Linux is only the core of the operating system", they go on "the non-core programs are parts of a so-called distribution". This is
    • by gowen (141411)
      Furthermore, they discuss the Berne Convention on international copyright, without ever mentioning the bureaucrats who originally drafted it in 1886. Surely they deserver their props?
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @05:53AM (#13711076)
      Ultimately, the casual users (i.e. people who have no idea what a compiler does) will call it "Linux". Nobody will ever say "GNU/Linux" that matters. Nobody cares what parts of the OS Linux actually compromises. Linux could be a text editor that happens to get included with a specific distro and people would still call the system "Linux". If they install Red Hat, they will call it Linux; if they install Debian, they will call it Linux; if they install Ubuntu, SuSE, Mandrake, Linspire, or anything else, they'll still call it Linux.

      This is the term that the public knows. Nothing else. Whining about it at this stage of the game is just pointless. If we'd called it GNU/Linux from the beginning, one of the names would have gotten dropped anyway (and it would have probably been GNU, since people tend to prefer "words" to largely meaningless acronyms).

      The average user neither knows, nor cares about whether their software is free. They want whatever ultimately yields the highest productivity to price trade off. They will never compile a progam, will never change the source, and couldn't care less about what language, paradigm, or commenting conventions are used to create it.

      Insisting on silly, minor points about naming conventions is going to do infinitely more to harm Linux, the FSF, GNU, and the computing world than somebody forgetting to give credit to GNU. Until the OS community stops and realizes that the people that they have to convince to switch platforms ARE the people who know nothing about computers, Microsoft (and other closed-source software companies) will prevail.
      • Nobody cares what parts of the OS Linux actually compromises.

        So Linus has started to accept patches from Redmond?

        • Nobody cares what parts of the OS Linux actually compromises.

          So Linus has started to accept patches from Redmond?

          So Redmond has started to send patches to Linus?

          Note that if Redmond was sending worthwhile Linux patches, I'd expect the Linux community to very carefully check them, and making sure that there's an official statement from Redmond that those patches are indeed properly licensed to be inserted into Linux under the GPL (and maybe let a lawyer check possible other pitfalls), make sure that all thi

        • IIRC (and I may not!) I think there is at least one kernel contributor with an email address at microsoft.com
          • Straight out of the "CREDITS" file included with every copy of the source code:

            N: Raymond Chen
            E: raymondc@microsoft.com
            D: Author of Configure script
            S: 14509 NE 39th Street #1096
            S: Bellevue, Washington 98007
            S: USA

      • The average user neither knows, nor cares about whether their software is free. They want whatever ultimately yields the highest productivity to price trade off.
        The average manager might care about productivity but the average user cares more about whether he can set his favourite wallpaper.

        I could add that the reason most managers don't care about the wallpaper is that they don't know it's possible to change it. But that would be harsh so I won't.

    • by Anonymous Coward
      Oh would you please RELAX
      You make it sound like there's some government conspiracy to hush the existence of GNU and the FSF.
      They migrated to linux (yeah I don't use the gnu either) and wrote a 500 page document for you and anyone else who might be pondering a migration, and all you can do is beitch.

      Write to them and suggest your inclusions for the 3rd edition.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @06:32AM (#13711157)
      A "net loss"? How can you be serious?
      They offer a free document on how to migrate to Linux and that somehow is bad for OSS because they failed to mention some of your favorite acronyms? So according to you it's better to not inform citizens how to migrate but, as long as you call Linux "GNU/Linux"? Is that a "net gain"?
    • by slavemowgli (585321) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @06:47AM (#13711198) Homepage
      That's not true. First of all, other parts of the system, such as X11, are of similar importance, yet noone (not RMS and his fanboys, that is) ever demand that the system be called "GNU/Linux/X" or so; similarly, most Solaris systems I've seen (for example) have the GNU tools installed, yet noone called it "GNU/Solaris". Also, the statement that you *need* the GNU tools is also wrong, as you can just as well replace them with something else, like busybox for example.

      Sure, that's not typically done. But while it's true that most people don't give the GNU project enough credit, the right answer is not to give the GNU project *more* credit than it deserves.
      • If you rip out the X display system, you still have an OS. If you rip out glibc, bash, vim and EMACS, the GNU compiler, and all the other GNU tools, you have scattered bytes of programs left that you can't even compile with.

        The GNU tools really are the guts of the operating system itself: Linus's kernel provided that last missing piece, the beachhead to unload the rest of the troops onto for the free source invasion.
        • by Anonymous Coward
          if you rip out the X display system, you will be left with an OS that no-one except a few geeks want to use. GUIs are more friendly.

          Bash,Vim and Emacs are tools from the 70's. Most users DON'T WANT to ever touch them. Most users are NOT programmers, and THEY DON'T WANT TO COMPILE A FUCKING THING. Why won't you linux freaks understand that. Fuck compile. I want to double click a program on a CD, go next next next and have it install.

          Dickhead.
          • What's wrong with single-clicking a program on a CD, and having it compile and install itself? That's entirely possible with GNU/Linux. And you have the benefit of knowing that it was cooked in your own oven; if it gives you the Dire Rear, you can analyse the traces of leftover ingredients to see what was responsible.
          • if you rip out the X display system, you will be left with an OS that no-one except a few geeks want to use. GUIs are more friendly.

            Without X, the system is less warm 'n fuzzy. Without GNU, the system doesn't work.

            Which is the more important part of the OS?

            • Without X the system would not work, in the view of the average computer user. To say that it's just "less warm 'n fuzzy" is like saying, "Without GNU, the system would still work, you just couldn't do anything with it other than boot." To an average user, those are the same.
              • Without X the system would not work, in the view of the average computer user.

                Irrelevant.

                The point is that without GNU the system would be non-funtional, period. There's a big difference between "I don't know how to use this system" and "This system doesn't even have a way to accept user input".

                It's like the difference between an automobile with no automatic transmission, stereo or air conditioning vs one with no steering wheel, pedals or drivetrain. The analogy is imperfect because a significant p

                • The point is that without GNU the system would be non-funtional, period.

                  You're right, that is the point. Without X, the system is nonfunctional for the average user.

                  There's a big difference between "I don't know how to use this system" and "This system doesn't even have a way to accept user input".

                  It's not a case of "I don't know how to use this system." It's a case of "This system can't do what I want it to do." That is the definition of nonfunctional.
                  • Repeating your argument doesn't make it any stronger. You could have at least tried to invalidate my analogy.
                    • I apologize for being too subtle. I'll spell it out for you.

                      Computers don't look that great, so usually people want to use them to do things other than spice up a room. Many computer users are dumb or lazy, so whatever they want to do needs to be easy to figure out. Since people rely so much on sight, making things visual also tends to make them easier, which lets more dumb and lazy people figure out how to do them.

                      (Here's where it gets good.) Most people are too dumb and lazy to figure out how to do things
                    • I apologize for being too subtle. I'll spell it out for you.

                      No need for condescension. I fully understood that you're saying that because many people wouldn't want a computer without X, it's no more useful than one without GNU. I understood it, and I disagree.

                      What "most" people may or may not want isn't relevant to the issue of what is really a core part of the operating system, but if you want to look at it as a popularity contest, try this one:

                      How many running Linux systems today do not have X in

                    • To be clear, the original comment that sparked this thread was similar to: "Why not call it GNU/Linux/X OS, then?" And you were one of the supporters of the argument: "Because X is not as important as GNU." I have not argued to remove "GNU" from the name, I am supporting adding "X" because it is just as important. Your logic supports that, as well, when you argue this way:

                      Don't you think that [widespread text-only server use] has relevance to determination of what is central to the OS, and therefore what ma
                    • Don't you think that the widespread use of X has relevance to determination of what is central to the OS

                      No. My whole point is that popularity doesn't determine necessity. I'll make the statement one last time and then drop it:

                      Linux can be (and is) used without X. Linux cannot be used (and therefore is not used) without GNU. The fact that people like it better with X (for some applications) does not make X an essential part of the OS, only a popular accessory.

                    • Ah, I misunderstood your last post. I apologize.

                      Fortunately, Linux can be used without GNU. If it is not, that is simply because GNU is the most popular choice for many system utilities. The fact that people like it better with GNU (for some system utilities) does not make GNU an essential part of the OS, only a popular choice.
                    • Fortunately, Linux can be used without GNU.

                      Prove it. Point out any system, anywhere, where Linux is running without the GNU userland. No glibc, no GNU binutils (ld, etc.), no BASH, no gcc, with BSD versions of ls, tar, mv, cp, etc.

                      You don't even have to find me a "distro" that doesn't use GNU software, just find me someone, somewhere, who has made it run, and I will concede the point that GNU is not essential to Linux.

                    • Mastodon Linux [portland.or.us] looks like it comes closest: Linux kernel, libc 4, and a BSD userland. There are pieces of GNU software included, and I admit that I don't know how essential some of them are. Bash can be replaced by other shells, gcc (and maybe binutils?) isn't needed merely for the system to function. It seems (to me) that libc is the really hard part, anything else could be replaced with a bit of effort.

                      There is also Pliant [fullpliant.org] (their website claims to actually run on their OS), but I can't find anywhere on th
                    • Mastodon Linux looks like it comes closest: Linux kernel, libc 4, and a BSD userland.

                      I looked pretty hard, and that was the only thing I could find as well. I thought at first that I might have to concede the (increasingly esoteric ;-)) point, but after looking into it more deeply, I think Mastodon actually supports my claim that you cannot run Linux without GNU. Why? Because the creator of Mastodon dislikes GNU software and has gone to rather remarkable extremes to make it possible to run a BSD userl

                • thing is, it's not quite like a more "user friendly" car. the conversation started by talking about wether TFA was good for Linux's public image or not although it didnt mention GNU. we're talking about if the acronyme GNU is important when trying to win the masses over.

                  the problem with the analogy is that there are far FAR more people in the world who can drive without transmition (and even may choose the cheapest most bearbone version of a car) then there are "average people" who can use and want Linux wi
        • i don't have vim and emacs installed. most workstations don't need gcc installed. few users want to know what bash is (though i use it a lot).

          they are useful applications, but in this case most users would have to call their systems kde/x.org/gnu/linux.
          and i am probably missing about a zillion other components.
        • If you rip out the X display system, you still have an OS.

          You have a server OS, but not a desktop OS, which is what the average person needs to use a computer.

          If you rip out glibc,

          I don't know enough about alternate libcs to say anything on this one.

          bash,

          Personally I like zsh better, but if you just want sh compatibility (for running system scripts), dash [apana.org.au] is smaller and faster than bash.

          vim and EMACS,

          Neither vi nor vim are GNU software. Regardless, there are many, many text editors that people like and ar
      • Slavemowgli said:

        "yet noone (not RMS and his fanboys, that is) ever demand that the system be called "GNU/Linux/X""

        Of course they don't call it "X". The dispute comes over what is considered to be an "operating system". X is a windowing system. Linus Torvalds has decided to use a computing scientist's viewpoint and propagate it as mainstream. Which is insane - but not if you want the world to believe they are using "Linux". Even Linus himself is caught in contradiction. He says the operating system that man

        • if we had called it gnu/linux from the beginning, how manu users would have bothered to find out what gnu is, and how many of those would have bothered to find out more about philosphy behind it ?

          that still would be more credit thing unless you believe that simply adding three letters would suddenly enlighten everybody who reads them.
        • Screw the ego and history. Call it "Linux" if you don't feel freedom is important and you feel that RMS is just a freak extremist whose GPL can be used on occassion. On the other hand, call it GNU+Linux if you feel that the whole purpose of the GNU Project (i.e. to bring freedom to computer users) is an invaluable contribution to humanity with regards to computer technology AND you think that the kernel developer should be acknowledged even if his views don't mesh with the free software community.

          Strangl

      • yet noone [sic] ever demand that the system be called "GNU/Linux/X"

        Of course not. You can save a keystroke by calling it GNU/LinuX.

    • by grumbel (592662) <grumbel@gmx.de> on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @06:51AM (#13711208) Homepage
      ### GNU is the operating system. It is the environment in which the Linux user lives.

      Sorry, but that is simply wrong. The environment in which Linux users live in these days is KDE, Gnome or Fluxbox or whatever, there might be a few 'command-line hippies' left that use a 'true' GNU environment, but for the majority the GNU stuff simply is a non-issue, an implementation detail hidden somewhere deep down below which you could switch to BSD Userland and hardly anybody would ever notice it. Even GCC is no longer maintained by GNU people and the C++ parts of it didn't origin from GNU either as far as I know. So calling the OS which people use GNU is equally wrong to calling it 'Linux', to make it correct you might wanna call it Linux/GNU/Xorg/KDE/Samba/Apache or simply call it by the name of the distribution as the paper suggested.
      • So calling the OS which people use GNU is equally wrong to calling it 'Linux', to make it correct you might wanna call it Linux/GNU/Xorg/KDE/Samba/Apache or simply call it by the name of the distribution as the paper suggested.

        I disagree that "Linux" and "GNU/Linux" are equally wrong, or that "Apache/Samba/KDE/Xorg/GNU/Linux" is necessary to have a "correct" name. Why? Consider a very simple test: Take your "Apache/Samba/KDE/Xorg/GNU/Linux" system and try ripping out each of the named components. Wha

        • I think you're making the point, but also the biggest argument for dropping it. GNU/ is implicit. It provides exactly no additional information over "I run Linux". Saying "I run KDE" or "I run KDE on Linux" is also far more informative.

          As for the importance, all the major distros are trying to show off desktops today. For a desktop, XOrg or KDE is as important as the rest because the end user doesn't care where it halts - to him none of the above is a useful desktop.

          Overall, I feel GNU is a really really mi
          • GNU/ is implicit. It provides exactly no additional information over "I run Linux".

            I agree, actually. Until someone makes a BSD/Linux system, anyway.

            Saying "I run KDE" or "I run KDE on Linux" is also far more informative.

            Given that many people run KDE on *BSD systems, "I run KDE" is ambiguous. OTOH, the user experience of KDE on *BSD is nearly indistinguishable from KDE on Linux, so I guess it depends on what you're trying to communicate.

            Overall, I feel GNU is a really really minor part of my L

            • Overall, I feel GNU is a really really minor part of my Linux experience, as in "what % to you contribute to the total".

              You don't use BASH?

              Or ls, cp, rm, mkdir, cat, sort, ... ?

              Or make, tar, emacs, ... ?

              These are all GNU products. I agree with my grand-parent, who says that adding the "GNU/" prefix doesn't give much information, but still, GNU is everywhere on a Linux system. And whether the OS is GNU or Linux depends on your definition on an OS -- a kernel? a kernel plus tools? a whole system?

              • ### Or ls, cp, rm, mkdir, cat, sort, ... ? Or make, tar, emacs, ... ? These are all GNU products.

                One problem with these tools is that they haven't evolved much at all in the last years. GNU has added a bunch of additional options to the tools back then compared to the commercial Unixes which made those tools popular, however that seems to have stopped long ago and all those tools are now still completly text-based, disconnected from all the progress that has been made in other areas. I wish GNU would move a
        • ### Why? Consider a very simple test: Take your "Apache/Samba/KDE/Xorg/GNU/Linux" system and try ripping out each of the named components.

          That is a very bogus argument, when I remove my Athlon Processor my system doesn't boot either, that however doesn't mean that I start calling by OS 'Athlon', same for Bios, Grub and other stuff. When you want to play the game that way you have to do it the other way around, ie. which components can I replace without noticing. I can replace my Athlon with a Pentium, still
    • Re:No mention of GNU (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      and actually they _do_ mention FSF in it.

    • And without a kernel, the GNU tools are (mostly) useless.

      And since GNU means GNU is Not Unix, and the whole point of the GNU project was to produce an OS - a COMPLETE OS WITH KERNEL - which they utterly failed to do over twenty years until some Finnish grad student did it (probably not even using their tools, for all I know)...

      In other words, you've lost that battle, so fuck off.

      Linux is Linux and the rest of the OS and distro is by whoever supplied it - including KDE, GNOME, and fifty thousand other tiny l
  • I for one (Score:5, Funny)

    by Uukrul (835197) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @05:27AM (#13711013)
    I, for one, welcome our new german overl.... or may be not.
  • The last steps:

    5. Call MS representative and shout: GO F$CK YOURSELF, you greedy son of a...!!
    6. PROFIT!!!
    7. Contribute money/resources to the OSS community.
    • 8. Spend all quarterly profits + and additional 80% on FOSS software support contracts, overpriced arrogant consultants w/ a political agenda, added development staff, smelly GNU/Hippie sys admins to realize that the solution you implemented doesn't work effectively.
      9. Call M$ and beg for forgiveness and the latest copy of Windowss 2003.

      All kidding aside, Linux migration is not for every company or every situation. It's been said before and will be said again. Hopefully this guide will help companies make
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @05:39AM (#13711046)
    Linux, Linux everywhere, and, if that's not bad enough, now everyone's a geek. The word geek has been packaged and sold into the mainstream and everyone want's a piece of it.

    The docu movies are soon to follow. Rumour has it that Micheal Moore's going to play RMS; and, RMS is going to direct. ESR plays a psychopath, mass murderer, coming out of the closet loaded down with firepower.

    • suggestion: use the term geek for persons having no clue of computers at all. same with nerd. i mean, what world do they think we live in when they sit around in this nature thing all the time?
  • by Anonymous Coward
    I skimmed over it and it looked thorough enough but it didn't mention anything about ducking chairs? Did I miss that part?
  • by MadMoses (151207) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @06:10AM (#13711112) Homepage
    Meanwhile, Vienna has made their own Linux version Wienux [wien.gv.at], which is based on Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 with kernel 2.6.11 and intended to be used in small and middle businesses and muncipalities, available for download [wien.gv.at].
  • The Windows, The!!!
  • OS wars (Score:2, Funny)

    by FishandChips (695645)
    So I guess it's only a matter of time before some charmer like Orrin Hatch introduces a bill in Congress mandating the US government to publish a guide for those wishing to migrate from Linux to Windows.
  • Creator: (Score:1, Funny)

    Creator: Acrobat PDFMaker für Word Producer: Acrobat Distiller 7.0 (Windows)
    • Re:Creator: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by rnbc (174939)
      Yes, I already noticed this...

      Considering the migration document is itself made in Windows, with Microsoft Word, I see nothing real happening in the next few years.
      • No. They wrote a program entirely in assembler to generate the doc to look like it was generated by MS Word, no doubt the prog is also a Universal Turing Machine ...

        That anonymous post is clear a cover-up!

        Though if I'm wrong maybe they used crossover? MS Word is quite good after all, it's just the price and the evil conglomerate that put me off.
  • by zero0w (572225) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @07:04AM (#13711254)

    The Chinese translation of the 1st edition of Migration Guide can be found here:

    http://www.fect.com.tw/Docs/Migration.pdf [fect.com.tw]

    The translation effort is sponsored by the FSOSS dEveloper Center @ Taiwan, aka FECT.

  • by wehe (135130) <wehe&tuxmobil,org> on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @07:09AM (#13711273) Homepage Journal
    Here are some more tools and whitepapers for migrations to the Linux operating system [dataconv.org], for example about Solaris to Linux migration, filename conversion and more.
  • ... home of the brave, land of the free?
  • by FlorianMueller (801981) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @09:25AM (#13712264) Homepage
    The first edition of the Migration Guide took a strong pro-OSS position. The basic message, supported by endless columns of numbers, was that a full OSS migration would yield the greatest cost-savings to public administrations, but a partial OSS migration would yet be far better than none at all. Subsequently, that government department came under major lobbying pressure from the usual suspects.

    German politics is in a period of major uncertainty now after elections in September had an outcome that gives neither of the two camps (Conservatives plus Liberals or Social Democrats plus Greens) a majority. The good news from an OSS perspective is that at least one of the two parties in the current coalition government (Social Democrats and/or Greens) will be part of the next government, and those parties are quite committed to open source even though the Social Democrats supported software patents in the EU Council (and some of them were relatively swpat-friendly in the European Parliament). There are a few German conservative politicians who also have a favorable perspective on OSS, but most of them don't care and some are downright negative about it. The liberals are ideologically pro-OSS, but of all German parties they're most susceptible to the influence of big-industry lobbying.

  • Not for company CEOs (Score:4, Interesting)

    by 12dec0de (26853) on Tuesday October 04, 2005 @10:44AM (#13713191) Homepage
    A number of comments that came before mine mention company CEOs that are supposed to be swayed by this document. No such thing!

    This paper is a goodsend (yes I knew about the earlier edition. Got one in hardcopy on my desk) for a lowly public sector employee like me.

    Why? because evertime I want to install any OSS somebody in the commity that decides on these things will whip out a ProprietoryGlossyPamphlet(tm) and ask me 'what about...' (license, support, copyright, patents, etc.) and will not believe any word I say. So I whip out my "Leitfaden für die Migration von Basissoftwarekomponenten auf Server- und Arbeitsplatzsystemen" and tell them what a federal agency had to say on that matter and they usually shut up.

    The answers on legal subjects are aimed at the public service sector. While probably true for a private company, it is not the target audience.

  • Linux is a pain in the ass from an ease of use perspective. And I honestly wish that I could use Linux, but I don't want to be a system admin.

    I want something that:

    • I turn on and it works.
    • When I want to configure something, there is a GUI that is easily found.
    • works consistently across all distros.

    I don't care about .rpm vs redhat vs whatever 'new, improved, way' of packaging programs to install there is. I don't care about journaling file systems. As a user why should I have to care? Isn't it the re

    • patmoore says:

      Linux is a pain in the ass from an ease of use perspective. And I honestly wish that I could use Linux, but I don't want to be a system admin.

      I want something that:

      * I turn on and it works.
      * When I want to configure something, there is a GUI that is easily found.
      * works consistently across all distros.


      Hmm, sounds like you haven't used a modern linux workstation distro lately.

      Now, let's look at your 3 item ch
    • Argh, posts like yours piss me off.

      ``I want something that:
      I turn on and it works.''

      That's more true of Linux than of Windows. How much maintenance do you need to do on a Windows box to keep it working, and how much maintenance do you need to do on a Linux box to keep it working?

      ``When I want to configure something, there is a GUI that is easily found.''

      Many things have GUIs. Some don't. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have a good reason for bringing up that point.

      ``works consistently
      • Argh, posts like yours piss me off. ``I want something that: I turn on and it works.''

        Hmm lets think about that. I turn on my car and it works. I turn on my stove and it works. I turn on my TV and it works. I don't even have to turn on Tivo. I turn on a Mac and it just works. I go to Google and it just works.

        It is fine to get pissed off. But please understand these things:

        1. Expecting someone, anyone to spend the time to read a manual on how to use any product, Linux included, is just rude. I have
        • ``Expecting someone, anyone to spend the time to read a manual on how to use any product, Linux included, is just rude. I have better things to do - like playing with my kids and saving the world.''

          Well, you don't need to read any manual to use Linux. If you can point and click, you can use Ubuntu. You may not be able to use Gentoo, but you don't have to use all distributions at once; that's what choice is good for.

          As for your example that your car Just Works; I hope you don't mean it would be a Good Thing
    • just go read this [catb.org]
    • by 1336 (898588)
      If you want to try a desktop Linux that 'just works' pretty much all the time, download an Ubuntu Live CD: http://www.ubuntu.com/download/ [ubuntu.com]

      My computer is dual-boot Windows XP, Ubuntu Breezy but I rarely boot into Windows anymore.

      Speaking of packaging, I have to say that a system like Synaptic is an amazing improvement over Windows installers. You want software? Find it in the list, mark it for installation, press apply. You want all of the software on your system kept up to date? Ubuntu periodically chec
  • Any idea how to get ahold of a bound and printed version of this?

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..." -- Isaac Asimov

Working...