10 Years of Pushing For Linux — and Giving Up 857
boyko.at.netqos writes "Jim Sampson at Network Performance Daily writes about his attempts over a decade to get Linux working in a business/enterprise environment, but each time, he says, something critical just didn't work, and eventually, he just gave up. The article caps with his attempts to use Ubuntu Edgy Eft — only to find a bug that still prevented him from doing work." Quoting: "For the next ten years, I would go off and on back to this thought: I wanted to support the Open Source community, and to use Linux, but every time, the reality was that Linux just was not ready... Over the last six years, I've tried periodically to get Linux working in the enterprise, thinking, logically, that things must have improved. But every time, something — sometimes something very basic — prevented me from doing what I needed to do in Linux."
Linux is Inhibited by Greed (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, I've experienced them both at home and at work with Linux.
But I would like to point out that some of the problems you faced (like integration with MS Exchange server) are simply Microsoft not wanting to release/support/adapt to standards. I know you're not directly blaming the Linux community for your (and the seemingly global) failure in adopting it but what is putting a real big halt on it in the corporate environment is companies working against it. Maybe this will change but I highly doubt it.
The shortcomings that Linux suffers are a result of poor design. Poor design of third party devices, software & services. If all the wireless card manufacturers got together and agreed on a interoperable adapter interface to their cards, it would mean that the OS developers would just need to write one other side for ever driver of every wireless card to work. The problem is that if they opened this up, they perceive their competitors would grow stronger by seeing their research. I suppose something could be said about this hampering innovation or removing the option to continually change chipsets in the search for the cheaper/better hardware, I don't know enough about wireless cards. But one would think everyone could agree on some interface to use. This is apparently a good design practice but poor business move.
I reiterate that you are not alone in your frustration. You didn't fail to adopt Linux, Linux didn't fail to meet your needs, it was the entire community and their business practices that failed you.
It is the general Linux Comunity fault. (Score:1, Insightful)
But let's face the truth. Beyond running as a server of some sort where it does one thing and does it will, Linux just stinks and most of the community doesn't want to admit there is a problem and let alone fix it. There is an attitude that it is the Users aka Customers fault for any problem that occurs, and the program is perfect unless a "Skilled" hacker was able to break your application and find a security problem.
This attitude has limited Linux's growth. Let's face it, Companies actually want to migrate to Linux and get off all the problems with Microsoft but they are not going to go 10 years back in technology and loose features they come to enjoy. As well if they will have trouble communicating with other companies who don't have their infrastructure then they won't switch. IT is Information Technology, INFORMATION... is the key if they can't share Information then the Technology is useless. So if they can't run all their old apps there is a loss in information, If they cannot access a shared information location then it is loss of information, If they cannot figure out how to use the application and get the information they want then there is a loss of Information. If the Linux solution has bad or missing document (or missing Information) then it is useless.
Most companies are not willing to change everything all at once if they can't have a gradual migration then they wont go with that product set. We need more developers for Linux and Linux applications who openly say Linux Sucks, that way we can get better tools especially for business use. But right now the majority of the OSS developers are like Linux is Coolest and most noble system on earth. So how do you improve on the godly system if in your mind it is already perfect.
Timing (Score:1, Insightful)
I love these articles... (Score:5, Insightful)
Many companies were able to switch when they got buy in and support from management to do so. You HAVE To replace your infrastructure and backend way before you replace the fontend. Then you can slowly change what people see and touch. It's a lot of work to pry microsoft from your server rooms.
The best solution is to not let it in to begin with or not allow it to touch anything new.
Misleading, and retarded (Score:5, Insightful)
From the "article":
I hate to use such strong language, but this guy is a total retard.
How is this news, exactly? This is like me taking a fine American car to UK and complaining that the car sucks because I have to drive on the other side of the road!
Re:Waaaaa. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Waaaaa. (Score:5, Insightful)
And Windows is any better? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no silver bullet. Running a Microsoft OS (or even an Apple OS) doesn't magically make everything work. There will still be things that don't work right - it'll just be different things.
Your computer is a tool. If it doesn't do what you need, then fine; get a different tool. But for many businesses, the appropriate tool *is* linux, and it does the job well. Please don't presume to be the voice of everyman.
It's a Microsoft issue, not a Linux problem (Score:2, Insightful)
While his decision is probably OK for his MS centric environment, it does by no means mean that Linux is somehow at fault. So, no news.
Short: His blog entry is superfluous and was for no good reason reflected at
Re:It is the general Linux Comunity fault. (Score:5, Insightful)
The entire original article could be summed up in one phrase: "imperfect Microsoft emulation". This isn't just a "Linux" issue. It's a problem for ANYONE that wants to use something else, even on Windows.
This "microsoft or nothing" mentality is what really alienated me from Windows.
I should be able to run the word processor of my choice and the email client of my choice REGARDLESS OF PLATFORM.
Skip the blog post masquerading as an article. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wherever the author says "business/enterprise/IT environment", he forgets a critical proper noun: he means "Microsoft-centric business/enterprise/IT environment".
Author Gripe #1: Ancient (1998) StarOffice sucked at Word/PowerPoint files.
Author Gripe #2: In 2004, nothing played with Exchange, and "you can't function" without Exchange.
Author Gripe #3: In 2006, one version of Evolution on one distro didn't have a "subscribe" button for Exchange Server public folders.
Author Solution: Give up on Linux.
Okay... Note that none of the above have much to do with Linux. And I don't mean to be a "omg it's userspace, not the kernel" zealotroll, but really. His gripes are in two apps. The last gripe is particularly weak; I'm not knowledgeable if the problem is fixed in Evolution (or if it's even a bug), but what is potentially "there are missing buttons" does not "Linux unprepared for the enterprise environment!!!" make.
On an unrelated note (and I don't mean this as ad hominim or anything, just curious), is this site anything more than a NetQoS company blog? These kinds of posts hitting
Can't get it to work? *yawn* (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words: "I blame Linux, because the company I work for is too lazy, or too stubborn, or just plain too stupid to use standard-compliant software , instead of being a Microsoft-only shop". Yeah, right. Microsoft Excel and Power Point and Word run into all kind of problems when you try to use their files under Open Office. That's not a surprise, it's a Microsoft policy and it is exactly designed to lock the competition (Linux or others) out. And, guess what? It works!
A little bit like the poor South Koreans that used Windows for everything and are now stuck with a new OS (Microsoft Vista) that is incompatible with the ActiveX encryption utilities that are used by... well, 90%+ of the population.
What this article reveals (beyond the obvious FUD) is precisely that Linux is not the problem: Microsoft is the problem, as well as its closed standards and its closed filed formats . End of story.
Re:get over it (Score:3, Insightful)
> it will not be until MS and Macromedia decide so.
At least there's a Flash 9 player for Linux now, so that's nice. We couldn't do an indi [getindi.com] Linux port until that happened... now I'm working away on it. Well, back to GtkWidget and all that...
News Flash (Score:5, Insightful)
Alert the blogosphere!
I mean, I feel for the guy trying to get Linux to work in a Microsoft-only environment, but this isn't exactly surprising, at all. Hell, Microsoft has problems getting their own software (Entourage in Office Mac) working with Exchange. The answer is to never use Exchange in the first place. If you're already locked into Exchange and its feature set as a driving force within your business, you're going to have to suck up and deal, or go through the pain of a switchover to something that's reasonably open. I've got the same problem with a client which is a marketing department of a large Netware based company, and the marketing people all use Macs exclusively, and the Novell Mac client is too buggy to use, forcing them to install VirtualPC on their machines so they can to basic e-mail and scheduling stuff. Costly, you bet, especially in my time because of how buggy it all is, and the idiotic design flaws of their network, but they can't just switch over because they're locked in to Netware after years of use, and they're paying for that shortsighted decision. However, it's still cheaper than dealing with the upheaval of switching from Netware to something reasonable.
Re:Waaaaa. (Score:4, Insightful)
All too often the reaction to just such a statement is...well, what the parent says. "It can't/won't be done, you need to just use what we/they give you, you're doing it wrong." The response of the user raising the issue is almost always to drop Linux and return to Windows, which does what they need without the hoops of Terminal Services and incomplete WINE compatibility.
You want more people using Linux? Listen when they ask for something.
He could have told MSFT to get off it's ass... (Score:2, Insightful)
After all, freaking High School kids can release code packaged for Linux. Should we really believe MSFT doesn't have the chops to get the job done?
Square Peg - Round Hole (Score:3, Insightful)
Trying to chase MS through their Office releases, remaining completely compatable to a proprietary format is a fool's errand. This guy should have realized this way beforehand.
Linux, or any heterogeneous OS environment, works well when the data travels on an open protocol, not some convoluted, broken document format. MS does great work with their products, don't get me wrong, and I have a lot of respect for the Office suite. However, If they don't want people to use it without Windows, then don't chase it. It's just easier to work the psychology of the workers and convince them to use a different standard.
Any what's with that photo?! Did someone just mash his face backwards to fit in the frame?
Re:It is the general Linux Comunity fault. (Score:5, Insightful)
When you've got a vendor who actively works to prevent you from interoperating with a different vendor, who is "at fault" here? Everything that you're bitching about not working was reverse engineered, from scratch, at an enormous cost in resources and ingenuity. The fact that it works at all is a massive testament to the power of the open source development model. It could be seamless. It could work much better than Windows works with itself. But there is active, continuing work done by Microsoft to prevent it.
So don't pull your snout out of the MS trough and gasp out between stuffing your face with proprietary, locked in interfaces that "Linux isn't ready". Linux is *perfectly* ready. You're the one who isn't ready, and your Microsoft owners won't let you be.
OSs in General are Annoying (Score:5, Insightful)
The truth is that each of them has shortcomings. The good news I guess is that most of these are irritating, not fatal.
Windows IMHO is not a long term option because of the creeping DRM and the obsessive control of the computing environment that MS seems to want. Frankly I have this horrible feeling that Vista will open a can of worms that will never end.
OS X just has too many irritating or dumb features, or lack thereof, that drive me around the bend. [community-media.com] I'm not talking about things that are different from Windows, I'm talking about boneheaded design and UI mistakes that no-one in Mac land seems to be willing to admit are a problem.
Linux, well at this point for me it works 90% out of the box, much better than a few years ago, but that last 10% can be a nightmare. As always with Linux, if it works it's lovely, but if it doesn't you're off into that hell of MAN pages and web forums, filled with half answers, slightly incorrect assumptions, and Linux arrogance.
I'm weary of tinkering with computers. I just want to turn it on and have it do what I want easily and without irritation. And I want to be able to TURN OFF "features" that annoy me.
No OS does that yet.
Linux users moving to OS X (Score:3, Insightful)
I look to my own empirical evidence: Of 7 software engineers (people traditionally unlikely to consider an alternative OS for development), 5 have purchased a MacBook Pro. Of my close social group of friends, only 2 out of 10+ have a Mac.
People who want something simple buy a mac. Now, people that also want to install multiple OS's (Linux, Windows, OS X) also buy a Mac.
Re:Linux is Inhibited by Greed (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to berate the Evolution developers too much, but I've personally found almost every release of Evolution to be horribly unstable.I say this with sadness because I was once a true believer in Evolution. Like the author, every year or two I try Evolution yet again, but unlike the author I usually give it a chance for about 6 months to maybe a year, and always I find something horribly broken about it: random crashes, data loss/corruption, memory leaks, performance problems, stuff not working (especially the Exchange connector stuff), etc. And sometimes I send in bugzilla reports and they get ignored for months and months. I think the problem has been worse since Novell took over, too.
Developers vs. Customers (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a capitalistic society--Linux variants need to adapt or die. Not the customers.
Either they have to provide the functionality needed to communicate with the software in question, or they have to provide a suitable replacement with a good migration capability. Good, consistent user interfaces is a plus.
Demanding that the *customer* adapt is just silly and a good way to make sure that linux remains marginal.
Two way street. (Score:4, Insightful)
The Open Source community can develop BSD and/or Linux and associated applications until the cows come home to roost, but Microsoft and their products will never go away. There will always be people using Windows, Office, and whatever. Try as one might, true interoperability will be difficult until Microsoft cares to participate in the effort.
At present, Microsoft is part of the problem, not the solution. They don't care if Open Source software succeeds and have no desire to help.
That is why I get paid the big bucks (Score:4, Insightful)
"Those who are limited to a single platform or language will always be limited"
Re:Trying Linux Since 1994 (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Waaaaa. (Score:4, Insightful)
My advice is always to go with Lotus, but Lotus is slow and it's a bear to customize, so even though it runs well in Linux, you've got people to soothe. Same with OpenOffice.
What it comes down to is: There is nothing wrong with Linux. We just don't have a killer office suite, or a killer server based productivity suite. End of story.
And as long as we're forced to use our biggest competitions Office and Productivity suites, we're always going to have problems.
And SMB support is HUGELY easier than having an Office/Exchange substitute.
Wrong approach? (Score:4, Insightful)
I can plug in any Windows 2000 and upward PC into the network I manage, and within minutes, it'll be fully patched, have all the software we need installed, and be fully locked-down & generally configured (company screen-saver, explorer bar and such things) - all without actually touching it.
But I digress, my point really is that there are few cases where a network is running well without a mix of technology. Running one without the other is a bad idea if you ask me.
Re:Yup (Score:5, Insightful)
With all these tech companies supposedly "selling" Linux solutions, the time has never been better to offer an Evolution client for Linux, Windows, and Mac that works with a feature-rich server on the order of Exchange Server. Yet there has been (to my knowledge) no real effort to improve the groupware solutions beyound straight-up LDAP, SMTP, IMAP, and NNTP. Those are great technologies, but they're not particularly good at providing a cohesive groupware solution. At least, not without some sort of design for how they could be used to provide the missing functionality. (Calendaring is perhaps the least addressed of the missing features.)
If such a server were developed, Linux would have a much better chance in Corporate America. Especially if the said server could keep ahead of Microsoft rather than behind them. Witness Firefox as an example. Microsoft slacked on IE (as they're prone to do when they have an uncontested lead) and paid the price by being surpassed. Exchange hasn't changed to any appreciable degree for a long time now, so the opportunity exists. Strike while the iron is hot.
But then again, what do I know? I'm just another developer in this crazy corporate world.
Re:Linux is Inhibited by Greed (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably not, but perhaps open source developers are not interested in providing such a solution.
The flip side of "Linus is inhibited by greed" is that "Linux is not responsive to the needs of the marketplace". There are no dollars on the line for linux.
Linux == kernel (Score:3, Insightful)
But i daily use Gnome, OpenOffice, tetex, gcc, etc. I can't imagine sitting here to use Windows, Office,
Go buy Vista than you hater!
Re:It is the general Linux Comunity fault. (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason this attitude bothers me is that three hundred years ago there was no ideal computing, and nobody was entitled to an ideal computing platform. Today there's still no ideal computing platform, and still no reason why their "should" be.
It's like they say: If you want a job done right, do it yourself. Complaining that other people have used their freedom to do their own jobs for their own reasons seems kind of silly. Meanwhile, the vast majority of people have figured out how to get value out of the less-than-ideal computing platforms currently available. Instead of complaining about fictional entitlements, they're taking advantage of available opportunities.
Re:Misleading, and retarded (Score:2, Insightful)
For him working meant interoperability with Exchange and Office documents. Most corps also define 'working' in a similar way. Don't dismiss the article simply because you disagree with his definition of working.
Re:It is the general Linux Comunity fault. (Score:4, Insightful)
He can't get linux to interoperate with exchange fully, exchange is designed this way - to sell more copies of outlook. Even the mac equivalent (entourage) doesn't connect to exchange in the same way as outlook does, and doesn't support all the same features.
Microsoft do not publish documentation on how to interoperate with exchange, people have to reverse engineer it every time there's an update, which is a very time consuming process. Also, the protocol must be very difficult to implement because microsoft haven't even bothered fully implementing it into their own products (entourage). Perhaps they don't even have full documentation for it themselves, and outlook is relying on a lot of undocumented legacy code to talk to exchange.
If this guy had been using standard methods of doing the same things, he would have had no problems using it with linux, there are standard ways to share folders, access mail and share calendars etc.
If microsoft were forced to open up their protocols and file formats, open source software would implement them pretty fast and all the problems this guy had would disappear overnight. Similarly, if he wasn't already dangerously locked in to microsoft, this problem wouldn't exist. This is why vendor lockin is dangerous, this guy is effectively being blackmailed into continuing to buy microsoft products "keep using our products everywhere or you'l need to replace EVERYTHING at once and lose access to all your data"
Re:Linux is Inhibited by Greed (Score:5, Insightful)
Uhhh.. no, there are a lot of dollars on the line for linux. Just because many of the developers don't get paid and most of the software is available free of charge does not mean that there has not been a great deal of commercial investment in Linux/FOSS.
Re:Waaaaa. (Score:3, Insightful)
The community, like any other community, helps itself. If you want help, become a member of the community. Don't sit on the edge and expect the community to do things for you without giving anything back.
He's confused (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Linux is Inhibited by Greed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Waaaaa. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you structure your IT to not be Microsoft centric, then Linux, Mac's, and Windows can all work together. If you design your entire infrastructure around Microsoft technologies, then good fracking luck.
Re:Linux is Inhibited by Greed (Score:5, Insightful)
"You are experiencing problems similar to many other to-Linux migrators. Don't worry, the problem isn't you or Linux, it's everyone else - all the hardware manufacturers and software vendors."
Sorry, blaming problems on everyone but us doesn't do anything except prevent the problems from being solved (and it can cause even more problems). Other groups have adapted to this kind of mentality, even within the Linux borders. Passing the buck, like this post implicitly suggest isn't a good idea for getting things working. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see those solutions you mentioned also, but to say the problem is all on the other side is not only wrong, it's counter productive. Linux could use more developers (most OSS projects could), and Linux could cooperative developers, a bit of competition is good to encourage improvment, but too much competition (dozes of projects that do more or less the same thing for example) can spread the resources too thin to get anything done in a timely manner.
Are things as easy as they could be? No
Are things as easy as they should be? No
Will bitching and moaning about it, or logical reasoning change it? Hasn't yet, so most likely: No.
Answer: Deal with the problem at your end.
Proprietary software (Score:3, Insightful)
It strikes me that you could substitute MacOS or any other OS except Windows in the guy's story and all of his complaints would still be accurate.
Re:Linux is Inhibited by Greed (Score:5, Insightful)
This is my point. Developers who do things in their spare time don't like to write boring software, even if that's what most people would use.
Re:Linux is Inhibited by Greed (Score:3, Insightful)
And another problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Along those lines there's this idea that a major amount of effort should be considered acceptable for any task. If an alternative takes 50 hours to get done what the commercial package takes 1, well that's better because it's free! There's no consideration of valuation of time. You are a fool if you'd rather spend $50 than hours and hours of effort. Well of course that's not the case for many of us. I value my time and if you want to look at it in a dollar amount, I bill consulting at $100 an hour so it doesn't take much time to equal the cost of most software.
It's not that people always aren't willing to switch to a new tool/system, often they are, but it needs to offer them what their old system did. You can't present a half-assed solution and expect people to love you for it, even if it is free.
Re:It is the general Linux Comunity fault. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the customer not caring about fault, and only caring about getting things working.
True. If you want things to work you can use Linux and other vendors except Microsoft, or you can use Microsoft and no other vendors. If you use both MS, will break things. The problem is when someone complains that Linux is unworkable because they can't work with a particular MS proprietary thing. That is what the statement above mentioned. Just because it is a customer doesn't make their assertion any more correct.
Re:Linux is Inhibited by Greed (Score:5, Insightful)
Dude, like it or not, you gotta interoperate with the common environment, even if they don't want you to.
Re:OSs in General are Annoying (Score:2, Insightful)
- personal finance. Yeah, I tried Gnucash, multiple versions, and it's simply not on the same playing field as Microsoft Money. At the end of the day, I want to be able to launch the app, click a few buttons, and have my daily transactions downloaded and my bill payments transmitted. Being able to forecast my account balance 60 or 90 days out is extremely useful as well.
- kids. At first it was Jumpstart games, now it's Civ4, NWN, and iTunes. With two teenagers in the house who just want have the same stuff their friends have, Frozen Bubble is not an acceptable answer to "Linux needs games". An iTunes, yeah, it's DRM, but I can dump $10/month into each of their "allowance" accounts, and they can buy what they want, and I don't worry about the RIAA coming to the door.
- photos. My wife loves her digital camera, photo printer, and scrapbooking software. Being able to plug the camera in and have a wizard walk her through importing the photos and organizing them is HUGE.
- time. I'm a DBA, and I work with computers all day long, both MS and Linux. After 9 hours, I've had enough. I don't want to go home and have to tinker with more "stuff". Automatic Update keeps my OS patched. AVG downloads its own updates. The AdBlock plugin keeps my browsing pleasant. I can sit down and USE my computer, not fuss with config files or spend hours compiling source code.
I love Linux, but it's not ready to be running on every desktop out there. Using the right tool makes the job easier, and Linux just isn't the right tool for every job... Yet...
Re:Linux is Inhibited by Greed (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll admit I have not read the article...
But I find it strangely stupifying that someone would use a distribution intended to be a cutting edge user desktop installation for what he called Enterprise Solutions.
Only the insane or stupifyingly owned will roll Vista into all their Enterprise environments on the first day it's released. Most wait 6 months to a year. Wouldn't the same consideration hold some merit for Linux distros?
I'm picking on Ubuntu specifically because I think they author made the wrong choice. There are a lot of really well operating distributions out there that work very well. There are few, if any, products that don't pay homage to MSFT that will work with Exchange. And when you talk about using Thunderbird to get Exchange email keep in mind you are only using IMAP and not the whole Exchange Experience kind of thing. He might as well bash Oracle for not making MS Access drivers.
I gave up fighting for Linux a long time ago. Not because it isn't a really great OS. But because people who are in Corporation IT don't want good software. They want simple contracts. As often as something goes wrong with Microsoft, there is almost always someone on a help desk phone number they can yell at. And that makes them feel like they are doing their job.
Bunch of Vogons...
Re:Waaaaa. (Score:4, Insightful)
Although there is a lot of talk about TCO and such with Linux versus OS X versus Windows, it's only part of the story. Corporations, especially the large corporations which lie behind Microsoft's market share dominance, have money to burn, so it Windows costs them x more bucks per user per year, it isn't a huge issue. What they need, however, is an office suite which can make read and use the millions of documents they have on hand and the millions they need to produce We all know what office suite that is. This problem isn't unique to Linux. If MS Office for OS X disappeared overnight it would be a disaster for Apple.
Part of the problem of getting Linux accepted into wider circles is the habit of arguing on technical merit alone.
Re:It is the general Linux Comunity fault. (Score:4, Insightful)
So by that logic, anything wrong that happens to me while I'm using my computer is my fault because I'm not properly ready for the idiosyncrasies of whatever OS I'm using? That's crazy talk, whether you're talking about Linux, Windows, OS X, or the Canon-friggin'-Cat.
This is a classic example of the silly defensiveness that drives me nuts. Windows users just want to use Windows because they can get stuff done. Linux users fight like dogs to try to prove the mettle and superiority of their OSes and interfaces and have ready excuses for stuff that doesn't work as expected (or intended or promised). These excuses often include user fault or laziness (we should all be happy to occasionally open a terminal window and type a bunch of arcane gibberish to make something work). I'm reminded of baseball fans here in Chicago -- generally speaking, Sox fans deeply hate the Cubs and Cubs fans, and Cubs fans tend not to have strong opinions one way or the other about the Sox. There's a certain level of comfort in one's own skin among Cubs fans (and Windows users) that doesn't seem to come out as often in Sox fans/Linux advocates.
Windows is far from perfect, as are Microsoft's business practices. But this doesn't automatically make Linux OSes and windowing environments the right solution. What makes a better solution is user comfort, and (frankly) Microsoft often does a better job of instilling this comfort. Are their solutions the best possible? Almost always not. But the average business is not interested in spending its time fighting the good fight for open source software. It's interested in doing whatever it actually does, and using its computers as tools to help accomplish that. They know what to expect from Windows, it generally works pretty well for its intended uses, and life goes on for yet another day of not thinking more about their chosen OS than the task at hand.
For the record, I use Kubuntu, XP, Vista, and OS X (often all in one day). Each has its advantages and disadvantages, and each can be used well or poorly (I do both). That's that. The holy war thing is getting old, and does nothing to dissuade people from viewing Linux users as geeks and defensive fanatics.
Typical; Blame OSS for Microsoft's inflexibilty (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh yeah, and he does look funny...
Re:Misleading, and retarded (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem was that he couldn'g get Evolution to work with Exchange Server which it was designed to do.
This is like me taking a fine American car to UK and complaining that the car sucks because I have to drive on the other side of the road!
This is like you taking a fine American car to the UK and finding that no one will buy it because the steering wheel is on the wrong side of the car. And then complaining that the Brits are stupid because they won't buy such a fine car.
Re:Waaaaa. (Score:3, Insightful)
TheRaven64 (641858) said it right:
Free software is only gratis if your time is worthless.
-dave
Re:Linux is Inhibited by Greed (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want it so bad, fix it yourself. I'd be happy to enjoy the fruits of your labor while you enjoy your prison term or fines.
Re:It is the general Linux Comunity fault. (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think I'm the one being defensive here. It's your (and I'm using "your" in a general sense of "your organization" here) fault for entering into a proprietary relationship with a specific vendor, and then placing blame on a third party for not giving you an escape hatch. It's like complaining that PCs aren't ready because they won't run your CICS applications. The PC platform is just fine. *You* aren't ready for it, because you aren't willing to leave behind an incompatible system.
Windows users just want to use Windows because they can get stuff done.
That's a total fabrication. *Most* Windows users use it because externalities push them in that direction - you have to go out of your way to by a non-Windows computer (even a Mac), and most corporate environments use Windows. They don't use it out of conscious choice, they use it because it's the default solution presented to them. "Just getting stuff done" has nothing to do with it.
Regardless, the "just use the default" user isn't even a topic in this conversation - you're making it because you're going to try to tread old, weary ground that "Linux makes you work to hard".
we should all be happy to occasionally open a terminal window and type a bunch of arcane gibberish to make something work
And oh look, here it is. This has been raised and refuted more times than I even know how to count. People prefer Windows because it's familiar, end of story. Normal use of a modern (even 5 years old) Linux system will rarely require use of the command line, any more than Windows does. Actual administration by skilled sysadmins is a totally different arena and there's just as much arcane shit and config files and command lines to use in Windows.
Linux users fight like dogs to try to prove the mettle and superiority of their OSes and interfaces and have ready excuses for stuff that doesn't work as expected (or intended or promised).
(Yes, I know I'm quoting out of order). Firstly, those are both subjective statements, and people coming from an all-Windows environment often have unrealistic and just plain stupid requirements. Like "my Linux machine should seamlessly work with Exchange". If you actually want this to happen, you need to talk to the vendor who is holding up the interoperability, and that would be Microsoft. Secondly, Linux is not Windows. People expect things to work the same, to be in the same location, and to be labeled identically. That is stupid, sloppy thinking and you deserve to be castigated for it. There are real, legitimate usability issues with Linux. They are addressed the same way they are in any OS, which is to say that it varies with how and who they are reported by, with who is responsible for fixing them, and by how much the person responsible cares.
In summary: You, again, like many Windows apologists, are placing a higher burden on Linux than you ever have on Windows. You excuse laziness and ill will by saying that a group of unpaid volunteers should rescue you from both. Windows is "easier" primarily because it's common. It's a path of least resistance. If you're going to go down that path, I'm not going to say your wrong - it might make very good sense for you. But don't blame anyone else for it being any easier to switch away. If you (or whoever your IT manager was) hadn't decided to convert to an all-MS shop 10 years ago, it wouldn't be hard for you to switch. You're the seed of your own problem. Linux is ready, and has been ready. You, with the aid of Microsoft (who essentially owns your organization), are the ones placing barriers in the way. Don't blame Linux because you won't climb your own walls. All you have to do is be honest with yourself.
The FA could have been written as "I wanted to use Linux but resistance to interoperability and change from outside prevented
Re:Linux is Inhibited by Greed (Score:4, Insightful)
Its all along the lines of "It does 60-70-80% of what Exchange does."
After awhile, it just gets embarrasing. Yeah, its from Microsoft and it costs a small fortune except run in less than optimal circumstances under SBS, but even Exchange on a Small Business Server is functionally superior to ANYTHING from the Linux community (glad I got spare karma), and this is going to be the case forever, as long as people can still "boast" safely about their 'percentage-of-Exchange' solutions.
It is past put-up-or-shutup time on this issue.
Re:Linux is Inhibited by Greed (Score:3, Insightful)
Groupwise (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to agree with some of the other comments I've seen - your expectations are all wrong.
You're defining "Enterprise" as "work seamlessly in an all-Microsoft shop" and those aren't necessarily the same thing.
You also seem to be defining a good Linux experience as doing exactly what you were totally happy about in Windows but without paying.
If what you're looking for is a computer whose function is to attach to a Microsoft domain server and a Microsoft Exchange server and use all the newest Microsoft technologies relatively seamlessly, you should just install Windows. If you're happy with Windows, you should install Windows. Heck, even Microsoft Entourage for OS X can't talk to Exchange right most of the time, and MS MAKES that.
If you're talking about a transition, you're doing it backwards; put Linux on the servers first, where no non-techs have to get used to using it, where you have a greater guarantee of a limited application set, and where Linux has more experience. Also where Windows charges you more in licensing fees for fewer benefits. Samba is great.
THEN start rolling it out on desktops, starting with the thinnest ones, and using your choice of Linux-style or Windows style methods based on the situation.
But if you really want to talk fairly about Linux in Enterprise you need to talk about legitimately comparing a Linux environment with a Windows one.
You need to talk about better natural security and less time trying to clean up stupid-user infections. You need to talk about the ease of remotely configuring, updating, and reinstalling large numbers of machines. You need to talk about running remote applications via X being free. You need to talk about the registry mostly being replaced with a large number of text files you can easily and remotely overwrite and a total lack of DLL-hell, meaning you almost never HAVE to totally reinstall a machine - and if you do, you never have to open a control panel on any client machine ever to set a single setting unless you want to. A seamless ability to use any convenient desktop in the office.
Certainly there's add-on Windows enterprise software to do many of these things that Linux does naturally. And I'd point out that OS X does most of them too and has a more user friendly desktop. Some studies show substantially lower costs in terms of administrators with Linux - if the administrators know Linux.
But if all you want is a Windows machine, USE a Windows machine. Saving $129 is not, alone, a sound rationale for using Linux in a professional environment where all you seem to want is Windows.
Arete
Another fanboi (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Linux is Inhibited by Greed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Linux is Inhibited by Greed (Score:1, Insightful)
I say this to anyone who can't figure out how to do something simple in Linux - ASK!!!
I've been using Linux for about ten years or so and it works flawlessly with the network, sharing files and such, collaborating on projects with peers, etc. Anything I can do in Windows XP, I can do in Linux - with the exception of playing certain games. I am using straight Debian - though I've tested about 12 other linux distros.
... Sigh. PS vs. GIMP... Exchange vs. OSS, etc. (Score:2, Insightful)
If person A depends on application B that run only on OS C, person A should continue using OS C. (and stop bitching about it)
If person A insists on switching to OS D, person A should be willing to give up application B, settling instead on application B', even if B' is inferior compared to the original application B. (Maybe because person A has a vested interest in detaching himself from software company M's DRM infected, activation insisted iron grip.)
Period. End of story. The End. This thread pining for the fjords.
Before the flame war begins, I'm currently (slowly) converting my team-mates to Linux/FOSS.
- Gilboa
I've had a similar experience recently (Score:3, Insightful)
I've tried many times to get a working Windows Vista system, but I've always found something not working, and I don't mean Microsoft software not working. I mean Aero-glass not working or my old peripherals not working. Yes, I can hear everybody crying out "check the hardware compatibility lists first", and they're right.
If Microsoft can't make migration seamless from one version of their OS to the next, how can you expect a non-commercial, third-party effort do do any better?
There's more at work here than just the OS--it's the whole environment. Linux is already proven to work in a business environment--it has been capable of doing so for years. Same goes for Apple (hell, Macs even run a "genuine" edition of MS Office!). However, "a" business environment isn't ALL business environments. Enterprises with IT infrastructure based on proprietary, single-vendor platforms with no published interfaces for interoperability obviously are NOT the business environments where you'd expect to have Linux work seamlessly. It's a testament to the talents of Free software developers they can make anything work at all in such an environment!
Remember, MS is almost completely proprietary--when the folks who toil away developing Samba or Evolution have to make their software talk to Microsoft stuff (the main goal, or at least a major goal, of each of those projects) they can't just download or purchase a nice, neat spec document as if it was an IETF RFC. If MS has any spec to offer at all, it is only available under some encumbering legal condition such as an NDA or obligation to pay royalties or to not release under some or all Free software licenses. The only option they have in most cases is to pour over data from protocol analysers and other reverse-engineering tools. How can anyone expect the situation to EVER improve, much less within the space of a decade, when not only the spec is secret but it keeps changing dramatically with each generation of MS software?
MS further raises the barrier by making their interfaces and protocols DELIBERATELY COMPLEX so as to be harder to reverse engineer. This is the only explanation I can come up with for why MS does some of what they do in Exchange and Active Directory. Even more perverse is their penchant for taking open technologies like LDAP and Kerberos and obfuscating them enough to break them. This borders on criminal, as not only does this affect interoperability, it makes their own software less stable and more bloated than it needs to be.
This article offers nothing to support the contention that Linux or other Free software cannot be used to run a business--it very much can and does do this. His approach is just totally backwards--the high-level infrastructures need migrating first--get rid of Exchange and you'll be a great deal ahead of the game in more ways than one. If you are not in the position to carry that out, well then you'll be waiting for longer than two years unfortunately.
Blame on both sides of advocacy (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with the advocacy for and against Free alternatives is the all-or-nothing attitude.
For example let's look at GIMP vs. Photoshop.
For prepress, sure, GIMP is not a replacement for PS (yet) and you would be crazy to advocate GIMP for that. But pre-press is such a tiny piece of the PS pie. In my experience, a majority of the people who think they "need" PS would do fine with GIMP. Typical example, people in my organization who have an occasional need to edit/manipulate images for the web or internal flyers are convinced that they must have PS. No, they would be fine with GIMP. But the PS zealots say that GIMP is so inferior to PS that no sane person would consider GIMP over PS.
Same with Audacity/Ardor vs. Cubase/Sonar. Audacity will do a lot and cover -most- users' needs, but you would be way off-base to think that it is a pro studio app. But Audacity is good enough in most cases, and Cubase would be an over-the-top waste of money for many of those cases. Yet, you mention Ardor or Audacity in one of those situations, and some smart-ass will convince the PHB that nothing less than ProTools will do.
It's been said a million times, right tool for the right job, but it seems that there is always someone in a position of influence that takes their advocacy too far in one direction or the other.
Re:Linux is Inhibited by Greed (Score:5, Insightful)
Especially if it's software that enables random people to schedule them into time-wasting meetings at a click of a button.
Ah. I'm glad someone has a grasp of the true business need.
The fact that you don't approve, is both an indication that you're sane, and that a sign that your opinion is not relevant to the business case. Exchange compatibility is a non-negotiable, non-finesseable, titanium-clad, gotta-have-it-no-kidding, requirement. And it's boring, boring, ad nauseum boring, tedious, bores-me-to-tears boring. No bling, no eye candy, no Google job offers. No accolades, no developer street cred, absolutely no Open Source groupies.
Welcome to reality. What the business masses need is not what anyone sane and competent is willing to develop gratis. And that's the root of the problem. That's proprietary development's superweapon. That's Free Software's kryptonite.
Re:Linux is Inhibited by Greed (Score:3, Insightful)
But I would like to point out that some of the problems you faced (like integration with MS Exchange server) are simply Microsoft not wanting to release/support/adapt to standards.
Well, yes and no. My wife runs Word on a Mac. Whenever I suggest OSS alternatives to her, she points out that when she's tried converting Word docs to OOo, there was always something lost in the translation. Is this problem really because Word format is a proprietary secret? I really don't buy it. It's a very convenient excuse. The truth is more like this: the Word format is complicated and ugly. Part of the reason it's complicated and ugly is that it's been evolving steadily for the last 23 years, while maintaining at least some degree of backward compatibility. Because the format is so complicated and ugly, achieving 100% support in OSS would be a huge, long, boring, expensive job, regardless of any secretiveness by MS. OOo supports enough of the format to make 90% of documents convert while retaining 90% of the formatting. But getting to 99% of documents retaining 99% of their formatting would be a gargantuan task, and nobody is willing to commit those resources to it.
I think a lot of the office network integration stuff is the same way. I tried using samba so I could print on the networked printers at work from the linux box I bought to put on my own desk; I found that it worked most of the time, but sometimes it didn't. So I gave up. Ditto with the Exchange problem described in the article. I really have a hard time believing that the showstopper problem he's talking about is all MS's fault. Let's imagine that the buttons didn't appear because there was a problem connecting to the server or something; well, Evolution should give an informative error message, not just fail to show the buttons. And are we really supposed to believe that this is the only person in the world who's had a hard time getting Evolution to work? A lot of the comments on this story would seem to indicate that it's a more widespread problem. That would suggest that Evolution is not very mature, and/or not sufficiently well tested.
The trouble is that there are certain kinds of work for which the OSS community shows a lot of excitement, but there are other things that they don't like to work on. Software testing isn't so much fun. Reimplementing someone else's huge, complicated, ugly spec isn't so much fun. Ditto for getting feedback from users, and fixing common problems.
I think we in the OSS community are also a little too willing to believe our own mythology, e.g., the heroic myth that all OSS code is of much higher quality than all proprietary code. Actually OOo's codebase, for example, is reputed to be a mess, and some of the more glaring flaws of the current versions of OOo (e.g., the lack of curve fitting in as fancy as Excel's) are scheduled to be worked on only after the main body of the code gets some major reworking.
Re:And another problem (Score:3, Insightful)
However, it is the best solution for a lot of people (including me). It saves me more time with the things that work well, than it costs me with the things that work badly.
It may also prove to be the best solution for a lot of people who have not tried it yet. There are many, many people whose work can be done perfectly well with apps avaiable for Linux. A lot of them do not know it.
I also prefer Linux for home and small business use because it is easier adminsister most of time.
For some people it may only become a good solution, if and when certain apps become available. I am aware that prepress is an area of weakness, I am not surprised that audio is. If that is what you do, yes, realistically Windows or Mac may work better for you.
Re:Linux is Inhibited by Greed (Score:3, Insightful)
You have M$ Schedule Plus (defunct), Microsoft Exchange, and then Meeting Maker. Each implementation is unique and highly proprietary.
Then there is vcal for exchanging meeting requests between individuals (be they using calendar extensions to Thunderbird, kmail, outlook, or evolution), and hacks implementing vcal over WebDAV (ugly hacks at that) but even those implementations do not really promote a consistent method providing for interoperability, conflict and availability checking and publishing, defining resources vs. locations vs. attendees, tallying of accept/reject requests, required vs. optional attendees, contact/potential attendee lists, and so forth. Unless/until someone proposes an international cross-platform standard and it is accepted (and no way will Microsoft propose their own, it provides a migration path away from Exchange) each and every implementation is going to be highly proprietary.
And, since it comes down to picking a proprietary solution, at least if you want one which works, why not at least pick an open source, if unique solution that actually WORKS, rather than one that is based on several loosely-defined poorly-integrated methodologies which were not designed to be an ideal solution to the specific problem to begin with?
Or, you could just suck it up and pay Microsoft for their closed-source, proprietary, high-maintenance, high-cost solution and suffer from vendor lock, and down the road, forced upgrades when Microsoft decides to quit selling CALs to force you to repurchase the product all over again.
Re:Linux is Inhibited by Greed (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope. That is where every fortune 500 company and every national government that wants to have that functionality on linux needs to look at their yearly exchange costs and kick in 10% to some development group to write such a program that will run on linux.
This just could be businesses showing their blind spot. They need it or they don't. If they do need it, they have the bucks to pay to have it. If they don't, they can stop crying out that they do. Fairly simple. Now, if it is patents that the governments have awarded on software that are holding things up, the governments at least have to look in the mirror.
Yes? No?
all the best,
drew
Re:And another problem (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think many professional graphic artists or recording artists bother with audacity or the gimp. But for an average computer user like myself, I'm quite able to fix up photos in the gimp or convert songs from CD into a 30 second ringtone in audacity.
If someone is going to be able to use an expensive tool well enough to make enough money to recoup the cost of the software, sure, why not buy it? But if someone is just going to crop photos before printing them at walmart, then they are certainly not going to shell out whatever Adobe charges for photoshop these days.
Linux needs to get greedy (Score:2, Insightful)
Capitalism works. The opportunity is there but whats holding Linux back (as I see it) is that Linux can't decide on standards among its various and diverse distros. Linux needs simulcrums for "Program Files" and the registry and the start menu. Choice is great, but software companies aren't going to take on maintaining software for 50 different platforms to reach 5% of the market. You aren't going to have enterprise level software on Linux until the tools are there for the enterprise level software developers. Linux is the smallest part of our sales and takes a disproportionate chunk of our maintenance resources. Until you give developers the tools to provide a professional consistent product across all of the major Linux flavors, Linux is going to remain a niche. Look at what all of the Windows flavors and Mac OSes have in common as features of the operating system, then subtract out what Linux doesn't do in all of its distros. That's what has to happen before Linux is going to be taken seriously by enterprise.
Re:Linux is Inhibited by Greed (Score:2, Insightful)
They've been hacking at it for years. There is still far more software that doesn't work under WINE than does. The project could have been "done" in six months with a published spec to work against. As it is it will always be problematic.
And WINE is one of the "easy" projects, because as you note there is no prohibition of law to prevent at least trying. The same is not true of DVD playback where a solution is well known but cannot be provided by most distros because somebody has to break the law to do so. Since the company cannot; they leave it to the end user to impliment.
Developers are not psychic. If the information they need to do their thing cannot be seen, it cannot be seen. It is not their fault that they can't see it. It is amazing what some of them manage to do at their end with blinders on, but that does not imply that they are not blinded.
Handling it from the Linux end is already done as well as is possible; lists of software/devices that are known to work reasonably well under Linux and those that do not are published.
This is a lousy user experience when the solution to a problem is "buy all new stuff."
And that is often the only possible solution.
KFG
To linux users who tagged this flamebait (Score:3, Insightful)
Ask yourselve this, all of you who do not use windows as your preferred desktop, isn't the reason you don't use Windows exactly the same as this guys reason not to use linux?
It is to me at least. I am old enough to have worked with both unixes and dos and the home computers but like so many have had to live with the fact that the Wintel machines won the majority of the market.
Until one day when enough was enough back in the 98SE days and I just had to reboot once to often. Not that that itself was a problem, I like every other MS software user had gotten used to it, the problem was that 98SE had gotten just a little bit to stable. Stable enough at least for it to be used as my primary music player. So then every reboot, every crash meant that not only did I loose my work but also my background music.
The loss of work I had learned to deal with, but since other dedicated music players do not crash this hurt.
So with the help of a linux geek I installed a very old PC with a linux distro and made it my music player. Now windows could crash and demand reboots all it wanted, the music went on and on and on and on. Cue, me moving my browsing to the linux machine. No more IE crashes taking all your hard searching with it.
Slowly, windows was replaced were nowadays my windows machine is just a game machine, for no other reason that over more then a decade I just have never been able to get windows to run properly. Just the same problem this guy has with linux.
It all depends on the person I think and their hardware. For some reaon my game machine seems to be burdened with a load of hardware that simply is not supported by the XP install disc. This always happens to me and is one of the reasons I can't help but laugh at stories about how hard it is to get drivers for linux. Because all those run-from-cd distro's seem to have no trouble at all with that machine, not Ubuntu, not Knoppix, not Mephis, just windows.
My windows game machine right now is in "wich fucking setting is going to be switched randomly during this boot". You know the one, when you find the machine boots in XP style when you selected the classic mode, when icons from the quicklaunch disappear or rearrange themselves.
But are my complaints about windows not the exact same as this guys complaints about linux? For some reason, the unix design works better for me, it clicks or something.
With linux when something is wrong I can fix it, with windows, I have no idea.
Could it possibly be that different products appeal to different people? Nah, this guy is a troll and idiot because he prefers windows over linux. Fine but then the same goes in reverse. Since I can't getwindows to run and given up and went back to a unix (lets not forget who came first) I am a quitter too.
Re:And another problem (Score:1, Insightful)
I agree that there is sometimes this casual attitude towards time and money in OSS (which is hardly a surprise considering that quite a few of its member *are* freely giving their own time and money to making the thing). I think, however that you'll find this exact same attitude with the people who complain about it, that is, instead of spending the time to learn how to use the new thing, demand that it behaves like the old one (which I can understand as well). Most of the time, the functionality *is* there, they just don't want ot learn how to use it.
Finally, since we're talking about time and money, my pet peeve is being *forced* to use Windows, even though we write Unix software only, because managers want to be able to send stupid meeting thingies. Of course then we have to forego the advantages of running a similar environment in development, test and production, NFS didn't work, you need additional software to have X on your desktop, and so on. But somehow making one manager's job easier is more important than making the rest of the team work better!
Re:Linux is Inhibited by Greed (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux's adoption is not hindered by technical problems.
There's no marketing. While the marketing department is where you'll find some of the greatest bullshit artists in the known world (even moreso than in sales), it's also the department that identifies the market for the product and determines how to meet its needs.
It takes a large corporation to design a desktop experience for a mass market. You cannot grow this organically. Tough decisions need to be made, people need to get fired, lawyers need to put down troublemakers, kneecaps need to get broken. This is business.
Examples of how Linux desktop adoption fails because there's no marketing department
Linux is my server platform of choice, and my embedded desktop platform of choice, but I'm not retarded enough to demand it be imposed on Joe Sixpack home user in its current state. I doubt I ever can be.
Re:Linux is Inhibited by Greed (Score:3, Insightful)
Answer: Deal with the problem at your end.
9-1-1 caller: "I put locks on the doors, but guy down the street just crashed his bulldozer into my living room again!"
Answer: Deal with the problem at your end.
9-1-1 caller: "I built a huge fence in the yard and bought guard dogs, but guy down the street just crashed his bulldozer into my living room again!"
Answer: Deal with the problem at your end.
There are times you *can't* deal with the problem at your end. Little towns in Georgia trying to pass laws making Internet pornography illegal? Someone trying to deal with the problem at their end.
Re:Linux is Inhibited by Greed (Score:5, Insightful)
You seem to be assuming that free software implies volunteer work, and that paying developers demands proprietary licensing. That's unfortunate for you. The good thing is that your lack of imagination doesn't prevent companies like Red Hat and IBM from making a nice profit in the free software industry.
Re:Linux is Inhibited by Greed (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmm... "reality", "superweapon", "kryptonite" - I think its clear who needs a reality check.
An accurate of the vast majority of business exchange situations are places that have used only outlook/exchange and nothing else, and only use a fraction of the features that outlook/exchange offer. And, those usually don't work well. Just one minor example is that outlook/Exchange doesn't include emails in replies and forwards - only aliases. And, don't forget that using exchange all but forces you to use MS's dhcp and dns servers (active directory) - which are plain lousy (yes, I'm being polite). That is, unless you really like a polluted dns environment and lack of version history/revision control and no auditing ability - to name just a few of the better aspects of MS's AD dns/dhcp capabilities. Exchange is in most cases a one step forward two steps back proposition.
Businesses use exchange because they were virtually born into it and don't know anything better, not because it meets their needs so perfectly. At this point, anything different is a tough sell only because its different, not from a lack of meeting people's needs.
Same Old, Same Old Story (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the SAME CRAP EVERY Windows shill writes on every Web site and in every article on the subject:
"Gee, I really LOVE Linux and OSS, BUT..."
It's bullshit. That type of sentence is a DEAD GIVEAWAY that this guy is a paid shill for Microsoft. Period.
If you want to integrate with Microsoft Exchange, you're an idiot in the first place.
There is nothing from Exchange either that most companies need or can't be found in other mail/groupware clients.
The article is the same bullshit we've seen from every other article from shills.
Re:Misleading, and retarded (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem was that he couldn't get Evolution to work with Exchange Server which it was designed to do.
Yes, that's true. The problem is the guy draws a huge circle around the evolution+Exchange problem, which includes all of Linux in it's many distributions, different solutions to problems, etc. Then he points to his circle and says "look, Linux on the desktop isn't ready for the enterprise!"
To generalize his problems with Evolution working with Exchange to all of Linux is either dishonest, or (more likely) idiocy. Basically he tried to (on his own) get Linux working with existing infra-structure. It wasn't a company wide decision that investigated the possibilities, he just tried to do it himself, and failed. That's fine, we've all tried to accomplish some task and wound up not getting it to work, or giving up. The problem here is he's taken his experience to be some universal prognostication. He's by his own admission not an expert (he says he's tried Linux time to time). He also thinks his experience with StarOffice more than 8 years ago is somehow relevant to today. Not exactly evidence of high thinking abilities.
The problem with this article is the guy who wrote it doesn't have much of a lick of sense. The facts aren't really out of order, it's the conclusions he draws from them. If he had simply said "Evolution isn't ready for the Enterprise", or "boy, Star/Open Office sure did suck 8 years ago!" it might be a informative article.
Re:Linux is Inhibited by Greed (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, you'll discover that people want to view that data on their desktops. They want to use a single client application that integrates the various record types in a single window. Currently, I can access / modify / copy / delete the data using perl or php, and present it in a clean and readable format, but the user interface is not quite there.
At this point, further investment is needed to develop the client application. It needs to:
1. authenticate to the mail server
2. provide a visual environment for each record type - one for calendar, one for e-mail, one for contacts, one for tasks
3. copy / move / update / delete records to / from the central store to the client
4. be able to run on all flavours of *nix.
This investment must come either from business or from the developer community. Here's where it gets sticky.
As a developer, I just want my product completed and out there - in use by the world. I am forced to choose how it goes forward, or how it will die. If I go with business sponsorship - they would most likely wish to own the source code. The product ends up being proprietary, and will not advance as rapidly as an open software product.
However, if I seek assistance from the development community, it may never make it beyond the idea stage. Without devleopers that have the time to devote to the project, it will die on a shelf somewhere.
While healthy skepticism is good thing, assuming that something can't be done [even though it has ALREADY BEEN DONE] is not healthy. If you can afford to pay licensing on one thousand seats of Microsoft Outlook, you can afford to pay a developer to write a mail and calendar client application.
Re:Linux is Inhibited by Greed (Score:4, Insightful)
No need to work with exchange. Just need to replace exchange and do the job for the organisation that exchange does.
"Now, if private investors see that there's a profit to be made, sure, they might kick in to compete with Microsoft..."
Your whole last paragraph is predicated on a particular view of how software should be funded and made. To use a saying that still seems over popular:
Think outside the box.
Do you honestly think it is beyond the ability of the Frotune 500 to form a group and fund it with the express purpose of replacing exchange and outlook? Do you think it would overly tax their IT budgets? I think the big problem is that they don't see that it would benefit them or it would not benefit them.
I was responding to a problem that I had percieved (it was perhaps in the post I replied to or perhaps further up) where someone was saying that business needed this. My point was that if business needs, nothing is stopping them from paying for it and getting it.
Just because the software is Free, you are not forced to not pay for it.
all the best,
drew
Re:Linux is Inhibited by Greed (Score:2, Insightful)
Except it's rarely ever that cut & dried. I'm a Linux SysAdmin running dozens of Linux servers... as well as Solaris, Win2k & 2k3 boxes. Windows is still the defacto desktop so we use AD, and we also run Exchange because we need something that handles calendar sharing, resource scheduling, etc for our non-techie users who need various Windows specific software.
Meanwhile, I (and the other IT / Admin types who run Linux on their desk) are stuck running a Windows VM for the misc. junk that won't work under Linux. We're slowly shifting more and more servers to open source, but realistically, we can't just ditch the proprietary stuff. There's not always an open source replacement, and when there is, it doesn't always have the bells & whistles that our current stuff does.
Unfortunately, most IT shops out there tend to run a blend of platforms, so software that can play equally well with multiple platforms is a HUGE need for a fairly large chunk of the market. Saying that a shop needs to pick one and go with it is a non-starter, because each platform has its strengths & weaknesses... right now, picking the best tool for the job is far too difficult IMO, because of the integration & communication issues.
this guys is a cock (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Same Old, Same Old Story (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, because everyone who doesn't love absolutely everything about Linux is automatically a Microsoft shill.
If you want to integrate with Microsoft Exchange, you're an idiot in the first place.
Haha, he's an idiot for trying to integrate with a piece of software that a large portion of people in business use! What a fool!
There is nothing from Exchange either that most companies need or can't be found in other mail/groupware clients.
That may be true, but in the Real World you have to work with what's available. Try convincing the Powers That Be in a corporation that they need to scrap and replace Exchange with something else because you can't get Linux to work with it. See how many sentences you get in before they either start laughing or ask you to leave. Like it or not, Exchange is what people use. If Linux can't talk to it, well, that's a problem.
Re:Target audience...... (Score:1, Insightful)
Bingo. And that's the problem. I'd be happy to work on something like this, but I've never used any of this groupware stuff. The people who use the groupware stuff have no clue how to write it, and are barely articulate when it comes to explaining just what it is they do with it (especially when it comes to whats missing in the 70% solutions. The best I've seen is "but it doesn't directly rip Office off! How am I supposed to use it if it doesn't look exactly like Office!"). Finally, the people stuck administering this groupware stuff have better things to do than come home and write more groupware.
Get the people who would be using these tools to start writing use-case scenarios. Archive the whole lot of these and start prototyping. Start putting together applications from the prototypes and test against the use-case scenarios. You want to fight the 800lb engineered gorilla? Engineer King Kong.
What's the Point? (Score:2, Insightful)
Here's the thing. The entire concept of open source systems is intriguing to me... but I am constantly trying to understand what the revenue model is, and while the idealist in me wants to support the effort, and all of the IT folks around keep trying to argue how Novell and IBM and Red Hat seem to make money at it, the fundamental problem is that Linux and OSS solutions are, frankly, me-too solutions.
They are a result of people frustrated with an establishment and trying to do something which tears down the establishment through creation of this strange anarchical communist-like (non-?)establishment of their own. (That's the obvious and implied thread that runs throughout this thread and anything I've ever read from developers hooked on Linux.)
To me, that's pretty silly. You don't tear down an establishment by creating the same thing (eg., a substitute OS, substitute apps, emulation software). You DISPLACE an establishment by creating a better one... one with substantive differences from that old establishment. Linux isn't that answer. It's too similar to what has gone and been before, only has added a network of developers who donate their time (which is then leveraged by slightly better organized people who charge for their time through paid support.) Google and socially networked computing applications like YouTube and Flickr take the next steps toward some level of displacement, as they've added a social network of users of applications. Salesforce.com takes yet another step (albeit for a niche group) as it creates an environment for mashups--both socially networked "open" platform (really closed), and socially networked users. But I don't think it's the thing that's actually going to displace this establishment through creating a better one.
I loudly applaud the Open Source Linux community, yet IMHO they are not the next wave of software developers. They deserve most of the credit for the inception of the next wave of what will be the true displacement of Microsoft dependency: they've sowed the seeds of true creativity by making development and collaboration truly accessible to individuals. The next wave is not a replacement for Outlook and Exchange. It won't come from people donating their time. It will come from the efforts of people who both value openness and collaboration, yet still value their own time sufficiently to be given value in exchange for the value they provide. And no, I don't know what that is yet, anymore than you do. But I'm striving to find out. And striving to get paid for that.
We won't even be having conversations like this in another several years. Outlook won't even be significant, even if it remains predominant. Much like the VHS videotape. It will simply cease to be anything but an inexpensive utility, much like the Railroads at the turn of the previous century. Those railroads were tremendously progressive, and still have retained some level of efficacy. People tried to compete with them. And along came the automobile, far more interesting.
Who cares about email applications? Find the thing beyond group email. Stop imitating, you've learned all you can that way. Start innovating.
Re:Linux is Inhibited by Greed (Score:3, Insightful)
In my case, I am a TA on a large website which is spread on two RHEL servers running apache, jrun, coldfusion, and php. Early last year, we switched from windows, iis, and coldfusion and php. Actually, I have to say that the Windows servers were more stable. Same site, just about the same user base, etc etc, and yet now we have more server problems than ever. I don't know if its just because my company has better windows admins than linux admins or what, but it certainly wasn't the expected result (ironically, we moved to linux because it is recommended for 7x24 operations). On the other hand, having our code in a linux environment mandates that things be coded more carefully and therefore we have better code as a result. Ideally, we add two windows servers to our round robin setup and then if there are problems in either environment we have a live backup. Anyhow, I just put all this out there to support your statement. If I had to do it all over again, I'd have an equal number of Windows and Linux servers using round-robin DNS. That'll give you a much more reliable system than 100% one or the other. At least that's my theory.