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."
Works for me. (Score:3, Interesting)
But, then again, my users aren't exactly "power users", if you know what I mean. Give 'em a locked down desktop with email, web, and desktop publishing (OOo), and they're fine.
Re:Linux is Inhibited by Greed (Score:4, Interesting)
What really astonishes me is that open source has made such great leaps in other areas yet there's no apparent replacement for Outlook & Exchange. For a huge number of folk in business, having an open office suite is useless if they don't have calendar sharing, resource scheduling and email/contact sharing amongst groups. Is this really so difficult to achieve?
Push email has already taken off - where's the open source version mobile operators can take up (Though I presume this needs to be developed outside the US to avoid software patent litigation)?
Re:Waaaaa. (Score:5, Interesting)
no it's not. Install a small group of citrix servers and use a linux client. works great.
your incredibly important windows apps (no do not allow office, only the vertical apps) work 100% on that linux desktop.
It's half assed linux transitions that dont take account for ways to run those applications that fail and get an article published how "they gave up"
Good reasons to gave up on MS OSs actually... (Score:3, Interesting)
Face it, you can use a mixed environment, like Mac OS with Linux with FreeBSD with HP-UX with Solaris with... except MS-Windows than is unable (well, unwilling) to interoperate.
BTW, the concern with word documents is quite cheap. I never send
Re:It is the general Linux Comunity fault. (Score:3, Interesting)
Precisely. And far too much Linux documentation is written by Linux experts for an expected audience of other Linux experts. If you don't understand a sequence of ridiculously abbreviated unix console commands, or don't know what to do when they don't work as expected, then it's your fault.
I love many aspects of Linux, and I love the way many of the applications for it have been put together by enthusiasts who really know and care what makes a good application. But I've gone through just as many aborted attempts at implementing things in Linux as this guy, only to give up in frustration because something won't work and the only help available seems to assume that you're happy and able to begin by recompiling your kernel or something. There is simply no way that Linux is ready for the average user to configure and maintain happily on their own.
The question really is, why is this the case? Linux developers are certainly no less skilled than any other OS developers, and they've had years to get this right. The only answer I can think of is that the Linux community is hampered by the fact that it is top-heavy with 'gurus'. They need more people who need things explained to them in simple terms, people who don't want to be told how to fix things in a 100 character command line string. Only then will they appreciate just how far Linux is from being a universal desktop system.
I wonder how his car runs... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yup. The obvious inference is that Dodge makes the worst cars in the world, since their parts won't fit into a Ford...
Re:Waaaaa. (Score:3, Interesting)
It All Depends on What You Do (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, I understand that not all IT people have the power and control that I have and they are saddled with what their company offers them. But that's no reflection on Linux. If there is an application that you MUST have on your desktop to get work done and it only runs on Windows, then by all means use Windows. But again, don't blame Linux for restrictions that come from your software vendor or market segment. Hell, if there were a professional job that required you to play the latest and greatest PC games, you'd be an idiot to say "I'd use Linux here at work if it didn't suck so much". You can't fault companies who don't develop for Linux because they are concerned about their bottom line. But you also can't fault Linux because those companies chose their financial destiny vs. a potential darkhorse.
From TFA: I purchased third-party provided connectors into Exchange, and ran Office-type applications as well.
I would say that's his first mistake. I suspect he's talking about Ximian Gnome's Evolution and OpenOffice.org. Evolution is a nice application, but it's not the best way to go if you live in an Exchange shop. You'd be better off using RDP or Citrix to publish the app from a server and having a thin client app on your Linux desktop. Or, you could at the very least access Outlook Web Agent using IE in Wine, a virtual machine or again via RDP or Citrix. OpenOffice.org? Hard for me to say as I have little use for Office software. When I use OpenOffice.org 2.0, it "just works" for me in terms of opening documents. I don't really have much need to edit them, so I don't know of the woes of conversion. But... again, I'd suggest, CrossOver Office, virtualization of a Windows machine or RDP/Citrix. These work for me as the need arises.
One thing I question in all of this is why people seem so averse to virtualization? It's the perfect solution especially with the new hardware assistance in new CPUs (AMD's Pacifica and Intel's Vanderpool). I used virtualization since VMWare came out in 97/98, moved to QEMU circa 2004 and then Xen in 2005. Outside of gaming, virtualization is perfect. It allows you access to all applications you would need for most businesses. If you are truly in an enterprise situation then it's likely that you have VLK for Windows XP anyway... so installing Windows in a VM shouldn't be a licensing issue either. And in terms of performance, with hardware assistance and Xen, you can get close to 99% of the bare metal speed. Not to mention that unlike older virtualization technologies, your virtualized OS IS running on the metal for the most part. It's NOT running within another OS at all. Reread that last line so it sinks in. I repeat, with virtualization software like Xen and hardware assisted virtualization, your "guest" OS is running NEXT TO and NOT on top of the managing OS instance.
Since the performance is there, and true enterprises use VLK for Windows desktop, why not use virtualization for that small handful of apps you really need? Or remote desktop/Citrix? Unless you're trying to run some really niche market visualization software that requires 3D acceleration, or you're in multimedia content production, Linux has been ready for the desktop for close to a decade.
Re:Linux is Inhibited by Greed (Score:5, Interesting)
This looks promising
Re:Misleading, and retarded (Score:5, Interesting)
Often times, the reason Linux is the wrong tool for the job because the job has the unstated requirement of being doable by people who only have experience with Windows.
Re:Linux is Inhibited by Greed (Score:3, Interesting)
But a lot of the developers don't get paid, and most of the software is available for free.
Really, there's been a lot of commercial investment in some aspects of Linux/FOSS.
But there hasn't really been the kind of comprehensive, holistic commercial investment in Linux as a fully-featured, well-rounded OS that other operating systems seem to enjoy (with varying degrees of success, to be sure, but more success than Linux for some).
Re:Linux is Inhibited by Greed (Score:3, Interesting)
It has shared calendar, resource scheduling, email&contacts etc, it even syncs with your palm.
But if you need something more professional, just take out your wallet and go for groupwise [novell.com]
Linux works just fine in corporate networks. It's exchange, outlook and their nonstandard quirks which are causing the problems.
Just replace those and you're golden.
Re:Skip the blog post masquerading as an article. (Score:1, Interesting)
Why yes, that would be the case.
It's the first thing I thought of looking at those screenshots...
Those buttons were probably removed to remove duplicate functionality
Maybe the checkboxes thing was just "obvious" to me because I've used other mailers/news readers where the subscribe dialog typically has you check boxes next to groups/folders/whatever that you want to subscribe to. (Thunderbird for example)
Anyways, it clearly isn't brain surgery like the author of this rant would have us believe.
Re:Trying Linux Since 1994 (Score:3, Interesting)
You give me a story where grandma bought a computer and installed Windows and has had it running for a few years without any problems.
My mother (the equivalent of grandma in many of these stories) gets along on Windows alright, but she didn't install it herself. She bought an HP computer with Windows pre-installed along with an anti-virus. If she'd had to install Windows herself, she would have given up and called me. She wouldn't have thought to install an anti-virus, and we would have been reinstalling a couple months down the line. Almost every time I'm home from school my mom has something on her computer she needs me to install/fix/show her how to do.
Now take Ubuntu. The Ubuntu installer asks a few straightforward questions (language, keyboard layout, location, name and password, and the most difficult is which drive to install to), and is booted to a functional installation of Ubuntu less than 45 minutes after putting in the install CD. No need for an anti-virus. Office Suite comes pre-installed, along with web browsing utilities, media players, etc. If a family member needed my support, I could probably step them through installing SSH on the phone or by e-mail, then SSH into their box to install programs or fix things.
I'm not saying Linux is right for every user. For example, my dad has been hearing me rave about Linux for a good year now, and thinks he might like to try it. I'm more than happy to help him set it up, but I know he'll be back to Windows before too long because the HVAC simulation software he uses for work won't run on Linux and his investment software is also Windows only. I don't fault him for using Windows, because he actually has things he needs out of his computer that Linux can't offer.
What I am saying is I'd much rather install and support Linux for a family member than install and support Windows. Grandma is going to need help getting her computer up and keeping it running whether she's using Windows or Linux. If I'm going to be providing that help, I'd rather she use Linux.
Re:Linux is Inhibited by Greed (Score:4, Interesting)
I like the product, but if this is supposed to be a method of replacing exchange w/ open source, why do we not have the ability to work w/ mozilla products outside of a simple mail server? it's one thing to migrate exchange, but I would like to see some effort put in to allow the migration away from outlook. And if it takes the mozilla folks working w/ the zimbra folks, I say great!
Re:Wrong approach? (Score:3, Interesting)
I've always wondered though - could you do the same with Linux with roughly equivalent cost? I mean to do the above requires alot of IT resources for making MSI packages, group policies, SMS / AD administration, etc, etc. If you had the equivalent Linux gurus is it also that easy to setup? Our setup is the same and I can think of kindof how you would do it with Linux but, say, is there some equivalent of SMS in the Linux world?
Just curious - the only primarily Linux shop I've ever worked in was small enough that such things didn't make sense to setup.
No Replacement for Exchange? (Score:5, Interesting)
I believe that's a complete replacement for both Outlook and Exchange, and I even added some nifty security features while I did so. Total cost is $0 for software, and about 2 hours of my time (at most) to set it up. That comes in comfortably under the cost of Exchange + Outlook, even if my time is worth $500/hr.
but.. (Score:4, Interesting)
I've never had any significant issues, which from experience isn't true at all of any Microsoft products we'vetried as alternatives. They have repeatedly proved themselves to be of inferior quality and/or performance.
You're saying basically what the original post is (Score:4, Interesting)
Our company is the same. Our previous IT "guy" was 100% *nix. He used to bring in different flavors of *nix on a CD and say, "Hey, Try these!". I use Windows normally, but he knew I was a system and network admin of Solaris systems running on Sun machines. As hard as he tried, we (like the article's author) just couldn't make it work for the company. I manage about 18 people and I tried making OpenOffice work, but as soon as we tried working with someone's M$ file (from PowerPoint or Word), the document was really screwy. It got to the point that I'd sometimes just export information as an HTML file so that I knew the style, format and look would stay intact (but they couldn't modify it well with Oo). I eventually asked for 18 M$ licenses, and was limited due to fiscal decisions to only 8. The 8 who got full M$ office had no problems, and the rest limped along.
Now, 3 years later, the remaining Linux systems and OpenSource software is on it's way out the door. Exectutives are now balking at limited Calender and some other limitations. You might say, "What has changed?" We're getting executives from other, more technologically advanced companies. So they want the full functionality (which, regretfully, means tons of more meetings....something I didn't miss from my previous, IT-savy company).
Although, it's ironic I got the CEO and other VPs hooked on WebCalendar [sourceforge.net] for scheduling outside of work.
Re:I wonder how his car runs... (Score:3, Interesting)
You probably glossed over the part in his article where he granted that, if he didn't need to interact with Microsoft products every day, he would have been just fine, because Linux worked quite well on its own. He's not complaining about Dodge parts and cars not being any good, easy to use, or interoperable. He's merely owning up to the fact that, in a Microsoft-dominated corporate world, he's been unable to be a (corporate) Linux user.
Re:You're saying basically what the original post (Score:3, Interesting)
I recently tried to do a custom LAMP install of the latest versions of Apache, PHP, modperl, and MySQL. After downloading about 20 source packages (custom install, remember), and following five different forum's instructions, I managed to get it all working except modperl. I'll need to recompile Apache when I feel like having another go at getting modperl to work. There's a lot of gotchas, a lot of "this version doesn't work with that version", some "you can't use the binary install of MySQL if you want it compiled into PHP", and if you want to run both the mysql and mysqli extensions for PHP, you need to hand edit your Makefile.
Or you could run windows, double-click on wamp_install.exe and then add your custom extensions after by dropping in
Re:Linux is Inhibited by Greed (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Wait, what? (Score:2, Interesting)
Without getting too flamish, though, that doesn't seem to be the way Free Software works. From the very beginning, the idea was to duplicate other people's work in an effort to provide various liberties. It's sort of cultural. (And don't get too mad that I said that - after all, what exactly was the point of Gnu when it was founded?)
It's sort of a sea-change in core attitude to switch over to a pure innovation model, but it's not impossible by any means. The hardest step is the first. Someone needs to step up as a benevolent dictator and get the whole thing rolling under a cohesive vision. Things seem to flow from that point. The vision until now was to replace the work other people did under a proprietary model. That's been largely accomplished, and certainly there is more than enough in place to consider the job good enough. Now there should be a shift to meet the new needs, one that will take the Free solution from good enough to better than.
Re:Linux is Inhibited by Greed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:And another problem (Score:3, Interesting)
Hey, last time that I looked at Linux it was ok. It was the Linux apps and community that are the problems.
Yet all the time I see GIMP advocated as a replacement. I get the same thing with pro audio. I've asked, in all seriousness, for tools that can replace the expensive commercial tools like Cubase and Sonar. Invariably I get pointed to Audacity and Ardour. When I point out the massive flaws and shortcommings, I get yelled at, told to "fix it yourself the code is open", and so on.
This is the single reason why OSS will never make it in the corporate world and some home users of the professional product would avoid OSS as well. Not everyone is a freaking programmer or cares. If I use Photoshop, I'm trying to edit a photo. I'm not trying to program some thing. If you are trying to tell me Gimp is better or a replacement for Photoshop, it better do "everything" that I need done. If there are short comings taht I tell you Gimp doesn't do. I'm not going to fix your solution. I have a solution. It's worth $650 to have that rather than a $0 solution that doesn't solve my personal problems. Personally, Gimp most likely does do what I need. Its other things like Outlook/Exchange or heck an Access replacement rather than SQL Server replacement. Access is great for quick and dirty databases. I'm sure that there is an OSS solution for quick and dirty databases that you don't want CS professors to look at, but would get your problem fixed. If I don't have quick and easy access to exactly what I need, its your fault not mine. I have Office with Access. I didn't ask for a server database backend solution. I asked for a Access replacement. MySQL can be better than Access, but for the new or average user, Access beats MySQL easy. SQL is just "too hard." What the OSS crowd needs to learn is that their $0 dollar solution isn't a solution if it doesn't fit the needs of my $300-$1,500 current solution. It doesn't matter if its windows, office, exchange, photoshop, IE, autocad, or arcview. If the OSS can't do what our current solution is or is a drop in replacement for it. Then it isn't a viable replacement product. It's noticable that FireFox is the only major OSS program that most folks use because it runs on windows and is better than IE for most people. OSS has alot of catching up to do. It can be done, just don't tell me to do it myself when I've already paid someone else to do it, and they have a solution. You know the business standard software products. Be better and compatiable with them, and you have a chance otherwise don't bother folks time with your religious rantings when they are trying to do something other than program with the tools. Apps are tools for most people.
Re:Some people don't look hard enough... (Score:1, Interesting)
Anyone who confuses Thunderbird with a simple e-mail client that's the equivalent of Outlook has obviously never used Outlook.
As for Sunbird... it's not even as close.
One thing is obvious about Linux is that the geeks are designing the interfaces - or rather allowing the interfaces to happen rather than designing them. Even OpenOffice 2.x - which is quite a good effort - is amazingly dumb about some UI design issues.
I am in the same boat. I just bought my 4th copy of Mandrake/Mandriva. I've used 8.2, 10.1, 2006 and now 2007. You know what? The geeks are writing the interfaces. Anyone who has endured trying to get internet connection sharing working under Linux vs. the 30 seconds it takes to set it up on Windows will immediately understand why Windows is worth $150 and Linux isn't worth the free price tag.
Linux and Xeno have something in common - they both keep getting halfway there... but never quite arrive even after many halfway steps.
Re:Linux is Inhibited by Greed (Score:2, Interesting)
Having all the eggs in one basket doesn't only mean that it is much more vulnerable to corruption, it also means that it ruins the Linux community's typical strategy of divide-the-workload and conquer.
Re:Linux is Inhibited by Greed (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:Linux is Inhibited by Greed (Score:3, Interesting)
Corporate internal web application developers will simply have to learn to cope with non-IE browsers. That will happen when there's a demand for it (which will be soon; Microsoft can't fool everyone forever). Firefox is particularly good to test against, as it runs on both Windows and GNU/Linux.
Re:Linux is Inhibited by Greed (Score:1, Interesting)
That would suggest that there's a competition between OSS and proprietary software. Proprietary supporters may see it that way, but I'm fairly sure that the OSS people don't. Often, people from a proprietary background expect OSS to fill all their needs, and fill it for nothing, because that's what they NEED. They're not interested in paying for it, yet when they find it's not there, they get crappy because they need it and a real, commercial solution (that they had paid for) would have it.
This is the problem - that OSS is expected (by proprietary supporters) to perform as a commercial development outfit. The reality is, it doesn't work like that, and it's not a flaw in OSS. The flaw lies in the expectations of the proprietary crowd.
OSS is like a business in that, if you want something, you pay for it. You don't pay for the end product, you pay for the product to be constructed. Nobody's stopping anybody from doing that.
Re:Linux is Inhibited by Greed (Score:3, Interesting)
I am happy solving my mouse problem with my better mousetrap. If they don't see how it can benefit their bottom line, fine.
So, perhaps there is no problem at all then?
all the best,
drew
Re:Linux is Inhibited by Greed (Score:3, Interesting)
POP3 is fine if you're only ever going to be working in one place, but the first time you start working from home, and part of your mail goes home, and part of it is at the office, or you have to start screwing around with "leave messages on server"...It's far more trouble than it's worth, and it's an obvious loss of functionality. Say goodbye to web mail interfaces.
And that doesn't even touch the other crap that you're going to need to provide to get people off Exchange. You need shared calendars, shared email folders, and fancy LDAP mail directories, and shared contacts, tasks, notes...There is no open source product out there that provides half that stuff.
Then lets talk about the Crackberry, and all the goddamn executives that make you make everything friendly to their goddamn PDAs. All this stuff integrates with Microsoft. All this stuff integrates with Lotus. Do you have any conception how annoying it is to build hotsyncing into an application?
In order to build a product to replace Exchange, you first have to understand why people want more than just an email client. Christ, if that was all they really needed, we could still be running mm or Pine.
I've switched to Linux in the workplace (Score:3, Interesting)
The Windows Start menu just seems so archaic, compared to clicking on the desktop background and selecting commonly run applications. Then there's the virtual desktops, which I move between by using Mouse Flip with a border resistance of zero. It's great just to flick between screens with the flick of a mouse. Lastly, the command line is just way faster than any gui configuration, and much more convenient, assuming you're already familiar with what you're configuring (that's the catch of course).
I actually get irritated using a Windows machine now. I find it a hindrance while working, having to click on menus, run through multiple levels of dialogs, to achieve something that would take me a second on the command line. Not that everything is initially streamlined on the Linux side, but the point is, you can change things in Linux. I've created any number of aliases and shell/perl scripts to help me out with things I do commonly. You just can't do that in Windows for the most part.