Linux Starts to Find Home on Desktops 364
WSJdpatton writes "The much-hyped notion that Linux would be a viable alternative to Windows to run desktop and notebook PCs for corporate users seemed dead on arrival a few years ago. But the idea is showing some new vital signs as companies look for cheaper alternatives to Microsoft products. The Wall Street Journal outlines several firms that are reaping savings and stability on their workplace desktops by rolling out Linux distributions. 'Auto maker PSA Peugeot Citroën last month said it will start using Linux on 20,000 of its workers' PCs. Novell Inc., which sells a version of Linux and is supplying it to Peugeot, says it has recently signed up several large U.S. financial institutions that are installing Linux on some employee PCs. Sales of Linux PCs are showing a really nice uptick at Novell, says Ronald Hovsepian, chief executive of Novell.' Not everyone is a convert, though. 'The State of Illinois recently consolidated its IT systems onto Microsoft software -- and has no interest in using Linux, says Paul Campbell, director of the state's Central Management Services department. "We don't have time for science projects in state government," he says.'"
The Illini Case Study (or Lack Thereof) (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, where I work, if you make a statement like "would save our company $10 million" you kind of need to make a business case. A large part of the business case is having micro experiments & demonstrations & data to present to back up your business case. In fact, it's a lot like the scientific process where you present facts that prove your argument. Granted, it's not required to be that rigorous but you usually have to get those to agree with you through this.
If I were a tax paying Illini and that document was the only thing persuading me that my government should use Microsoft products, I would bitch. That's just me, though. I think precisely what this Joseph Campbell needs to do is a "science project" as he calls it. For some reason they're avoiding a "business science project" and I'm really questioning his motivation for circumventing that.
Ouch (Score:3, Insightful)
I felt that one hit my balls.
And we all know how efficient State Government is! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ouch (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't have time (Score:5, Insightful)
MS also donates software (and otherwise, I'm sure) heavily in districts where people of political influence reside.
It's sad, but I don't question that a good level of MS support in the government is simply bought - one way or another.
Mr. Campbell would be wise to word his MS preference carefully, as the voters of Illinois' citizens may feel their tax dollars should go to science projects that could save them tens of millions. Monies that could be put to good use for education in low income areas, real estate I'm well aware Illinois has in great abundance.
Re:Don't have time (Score:3, Insightful)
Windows Server has been gaining popularity lately with good cause- it's a product that's quickly improving.
Re:Don't have time (Score:1, Insightful)
Apparently, they don't have time for security either...
Or even time to evalutae what the options are before making a decision! Nope, just blindly make the M$ plunge and then claim that you some how saved money even though you never bothered to evaluate what the other options are and therefore have no idea as to their actual costs and don't really know if you did save money or not... (pauses to catch breath)
I think today my company will announce that we are switching over to Amiga, and it is going to save us billions of dollars. Because we don't have time for sci-fi conventions!
Linux has found a home on my laptop (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't have time (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, compared to Microsoft, pretty well any alternative is a magical security wand.
State governments don't have time for BS.
If only...
Windows Server has been gaining popularity lately with good cause- it's a product that's quickly improving.
I've been hearing that tune since Windows 2.0 came out. Lost interest long ago.
TWW
Re:The Illini Case Study (or Lack Thereof) (Score:2, Insightful)
Unnecessarily subsiding a monopoly using taxpayers money, could well be considered fraud.
Let's not ask why he never looked at alternative suppliers in his current role.
Where's the scientific data to support that claim? Where are the case studies?
In light of this guys comments and history, IL residents should complain to their governors office. I'm sure Campbell would happily consent to an audit to ensure everything is above board.
Re:Don't have time (Score:5, Insightful)
Decent IT departments have no problems with Linux either.
Re:80% Solution - Printing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Illini Case Study (or Lack Thereof) (Score:3, Insightful)
Why the hell shouldn't we? As far as I'm aware of, the govt is using our tax dollars to pay for it right?
Re:Linux discovers the trash can (Score:3, Insightful)
What interface are you referring to then?
The biggest drawback to Linux is that it requires a modicum of intelligence to learn. God forbid anyone should have to expend effort in an attempt to learn something new these days.
Re:Windows can be as secure as Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. For a normal person/environment, this is not the case. Out of the box, the average Linux distro is more secure than Windows Vista. If you put work into Vista you can make it about as secure from a technology perspective as the average Linux install, but you can't change the malware ecosystem which targets Windows more and presents it with more threats, making the overall risk on Windows greater. Also, for more secure, managed environments you can utilize SELinux or something that provides more fine grained control than Vista can offer in a usable environment unless you have access to the Windows source code, which normal people don't.
So if you're aiming for a level of security that is sort of middle of the road, then you can (with extra work) get Windows to the same state as the average Linux install, but you'll still have a higher risk. Further, if you're aiming for something above and beyond that, Windows just can't achieve some of the security layers that Linux can, so it will always be a bit behind.
Re:Windows can be as secure as Linux (Score:4, Insightful)
This is not even remotely true. Linux is inherently more secure than Windows by design, at least if the security-related features are actually used (and I'm not even referring to selinux, for which there is no Windows analogue.) And on top of that, security holes in Linux are typically fixed much faster.
I do not agree that it is possible to make Windows as secure as Linux unless you're not even turning the Windows machine on. And even if it were true, with the same amount of effort put into both, you could still stay far out ahead with Linux.
Re:Said it before... (Score:4, Insightful)
To be quite frank, software freedom is kinda an out-there idea for a lot of people not closely associated with FOSS or computers in general. Dropping that on their lap is likely to put them off. If you can frame it in a way that illustrates exactly how it benefits them without bringing all the emotional baggage that typical FOSS screeds carry, then you will be a lot more successful.
Thats why people talk about cost a lot. Its a very effective trojan to get FOSS into businesses.
Re:Don't have time (Score:5, Insightful)
All of which is bullshit because the moron at the Illinois state office said, "We don't have time for science projects..." - which is a clear demonstration that he has no clue what he's talking about when it comes to Linux and therefore isn't a competent IT person.
The bottom line for any IT department should be just that - the bottom line. And Windows is KNOWN and DEMONSTRATED by industry statistics for being detrimental to the bottom line because of the costs of licensing, the cost of unreliabiliy and downtime, the cost of insecurity, the cost of complexity, and the cost of vendor lock-in compared to UNIX in general and Linux in particular.
COMPETENT IT organizations will choose that software which over time will be cheaper to own and operate. Training costs are a small part of that effort - and would not be a problem had not INCOMPETENT IT organizations chosen to lock themselves into Microsoft products.
Then I have a suggestion for your boss (Score:5, Insightful)
Either hire a better administrator OR just suck it up and be a windows shop.
The simple fact is that lack of skills in your employees is a problem you have to deal with in many fields, either hire better ones, train the ones you got OR do without that skill.
It is the reaon you see those semi-cars. They are small trucks drivable with a car license that have a setup similar to a semi (those big trucks with a tractor element and the eh cargo element (am I dazzling you with my tech speak yet?)) because transport companies find it impossible to hire enough people with truck licenses (and are unwilling to train new ones). They offer more cargo space then a van wich in some business is more important then their low weight limit.
Linux will have to be a choice similar to that, you can forget getting your nephews 12 year old kid to configure it, you are going to have to move your business software of Excell and you are going to have to hire someone who in 2007 isn't still baffled by setting up a printer.
Oh am I too harsh? Well, I am so sorry but for the last decade I seen nothing but people come up with one excuse after another why Linux is so hard, while at the same time I get those things working without a sweat. Am I that brilliant, are you that stupid OR are you just making up excuses.
Use windows, but don't try to put the blame on linux.
Science Projects (Score:2, Insightful)
What if Chicago donated the time of all the workers painting "Richard M. Daley, Mayor" on every garbage can in the city? That could free a lot of time.
Default and easily are relevant (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't have time (Score:4, Insightful)
No, industry studies have proven that using COMPUTERS WITH SOME OS gets things done faster and cheaper over paper and pencil. The fact that the only OS studied was Windows is not relevant.
And you can't compare an OS that has had hardware vendor lock-in for the last fifteen years - and was the ONLY available cheap OS (DOS) for ten years previous to that - with an OS that only became usable in the last five or so.
That says nothing about which OS is better NOW. It also doesn't say anything about the excessive costs of the Microsoft approach.
Linux can facilitate a lot of low-cost common denominator products just as well as Windows - once people realize that the OSS development model is just as good as the commercial development model (and Linux can use the commercial model just as well as Windows, in any event.)
It simply hasn't reached critical mass yet to do so - and that is because of vendor and corporate inertia encouraged by Microsoft with their contracts, their glad-handling sales reps, and their pseudo-monopoly status.
The point is, to paraphrase Microsoft, where do corporation want to go? To more vendor lock-in, insecurity, unreliabiliy, and expense - or change the terms of engagement and try a different approach which is already demonstrating its feasibility in large-scale deployments?
Do corporations really want to make Bill Gates richer while getting nothing but headaches in return, or do thsy want to get on with THEIR business and put some of that saved money into THEIR business?
In the end, it really comes down to: is there ANYBODY in corporate management who has a clue?
Oh, wait, never mind.
Re:Don't have time (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't have time (Score:2, Insightful)
I miss Illinois some days; it was corrupt, but it was competent corruption.
Re:Windows can be as secure as Linux (Score:4, Insightful)
When on fire you're just as secure as when you're not, for definitions of "secure" that mean you are unlikely to be hit by a russian nuclear device. Seriously, that's not a very reasonable definition of "secure" and even looking at that premise there is at least one outstanding, public privilege escalation in Vista right now and there almost always is in the current version of windows, while the same is not true on Linux. MS has never taken local escalations seriously.
Windows is the low hanging fruit both because of default security and because of the monoculture install base size. Because of the increased risk on Windows and the education level of the users, its security needs to be technically superior to Linux to achieve the same risk and that is just not likely to happen anytime soon.
not microsoft's fault (Score:1, Insightful)
What I think is hilarious, is that when you mentioned something like "problems with linux" people will say something like "what problems?" or "that doesn't compare to problem x that windows has." Well obviously it does, because on the desktop people have made that comparison and chosen the competition...
Arguing for linux on the desktop is a process of denial, blame, and self righteousness that I have no interest in taking part in.
Re:not microsoft's fault (Score:4, Insightful)
In all honesty, were Windows open source - my perspective might well change. I couldn't honestly say, since that option obviously not available. But I would certainly give it a chance.
An example would be an issue one of my desktops has with msvcirt.dll that causes issues with (some) C/C++ compiled programs. It's a known issue, and there is even a hotfix that was developed in October of 2004. Amazing how it's still a hotfix, in 2007. I can even get the hotfix - all I have to do is pay $59. I might even be able to get it free by calling MS and sitting through a half hour of interrogation about my Windows license (And yes, it's legit - OEM from Dell, it's the principle of the matter that bothers me most. If I wanted to be treated like a criminal just to be a customer, I'd buy music CDs, too.)
It sounds to me the process of denail, blame, and self righteousness might be at work here -- but I don't believe it's in support for Linux adoption. Linux is free. It is also an extremely reliable platform. Most importantly, it is an open system. Should something go wrong, you are able to fix it yourself -- should you be capable.
The only thing I see giving MS an advantage is the fact they already have the majority of the market-share. As MS' market-share lowers and Linux adoption grows, we will see a greater level of commercial software development on Linux -- and the game will certainly change then. Personally, though, unless you use MS Office or play games only available to Windows -- there's really no benefit to having Windows over Linux aside from preferences. And I imagine a great many people will always prefer Windows because it is familiar, if nothing else. Honestly, for the work I do on the PC -- were it not for the completely crap inability I have to fix problems within Windows due to it's closed nature -- I would probably prefer Windows for the GUI environment. I guess I just like the GUI better, to be frank. But when it comes to the dirty 'real' work - I will always have a preference for the unix-like command line of Linux.
Then again, if UltraEdit-32 was available on Linux, haha - that might change too. Ohh my, what a mind twister!
In the end, both OS' have room for improvement. I like them both, but to say anyone promoting either OS is in denial, blame, or self-righteous is just arrogant at best.