Linux & the Business Desktop 270
Ulwarth writes: "Desktop Linux is running a feature documenting a mid-sized company switching to Linux on the desktop, like the City of Largo but this time in a corporate environment. Proof that it can be done - at least for businesses which need only the 'standard' office apps."
Triumph of Linux (Score:2, Funny)
I hope these stories end soon... (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as "Linux on the Desktop" is newsworthy, then linux has not really gained acceptance.
Re:I hope these stories end soon... (Score:2)
Re:I hope these stories end soon... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is yet another in the recent stream of "Linux on the Desktop -- can it work?"
IMHO, as long as articles continue to begin this way, linux has not gained acceptance as a desktop OS.
When the articles emphasize how easy the migration to linux is, and how much more efficient (not just cheaper) the workplace can be using all of the linux applications, then linux has been accepted.
Note that even in this article which is showing linux in a positive light, there are still complaints about it:
printing has always been a nightmare on Linux
[KOffice] but simply because it still doesn't offer the maturity necessary to be a true day-to-day business tool
Konqueror is a great browser, though it has its share of problems
...And many more complaints.
Re:I hope these stories end soon... (Score:5, Insightful)
There were recently several stories (not on /.) about various companies and their experiences in switching over to Windows XP. Does this mean that Windows has not really gained acceptance?
This *is* the beginning of Linux as a desktop, and is has not (and probably will never) gained total, 100% acceptance. Such stories are good to have as signposts of acceptance, and the stories of their sucess tend to cause other businesses to go out on a limb with the minority desktop. When it *really* gets accepted, you'll see stories all over the place still, but then you'll see hundreds of books in your local bookstore "Migrating from Windows to Linux" - literally hundreds, like the DOS -> Windows conversion, the Novell -> NT conversion, and so on. It will get *more* visible, not less as the switchover occurs.
And I was going to couch all statement with "if it occurs" statements. And, not being a fortuneteller, I cannot predict the future with absolute certainty. But I really do think that Linux *will* be the desktop of the future, probably for corporate users at first, and then down to the home users. Not because it's better either - just because it's easier and cheaper.
--
Evan
Re:I hope these stories end soon... (Score:2)
Precisely - and the fact that there are news stories about the companies making the switch does not comment for or against the eventual acceptance of either XP or Linux.
Which is the point I started out to make and got a bit sidetracked off of. ;)
--
Evan
Re:I hope these stories end soon... (Score:2)
Linux has gained all the acceptance it needs. It's on my hard drive, and I get work done with it and have fun with it. After that, it's just cheering your team on, and every "play", "score", and "tactic" is bantered about ceaselessly.
--
Evan
Re:I hope these stories end soon... (Score:3, Insightful)
But those stories serve as Marketing campaings. I mean, AFAIK, there's no http://marketing-Linux.sourceforge.net project nor you can go and provide a CD with marketing-Linux-kit-101.tar.gz to magazines, on-line sites and such.
Those news serve the purpose of a "GPL/comunnity-style" advertising.
Some corporations form the Northwest of the USA [microsoft.com] and other locations spend millions on advertisement and silly desktop backgrouds to appeal CIOs buying agenda.
The Community should appeal to them with "Yet Another Linux is Ready for the Desktop" group of news. This way, it can make its way to zdnet [zdnet.com], Infoworld [infoworld.com], ComputerWorld [computerworld.com], CIO Magazine [www] and the likes.
Re:I hope these stories end soon... (Score:2, Funny)
(Sorry, this makes half the other \. comments redundant
I know this is OT and I'm sorry....but I have to ask. What exactly is Backslashdot?
Re:I hope these stories end soon... (Score:2, Funny)
Why only "standard" Office apps? (Score:2, Insightful)
Bacause... (Score:2)
Also there isn't an open source equivalent for scheduling and messaging software, such as Exchange. This is something I would really like to see change before too much more time elapses.
not only office-apps (Score:3, Insightful)
Dreamworks in glendale Los Angeles, CA has switched large parts of their desktops to linux.
And been successfull in the transition too.
Good Article (Score:5, Informative)
I like the way that they describe the practical side of the transition - i.e., moving new users over instead of people comfortable to sit on the top of the learning curve that they've already scaled.
My outfit is looking at Linux desktops in a more scientific and engineering environment.
But we share a similar need to deal with the ubiquitous .doc, .xls and .ppt files that are endemic in the corporate world.
I like their setup with KDE, but I've thought that using Evolution would be a nicer MUA.
It's great they can do so well with StarOffice 5.2 that has its share of glitches and user interface problems.
If only StarOffice 6 would finally come out!
I believe that single product, SO 6, with updated filters for the aforementioned "standard" file formats and non-monolithic user interface, will do more to unleash a flood of Linux desktop migration than any other single product (unless AOL 9.0 includes Linux).
AOLinux (Score:2, Funny)
Can you imagine it now? "You've got root!"
Joe H.
Re:AOLinux (Score:2)
I prefer...
You've got mail(1)!
file formats (Score:2)
- MS has no reason (NONE) to adopt a single, open file format. Forget it. If one is presented, they'll embrace and extend, just like they did with HTML.
- Benefits of OpenOffice != hardware savings + licensing costs. There are switching costs involved, irrespective of whether the UI is monolithic or not, and they're nontrivial. The cost models I've thought about involve a relatively massive up front cost that'll defray itself over several years, and that's not a model that businessPeople will buy into on a large scale.
- MS are a bunch of buttheads, but they adapt well. Win2k isn't THAT unstable, and is perfectly useable as a business desktop (NOT as servers). What, exactly, does linux afford that W2K doesn't, now that the stability differentiation has been reduced considerably?
If your engineers need linux for the HW benefits, that's one thing, but there's a looong way between kludging something together for a specific subsection of an organization, and doing it for an entire company. Besides, as mentioned before, an AOL version of linux would make just about everybody puke. If you're trolling, congratulations.Re:file formats (Score:2)
Are you comparing like with like, e.g. moving from MS Office to OpenOffice with changing from MS Office whatever to MS Office XP.
1. MS are a bunch of buttheads, but they adapt well. Win2k isn't THAT unstable, and is perfectly useable as a business desktop (NOT as servers). What, exactly, does linux afford that W2K doesn't, now that the stability differentiation has been reduced considerably?
Ability of remote administration. Application settings are discrete, rather than all in one monolithing "registry". None of this "profile" copying stuff back and forth on log in/out. Which can mean you need a network capable of a high peak usage, but which is idle most of the time.
Re:file formats (Score:2)
I think so. My suspicion is that there wouldn't be nearly as much retraining required to move from OfficeX to Office(X+2). Having said that, I haven't touched anything XP yet, nor do I hope to.
Re:file formats (Score:3, Insightful)
The filters have extremely little to do with the problem.
I beg to differ. From the perspective of someone who uses Word, Excel and Powerpoint day in and day out, one of the biggest stumbling blocks to a migration to Linux is being able to communicate effectively in these formats, which are a de facto standard. If there's a difference, however small, in how those formats are interpreted under StarOffice compared to how they are interpreted under MS Office, then that is one glitch too many for users that are transitioning.
I agree, MS has no reason to adopt a single, open file format. From a business perspective, they have everything to gain by keeping such standards under their control and making all access to such standards require a payment to Redmond. MS will continue to follow the same strategy of "upgrading into incompatiblity", as Office XP Word attachments arrive on the desks of Office 97 users, ever so gently goading them into an upgrade merely to be able to read and write attachments that their friends are sending from WinXP machines (which are pretty much all you can find at the stores) Funny how that works.
As far as I can tell, the biggest costs of switching are in user retraining. The software cost savings of desktop Linux are a given; the added benefit of not being put on a forced upgrade treadmill is an additional savings; finally, the need of keeping track of MS licenses is eliminated. Those are all significant real benefits that anyone in IT decision-making should weight, but it is not the entire equation as far as costs are concerned.
It's all the secretaries that learn the quirks of Word for a period of years that represent an investment in user training that can only be partially recouped by switching to StarOffice, and that only to the degree that the user interface and behavior of SO mimics MS Word.
I'll agree that Win2K is reasonable as far as MS operating systems are concerned. It's quite usable. But there's the rub!
Win2K is fine if you need a operating system with a stable win32 API for office productivity applications.But if your Win2K Enterprise Licensing costs will be forced through the roof unless you buy XP real soon (reminds me of some car-buying experiences), MS is forcing you to make a choice of upgrading, even though Win2K will work just fine for many years to come, if you had any say in the matter.
Very well, you must consider an upgrade, because of MS business tactics. In that case, I submit that you have an opportunity to at least consider Linux on the desktop as an alternative. If you're serious about your IT costs, then you really are obligated to consider the alternatives at every step of the game.
Re:file formats (Score:2)
OTOH, making a business case for all that retraining, just so you can recover productivity to get back to where you were before the migration is a real bitch.
Believe me, I've been trying.
Re:AOL 15.0 maybe, not 9.0 (Score:2)
Well, maybe, but they're sorta roped into doing so by their need to sell Office2K2. Personally, I think pretty much everything that might be useful was in Office95, but that hasn't stopped everyone from upgrading. Besides which, it would be the first move they'd make if/when a competitive OpenOffice becomes available. Plus, MS has screwed over its own users before by making the formats completely incompatible (O98 v. O95, IIRC), so there's nothing saying they won't do it again.
MS'll also have quicker access to the new format, and the upgrade path is cleaner for PHBs. The OpenOffice people are going to have to decode the format, reprogram, test, release, and it'll take a while.
There's also no guarantee the formats will match perfectly. During my testing, I found a couple of (insignificant) differences trying to translate docs between Word and StarOffice, and this was an allegedly compatible release.
3. Eliminated licensing fees and (potentially) faster administration.
Touche, although I don't know about how big the licensing costs for all the assorted programs would be. WinZip, for instance, is something like $10 per in groups of 50, $4 per above 500 users, and they offer a site license that is presumably even cheaper. Hardly savings to get excited about.
Believe me, I'd be thrilled if we could run all the secretaries in our organization on X terminals with one Linux box at the core, but it's far more difficult to justify than the original poster implied.
Re:AOL 15.0 maybe, not 9.0 (Score:2)
Well, let's try the new licensing scheme that MS wants to move to. Having to "rent" my software would provide significant incentive AGAINST upgrading. And I remember the difficulty I experience years ago when my company had just upgraded to the latest version of Office, and we had some difficulty sharing files with some of our customers and partners. We had to be extremely careful. You can't go tell your customer to install the "converter" for their version of Office so that they can view the new files that you are sending them. You have to remember to save a copy in THEIR format, and then reload it to make sure you didn't lose anything in the translation.
Touche, although I don't know about how big the licensing costs for all the assorted programs would be. WinZip, for instance, is something like $10 per in groups of 50, $4 per above 500 users, and they offer a site license that is presumably even cheaper. Hardly savings to get excited about.
Like I said up above, with the new licensing schemes, all of this will change. The costs associated with constant annual renewels can be big. Really big. With businesses today looking to save where they can, there's some real fuel for the fire.
Timing is everything, though. If the Open Source community doesn't quickly provide the tools that can pretty much match those available under Windows, feature for feature, then people will probably be content to stick with what works. Now is the time. An economic slump provides the battleground for these kinds of changes.
Re:Good Article (Score:2)
I think you misspelled "epidemic".
Re:Good Article (Score:2)
Re:Good Article (Score:2)
I think you misspelled "epidemic".
You're right! Wait a minute, let me try again to get it right here...
Re:Good Article (Score:3, Funny)
Quarantine is called for, wouldn't you say?
Sigh... (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't complain, don't tell me that Linux GUI's are better. That's a moot point. We're talking about end users who just want to sit down and work with a minimal amount of retraining and confusion.
IT departments can be as smart and savvy as they want to be, but in the end it comes down to simplicity for the end user. Make that and Linux will have a much better chance. When no one notices that they're using Linux, you have succeeded.
Re: Sigh... (Score:2)
Bullshit. I think we need to look beyond the windows GUI. I mean, sure it's good, but we don't want to be playing catch-up. We want to create new and innovative things, but most of all, we need more uniformity and standardization. Linux seems fragmented because it is, it's a hodge podge, and so I'm not sure Linux will ever really be as easy to use as Windoze. Unless, perhaps, one distro really takes over.
Cheers, Joshua
Re:Sigh... (Score:2)
Another point being, I don't want an "equivalent" app -- they're never *quite* congruent in some critical point. I want MY apps, and that means a linux that can seamlessly install and run WinApps with no performance hit and no jumping thru configuration hoops. (And no, I don't use *ANY* M$ apps. Most of mine are Corel products.)
Maybe the average fanatical linux bigot enjoys hand-configuring and recoding whatever breaks, but even most highly-knowledgeable power users (I mean real people who actually USE the computer to DO EVERYDAY WORK) don't want to spend months fucking around with an unfamiliar setup before they can actually USE it.
I'm reminded of a saying from the DOS era: "I don't *need* Windows. I can read and write." Which is all well and good so long as you don't have to learn Braille first. At present, linux requires fluency in Braille before it's everyday-usable.
Re:Sigh... (Score:2)
The "new market we can indoctrinate into *NIX from the git-go" is so rare as to be nonexistent. Schoolkids? Not hardly -- most now come from households that already own Win9* machines. Kids may be more willing and able to learn *NIX, but kids don't HAVE to be "productive" (ie. earn a real living using their computer) -- they can take a few years to get proficient at *NIX, if they're so inclined, with no economic penalty.
But kids aren't the real world, and what those kids know by the time they grow up and enter the workforce 20 years from now will be irrelevant if in the meantime *NIX desktop share continues to be insignificant. And 99.9% of these kids will NOT become sysadmins with a chance to "change their corporate world". They'll become dentists, lawyers, steel workers, car salesmen, secretaries, homemakers... who will all use whatever OS is most painless in everyday life.
If "free" were the overriding criterion for selecting a desktop OS, no one would buy Windows in the first place. And ya know what's THE major factor preventing most people from buying WinXP right now? Compared to Win9*/2K, XP is *not* painless. But it's still a helluva lot more familiar than *NIX.
(Doubtless I'm wasting my breath. Bloody amateur software mentality...)
Have you seen XP? (Score:2)
But more than that, I love the fact that people can take a static view of history, even in the face of one of the most rapidly changing aspects (computers and how we interact with them) of human society. Windows 95 was released at the end of 1995. It is now a little over 6 years since everybody and his mom began switching to what you now think of as the ubiquitous "Windows GUI". I'm sure Microsoft would love to say, "Okay, we've got it perfect now, so let's everybody stop changing anything," but it's just not going to work that way. If the "Windows GUI" lasts the rest of 10 years (and God, please let them at least add standard virtual desktops if that happens) then it will be an incredibly long lasting user interface. Does that mean it should be immutable? That, even given past switches of hundreds of millions of people to different but superior interfaces, no further change should occur?
I hope not.
Re:Have you seen XP? (Score:2)
Your statement is correct, but you missed the point. Everybody's mom started using a PC when it became easy to use...ala Windows. DOS was cold and dead and confusing, Windows was pretty and colorful and had icons that made sense to a newbie.
If you want to be successful in life, be the middleman. Start off with something similar, allow everyone to shift over comfortably, THEN subtly change things to fit your grand vision.
Re:Sigh... (Score:2)
This one [kde-look.org]
This too [kde-look.org]
Even this one [kde-look.org]
What about this other one? [kde-look.org]
Take a page from apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Whaaaat? (Score:2)
Re:Whaaaat? (Score:3)
Q: Is Linux a corporation with a PR department full of marketroids?
A: No. Linux is a bunch of individuals and several corporations, each of which runs (or is) a PR department. In addition, among the most popular sites on the internet slavishly devote themselves to linux and knocking down not only other operating systems, but even ideas spawned from other operating systems. Think of linux more like the borg, many semi-autonomous organizations and people working towards the common goal of make and operating system do exactly what they want it to.
Re:Whaaaat? (Score:2)
There's the analogy you're looking for.
Re:Whaaaat? (Score:2, Insightful)
Some more mainstream advertising for Linux of any flavor would be a good thing IMHO. There are many PHBs out there who have heard of "that linux thing" but don't think anything about it, partly because all they have heard is whispers in the hallways. They are NOT going to go searching through the Web or Usenet to get info on Linux. Even if they did, they would ask a simple question and get their ass flamed to a crisp by the hoardes of 15 year olds telling them to RTFM (where F != "Friendly"). However, if that same PHB came across a nice 2-page advert in Business Week explaning what Linux is and how it can same them time & money, they would be much more impressed an inclined to listen to the local computer geeks when they want to use a Linux box for some purpose.
Hooptie
Re:Take a page from apple (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not a open source marketing department? If we could get a significant number of people to contribute to a fund. (With some sponsership of one or more of the Linux corps, Redhat, IBM, Mandrake etc.) and every year release ads in magazines and TV, radio, billboards, dispelling myths and giving MS a run for the marketing crown. It can be done. But not until we quite whining that it can't.
Re:Take a page from apple (Score:2, Funny)
Simply because it's better not to see the source code of most marketing BS.
I'll have my share of buzzwords precompiled, thanks.
"They" meaning who? (Score:2)
There is no man behind the curtain. It would have to be a major distribution. Not that it is a bad idea, I like the idea. It would dispel some myths, and promote whatever distro decides to do it.
linux in corporate canada (Score:4, Interesting)
now we're attempting to deploy linux on 20% of the desktops (~10 people).
we've already realized that we'll need to cram VMware on some of them (flash developers) but i consider this just a transition period. hopefully things will go well and we can divert some upkeep dollars to R&D...
Re:linux in corporate canada (Score:2)
It is about choosing the right tool for the job. When Macromedia release a Linux tool for creating Flash animations, then upgrade them to Linux. Not before.
Put Linux on the desktops of the people that can use it, or on the old Win95/Win98 desktops that are due for an upgrade anyway. Don't forget to set up NFS (or similar) to allow people to keep their documents in a central repository that is backed up every night, and allows them to hot-desk if need be.
Honestly, if Windows was a sword and Linux an arrow, you wouldn't give you cavalry the arrows to fight with would you? You would give them to the archers who need them. Your flash developers are cavalry, let them die by the sword.
Re:linux in corporate canada (Score:2)
where i am, the flash dev guys and gals just seem to be more open to the idea than the other people... so they get to be the testers...
so if we can run with a TCO that is lower than before then we've won a small battle...
we tried to find an area that would foster success, and this seemed to be the right place to start...
and we have 4 G4s running this stuff too... OS X with classic running the apps...
Re:linux in corporate canada (Score:2)
the flash developers will not be forced to use linux and then have to develop using svg, xsl and a text editor, instead they'll use VMware and emulate MS windows...
Re:linux in corporate canada (Score:2)
You know, the company pays you for your time, too. If you spend 10 hours per computer installing and testing VMWare and Linux, and there are 10 computers, you've spent 100 hours on the problem. Assuming a decent wage rate, this Linux upgrade has cost the company several thousand dollars of your time, benefits, etc. And all to run emulation software for something that already works?
Your position is ridiculous, and I stand by my earlier comment that you want to run Linux because it is Linux, not because it will make you or your developers any more productive.
Anything new? Didn't think so. (Score:5, Insightful)
None of these "Linux on the Desktop" articles has pointed to any company that used more than standard desktop and backend server apps. Find me a story where a company that has a $100M invested into their custom accounting/billing solution has decided to throw it out and spend another $100M to rewrite the software for Linux. When that happens, let me know; then I'll say Linux is making inroads onto the corporate desktop.
Re:Anything new? Didn't think so. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you read the article you'd know that they didn't switch any users: they started new users on Linux instead of on Windows.
Find me a story where a company that has a $100M invested into their custom accounting/billing solution has decided to throw it out and spend another $100M to rewrite the software for Linux.
In the same way that you wouldnt necessarily retrain users who are already doing their job perfectly well, why would you rewrite something already working? What's more akin to the article is "would a company investing $100M into a custom accounting/billing solution now consider doing it with Linux?"
That seems far more likely.
Re:Anything new? Didn't think so. (Score:2)
Wrong -- there are tons out there.
My prior job was working for a small point-of-sale software company which catered to the lumber and building materials industry. You think these shops want to place a $1000 PC out on the warehouse floor? Nope, they use $300 dumb terminals. Much more durable and less to configure. RS-232 is still very much alive today, and I can't really forsee its demise in my lifetime. I'm sure there are many similar vertical markets with the same requirements.
Initially, the software was really propriety: written in Business BASIC running on something called SuperDOS. From the point of view of a Unix/NT admin, this was the most disgusting environment I'd ever encountered. :) But then they went to another BASIC environment which ran on SCO (yuck!) and AIX (not too bad). I now hear that linux is making inroads, displacing SCO, NT, and AIX.
Not that this has anything to do with the desktop environment, though. I simply had to refute the claim that dumb terminals are on their way out.
Re:Anything new? Didn't think so. (Score:2)
Re:Anything new? Didn't think so. (Score:5, Interesting)
Where I work, custom software is the norm. We purchase almost nothing in terms of off the shelf packages and the main system just does it all. The code has been around for about 20 years or so, ported from platform to platform. Currently we're on the NT platform, but after a few bullying letter from MS stating that since we haven't purchased anything in the last year or two from them that we must be pirating software.
Well, that was it, we started looking for a way to move off the NT platform. Our codebase is roughly 4.5 million lines of COBOL code, and the data is archived back many years as well. So we had 2 problems, there was no COBOL compiler for Linux, and anything resembling one was not data-compatible. Until about 4-5 months ago that is, now MicroFocus has spun off from Merant and become a single entity (again). So now there is a source and data compatible compiler for our backend apps. Just change around some directory separators and it just works. No export/import/etc.
I guess my point here is that I've found most anything can be targeted for the Linux platform, especially those systems that are character-based, as many that I've seen are. The GUI interfaces are relative newcomers to the field. And with borland porting toolchains to linux, I'm sure it will just get easier to retarget -> recompile and have shiny new binaries. Even better when the toolchain is just a port by the tool vender, then most likely your data will be fine too. The only exceptions I see that will probably never change are the MS toolchains, MSVC++, VB, VFP, etc. And if you're starting MS, then you probably don't have much choice of platform, though I have seen a gnome project somewhere trying to build up to source-level compatibility with VB.
And I don't want to here any whining about "what if you don't have the source," all I have to say is, if you payed $100M for some software and didn't even license the source, you've got bigger problems than blue screens and crashed desktops. We are a medium sized company, and our code didn't cost that much. And we get to keep it to if the developers go under, plus add anything we want to the source. Now that I'm somewhere that has done that, it makes no sense to buy software for XX thousands or millions of dollars and not get the source... That is a huge risk.
Re:Anything new? Didn't think so. (Score:2)
And if the articles have only pointed to the "standard desktop and backend server apps" so far, it's because those are the ones that need to be talked about. Not everyone will have the same worries about custom code: moving from solaris to Linux is different from moving Windows => Linux which is different from miving OS/2 => Linux. What the managers want to hear is that the Word documents they run the company with will be available after they no longer use Word.
And as far as articles about moving custom code goes, there are two prime reasons we may not have seen them. First is the question of whether the code may be discussed: if it concerns a trade secret, the owners probably do not want to report about it- especially if trade secret code is moving to an Open Source OS! Secondly the port may not be considered newsworthy- if subsumed into a general hardware upgrade, the efforts of porting might be difficult to discern from those of the general transition.
Re: The key is NEW projects (Score:2)
Especially if that one platform is a proprietary one.
That doesn't mean make it portable to everything under the sun, but it does mean make sure that your eggs can be switched into one or two other baskets if the current platform starts to look like a bad decision.
In any other area of business this would be just "common sense". Or are there businesses which specifically seek to lock themselves into single supplier deals?
Mac to Linux much easier.... (Score:2)
I have Ximian Gnome on Rh 7.2 , 2.4.18pre7-rmap12a , its great, BUT in a mixed Mac and PC enviroment, throw Linux and Solaris on top of it an what fun Admin duties I have
We MUST retain the Mac enviroment, before you blast, we have equiptment in the near millions thats control software runs ONLY on Macs,
I am about to embark on a changeover for several PC users to Linux , they will I am sure be as productive, It all depends what you do.
Hell for games, and MS word applications I have a PC at home although it has become my wife solitaire machine running terminal server, I connect from rdesktop
If youve been with Linux for a while (me since RH 2.0) Think back to 5 years ago then 7 , would you have ever thought Linux would be in a place to compete on the generl destop market ?
Now think ahead, say 3 years....
Linux as a whole evolves VERY differently than windows and its apps, things that seem to liger for years, all of a sudden , en masse become sttable and usable, and latley pretty.
In 2-3 years Linux will be in a SERIOUS position to threaten ALL aspects of MS business, the beauty is there is absolutley nothing MS can do to stop it, or even slow it down, soon will come the time they have to embrace it offering their apps for it, when that happens it will be the death knell of MS operationg systems......
I have reached Karma cap and need no more please give my mod points (if any) to those less fortunate
Evolution. (Score:2)
Yeah, especially when there's clueless VC funding all the development. Be interesting to see how the evolution of "desktop linux" copes with the current economic conditions, now that the funding craze has died down.
Oh, and I liked the bit at the beginning of the article about how the "paperless office" is finally here. Wish it was. Then I wouldn't lose so much work time when the goddamned copier broke.
--saint
One problem.. (Score:2)
I saw the exact same statements 2-3 years ago. It's made improvements, yes, but most certainly is NOT where everyone would thought it would be 2-3years ago.
Also, transitioning from linux -> Mac OS X is easy, too.
OS first, apps later (Score:5, Insightful)
From the article:
Yes! This is a great point to make. Of course non-free apps are not where the world should be headed, but we should start with the OS. That's far and the away the most important thing. Once that's done, the apps will follow. At least until then, non-free apps for free OS'es are a Good Thing.
Re:OS first, apps later (Score:2)
Personally, I use an OS to run apps. I don't choose apps because of my OS. Consequently, I rather take the other point of view. There are enough OS already, it needs more non-proprietary apps. There are some, but they do not yet cover enough areas.
Example? Nothing as good as Quicken [intuit.com] yet, GnuCash not being there on the reporting side yet. Nothing up to the standards of Cubase [steinberg.com] yet. And despite the Gimp, there's still nothing of the quality of Photoshop [adobe.com] yet.
OS writers will write OSes because that's what they enjoy. However, from a user point of view it's time to start concentrating on polishing up those apps.
Cheers,
Ian
Singapore Civil Service considers Staroffice (Score:4, Informative)
Linux has a ways to go before it catches fire (Score:2, Interesting)
- Applications
- Training
- Accountability
Linux will never become big on the desktop until something is done about these major issues. Linus, Alan, et. al. need to get off their behinds and tackle the major unresolved issues behind their OS. GUI developers need to quit worrying about transparent windows and drop-shadows and get working on making their systems stable and functional.When a business upgrades its systems, it wants proven reliability in its equipment. Applications such as StarOffice and KOffice are high on glitz and glamour, but lack the backend to fulfil this stability requirement. While Corel and Microsoft focus on ensuring their system works before incorporating new "features," the uncoordinated Linux effort works to force nifty "features" onto an unstable backend. This means that while I can do some interesting graphic and font modification, my attempts to save throw Kernel panics and crash my system.
Almost 100% of office workers in the present work environment have been trained to use Microsoft Office. Most students come out of college having used Microsoft Windows as their OS, Microsoft Word to type their papers, and Microsoft Excel to do math projects.
Switching from a Microsoft base to a Linux base means a great deal of downtime while workers are retrained to use their new desktop environment. System Administrators must be trained or hired to work with a new system base. Technical Support people must learn how to handle the millions of innanely obtuse error messages thrown by any one of 1000 different applications installed by default on the new systems. (Why is xterm crashing with a tcpdump error message? I'm not running tcpdump!) Each user must be trained in how to login to their system, navigate a new and dramatically different desktop, then they have to be trained in how to use a brand new office suite. While this process can be spread out using staged upgrades, the downtime still adds up.
In the end, the Linux kernel is maintained by a group of hobbyists. As with the applications, these hobbyists put a large amount of time into programming glitz and glamour features into the kernel, and neglect important functions such as scalable SMP support, efficient VM managment, clean TCP/IP communications, and such. These important functions end up being "fixed" by other hobbyist programmers whose fixes usually end up making systems less stable.
While there are groups available for support, many of those groups are closing shop because they aren't getting business. It's a vicious cycle. Anyhow, there's only so much those support people can do. (Red Hat: "We can't support that because none of our people have used it or tested it with Linux. Look it up.")
When Linux becomes more like Windows, more people will use Linux. That is a fact!
Re:Linux has a ways to go before it catches fire (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, speaking as a longtime TOPS-20 and 4.2 BSD user, Novell sysadmin, sufferer through MS-LanManager 1.0, and WordPerfect user, I have a question for you: your description differs from Microsoft's history and business practices exactly how?
Did you ever have the pleasure of converting a 500 user Novell 2.2 network to MS-Lanman because "Microsoft is a serious business partner", then have to convert it back to Novell 18 months later because it wouldn't stay up for more than a day (and we expended about 40,000 engineering manhours trying to make it work)? Sure, today Windows 2000 is reasonably stable (about 70% of what Novell 3.11 was anyway). Why did Microsoft get those 10 free years of shipping unstable products to improve themselves?
sPh
Re:Linux has a ways to go before it catches fire (Score:3, Insightful)
I used to work in a software house. A very large, International company that made Business Machines. I worked in the networking section. As part of my work, I found some horrendously inefficient code that had been cut-n-pasted because it had been used and worked somewhere else. When I pointed out, and then documented the inneficiency by implementing and benchmarking, all I got for a reply was "We don't modify working code!!"
Pissed at the boneheaded attitude, I began inspecting lots of code. Everything was hacks tacked on top of more hacks, and all because "We don't modify working code!!"
Please note that this whole thread is way off topic; however, I just can't ever let this 'Linux is hobbyist quality' attitude go unanswered. Software isn't a bridge where a fuckup is forever. It's much more organic. If one piece is of low quality, it can often be ripped out and replace completely. So the 'fix' for the 'important functions' you speak of is often to completely replace a subsystem, which will be less stable until it is thoroughly tested and debugged (but that is what the odd numbered dot releases are for). In the final analysis though, having a substandard system replaced will eventually result in the most stable, highest performing system.
Re:Linux has a ways to go before it catches fire (Score:2)
Pissed at the boneheaded attitude, I began inspecting lots of code. Everything was hacks tacked on top of more hacks, and all because "We don't modify working code!!"
When it comes to both proprietary software and such in house code very few people ever get to actually see it.
It wouldn't surprise me if there is quite a lot of open source stuff which is simply better written, because it isn't hiddden away.
Re:Linux has a ways to go before it catches fire (Score:2)
Actually, mission-critical software like an operating system is a lot like a bridge. Not so far from here is the dreaded highway 880, the Nimitz Freeway. Many years ago, when it was built, the designers called for 2 2-lane bridges over Brokaw Road. This lack of vision and foresight was a definite fuckup - traffic now moves through that stretch of road at 9 miles per hour because the road can't be widened until the bridges are. Recently a project - a hideously expensive project - was started to do exactly that. Now traffic is even worse because the road is often closed or further restricted so contruction crews can work on the bridges. Pain. But the fuckup is not forever; it can be fixed at great cost during a painful transition period.
So it is with software. Adding SMP support to an OS that didn't have it previously is pain. It means instability and bad performance during the transition. Witness what happened with SunOS's addition of SMP support and then the transition to "real" SMP support in Solaris. Or the same two transitions in Linux 1.2 and again in 2.4. Yeah, it sucked. But, wow, traffic sure moves a lot faster now, doesn't it?
The rest of your assessment is spot-on; I just tire of people saying that software development isn't like the established engineering disciplines. The only real difference is that the software industry hasn't yet had enough time to work out its best practices. But designing and implementing software is pretty much the same as designing and implementing any other complex system.
Other reasons for that.. (Score:2)
Remember the "Dozers?"
Yup, that's Caltrans.. the fools building the bridges/etc. I think that Caltrans workers really are the Dozers. The people that had the freeway plans have long since passed on, but the Dozers just keeeeep on building and building and building...
At least that clusterfuck that is 880 vs 237 is being worked on
Re:Other reasons for that.. (Score:2)
... they're all buying up the property here in Sacramento and driving up prices.
Sorry - this is NOT flamebait (Score:3, Insightful)
sPh
Re:Linux has a ways to go before it catches fire (Score:2)
Hahahaahahaha... what planet are you from? Granted I don't use KOffice so I don't really know much about it but I've been using StarOffice 5.1 for 2 years. I've used to to create countless documents, spreadsheets, presentations, etc. In that time the program has only had a crash once and it was due to a faulty harddrive. As far as look and feel its much like Word, I didn't have to have retraining to use it. The only drawback in the monolithic desktop idea they came up with but that will be gone in version 6. Compare that with MS Office. Office 2000 can't save Word 97 or RTF documents without mungling the spacing and the quotes. Its nicely scriptable for all the virus writers out there. Excel 97 can't open Excel files older than version 6. I had a client the other day who gave me a spreadsheet in Excel 5. If I hadn't had StarOffice I would have been screwed. Features and Glitz
On your training point see above. Most apps are so similar a monkey could find their way around. Users of Linux don't have to know how to use an Xterm anymore. Just like they don't have to use the command prompt in Windows. Have you every tried Mandrake 8.1? Very nice system, things are consistant and you don't have to go into a xterm to use your office documents or web browser. Some configuration still should be done on the command line but that's for an admin. (how many windoze users do you know that install their own PCI cards??? I'm talking grandmas and secretarys)
Again... what??? The VM issue is being worked out IBM is putting Linux on Mainframes!!! They must think there is some good code in there. I see the kernel developers constantly adding new support for all kinds of new hardware, coming out with new versions that fix all sorts of small problems. Do you see MS patching and fixing their bugs so quickly? I didn't think so. Alan and Linus et. al. seem to be pretty humble guys, they do this for fun and they do a very good job and making an easy to use (yes it is easy people just need to learn its different) stable, secure operating system. And on top of that if you don't like the SMP features or the VM then write your own and quit complaining.
Re:Linux has a ways to go before it catches fire (Score:2)
So Linux doesn't have accountability. Does Windows? Go read the MS EULA. Go read almost any EULA for that matter, then come back and tell me where accountability lies.
Re:Linux has a ways to go before it catches fire (Score:2)
If they move from Win9x to NT/2K the first thing they have to do is use a key combination they have probably previously been repeatedly told not to use
The Desktop is not that radically different if they're using KDE. I can tell you that the end user on a linux system doesn't even have to worry about the filesystem. They can only write files in their home dir, and that's pretty simple. In Windows, they can write pretty much anywhere they want.
Also with Windows they can often attempt to install applications. Both of these lead to support issues and downtime.
Linuxes in a public library (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Linuxes in a public library (Score:2, Insightful)
What about Exchange? (Score:2)
sPh
Re:What about Exchange? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What about Exchange? (Score:2, Informative)
*Shameless Plug*
I am currently helping out on a project that is very comparable to Exchange. It's PHPGroupWare [phpgroupware.org] and it's evolving quite quickly.
It is all web-based for now(some people are working on xml-rpc).
It supports:
The applications are all modular, so they can be added and removed, and it's a very cool project. Check it out.
Re:What about Exchange? (Score:2)
Looks cool.
How do you compare your effort that uses PHP to IMP Horde?
Re:What about Exchange? (Score:2)
Also, turning on OWA is fraught with security perils, but that's another story.
In response to a different post: had I been here at the time, I would have pushed for Notes/Domino, as it is much more suited to this environment. But the "gotta getta Microsoft" fever had already struck, and Exchange is rooted too deep to dig up easily at this point.
sPh
This has been really helpful. (Score:2)
I still do my email via Netscape mail. But the article pointed out the Ximian Evolution mail reader. I went to the Ximian site, and they have the desktop and Evolution both available for Solaris. I'm running the download/install now. Hopefully I'll be on my way to a mega-desktop.
new approach needed for office apps (Score:3, Insightful)
It's great that kwrite/star office/every other similar project can open and write documents in MS word's native format, or save them in their own format; But this still leads to balkanized document formats. It's less bad, because at least the formatting is open rather than proprietary, but it seems like needless duplication for each project to develop its own markup system.
The ideal solution is an HTML-like approach where anybody can use whatever WYSIWYG front-end they like the best to write docs. The office app's job is to insert the correct standardized markup codes.
Sadly, although this is exactly the sort of problem XML can handle effectively, not too much is going on.
Or maybe i just don't know about it.
Slowly but surely.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Outpost.com (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Outpost.com (Score:2)
... and a cute little banner saying "UPGRADE to Windows XP!"... right next to it.
Fry's employees are usually lucky if they can tell you where the bathroom is...
The obviously most pressing issue (Score:5, Insightful)
I find so many Linux and KDE apps to be so much more configurable and useful than Windows programs, personally. But just like the article's author, getting them up and running is the biggest pain in the ass ever in most cases! It shouldn't take me an hour just to get Gnucash installed and running. Configuring it to my liking can take all day for all I care, but just getting it running so I can begin to replace my use of Quicken is an extraordinarily lengthy task. This is just one example of the difficult install process in linux desktop apps.
The lack of interoperability or fancy features in Linux desktop apps is not the problem. Who uses the 'web publishing' wizards in MS Word anyways??? The problem is the ease of install. I don't need MS style wizards to walk me through the install per say, but I would at least like a working product when I'm done installing, not yet another message that a certain library is missing on my system. RPM's work just fine (when they work), but if a library is missing, for God's sake, TELL ME WHERE I CAN DOWNLOAD IT or better yet, go find it and download it for me! Get easy installation of apps on the Linux desktop, and you'll get MS desktop business users migrating to Linux en masse.
Note, however, that gaming on Linux is not even close to complete yet since installation of desktop apps is still such a pain. Henceforth, the home Linux user has two hurdles to get past before using Linux at home on a consistent basis.
Yes, I like linux, and yes, I use it at home, and YES I don't mind doing some work to find the libraries, drivers, and programs I need to get linux apps working like I want them too. But the simple fact of the matter is that most business people don't have that kind of time to waste on just installing a simple program.
Man, you're in *serious* need of Debian! (Score:2)
If you want RPMs, use Mandrake! (Score:3, Informative)
Mandrake uses urpmi and it does just what cavemanf16 described. urpmi is a tool mostly like Debian's apt-get . You do :
# urpmi gabber
and it will install the latest Gabber with its required libraries.
All from RPMs. And it has a GUI front-end called rpmdrake / MandrakeUpdate that let's you upgrade your system to latest security patch with the de facto, windows-like standard Click Next to continue kind of thing.
Man! I love Mandrake for this. And it is also a hell of a nice desktop!
Or Conectiva... (Score:2)
With a bonus: few Conectiva users will give you a long sermon on why you should really call it GNU/Linux. Sheesh, those Debian guys would insist on calling my car a GOODYEAR/Chevrolet...
Re:The obviously most pressing issue (Score:2, Insightful)
But... firstly this article is talking about business computing, where that is the IT department's job, so doesn't really come into the question of how useable and practical Linux is on the business desktop.
Personally, I use debian and have never had any real problems configuring anything - I select the apps from dselect, it downloads them, installs them and asks me a few questions to configure them. The only app I've had any real trouble with is XMMS but that's because of the whole DeCSS caper and it's not a business app in any case.
Secondly - and this is speaking as an admin of 30 or so windows 98 machines in a small organisation - windows apps are _not_ easy to install and configure. For instance, installing staroffice or similar under Linux takes 10-15 mins start to finish. To install Office 2000 on the same machine dual-booted into Windows takes 20 mins per CD, 40 in total, including multiple reboots. _Then_ there's at least 5 patches required to deal with all the MS security holes, at 10-20 mins per patch again with several reboots each. _Plus_ it takes incredible effort to find the real patches on the MS website instead of just an 'installer' which insists on re-downloading the patch files onto each and every machine (and one of them also has a bug that crashes the install process until you delete a certain file - I know... I've done it 30 times!)
Futher problems abound if you install Office over a network connection and then want to change the installation using a CD (e.g. a laptop off site), because it 'remembers' the install path and won't budge..... suffice to say I've had very bad experiences of desktop Windows.
Re:The obviously most pressing issue (Score:2)
Installing and getting running applications (and operating systems) can be very time consuming. With one hour being towards the "short time" end of the scale.
However it is a different task from using software and "user configuration". In many situations these tasks are performed by different people. Indeed often with Windows considerably work is involved in not having end users mess with settings they shouldn't even be touching in the first place.
Get easy installation of apps on the Linux desktop, and you'll get MS desktop business users migrating to Linux en masse.
Except that in a business environment the absolute last thing you need is computer illiterate users attempting to install software. This is one of the things seriously wrong with Windows.
Yes, I like linux, and yes, I use it at home, and YES I don't mind doing some work to find the libraries, drivers, and programs I need to get linux apps working like I want them too. But the simple fact of the matter is that most business people don't have that kind of time to waste on just installing a simple program.
So why do you want them to do it. Do these same, busy, people install their own network points, wire up their own telephones, etc. Even if they are running some version of Windows odds on they dosn't so self installs of software anyway.
Some businesses have whole departments working on all sorts of custom software, compared with maintaining custom apps written in obscure propriatary languages, finding a few bits of C probably isn't going to be too taxing.
Re:The obviously most pressing issue (Score:3, Informative)
It's a simple formula (Score:2, Interesting)
2. The vast majority of custom, in-house developed apps will never be ported to Linux. (It's just too expensive to do the massive rewrite needed to port any non-trivial program written in VB or VC++ to Linux.)
3. Apps like (1) and (2) above are "must have" items in the vast majority of mainstream (home and office) desktops.
4. Because of (4), Linux + a GUI interface could be 1000 times better than Windows, but it still would never be more than a niche of a niche on the mainstream desktop. No level of security or usability or cost savings or any other benefit will ever overcome the fact that if it doesn't meet people's needs it's useless. And no amount of wishful thinking will make it otherwise.
(Don't flame me. I'm a writer and programmer in the Linux field who's invested a lot over the last few years in trying to help Linux succeed in the mainstream, and I'm deeply frustrated that it hasn't done better. But I've also talked to many consulting clients in companies of all sizes about conversion issues, and I'm convinced that the above 4 points accurately reflect the situation.)
Re:It's a simple formula (Score:2)
These must be quite new apps anyway. Would they work on future versions of Windows?
I've done sort of the same thing here... (Score:5, Informative)
The idea is that there is only a steep learning curve for Linux if you're switching from another OS; if you've never used anything, there's no adjustment. Unlike the article's writer, though, we went with Gnome, for one huge reason: Evolution. Just like Outlook is key for businessmen who run Windows, Evolution makes keeping track of contacts, appointments, etc. a breeze for our salesmen. They do basic word processing with Abiword, look at some spreadsheets with Gnumeric, and browse the web with Galeon.
I think what it comes down to is Linux's main strength is choice. My users do lots of planning, organizing, etc., so I centered their desktops around Evolution. TrustCommerce's people for the most part do very basic email, but a lot more document work, so their desktops are based around OpenOffice.
Two more things: The killer app is gtcd. I cannot convey in words how amazed new users are when they put a cd in and the cd player looks up the tracklisting. (Yes, I realize many Windows cd players do this. Yes, I realize the new version of MP that comes with ME & above do this.) The other thing is that using Debian makes it all worthwhile. I mirror sid (the distribution we use) on the file server, which updates every night, and then when I upgrade workstations it goes over our 100Mb network. I cannot begin to describe how much easier my job is doing ssh workstation; apt-get update ; apt-get upgrade than walking around to desks and doing Windows Update.
Re:I've done sort of the same thing here... (Score:2)
Also see the "original" article on my site (Score:2)
http://people.trustcommerce.com/~adam/office.html [trustcommerce.com]
Re:Proof that it can be done? (Score:2)
These discounts will slowly reduce with every upgrade cycle as the company becomes more addicted to MS products.
Re:Linux on the desktop + business (Score:2)
Most of the memory problems with KDE and Gnome are the over-pretty window managers. Disable them and use something simpler [icewm.org]
The ActiveX I don't think anyone can help you with. Bad design decisions.
Exchange allows access via POP3 and IMAP. These are supported by pretty much any mail client. I used this where I work on my Solaris Workstation. Exchange also has LDAP access, so if you use Netscape 4 or 6 [netscape.com] you can use the address book. This provides some aspects of the PIM. Unices still lack decent shared calendar support, StarOffice 5.2 had quite a nice one, but this is gone in SO6
Re:Linux on the desktop + business (Score:2)
Make sure you enable https though!
Re:Thanks to Linux (Score:2)
40% is clearly not enough.
Re:ready for the desktop (Score:2)
Easy upgrades to all the boxes
Customized set-ups out of the box (I mean, internationalization for example, is a big deal)
No users installing the latest shareware/warez form internet that break the machine
Linux Terminal Server Project
Choice
Save Money