Linux Desktop Myths Examined 718
Call Me Black Cloud writes "NewsFactor Network has an overview of the $95.00 Gartner report titled, "Myths of Linux on the Desktop". It's a good look at several points from the perspective of a corporate user, not a home user."
Registration NOT required (Score:5, Informative)
Some FUD, not all (Score:5, Insightful)
I also don't believe Linux saves money on hardware compared to Windows - it seems many offices are holding back with Windows upgrades, and IT expenditures on all desktop hardware and software seems to be slowing. For most people, Win2K is fine.
What the study fails to mention is security. Linux and open source in general appear to be far ahead of Windows in this regard.
In any case, most IT people have become innured to these studies - they are often pointless mental exercises without much factual backing.
not sure about that "linux security" thing (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem isn't security, it's executable content. As long as executable content is never offered in any popular email program (or search-for-ET screensaver) in Linux, we're safe. How long will that last before some vendor brings out the spiffy new macro-language-in-email feature and users snap it up (once we get past the hurdle of even getting linux on the desktop)?
John.
Re:not sure about that "linux security" thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:not sure about that "linux security" thing (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:not sure about that "linux security" thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Corruption of personal files is *catastrophic*. Imagine your house burns down, what do you want to save most? Do you say "Oh, we saved the house, but all your personal stuff is gone". That's just completely backwards. If the OS can't save me from a virus mucking with the personal files, then I don't give a damn about the system files, they can be fixed.
Re:not sure about that "linux security" thing (Score:4, Insightful)
No...
Corruption of personal files is *catastrophic*. Imagine your house burns down, what do you want to save most?
You convieniently ignored the "Personal files can be restored from backup" part of the parent comment. Even the best security in the world doesn't protect you from hardware failure, so it's a given that you should be backing up your personal data. It's not that hard or expensive, you just need to get in the habit of doing it. When you take that into account your house analogy falls apart. You can't easily make a duplicate of all your personal stuff from your house, but you CAN backup your data. If you DO backup your data, all all that's left to save is "the house".
If you're not backing up your data, you will loose it. You're flirting with catastrophe. You've been warned.
Re:not sure about that "linux security" thing (Score:5, Interesting)
actually, the latest version of SuSE ships with executable permission _off_ on any user writable partition. this means that unless the system administrator installed the application system-wide, it can't be run. this almost completely nullifies the virus issue. hopefully other distros will follow SuSE's lead on this point and make this a standard setting on desktop distributions.
Re:That is pointless though (Score:3, Insightful)
well, you can still do "/bin/sh file.sh" or something like that but you can't run the script directly, which means that it won't run by double clicking it, and it won't run out of your email program.
A buffer overflow in a stack smash attack can still fork a shell, the no-execute mount of the filesystem is just a PITA for the users, not the attackers.
worms smash stacks (although this is now nullified with recent changes to 2.5) not viru
Re:not sure about that "linux security" thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Macros in documents _may_ come to be problematic, but that's yet to be seen.
Re:Some FUD, not all (Score:3, Insightful)
An unpatched Linux machine is as vulnerable as an unpatched Windows machine. Security is to do with administration, not the operating system.
The sooner Linux zealots realise this, and start saying things like "Linux provides an easier patch path", the sooner people will start taking them seriously.
Re:Some FUD, not all (Score:3, Insightful)
Truth be told, security has more to do with users than with the OS.
Anti-windows FUD (Score:3, Informative)
That's only true of the Win95/98/ME series. WinNT/2K/XP has the capability to set permissions so that not every program has access to every piece of the system. In fact, Windows ACLs are much finer grained than traditional Unix rwx type permissions; it's easy for any user to set access to his files on a person-by-person basis. I don't think that they're usually used very well, but it's certainly possible for a competent ad
Re:Anti-windows FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Internet Explorer runs with Adminstrator privileges. So does Windows Media Player. And Microsoft Office. Including Outlook. The "finer-grained ACLs" on Windows NT-based OSes don't mean shit when the programs all get to run setuid root.
Re:Anti-windows FUD (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Anti-windows FUD (Score:4, Interesting)
Windows 3.1 had code embedded in it that detected if it was running on DR-DOS, and if so, caused Windows to crash and otherwise behave unreliably. (The evidence was presented in court and Microsoft had to pay fines many years later. These amounted to a slap on the wrist for them.) Is there a point to what I'm saying? Yes! A company that puts deliberate bugs into their software in order to crush a competitor might also put special code to detect that an application is Outlook, or Internet Explorer, or Word, or whatever, and show your username next to it as opposed to Admin, just to make people like you feel good. I have no evidence to prove or disprove anything said in my post or in the parent posts. But I'm trying to make a point... Remember the old adage about not believing everything you read? That applies to computer software, too, and probably more so than anywhere else, as people have this way of believing what computers tell them.
Hey, there might be 100 million lines of code in Windows... It might only take 20 or so to put your username next to something that has admin privs.
Re:Some FUD, not all (Score:5, Insightful)
This hits on a very important point.
Usually this kind of conversation ends up as a flamewar debating over the vulnerability counts found on SecurityFocus, etc. Ignoring exactly what these numbers mean, how they are tabulated, and whether they compare apples to apples or not... they only tell a part of the whole story. The trouble is, when people think "security", they've become conditioned to think exploit numbers. And patches.
Ideas like "Linux provides an easier patch path" is a good start. So would something along the lines of "Linux provides a more modular environment and control over installed components." But then, that's considerably longer than "Linux provides better security." Even if it leads to miscommunication.
But it may be worth the extra effort. After all, at the risk of generating another slew of flames, infosec is one of the subjects that seem to draw a lot of comments from those who really don't understand the subject. Pointing out the strengths of one's favorite environment might hold more weight if it also included some education in the subject matter at hand.
Re:Some FUD, not all (Score:5, Funny)
Actually Linux does save money on hardware, because by the time decent drivers for a piece of hardware have been written for Linux, you can pick up that hardware at the swap meet in the bargain bin.
</snub>
Re:Some FUD, not all (Score:4, Funny)
Sorta like Slashdot post, right?
paid support (Score:4, Insightful)
some very good points (Score:5, Insightful)
All of these things have a kernel of truth to them, but when someone looks a little more deeply at the issue and sees that it's more complicated than that it makes the original statement seem deceptive. It should be noted that even after the author goes through all the myths put forward by OSS proponents he still in the end says that he believes Linux on the desktop offers a real cost savings over Windows.
Re:some very good points (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed. Our administrator just converted an underutilized webhosting box to a much needed mail-server while 500 miles away on a business trip, over nothing more than his Ibook. That kind of remote-managament is unheard of in the Windows world. "Apt-get install mysql-server"?
The funny thing is, qualified, competent, hard-working systems administrators with years of experience are surprisingly available these days, and are going for far less than people might expect. A friend with 20 years of experience managing Unix networks summed up the problem like this. "All applications are filtered through the HR person. The HR person knows what Javascript is. The HR person has no idea what AWK is. The HR person is going to pass on the resume of the person with Javascript experience."
Of course the issue of the *number* of qualified personnel required should also be brought up. I run in a pure Linux / BSD shop, so I will bring up the experience of a colleague who interned in a Mac / Windows QA shop. For most projects, there were 12 PC's, 12 Macs, 3 PC Technicians, and 1 Mac technician on setup. Generally speaking, the Mac technician would finish configuring and installing the software on all of his 12 machines before the 3 PC technicians. This was quite some time ago and is not directly linked to the Linux / Windows debate, but the point is that the choice of OS can have a tremendous effect on the number of people required to administer the network. In this case if the more expensive employee were paid 2x what the cheaper ones were, you would only be paying 2/3's of what you would with the cheaper ones, and would have a much happier employee to boot.
Having seen what a competent linux administrator can achieve quickly and remotely, for example quickly knocking out scripts to do specific tasks (like migrating datapaths) that would otherwise take hours to do manually, it seems pretty clear that you would require fewer administrators for Linux than for Windows. Anybody either technically competent or extremely well trained can setup an IIS server, but it will take either of them quite some time.
So your choices (if money is an issue):
1) a higher paid employee running linux/bsd/etc.
2) several lower paid employees running win2k.
and if you are sufficiently small
3) a regular employee taking over the win2k work.
(note: this is not attempting to knock the technically competent Windows administrators amongst you, people for whom I have the utmost respect. But even you must admit that setting up a SOHO file server in Windows doesn't exactly tax your abilities).
A wake-up call (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A wake-up call (Score:5, Interesting)
Look at an example from the article: The author suggests that it's a myth that Linux is free, because you must either pay for support or pay people to support it. This is a dishonest arguement, because it purposely blurs the concept of support with the concept of licensing fees. They're not the same thing.
Anyhow, I'm all for constant and honest reevaluation of our real weak points. That said, I'm all for constant and honest reevaluation of our real weak points, not for trying to address problems pulled out of the ass of some moron trying to hawk a paper.
This sort of exercise is just a waste of time.
Re:A wake-up call (Score:5, Insightful)
Many of us linux users are used to making excuses for (or at least working around) problems with the Linux desktop. It doesn't work as smoothly as windows, it doesn't work anywhere near as smoothly as a mac- but there are so many other reasons that we like Linux that we tend to minimize them. It's just human nature I think, it's easier to criticize others than to admit our own faults. The first step in making progress is admitting what doesn't work and making it better.
Re:A wake-up call (Score:5, Insightful)
I haven't called AIX support in almost 2 years, never called Sun/RedHat/HP, etc. And the impression I get from listening to the Windows guys on the other side of the cube wall is that they get very little actual support from MS. Mostly they get pointed to vendors. So I'm not sure support is as big an issue for the OS as it is for the applications.
Speaking of the Windows guys. I've seen several cookie-cutter MCSE's who got hired; but went through an enormous learning curve because they got their cert without really learning anything. I don't see where this learning curve would be more expensive than the curve I initially went through to learn Unix. All of this, of course, depends upon the individual; but I don't think a good Unix tech really takes more time to grow than a good Windows tech. The good Windows techs are the guys who understand the underpinnings. In other words... the geeks like us.
In the short term, retraining and porting, etc. will cost more; but in the long term these will indeed produce a lower TCO.
As for the forced upgrades, I don't think I've heard anybody say you don't have to upgrade Linux eventually. The difference is that you won't have to pay for a license every time. You also don't necessarily have to keep your hardware around forever, which the article suggests would cause you to have to support "16 different varieties of hardware." You could, as an alternative, buy cheaper hardware and replace it just as often. Guess what? Lower TCO.
Most of these "myths" that he has exposed as false would be proven true in the long term.
The biggest myth I see these days is the myth that you should be able to perfectly duplicate what you're doing without just doing exactly what you're doing.
That seems short sighted.
Re:A wake-up call (Score:3, Interesting)
We rolled out Linux for a cost of $5 per user for labor and $20 per user in hardware.
We did this for about 200 users, and all we did was install VNC on everybodies old Win98/2000/NT/XP box.
People boot into their old copy of windows, and do legacy tasks. When they need their Linux desktop - they fire up VNC and it connects to our VNC server. When VNC is in full-screen mode, they completely ignore MS Windows
Half Right (Score:4, Insightful)
Linux is Free:
He says it isn't free because support costs money. Well, if you don't get support it is free. There are lots of CS and IT guys looking for jobs. If you hire them to support you rather than pay RedHat it may turn out to be cheaper.
So "Linux is Free" is a myth. But "Linux can be free" is not. If you're going to talk about what is true and what is not you better be absolute. He also mentions the TCO myth. I have yet to see real numbers showing it go either way, and there aren't any here either. So don't bother looking for them.
Re:Half Right (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Half Right (Score:3, Informative)
Support for open source IS FREE (dammit!). The support process is as follows.
1) Use google to search the web for keywords on your question. This give you access to info in howtos, FAQ's, and basic documentation. IF your
One Issue Not Contended... (Score:3, Interesting)
There is still the basic undeniable fact that becuase Windows hides the operating system internals away from the end user, it is far less configurable and less flexible.
Re:One Issue Not Contended... (Score:5, Insightful)
I would be interested in any example of a Perl script you've written on Unix that will demonstrate the "basic undeniable fact" that Windows is far less flexible than Unix.
Otherwise, STFU.
Re:One Issue Not Contended... (Score:3, Insightful)
Even though those utilities have been ported to Win2K, they cannot perform the same functionality on an operating system that hides 75% of it's operation from all users.
THAT is what makes unix more flexible.
Re:One Issue Not Contended... (Score:5, Insightful)
You can do basic stuff like "net start w3svc", most any part of iis can be controlled through vbscript (adding users, virtual domains, etc), I don't know if a PERL lib is available, but it certainly could be. What hardware configuration do you refer to?
Even though those utilities have been ported to Win2K, they cannot perform the same functionality on an operating system that hides 75% of it's operation from all users.
First, this is completely false. You can access a HUGE amount of the OS via any scriptable language that can do COM calls. If Win2K was so closed, it wouldn't be so damned easy to write virus's for it. Plus, the things you mentioned above (web server/firewall mgmt) have nothing to do with the OS.
Re:One Issue Not Contended... (Score:3, Informative)
Ahh. I found the KnowledgeBase article [microsoft.com] I was looking for:
Re:One Issue Not Contended... (Score:5, Informative)
And an MCSD wouldn't write one to do anything in windows - it's a DOS construct, he'd write a VBScript, JavaScript, or - if he wanted to be just like you - write it in perl or bash or tcl.
Every userland language/app that exists for linux exists for NT.
Re:One Issue Not Contended... (Score:3, Interesting)
c2 = c:/winnt/system32/documents and settings/administrator/my documents/code/C++/ch02 or chapter2 for school. Likewise p4 = c:\winnt\documents and settings\administrator\my documents\code\perl\ch04. Imagine how much of a pain in the ass it is to type cd
After looking at msdn for documentat
Re:One Issue Not Contended... (Score:3, Informative)
doskey c2 = cd "c:/winnt/system32/documents and settings/administrator/my documents/code/C++/ch02"
doskey p4 = cd "c:\winnt\documents and settings\administrator\my documents\code\perl\ch04"
etc... You can save these associations to a file and recall them using 'DOSKEY
"Still Unix rocks in this regard."
Ok next complaint.
Re:One Issue Not Contended... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:One Issue Not Contended... (Score:3, Informative)
"Your statements are nothing but platitiudes with no basis in fact. In short, thanks, but no thanks for the FUD. You are not helping the Linux movement by offering such ignorant statements. It makes us all look stupid."
So the web server management, user account managment service startup, firewall managment, hardware configuration and the like can all be configured in Win2K using PERL and other commandline utilities?
You make yourself look pretty silly when you champion the utility of an Oper
Re:One Issue Not Contended... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes.
"As we argue, Windows engineers are trying to figure out a way to add a usefull file based configuration and command line shell to the next release of windows."
They did that in Windows 2000.
You're either ignorant or a troll, or both. Prove your otherwise by giving specific examples.
Totally misses it on TCO (Score:5, Interesting)
You don't need to spend $BIGNUM on client PCs. Only maybe about $200-$500 a seat in terms of the hardware. And large enterprises don't typically buy their support from Microsoft, they typically buy it from companies like IBM or EDS who then contact Microsoft only when there is a problem they themselves can't figure out. They buy this support whether they have a UNIX client, a Windows client, or a Linux client.... it doesn't matter, the cost of support is basically the same.
This guy really misses the boat, IMHO.
We've already done that. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We've already done that. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're absolutely right. But this doesn't really need to happen, except in case of a real catastrophe which will take down all the client-server stuff too. People, back in the '70 and '80 I used servers that had uptimes of 2 *YEARS* or more, and these were serving apps out to over 400 people. People are *so* used to the prophylactic reboot (Ooo-er, Missus!) on Windows machines, that they seem to accept machines going down regularly as normal. It currently IS, for Windows servers, but it doesn't NEED to be for other servers.
The real issue here is control: people don't feel happy about letting IT control the resources. I would urge everybody to read A Unix Guide to Defenestration [winface.com] before they comment on centralised vs client-server computing.
Re:Totally misses it on TCO (Score:5, Insightful)
How is that different from the model most companies currently use where all files are stored on a central server?
If a departmental file server goes down, or if the email server goes down then I have a pile of folks that can't use their computers for anything but solitaire. Sun was 100% right when they said, "the network is the computer." One of the major benefits of Linux is that it saves you money in licensing costs that can be directly applied to purchasing better (or redundant) hardware.
The real advantage of thin clients, however, is that instead of hundreds of machines that need to be administered I now only have to adminster *one* machine (or two actually, because I am going to want redundant servers). Instead of babysitting rooms full of commodity x86 hardware (complete with all of the drive failures, software glitches, etc. that this implies) I now admin only a pair of identical server class machines. If a thin client breaks, I throw the thing in the trash and get a monkey to install another one. If I want to upgrade the software everyone uses I simply upgrade the server and I am done. Hardware upgrades are also ridiculously easy. Instead of filling up the landfill with used PCs, and spending time configuring new machines, I simply replace the servers and everyone gets a faster machine.
The pendulum is going to swing back in the direction of thin clients, and Linux is going to be a huge part of that shift.
Inflama-tastic (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's examine one of the "myth" bullets:
Myth: Linux Means Longer Hardware Life
"It is true that a three- or four-year-old PC that is not powerful enough to run Windows XP Latest News about Windows XP and Office XP may be able to run Linux and StarOffice," Silver says. "However, enterprises need to budget for some additional costs to maintain older PCs."
Notice how the inflamatory, attention-grabbing headline does not actually describe the analysis below it. Rather than suggesting that the average useful lifetime of a PC running Linux is longer than that of a PC running Windows, they point out instead that older PCs might break down.
They're charging $95 for this brilliant type of insight? The ridiculous idea that PC hardware's average working lifespan is three years aside, they're not making any point about Linux at all.
*sigh* I got to keep my resident pointy hair away from this one, lest he see the P300 workstation on my desk (still completely usable, BTW) and assume I'm damaging company revenues...
Do the math... (Score:4, Funny)
Pages: 6
95 : 6 = 15.83$ per page !
wow! their business plan might be
1) find something interesting
2) write a 6 pages report (not necessarily interesting)
3) ???
4) PROFIT!!
Re:Do the math... (Score:3, Insightful)
And, yes, they make a very, VERY handsome profit.
Such Research (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like the only research the Gartner Group did for this report was to call Microsoft, call RedHat, and find out what they do.
They don't even bother to say what the TCO issues are between Linux and Windows, they just say "If [enterprise complications result in high TCO] is true with Windows, "we see little reason to believe that the cultural or political issues will change just because the enterprise is now using Linux," he observes. They didn't even check. They didn't do a study of their own, they didn't talk to people who have done TCO studies of this [winface.com], or talk to Businesses who have already made the jump [bryanconsulting.com]. They looked at Windows, and they guessed.
And they charge $95 per copy for their uneducated guess.
At least they can do some work before charging people for it.
fair report (Score:4, Insightful)
This seems like a pretty fair and unbiased report... the only bullet point I have any issue with is the 'forced upgrade' one.
While it's true that commercial Linux vendors do not support older versions of their distributions indefinitely, the nature of the upgrade cycle is different with free software than it is with a closed-source product.
There are some costs that Linux and Windows upgrades have in common:
ongoing support
training
productivity decreases as computers have to be taken out of service temporarily to apply the upgrades
However with Linux, each upgrade to the OS is available free of charge. Microsoft requires you to give them money each time you upgrade. As such, forced upgrades are not as onerous on a company using Linux.
TCO (Score:3, Insightful)
If I own a foriegn car, I expect the mechanic I use to charge a bit more (or a lot more). Plain and simple supply and demand. And I can't hire my friendly neighbourhood backyard mechanic neither because most backyard mechanics don't touch my brand.
Linux, as the purveyor of a much smaller portion of the computing environment suffers the same fate these days. 8 out 10 users use something else. If and when that reaches a more equal ratio there should be more people available to maintain these systems. And less time spent helping out with small issues.
Imagine an office full of staff who have been weaned on Windows. Toss them linux and half the maintainance costs wouldn't be on maintainance, but on solving issues the users create. Familiarity is a big part of the big picture.
As Michael Robertson noted yesterday - Lindows users insist on Anti-Virus protection. Yet when a virus comes out in linux there is usually a fix as fast as there is detection for the virus. As linux becomes more mainstream small issues such as this will go away.
This seems like FUD (Score:4, Informative)
Linux will be less expensive:
Office is the lockin tool, much more than Windows itself. Running OpenOffice on Windows sounds like a great way to wade into a transition, taking the most bitter part of the medicine up front. If that's over with, the OS switch doesn't look nearly so daunting. Licence per license, linux is cheaper up front. Feel free to disprove that.
Linux is free:
Paying for an ERP package isn't much of a show-stopper. You're talking about buying expensive OS licenses + expensive ERP licenses versus buying inexpensive OS licenses + expensive ERP licenses. A shortage of available ERP programs for linux is a better argument, although there are several ways to access ERP systems running on windows or commercial Unix server from linux clients - thin or otherwise (so you're buying licenses for one server, and its client access rights to access that program). And with popularity in the enterprise will come native ERP programs.
Linux means no forced upgrades:
Of course linux shops will upgrade their systems to get newer, nicer software. An enterprise won't be running Redhat 9.0 in 2045 any more than they'll be running Windows XP or Mac OSX. The difference is whether you're paying out windows prices or linux distro prices every 3 years, and whether your company upgrades for business reasons or contractual Licensing 6.0 obligations. And whether you have a choice of vendors.
Linux Management is Easier:
This is where the thin client setup really pays off. Dumb graphics terminals with 5-years-ago pc hardware minus a hard drive (to fail) connected to top-notch, dependable server hardware, centrally managed. An extra 5,000 spent on a server for 300 less spent per client (x40). And good performance for the majority of 'enterprise' tasks.
Linux Has a Lower TCO:
Again LTSP. Simple, very-few-moving-parts, interchangeable-in-5-minutes clients and real server hardware with trinity dies RAID and multi-processors, and hot-swap power supplies.
Linux Means Longer Hardware Life:
Again, of course enterprises will do OS upgrades during a 6 to 8 year lifespan. They would with Windows too. Anyone know how many scheduled upgrades you'd have to go through with MS Licensing in that period of time? Again the licensing price difference. And variance in hardware makes life harder (and more expensive) for IT. For Windows, Linux, or any other OS. How is this a linux-myth-debunker?
Skills are transferrable:
This is a real hurdle for linux. But for how long? It seems like a matter of momentum. The more enterprises switch (in whole or in part) to linux, the more IT people will build their careers around it. The bigger hurdle is nick is back end-user skills and perceptions. Linux desktop environments have come a long way in the last few years, though.
Bottom Line:
Linux isn't going to dominate the desktop anytime soon, enterprise, personal, or other. And it won't be the end-all be-all bliss of computing nirvana where enterprises never upgrade software, and linux solves "cultural and political issues" (ha! that was my favorite part of your article) for companies. But I think it looks like a feasible way to reduce headaches and lower costs, and your article did nothing to change my mind.
TCO musings... (Score:3, Interesting)
Management tools have been available for Windows for years, Silver observed, but many enterprises still have not been able to manage their Windows environment. This has often been due to too much complexity, lack of sufficient policies or standards, or cultural and political issues, according to Silver.
If this is true with Windows, "we see little reason to believe that the cultural or political issues will change just because the enterprise is now using Linux," he observes.
Umm, I do. With *nix, you can get away with using almost nothing in the way of "management tools." What most would consider essential utilities are included. Just add effort.
The situation is improving with newer Windows versions, but my impression is that they are still behind the game; I admit that maybe my ignorance of XP and longhorn might leave me biased, but for e.g.: try finding a list of open file handles in Windows, or a table of bound ports, or a robust scripting language. These types of tools typically need to be added. With *nix I usually can use an existing tool or combination of tools to easily and quickly find what I want, plus it is easily automated from then on. My impression is that things are not always that easy in Windows without (occasionally costly) add-ons.
Another point regarding desktop TCO - a lot of Windows-based office productivity type networks opt for Terminal Server/Citrix to lower cost and simplify administration. For use on a LAN (i.e. not considering low b/w access, where RDP and ICA really shine), *nix has a network transparent windowing system (X, in case that isn't completely obvious) that doesn't require connection licenses or $15,000 per server licenses plus maintenance. All things being equal (i.e., assuming all of the linux apps are adequate functional replacements for Windows apps, and hardware + software maintenance is about the same price), this is an area where linux is clearly cheaper because you don't have to pay for the network protocol.
full text of article (not overview) (Score:4, Informative)
What I find interesting (Score:4, Interesting)
A year ago they weren't even ready to admit it was ready for the desktop at all.
Two years ago people would've laughed at you if you even suggested Linux on the desktop for corporate users.
I wonder if next year's report won't be whether or not you should use Linux on the desktop, but rather which distribution you should be using.
Cost? (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't the best path just this minute to move over to openoffice.org for officeapps and GNU/Linux and/or BSD for the servers? As an initial move towards OSS and Free Software.
comments?
Linux VS Windows Deployment Model (Score:3, Informative)
by maximizing profits not increased efficiency.
No real linux admin is going to go out and load linux on each and every desktop, that would be incredibly stupid. I run a 125 node thin client linux desktop environment and the cost so far has been peanuts. The administration costs thus far have been non-existent. My users have no computer skills yet have no problem clicking a icon that I provide on the desktop.
We use VIA motherboards in a casoutlet case, no drives just a copy of peewee linux that provides X windows. The peewee linux distro is loaded to a compact flash card with a ide adapter on it. Total cost per node 224$ and it boots in under 10 seconds.
Put that in your study and smoke it!
License Hell (Score:5, Interesting)
Having seen the pain trying to keep track of licences for Windows/Office/MSDN, this could be another argument to switch.
Ok, it's not that essential, but still nice. Now, if Microsoft changed their licensing policies in the right direction...
It all depends on your frame of reference. (Score:3, Insightful)
Gartner cannot view Linux rollouts with an open mind because Gartner insists on looking at Linux as a drop-in replacement for proprietary operating systems. Gartner refuses to alter its frame of reference.
Deployment of Linux isn't just about Linux itself. It's about changing the rules, shifting the paradigms, that sort of thing. That's the piece that Gartner misses, every single time. To deploy Linux effectively you have to treat it as Linux, leveraging its advantages and steering clear of its (rapidly diminishing) disadvantages. Gartner wants to force-fit Linux into a Windows paradigm, so it's no surprise that they keep finding that it does so very poorly. Linux is not a drop-in replacement for Windows! It is an alternative, just like the Macintosh is an alternative.
Only when you design for Linux and plan for Linux do you get to take advantage of its strengths.
Desktop management (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Desktop management (Score:5, Interesting)
The thing about a Unix shop is that you can depend on the fact that all systems have cron, an MTA, Perl, and sshd. In a Unix shop, remote administration is the norm, not the exception.
Re:Desktop management (Score:3, Informative)
What is it with these reports? (Score:3, Interesting)
More importantly, the article misses the big difference with Linux, that it puts the customer in the driving seat. If you want to run NT 4 after it is out of support, you won't get security fixes and the like. With Linux, the source code is all out there, so you can keep patching yourself if you want to. Assuming that you aren't running loads of services, that would be a reasonably straightforward thing to do.
This is the reason why Linux is a "paradigm shift" and not just another product which happens to be 10% cheaper.
What about the cost of a possible audit? (Score:4, Insightful)
How much is the elimination of the threat of a license audit worth to your company?
Stupid (Score:3, Interesting)
Myth: Linux Will Be Less Expensive
And who cares about StarOffice? I don't use Star or OpenOffice. For documents I use LaTeX, gnumeric and Dia. OpenOffice is not Linux, just like Debian is not.
Myth: Linux Is Free
Supported? You mean Linux on desktop means I need support? So when I used DOS without support I used non-desktop system? Server one maybe?
Myth: Linux Means No Forced Upgrades
Software like TeX is not changing at all for years (or is TeX server software?). You need only to upgrade stuff like kernel and servers (remember? we are talking about desktop!) - to avoid crashes and crackers.
Myth: Linux Management Is Easier
Fever viruses? What viruses?! Anyone this point is not so stupid like others.
Myth: Skills Are Transferable
They are not in Windows. Microsoft changes things too fast.
Anyway - it was very lame criticizm of Linux on desktop. You need to get better arguments next time.
These aren't "myths". (Score:4, Interesting)
Reality says "Hi" (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't actually recall even one transition from MS/whatever to Linux/*BSD where the people involved wasn't really happy with the move afterwards. They simply never look back.
That's my experience, others may vary, but to me the choice of platform in the overseeable future is very easy. And it's dirt cheap compared to the alternatives too.
The best way to find out is to try it yourself. Don't believe everything you read.
Live and LEARN (Score:3, Funny)
All Linux vs Windows comparisons miss the point... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why? The replacement costs are staggering! and they have nothing to do with the cost of the machine itself! It is the endless time it takes to replace a Windows machine. M$ has made it as difficult as possible (bordering on impossible) to backup and restore a Windows machine completely. Even if you can image a Windows hard disk completely, it will never run on anything except that exact hardware. The way hardware vendors change machine configurations, you can't get the same hardware mockup if you order two machines on the same day! All applications are hopelessly entwined with the copy of the OS running on THAT machine.
The only reliable way I have found to do this is to force users to keep the data files they work on on the server, do a routine weekly backup on e-mail files and bookmarks for each machine. When a machine must be replaced, I spend a minimum of two days reloading all of the software we need on each workstation from the install disks, loading patches for each of those programs and then restoring e-mail and bookmarks. This doesn't include the 1-2 hour wait on M$'s line to get another authorization number so I can reuse the Office Pro license on the new machine; I went thru that twice then found a pirated copy of the corporate version so I wouldn't have to waste that time anymore.
Linux, on the other hand is simplicity itself. I simply back up several subdirectories. If the machine fails or I want to clone the machine to another, different set of hardware, I reinstall Linux on the new machine and restore the backed up subdirectories on the new machine. Voila! complete new machine with every application, all data files and all settings intact.
M$ is sooooo concerned with piracy that they make preserving my company's data and work environment hell. Frankly, ANY amount of trouble with a different OS pales in comparison to the hassles outlined above.
Support costs (Score:4, Funny)
All I can say to this article is duh!
Like the anti-open source people say, "you get what you pay for".
So if you want more support, then pay for it! Why should Linux and it's associated companies give away everything for free? You're supposed to pay for quality products!
First people complain that it's free ("free = amateur/bad/whatever"), and now people complain that it's NOT free. *sigh*...
Um...what?? (Score:3, Insightful)
They then go on to explain that the argument is that OpenOffice and Linux will be less expensive than MS Office and Windows. Their attempt to debunk this is to say that OpenOffice is available on Windows.
Somehow this means that the "myth" is false? Their arguments don't stand to reason.
First off, the argument of Linux being less expensive is much, much larger than just the cost of an office productivity suite. It has to do with licensing, user support, applications, TCO, uptime, and all sorts of other things. Saying "OO is available on Windows. Q.E.D." is almost a non sequitur.
And how does saving money on an office suite, even if you don't migrate to Linux, mean that Linux costs more? It doesn't follow! If they argued other costs of migration (apps, user training, etc.), maybe they'd start down a logical line of argument. But the office suite argument is a dead end that doesn't lead to the conclusion that their headline would suggest.
This article is mostly FUD.
Sly Deception (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps the slyest bit of slight-of-hand was the claim that the cost of supporting Linux users would not be significantly less than for Windows users. As support, the author quotes somebody saying that Linux required about as much support staff as Unix -- then just guesses (ignoring contrary reports) that the same would obtain vs. supporting Windows desktops.
Another is the suggestion that working well on older hardware actually counts against Free software. The author says, for instance, "After warranty support is over, many enterprises choose not to repair broken PCs, but to replace them with new ones." This is in large part because the repaired PC would not be able to run current MS software versions anyhow.
Similarly, the author suggests that keeping older hardware means managing many more varieties of hardware. Yet, it is not old, well-understood hardware that is hard to manage, but the forced influx of new hardware needed to run new versions of software. Absent that forced turnover, an enterprise may reasonably stick with substantially the same hardware configuration (with optional upgrades in clock speed and storage capacity) until there are compelling, objective reasons to switch.
Equally damning are the omissions. The author carefully avoids mentioning lock-in, and never mentions the possibility of obtaining support from independent (and possibly local, and competing) third parties, or from the in-house expertise that can only develop with Free software. For a good comparison, consider the SUNY Faculty Senate resolution published at http://orange.math.buffalo.edu/csc/resolution2_apr il2003_approved.html [buffalo.edu].
I could go on and on, but the point is that the opposition has become more sophisticated. This is more clever than "Free software is a cancer that threatens the American Way", but the intent and the conclusion are the same. Now the strategy is "make minor concessions, but sow seeds of fear, doubt, and confusion." The falsehoods reveal the true intent.
Try to guess which Gartner customer wrote this report.
The bottom line (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps they should now go back and write "Myths of Windows on the Desktop", like:
- Myth: Windows is easy to use
- Myth: Everybody runs windows
- Myth:
.DOC is a good document interchange format
- Myth: Windows development tools are high quality and productive
- Myth: Windows is professionally supported
- Myth: Windows admin tools are easier to use than UNIX's text-based configuration
- Myth: Windows NTFS provides reliability and performance
I could go on...These myths aren't flouted anyways... (Score:5, Interesting)
The real benefits are that money can be saved using Linux if you use Linux within your enterprise for what it is: a network-centric operating system. If you try to simply make Linux work like Windows, you have just forced Linux to ignore its strengths.
The REAL impediments to moving to enterprise-wide Linux implementations are not listed as myths here, because no one ever pretends that these are easy. The big ones:
I don't doubt that these things will eventually happen: Microsoft's continuing increase in obnoxiousness is helping companies along nicely in this regard.
I really believe that one big company, with plenty of internal IT resource, and reason to want Microsoft knocked down a few pegs, could eliminate Windows systems on their own systems (hurdling the obstacles I listed above). This could serve as the benchmark that other companies can point to and see that it is possible. Are you listening, IBM? I'm talking to you!
The "support" issue (Score:5, Insightful)
It's bullshit. If you have problems installing a driver for Windows, do you think Microsoft will give you any support? Have you tried calling Microsoft tech support?
"Be sure to install the latest service pack". That's your tech support from the vendor. You get effective support for M$ products exactly the same way you get effective support for free software - by posting a question on a newsgroup or forum.
The essence of the report (Score:3)
Ths sad fact is . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
MS "support" (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's take two typical software bugs -- one with Windows, one with Mozilla.
Mozilla bug: Submitted bug report, got a preliminary reply via email in under two hours. Bug was solved in two days and pushed back into CVS, ready for compiling. Took under one hour to reproduce the bug, write down all steps in bugzilla, read all the email traffic, and recompile.
Microsoft bug: (registry key not closed on logoff) After waiting 5 hours on hold, I got in touch with somebody asking all the dumbest questions ("Tried rebooting?" etc). The person wasn't even going to give me a phone number if I hadn't asked. I had to be sure to be available at hours when this person would call; I was transferred to three phone support people, and three technicians. I was asked to build two debugging computers and waste a hundred megs of download bandwidth to get certain "debug" patches, only to find that just when I got the computers built and set up, they had managed to solve the problem. Total time spent I working on the problem: at least 40 hours, spread over 6 months. About 10 of these hours were spent answering the same question to new support staff (or sometimes the same staff). Oh, and I was told that I'd have to pay additional support costs if this wasn't a bug in Windows (which it was).
The lesson: "support" is a broad term, and just sticking it on a list of features doesn't mean anything. I'll take the free support from volunteers over Microsoft's any day of the week. Though I have no direct experience with paid support from Linux vendors, I'm confident its quality is higher.
Yeah, we've set up about a dozen Linux servers -- Red Hat and Debian. And there are simply no problems. So the second edge of the "support" buzzword: for the same amount of money, would you rather have support you don't need, or need support you don't have?
These arguments are based on personal experience and not ideals, though I've got plenty based on ideals, too!
Re:Ummm, is it my imagination... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ummm, is it my imagination... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ummm, is it my imagination... (Score:3, Funny)
It clearly says in the posting this is an overview of a $95 doller article.
So no, I guess it's not your imagination. Very observant of you, indeed!
Re:Ummm, is it my imagination... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, being that it is a Gartner report, there's little to comment on except that it targets greybeard IT managers, those same managers who stuck their necks out in their youth to bring PCs into the workplace. These same greybeards are busy doing budgets and attending meetings all day long. These targeted IT greybeards don't know shit about IT anymore and have outsourced in-house IT expertise to leasing hardware from big PC vendors and decision-making to consultants. They have signed the Microsoft Perpetual Motion software license.
They hire consultants to tell them what to do, to design and install networks, to decide when to lease new PCs, etc. They need those $95 papers from Gartner to assure them (and to 'prove' to the Board of Directors) that they're Doing the Right Thing. Their objective is to get by with a 40-hour week and to meet arbitrary Budget Objectives.
Re:Dispersing the Linux Myths (Score:3, Funny)
What you failed to mention (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dispersing the Linux Myths (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you know that Microsoft's virtual monopoly mens that hardware makers do not have the incentive to write drivers for alternative opeating systems. They could at least release full interface specs so that the work would be done by someone else. No they haven't done either. And I suspect Microsoft could be bullying (indirectly pressuring) hardware makers not to write drivers for GNU/Linux et. al. or release specs. Now, don't say that they have to make money from the dirvers. They don't sell their drivers, they have to provide it with the hardware they sell.
'free' in the GNU/Linux terms means freedom, not moolah. I know this is a (Score, -2000, Overrated and Redundant), but I have no choice but to say it again. It means 'freedom'. Lower cost of acquiring the software is just a perk. Again consider installing Windows on 30 machines. With GNU/Linux one licence is good for all, while on Windows you pay for each workstation for software alone.
These arguments are exactly what everyone I have spoken to seem to make. It is partly true but it is like listening to a part of a show that is supposed to be funny, but can only be funny if you had background information of the show. So, where is the background info. of this show? Microsof's dominance, coercion in many forms on hardware makers.
Thank you for understanding.
GrimReality
2003-05-06 17:09:14 UTC (2003-05-06 13:09:14 EDT)
Re:Dispersing the Linux Myths (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Dispersing the Linux Myths (Score:4, Insightful)
I've always viewed discussions of this kind as some sort of miscommunication, rather than as a conspiracy by microsoft haters. The problem is, and probably always will be, that one has to distinguish between "Linux for Nerds" and "Linux for the Masses". The latter includes KDE or Gnome, OpenOffice, multimedia tools, and many more applications that anybody would ever install on his Windows machine, or ever use for that matter. Certainly there is lot of bloat.
Strictly speaking, though, KDE and Gnome are not Linux. They are applications that run on top of Linux. Hence you should accuse the applications of bloat, not Linux itself.
What the "Linux on a 486 PC" advocates are saying is that the Linux kernel itself is very compact, and that it is cleanly separated from any GUI. So the knowledgeable user (i.e. the Linux Nerd) can put together his own collection of apps, and his preferred lightweight window manager, to create an entirely unbloated distribution that will run just fine on old machines.
Obviously this miscommunication is partly the fault of the Linux enthusiasts. Linux advocates have to learn that Joe User will never bother to understand the difference between the GUI and the underlying kernel. And I don't blame him for being a non-nerd. It is the responsibility of the Linux community to put this kind of statements into a language that can easily be understood by non-technical people.
But if you decry those people as Linux fanatics, you are clearly overreacting. One can either discuss those issues matter-of-factly, or one can start a flame war.
Re:Dispersing the Linux Myths (Score:3, Interesting)
Nevermind the troll factor... you're just not well informed. You've managed to focus on the worse possible conditions for any one of these points you make. I could easily do that same with Windows with a lot less effort.
But, since I haven't run Windows on anything in years (except for work) I don't really care to try
But to answer your points specifically:
Linux is good for old computers
It is true that you pretty much need at least 32MB or RAM to use Linux as a GUI workstation these days. Event Windows
There is a more insidious thing about Linux (Score:5, Funny)
Recently I've been introduced to an operating system known as Linux.
Lured by its low cost, I replaced Windows 98 on my computer with Linux. Unfortunately the more I use it the more I fear that this "Linux" may be an insidious way for the Dark One to gain a stronger foothold here on Earth. I know this may be a shocking claim, but I have evidence to back it up!
To begin with, Linux is based off of an older, obsolete OS called "BSD Unix". The child-indoctrinatingly-cute cartoon mascot of this OS is a devil holding a pitchfork. This OS -- and its Linux offspring -- extensively use what are unsettingly called "daemons" (which is how Pagans write "demon" -- they are notoriously poor spellers: magick, vampyre, etc.) which is a program that hides in the background, doing things without the user's notice. If you are using a computer running Linux then you probably have these "demons" on your computer, hardly something a good Christian would want! Furthermore in order to start or stop these "demons" a user must execute a command called "finger". By "fingering" a "demon" one excercises an unholy power, much the same way that the Lord of Flies controls his black minions.
Linux contains another Satanic holdover from the "BSD Unix" OS mentioned above; to open up certain locked files one has to run a program much like the DOS prompt in Microsoft Windows and type in a secret code: "chmod 666". What other horrors lurk in this thing?
Consider some of these other Linux commands: "sleep", "mount", "unzip", "strip" and "touch". All highly suggestive in a sexual nature. I know that our Lord cannot approve of these, and I urge them to be renamed to something appropriate to the Christian community. Interestingly "CONTROL-G" (the sixth key from the left of the keyboard) does an abort. To write files a "VI" editor is included. All these are to ensnare the unsuspecting christian who could get tempted by typing "VIVIVI" all day long.
Fourth, Linux uses a flavor of DOS known as Bash. Bash is an acronym for "Bourne Again Shell". On the surface this would appear to be supportive of the Lord. However, remember that even Satan can quote the bible for his own purposes! While I believe Linux may be born-again, its obvious by the misspelling of "born" that its not born-again in an Christian church. Will the lies ever cease?
Additionally, one of the main long-haired hippies involved with the GNU Free Software Foundation supports communism, contraception and abortion. He has consistently supported 60's counter-cultural "values", and his web site even advocates government support of contraception. He also wears fake halos, and has quips about his made-up church that relates to his free software. I find such blasphemy to be extremely unsettling.
One must also remember that the creator of Linux, a college student named Linux Torvaldis, comes from Finland. I'm sure all the followers of Christ are aware of the heritical nature of the Finnish: from necrophilia to human sacrifice, Finnish culture is awash in sin. I find little reason to believe anything good and holy could arise from this evil land.
Finally, let us remember that there is an alternative to using the Satan-powered Linux. I think history has shown us that Microsoft is quite holy. I'm told that its founder, William Gates is a strong supporter of our Lord and I encourage my fellow Christians to buy only his products to help keep the Devil at bay.
I wish I had more time to expound upon my findings. Unfortunately a family of Jews has moved in across the street and I must go speak to them of Jesus Christ before they are condemned to eternal hellfire.
Please investigate this as you see fit and I'm sure you'll reach the same conclusions that I have.
Re:There is a more insidious thing about Linux (Score:5, Funny)
Re:There is a more insidious thing about Linux (Score:3, Funny)
Re:There is a more insidious thing about Linux (Score:3, Funny)
This will not help Microsoft :-) (Score:4, Insightful)
The more mud MS slings, the more people will try out Linux because they will become curious about what can cause MS so much pain.
So MS, bring it on!
Re:Lets take an objective aproach. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's say you install Windows and Red Hat Linux on a PC. Windows comes with:
* Wordpad
* IE
And that's pretty much it. Red Hat, on the other hand, comes with:
* Mozilla
* OpenOffice
* The GIMP
* Dia for diagramming
* FTP programs
* SFTP programs
* CD-Burning software
* Evolution
* 3720 terminal emulator (for AS/400 app connectivity)
* PDF viewing software
* Development software
That doesn't even count the server software it comes with. Other distributions pack even more in. Now, it usually takes ~ 30 minutes to an hour to install Linux. Probably about the same for Windows. However, after you are done installing Windows, you have to spend 10 minutes to several hours (like for Visual Studio) to install each application individually. You can save some money by using Linux applications on Windows, but you still have to download them each individually. How much time have we wasted? And that's assuming that all of your applications play nicely together.
In addition, with the "workspaces" concept on the desktop, it creates better productivity for workers. The entire experience can be customized by the IT department if they wish. This _can_ be done to a lesser extent with Windows, if you have the right licensing agreements, however, getting all of the licensing together to do a full install of all the software you would need would be a ton of work, assuming all of your vendors wanted to play nicely together.
Then you have upgrades. With Linux, as long as you have someone in-house who can code, you can keep your setup as long as you desire - no need to follow your vendor. If you don't like that road, you can play follow-your-vendor on Linux, too. In addition, with Linux, you get to pick your vendor, so you can choose one which works like your company works (fast-paced, traditional, etc).
I would say there are two things that may cause you to have problems with Linux. Those are:
* specialized software packages
* technically-savvy users
Yes, that's right, your technically-savvy users are going to be the ones who notice the change, not your "where's my desktop" type users. The ones who don't know technology at all will simply click on whatever you put in front of them in whatever sequence you tell them. Trust me, they are lost on whatever technology you put in front of them, you just have to give them a sequence of clicks and they will obey and do just fine. It's the medium-technically-savvy users that are difficult, because they've taken the time to learn Windows inside-out, and know how to get around all of it's quirks. They may not want to learn a new system with new quirks.
Also, Linux systems are easier to manage. It's more obvious what causes processes to start up, which ones are messing with what resources. In reality, NT has a bunch of tools available for this kind of thing, but, as usual, you have to install them separately - ON EVERY WORKSTATION. Linux comes ready-to-manage locally or remotely.
Add LDAP and Directory Administrator and you are set to go for large installations.
Re:Lets take an objective aproach. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Lets take an objective aproach. (Score:3, Insightful)
And as far as installations, especially in the corporate world, ghost images are the rule of the day. We have several standard setups for different user groups. Takes maybe an hour or two (unattended) to fully install everything.
Not saying that Linux is easier or harder or more comprehensive to push out a new ins
Re:Lets take an objective aproach. (Score:5, Informative)
I have come from many Microsoft Shops
An OS is used to deliver applications that is what Linux does. It is not a vehicle for big companies to try to sell me something everytime if I open a browser. yeah yeah I know I can get pop-up blockers and such
Is Linux ready for the Desktop?
It Is if you want it to be.... I am completly MS free on my desktop
My tools are free..... My Skills are not. If my customer has to by my tools before I can go to work (XP, Office, Ghost, WIN2K server, etc) that means less money for me and makes me noting more than service tech. (Like the copier guy)
If I bring my tools with me ie..Linux, Apache, MySQL, etc, etc. Then that money comes to me in the form of my skills. Why should the client care what it runs as long as it runs.
THAT IS WHERE TRUE TCO STARTS.... It takes the same skills to manage MS and Linux..... But the middle man (Microsoft) gets a third of you potential income/revenue....
There once was a cluster of 450 Win2k servers on Dell Servers running a coputational application.
They could run a 100 nodes with a 75% reliability and anything more it crashed and required a FULL DAY to reboot the servers.
I was tasked to convert those server to RH7.3.
Once I had Kickstart figured out I redeployed those same servers with Linux, ready to run production jobs in A DAY.... And I did at no cost to the company.... It was so successful the company is now trying to get there money back on the MS licenses. (FAT CHANCE) but they felt so betryed by MS that they felt it was at least worth the effort.
Choose your tools well my fellow craftsman... Choose the ones that will benefit you not relagate you just a handyman for Microsoft.
You can argue perfomance and ease of use all you want but at the end of the day it comes down to money and how much you get. And if the company you work for uses a Microsoft for thier tools, that makes you Microsoft's bitch. Microsoft gets paid first.
Re:Lets take an objective aproach. (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, Win XP took at least two hours when I last installed it. I went out and mowed the lawn in the intervening time. Solaris 9 installs faster...and that's with pkgadd! Of course, YMMV.
Re:Lets take an objective aproach. (Score:3, Funny)
* Solitare
* Minefield
Together, these two "killer apps" is what really separates the two operating systems. Just wait. I hear that Microsoft is working on a two-player version of Solitare that is going to seal the fate of Red Hat and it's ilk.
Re:Lets take an objective aproach. (Score:4, Interesting)
Obviously you've never used the GIMP. Does paint have support for:
* Multiple layers
* Layer masks
* Full alpha channel
* RGB and HSV modes
* Advanced Filters
* Numerous, numerous plugins
* The ability to write your own plugins with ~ 15 lines of code
* Numerous brushes, textures, and gradients
* Ability to work with animated images
* Ability to import/export almost every graphic type
I didn't think so.
"Diagramming ? Gee whiz - we all do that all the time !"
Many people do. ORG charts, customer presentations, processes, all require diagramming. At my company, I've had to install Dia on a number of people's Win boxes.
"FTP programs - out of the Windows box too, not that many people need to FTP when they can drag and drop."
IE is not a true FTP program. Real FTP has lots more options. I'm also not talking command-line, I'm talking GUI drag-and-drop.
"CD burning software - XP can write to discs ok thanks."
Can it write VideoCDs? Can it do Disk-At-Once?
"Terminal emulation ? Yet again, how many regular users need it ? But there's Hyperterminal for some emulations if you need them."
Hyperterminal doesn't do 3270. 3270 is a HIGHLY-used terminal emulation. It's used by just about anyone whose got an AS/400 - including churches, banks, department stores, governmental offices, and tons of other places.
"PDF ? Like the Acrobat reader for Windows costs ??" I didn't say it costs. I said it costs time for installation.
"Development software - yet again, who needs that ? We're talking about the desktop here !"
There are many classes of users that use development software. In most companies, the ones who have the know-how can't because licensing is so expensive. On Linux, the tools come with it to do simple GUIs w/ Python to automate tasks. You only have to have one person with a little experience to get leaps and bounds of productivity.
"MS could add loads of extra software in the price but then certain camps would be bleating just like they did with the bundled IE."
See my other post on this topic. Also note that if they could do this within the given price, why don't they lower the price they have now?
"As another poster reports, major corps don't build every machine on it's own ! Wake up - they use Ghost or similar ? At our site it takes TWO minutes to download the build and the scripts add another five minutes to configure the names and IPs, mostly unattended."
Again, read my other posts. Most corporations may use GHOST, but are usually violating a large number of license agreements in the process. That can mean big problems later. Also, to use GHOST, you have to have a _very_ uniform hardware platform.
"And people in-house who can code ? Who's REALLY going to modify their OS ? Version control, in depth knowledge of the source code, testing, documentation, etc. It's just not worth it for most people."
There are many parts that _are_ worth it to people. Depending on what you're modifying, it really doesn't take that much effort. I'd say any company with > 300 people has the tools to do this if they wanted to without much hassle. It's really not any more intrusive than customizing registry entries.
"Linux systems are NOT easier to manage. Read up about Windows GPOs and see how easy it is to apply settings, install software, configure security, etc, to a few or many machines at once."
When I say "manage", I mean update and fix. The need to manage people's desktops in the Windows sense comes from how easy it is to screw up your PC in Windows. With Linux, it's much harder for an end-user to screw up their computer, so you don't need to do as much high-handed "managing". With Linux, you get the ability to do full termina