Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Novell Software Linux IT

Desktop Linux Mass Migration 456

Posted by Zonk from the mooooo dept.
Rob writes "With many Linux vendors attempting to push the open source operating system as a desktop alternative to Windows, Computer Business Review reports on Novell's migration to Linux on the desktop. From the article: 'Changing any mission-critical technology is a daunting task, and despite the growing maturity of Linux as a desktop operating system, it is little wonder that the vast majority of businesses are sticking with Windows.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Desktop Linux Mass Migration More

Desktop Linux Mass Migration

Comments Filter:

  • Need more apps (Score:5, Funny)

    by seanadams.com ( 463190 ) * on Sunday July 17, 2005 @06:22PM (#13089195) Homepage
    That's great for Novell, but I don't think the rest of the world is going to migrate to the Linux desktop until we have some better desktop apps. Since I had fuck all to do today, I wrote a very useful one - maybe this will drive some people to our awesome platform:
    #!/usr/bin/perl

    $_='A=15; B=30; select(stdin); $|=1; select(stdout);$|=1; system
    "stty -echo -icanon eol \001"; for C(split(/\s/,"010.010.010.010
    77.77 022.020.020 330.030.030 440.044.000 055.550.000 666.060.".
    "000")){D=0;for E(split(/\./,C)){F=0;for G(split("",E)){C[P][F++
    ][D]=G} D++}J[P]=F; I[P++] =D}%L=split(/ /,"m _".chr(72)." c 2".
    chr(74)." a _m");sub a{for K(split(/ /,shift)){(K,L)=split(/=/,K
    );K=L{K};K=~s/_/L/; printf "%c[K",27}}sub u{a("a=40");for D(0..B
    -1){for F(0..A-1){M=G[F][D];if(R[F][D]!=M) {R[F][D]=M;a("m"."=".
    (5+D).";".(F*2+5)); a("a=".(40+M).";" .(30+M));print " "x2}}}a(
    "m=0;0 a=37;40")}sub r{(N)=@_;while(N--) {Q=W;W=O=H;H=Q;for F( 0
    ..Q-1){for D(0..O-1) {Q[F][D]=K[F][D]}}for F(0..O-1){for D(0..Q-
    1){K[F][D]= Q[Q-D-1][F]}}}}sub l{for F(0..W-1){for D(0..H-1){(K[
    F][D]&& ((G[X+F][Y+D])|| (X+F<0)||(X+F>=A)|| (Y+D>=B)))&& return
    0}}1}sub p{for F(0..W-1){for D(0..H-1){(K[F][D]>0)&&(G[X+F][Y+D]
    =K[F][D]) }}1}sub o{for F(0..W-1){for D(0..H-1){(K[F][D]>0)&&(G[
    X+F][ Y+D]=0)}}}sub n{C=int(rand(P)) ;W=J[C];H=I[C];X=int(A/2)-1
    ;Y=0;for F(0..W-1){for D(0..H-1){K[F][D]= C[C][F][D]}}r(int(rand
    (4)));l&&p}sub c{d:for(D=B;D>=0;D--){for F(0..A-1){G[F][D]||next
    d}for(D2=D;D2>=0; D2--){for F(0..A-1){G[F][D2]= (D2>1)?G[F][D2-1
    ]:0; }}u;}}a ("m=0;0 a=0;37;40 c");print "\n\n".4x" "." "x(A-4).
    "perltris\n".(" "x4)."--"xA."\n".((" "x3)."|"." "x(A*2)."|\n")xB
    .(" "x4). "--"xA."\n";n;for(;;) {u;R=chr(1); (S,T)=select(R,U,V,
    0.01);if(S) {Z=getc;}else {if($e++>20){Z=" ";$e=0;}else{next;} }
    if(Z eq "k"){o;r(1);l||r(3);p}; if(Z eq "j"){o;X--;l||X++;p}; if
    (Z eq "l"){o;X++;l||X--;p};if(Z eq " "){o;Y++;(E=l)||Y--;p;E|| c
    |c|c|c|c|n||goto g;};if(Z eq "q"){last;}}g: a("a=0 m=".(B+8).";0
    " ); system "stty sane"; '; s/([A-Z])/\$$1/g; s/\%\$/\%/g; eval;

  • groupware (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    is probably the single most important reason to use Windows,
    Outlook 2k3 + Exchange/SBS + ACL is a good business solution (even if it is >2000$)
    until Linux can replicate the suites functionality and ease of use (for admin+users alike) our enterprise will be sticking with a Windows thanks

    of course if *nix can replicate it you will find biz migrating pretty quickly

    • Re:groupware (Score:5, Insightful)

      by YrWrstNtmr ( 564987 ) on Sunday July 17, 2005 @06:29PM (#13089231)
      That, and the hundreds/thousands of Access/Excel/Word apps/macros/templates that a lot of businesses rely on. Yes, they can be recreated in other platforms, but it will take a significant amount of work to do so.

      • Re:groupware (Score:4, Informative)

        by (H)elix1 ( 231155 ) <slashdot.helix@nOSPaM.gmail.com> on Sunday July 17, 2005 @06:49PM (#13089359) Homepage Journal
        That, and the hundreds/thousands of Access/Excel/Word apps/macros/templates that a lot of businesses rely on. Yes, they can be recreated in other platforms, but it will take a significant amount of work to do so.

        Power users with legacy applications and current Office licenses can be handled for $40USD [codeweavers.com] or less in volume. The key is to make sure folks understand that path is deprecated.
      • Why can't they be run on OpenOffice? (i.e. if they aren't able now, why isn't it technically feasible)

        • Here's an article about it I found. [newsforge.com] An excerpt:

          Can I use my Office macros in OOo?

          Unfortunately, OpenOffice.org uses a different version of Basic than Microsoft Office, so macros created in Office won't work in OOo. At this time, no mechanism exists for converting Office macros to OOo macros. There's some discussion of creating one, but due to the complexity of the task, it's not likely to happen any time soon.

        • Another problem with OOo is that it comes with very few(if any templates). I mean, I could live with that for Calc and maybe Writer, but it really hurts with Impress. Even the themes Impress does include aren't anywhere near as polished and professional looking as PowerPoint ones do. That same sort of problem also exsists in diagramming apps(think Visio equivalent). Kivio and Dia are both very nice programs, that would be just fine for most people coming from Visio. But they don't have anywhere enough

    • Re:groupware (Score:3, Informative)

      by Rick Zeman ( 15628 )
      ACL? Wazzat? Anyway, for groupware, Novell has GroupWise running on Linux servers with a Linux client for it (and for OS X, which M$ doesn't deign to do) and Win32?

      When can they expect your check? ;-)

      • Re:groupware (Score:3, Interesting)

        by gabebear ( 251933 )
        Novell's GroupWise is the most complete groupware package I've ever seen from the little I've messed with it. I have used Novell's NetMail extensively and it is the best email system I've ever used.

        to bad they aren't free...
      • While I'd hate to defend M$, I'm fairly sure that Entourage on OS X will work with Exchange.

    • I believe there ARE several Exchange alternatives available for Linux at this point.

      I don't think any of them are free, though.

      Still, if you compare the cost of Exchange to the alternatives, you might as well switch as the alternatives are likely to be more stable and secure, so the license cost is just break-even.

    • Re:groupware (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Patoski ( 121455 ) on Sunday July 17, 2005 @09:15PM (#13090121) Homepage Journal
      is probably the single most important reason to use Windows,
      Outlook 2k3 + Exchange/SBS + ACL is a good business solution (even if it is >2000$)
      until Linux can replicate the suites functionality and ease of use (for admin+users alike) our enterprise will be sticking with a Windows thanks

      Funny that you mention Exchange for a couple of reasons...

      First because MS decided that Exchange 2003 was going to be their new cash cow. So 2k3 is licensed *per client*. Which means if you have 5000 clients you are going to be paying through the nose! $2,000? Hah! That'll run ya ~$200,000 for a few thousands clients or so...

      Second because you have OpenXchange (from Novell) which will emulate an Exchange server and talk to Outlook clients. Not to mention Evolution (Novell again) which will talk to an Exchange 2k/2k3 server with their connector software.

  • Conspiracy #1483 (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 17, 2005 @06:28PM (#13089223)
    <conspiracy theory> Microsoft is paying everybody to stay on Windows<conspiracy theory/>

  • Not so bad (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 17, 2005 @06:29PM (#13089235)
    My company (~800 employees) migrated to Linux over the last two years. It was easier for us since before we mostly used Solaris or Irix. The marketing guys still use powerpoint on their laptops, but I think the rest of us get along OK. It took a while for Linux to achieve the stability of my old Sun box, but it's rock solid these days.

    We have a windows terminal sever in house in case someone needs to get on Windows for a while. I have never logged into it.
    • And why did you feel you couldn't name your company in this? I don't understand the fear people have of saving the name of a company especially if they are posting as an AC.

  • Eating your own dogfood... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Rick Zeman ( 15628 ) on Sunday July 17, 2005 @06:37PM (#13089277)
    ...is explaining why the java-based Linux (and OS X) GroupWise client has reached near parity with the Win32 version in GW 7 (and in terms of caching mode blows it out of the water for its updating speed). I can see where Joe or Jane User would have complained LOUDLY with the 6.5x version.

  • What about MacTel? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gbulmash ( 688770 ) * <semi_famous&yahoo,com> on Sunday July 17, 2005 @06:37PM (#13089281) Homepage Journal
    I've got to say the Linux desktop has become a truly viable option for large-scale corporate deployments. That said, there are still niggling questions about its long-term viability as a desktop OS.

    With the BSD ports collection, the slick Apple interface, many great OSS options being multi-platform anyway, and virtualizing XP for the few XP apps I can't let go of... Why not just go MacTel when I buy my next PC in '06 or '07?

    IMO, MacTel could be a Linux killer, or at least help keep it a niche OS instead of a major mainstream competitor.

    - Greg

    • Re:What about MacTel? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      So long as you are happy with being dependent on a closed source operating system, and the whims of a company like Apple, then OS X is a fine choice. For the rest of us, however, it isn't.

    • Sorry - Mac is a niche OS and will remain so regardless of what hardware platform it runs on. No proprietary OS is going to overtake Windows, neither is it going to rein in an OSS OS like Linux.

      You might want to read Cringely's latest column on the Mac move as well. It's not as simple as Jobs made it out to be.

      • Re:What about MacTel? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by yabos ( 719499 )
        "You might want to read Cringely's latest column on the Mac move as well. It's not as simple as Jobs made it out to be."

        Because, we all know Cringely is never wrong.
    • The only trouble with that idea is that the only problem with Windows from a business's point of view is cost. Although Mac might be cheaper than Windows (once you factor in reliability/security) it can't be cheaper than Linux. If they're switching platforms anyway, it would be more reasonable to switch to the cheapest one, right?
    • IMO, MacTel could be a Linux killer, or at least help keep it a niche OS instead of a major mainstream competitor.

      The problem with MacOS is that it only runs on expensive Apple computers. I seriously doubt that the switch to Intel is really going to change things. If anything, that's going to insure that MacOS will remain as a niche OS.
    • Why not just go MacTel when I buy my next PC in '06 or '07?

      Sure, but only if "MacTel" allows Apple to provide a model lineup of the depth and cheapness of WinTel or LinTel.

      The plain fact from a corporate purchasing standpoint is that one can get 4 Desktop PCs for the price of one PowerMac. Mac adovcates are saying all the time that the price difference is a myth, but those are real numbers from real POs.

      Oranges to Apples comparision? Sure. But Apple doesn't sell the Orange, they only sell a couple diffe

    • Re:What about MacTel? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by at_slashdot ( 674436 ) on Sunday July 17, 2005 @09:41PM (#13090227)
      IMO, MacTel could be a Linux killer, or at least help keep it a niche OS instead of a major mainstream competitor.

      IMO, this is the silliest idea I heard lately.
      MacTel will kill Linux when:
      1. it will be free
      2. it will be gratis
      3. it will not be dumbed down.
      4. it will work on just as many architectures as Linux does.

  • Simplicity & Connectivity: Keys to the Deskto (Score:5, Funny)

    by reporter ( 666905 ) on Sunday July 17, 2005 @06:38PM (#13089283) Homepage
    Most people are not technically savy like the SlashDot crowd. The average American likes Windows because it is relatively simple to install and to connect to the Internet.

    Note that AOL builds an ISP dialup client only for Windows, not Linux.

    If we expect Linux to make a dent in the desktop market, Linux distributions must change radically. They must be as simple to install as MacOS X, a very-simple-to-install UNIX variant. We need the ISPs to board the Linux train by building dialup clients. Yes. Much of America still uses dial, and in the dialup market, AOL is still #1.

    I absolutely admire Linux, and if my ISP would provide the same kind of support, for Linux, that my ISP provides for Window, I would switch my AMD-powered desktop over to Linux. Otherwise, I'll wait for the Apple x86 box and switch from Linux to FreeBSD. I prefer Linux; it's got the cooler icon: the penguin.

    By the way, some hackers will likely provide the necessary software patch to enable x86 MacOS to run on any IBM PC clone. If the Apple x86 box garners 10% or more of the market, then most of the ISPs will gleefully provide support for UNIX connectivity. Perhaps, the title of this article should be "Simplicity & Connectivity & A Matter of Time for the UNIX Juggernaut called Apple".

    • "if my ISP would provide the same kind of support, for Linux, that my ISP provides for Window, I would switch my AMD-powered desktop over to Linux"

      And what exactly would that support be?

      Everybody who uses Linux has Internet connectivity. Linux is a network OS from the ground up. What doesn't work on Linux concerning the Internet that you need ISP support for?

      Are you saying your ISP doesn't provide help desk support for Linux? So what? When have you or anyone else ever needed that?

      Any current Linux dist

    • Re:Simplicity & Connectivity: Keys to the Desk (Score:5, Insightful)

      by debest ( 471937 ) on Sunday July 17, 2005 @07:56PM (#13089741)
      This article (and reality) are about converting enterprise desktops from Windows to Linux. In a 5000+ seat environment, "simple to install" and AOL compatibility are just not issues at all!

      Linux at home is not going to be at all common for a long time yet. But in big business, Linux on the desktop would be very interesting. The lack of viruses and needing to keep track of licenses could save a lot of admin headaches. Of course, the current love affair with Exchange and MS Office, the lack of native support for big enterprise software, and reliance on VBScript-filled apps in Access and Excel are the real reasons for difficulty in migrating a big company to Linux on the desktop.

    • Re:Simplicity & Connectivity: Keys to the Desk (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ChairmanMeow ( 787164 ) on Sunday July 17, 2005 @08:38PM (#13089958) Journal
      The average American likes Windows because it is relatively simple to install

      The average American doesn't install Windows. They buy the computer with Windows preinstalled, and when their copy of Windows gets to the condition that it needs to be reinstalled, they throw out the computer and get another one. [slashdot.org]
  • Device Drivers Applications that don't work under Linux Software Installation That's it. If my video card (ATI), Mouse (Logitech), Nostromo (gamepad), all worked under Linux and responded the way they do under Windows, that would be the first step. If I didn't have to find replacements for FairUse, ACDSee, GetRight, XFire, Ulead Video Studio, Photoshop, etc. etc. etc. that would be step two. If I could just double click a file, maybe read a quick note about the software and hit next a time or two, that
    • And I apologize for the run-on paragraph, I forgot this is /., the only site on the friggin net that doesn't recognize CR's.

    • Not a fanboy post... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by UncleRage ( 515550 ) on Sunday July 17, 2005 @06:56PM (#13089415)
      ...well mostly, not.

      I've got a Sales/Service/Repair/LAN Gaming shop in a small (>5k population) town. 18 months ago, I began a test. I sold two of my clients (an 80+ year old grandmother and a mid 40's professional) a custom built box w/ Gentoo installed. (Actually, the formula was a gentoo install w/ a dyndns service so that I could remotely update the system and install packages -- with their knowledge and consent, of course).

      To this date, I have not had their system back in the shop.

      Two months ago, I began selling low to midrange systems running (k)Ubuntu. The systems are built on Asus mobos and AMD Semprons (higher end CPU's available upon request). The distro detects and configures all devices on install... and auto detects just about every USB device I've thrown at it (from input devices (read gamepads) to scanners).

      As far as application support. Crossover Office handles the needs for Photoshop, MS Office (not 2k3, yet...), Dreamweaver, Flash MX, iTunes, IE, etc...

      And, using (k)Ubuntu, application installation is easier than ever with Synaptic. Open the app, click an application and install. No depencies, no mucking around w/ CLI's, no problem.

      I'm also moving quite a few Thinkpad X21's w/ Ubuntu and Crossover office. At an average price of $350 for a preconfigured linux based thinkpad w/ all the snazzy little thinkpad keys working... they move well.

      Anyhow... I just wanted to chime in with the obligatory "Hang on, it's getting there" remark.

    • When was the last time you installed Linux, 2002? You might be surprised to learn that some things have changed, lately. Try DLing Fedora Core 4, or Knoppix, or Ubuntu, just to see how it works.

      The amount of hardware not supported by Linux is pretty small, and the Windows/Linux gap gets smaller every month. Driver development is being driven more and more by projects funded or staffed by the companies that make the hardware--witness how fast stable Linux drivers have been created for wireless networking
      • About a week ago. I put Xandros on my fileserver (just been replaced w/a newer box). It's been running fine, but all it's doing is sharing a folder.

        Prior to that, installs have been Xandros, Redhat (8 or 9 I believe), Mandrake 9 (my favorite before I used Xandros), and I think that's it "recently".

        I did DL Ubuntu last week and ran the LiveCD on my laptop, but of course the built-in wireless card didn't work. I checked it out, it seemed pretty much like every other Linux distro. I don't know if it'
    • Dude, the Nostromo drivers blow chunks under Windows, and the devs aren't the least bit interested in fixing them. And ATI's Windows drivers were substandard for years.

  • unified clipboard (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 17, 2005 @06:43PM (#13089319)
    One thing that I think would help a lot is a unified clipboard. And I'm not talking about the X clipboard eithor. There needs to be a clipboard that unifies qt and gtk based programs AS WELL AS commandline. As more people switch there will be better apps, however the unified clipboard needs to be worked out as soon as possible...

    • Time traveller... (Score:3, Informative)

      by HermanAB ( 661181 )
      Woah man, what year are you from? This was fixed so long ago, I can't even remember when...

  • why we cant switch (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    first of all, most of the old people here can barely figure out how to open a file in windows. they are about to retire. if you move an icon on their desktop to a place it wasnt before, they will get confused. it makes absolutely zero sense to retrain these people and waste their time and our time and taxpayers money.

    second of all, our 'public' computers connect to several multi-thousand dollar databases, many of which will not work properly on mozilla.

    third of all, multimedia has to 'just work'. no fiddl
    • "multimedia has to 'just work'"

      Yeah, right - and Windows Media Player can play everything out there out of the box.

      NOT.

      If you don't install more codecs and plugins, you aren't going to see half the media content available.

      Your problem is quite simple: you don't want to train anybody, you don't want to change anything, you just want to stumble along with the same old crap.

      So you're right - who gives a shit about you? Your people are old, about to retire, and are obsolete. Your organization is undoubtedl

    • okay, I'll bite... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by kebes ( 861706 )
      if you move an icon on their desktop to a place it wasnt before, they will get confused. it makes absolutely zero sense to retrain these people and waste their time and our time and taxpayers money.

      People who are truly this computer-illiterate won't even notice the difference between Windows and Linux because they are only scratching the surface of their OS anyway. If IE disappears and is replaced with Firefox, their web-browsing experience doesn't change (except for the lack of pop-ups). Power users ob

  • Oh man (Score:3, Funny)

    by Quantam ( 870027 ) on Sunday July 17, 2005 @06:47PM (#13089346) Homepage
    "it is little wonder that the vast majority of businesses are sticking with Windows."

    Sticking that on Slashdot is like waving a red sheet in front of a bull.

    • If for no other reason than the vast majority of businesses are NOT "sticking with Windows", they simply don't have a clue about Linux.

      Probably ninety percent of businesses only have a vague notion that Linux exists as some sort of geek software. Certainly ninety percent of users don't know what Linux is and have never heard of it. They barely know what an operating system is in the first place.

      None of which means anything as far as whether Linux can replace Windows.

      As I've said, the only thing holding L
  • By first having a dual-boot period, they can catalog each task that cannot easily be done with Linux (I bet there are few, if any). The experience gained would be very valuable.

    Also as a competitor to Microsoft, running Windows could be considered a security risk.
  • The real problem with mission-critical systems is that they need some sort of accountability. With Windows, you have a large accountable orginization. With linux you have a web of developers. Even if linux is 10 times better, it is still a harder sell because of the accountability. Especially if the system at all deals with public safety, the system needs to be signed off on by professional Engineers (hence more accountability)
    • With Windows, you have a large accountable orginization.

      And exactly how is Microsoft accountable to anyone or anything? Their license agreements specifically disclaim any such accountability, and even large governments have difficulty restraining them from illegal practices.

    • Re:Accountability (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kebes ( 861706 ) on Sunday July 17, 2005 @07:09PM (#13089485) Journal
      Good point, accountability is important. Let us keep in mind, however:

      1. Proprietary software vendors (including Microsoft) limit their liability to a considerable extent. The EULA basically stipulates that they are not responsible, and that, for instance, the software should not be used in life-and-death applications, etc. This limited liability can be modified by buying increased support and coverage from some company (which is often the company selling the proprietary software). Thus, you can pay Microsoft and they will provide certain guarantees, with a contract, and this will create a chain of accountability.

      2. If you download a linux distro and install it on your computer, you do so at your own risk. The license clearly states that the software is free, and provided as-is, with no guarantees. However, you can purchase additional support and coverage from companies. For instance, you can pay Red Hat to give you a linux distro that they support, and they will provide certain guarantees, with a contract, and this creates a chain of accountability.

      So I don't think the situation is any different in Windows vs. Linux when it comes to accountability. In both cases, if accountability and liability are important for your application, then you will pay some company (Microsoft, Apple, IBM, Red Hat, etc.) to provide you with guarantees. The company will analyze your mission-critical application, make recommendations, and state whether or not their support and suggested software can run your application properly. You have to pay for the support, for insurance, and for their guarantee of functionality. This is the same for proprietary and F/LOSS solutions.

      You pay for accountability in both cases, with professional Engineers signing off on everything... but in one case you can save money on the cost of the raw licenses (and associated administrative hassles). Plus, linux is at least 10 times better.
    • Read Marcus Ranum's rant [ranum.com] about "accountability". There is no such thing.
    • While I agree that professionally-developed software using well-defined and optimizing processes results in better software, it is an assumption to (1) guess that all of Microsoft's software development processeses are optimal or even good and (2) that no open-source software gets developed by paid professional software engineers utilizing optimizing software development processes. Similar to the commercial world, open source projects have development processes and resources that span the entire gamut from

  • Related to parent story.. (Score:3, Informative)

    by tmasky ( 862064 ) on Sunday July 17, 2005 @06:51PM (#13089376)
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3348057a28,00. html [stuff.co.nz]

    New Zealand's Ministry of Education has inked a deal to provide GNU/Linux under the Novell banner for public schools.

    I feel that this is nothing other than an incredible breakthrough for us Kiwis. By giving our kids the opportunity to become aware of alternatives, we could definitely see some great change coming soon.

  • NLD (Score:2)

    by BCW2 ( 168187 )
    I got a trial version of Novell Linux Desktop and have been using it for 4 months. It beats the hell out of RH9 that I'd been using. Detected all hardware during install and runs smoothe and seemless. It's easy to search the other drive(WinXP) and copy file in OO and use them there. Makes me want to try Suse 9.3 as a bstter version for home. NLD is not a home solution but nice for business use.
  • Hey, the desktops only migrated about a foot and a half.

  • Desktop Integration, X, GTK/QT, /etc, etc (Score:3, Insightful)

    by AlasdairCake ( 670654 ) on Sunday July 17, 2005 @06:57PM (#13089425)
    The biggest problem facing Linux is the complete lack of integration between the different components. It's no single flaw, it's a collection of small problems, some which would require massive shifts in thinking to fix.

    The biggest problems I see facing Linux are:

    1. A lack of integration between desktop components, and between GUI world and Console/Kernel world.

    X is to Linux as Win 3.1 was to Dos. The Linux console rules, even as a desktop operating system. While bootsplash vaguely attempts to hide startup messages from the user, they can still press Esc. But it's still there. And the SysV init procedure still asks questions of me - for example harddrake2 runs each time the machine starts. If it detects new hardware, woohoo, Console!

    Then we have configuration. Configuration is handled almost always using plain text files on the filesystem. Every application handles its configuration differently, with most choosing a semi-structured format. XML may go some way towards solving this, but it's no registry. People also resist XML - it's easy to read, easy to tweak, but not as easy to manage by hand as semi-structured files are. However on the flip side, it's much easier to parse and edit.

    Neither Mac OS X or Windows handles startup or configuration in the way Linux does. It would be an almost impossible task to write a GUI to manage all the disparate Linux components as elegantly as Mac OS X or Windows does.

    Linux needs some integration, some elegance. Hardware detection should happen in the background, configuration should happen within a GUI. More of a Windows approach would be nice.

    A device management framework is needed, to detect devices, manage hotplug events, store details of present hardware, and to fetch and store hardware configuration options. This should include graphics card options.

    It should be trivial for a user on any Linux distribution to manage hardware.

    Look to Mac OS X. Perhaps by adopting Launchd, and implementing a "Registry like" configuration system, may help. Here's a thought - make the configuration system have a "storage API" for storing/retrieving configuration data. Users can then select where the configuration data gets stored. XML Files. Database. You name it.

    2. Developing on the Desktop

    At present, there are simply too many widget toolkits and desktop environments present. Motif, GTK, QT, KDE, Gnome.. and none of these are strong enough for there to be a clear winner. They are all tied to X, and perhaps that in itself is a problem.

    A single, unified, high quality toolkit is needed, that makes development on Linux as attractive as it is on Windows or Mac OS X. While choice is good, sometimes it can cause more problems than it solves. Perhaps a solution such as Y Windows (http://www.y-windows.org/ [y-windows.org]) may help.

    To emphasise the problems facing developers.. GTK looks terrible. QT is nice, but it's a fully blown development environment. Most OSS QT apps are KDE apps, which places a dependency on KDE, which is also undesirable. Developing GUI apps on Linux is far from ideal.

    The Linux platform is excellent when developing non-gui based programs. It's an excellent server based platform. But as a desktop solution, it's weak. I use Linux every day, and I can tell you, I fully understand why people hesitate to adopt it - despite the fact it's free.

    • 2. Developing on the Desktop

      At present, there are simply too many widget toolkits and desktop environments present. Motif, GTK, QT, KDE, Gnome.. and none of these are strong enough for there to be a clear winner. They are all tied to X, and perhaps that in itself is a problem.

      A single, unified, high quality toolkit is needed, that makes development on Linux as attractive as it is on Windows or Mac OS X. While choice is good, sometimes it can cause more problems than it solves. Perhaps a solution such as

    • While bootsplash vaguely attempts to hide startup messages from the user, they can still press Esc. But it's still there.

      It's still there on a Mac too...

      Then we have configuration. Configuration is handled almost always using plain text files on the filesystem. Every application handles its configuration differently, with most choosing a semi-structured format. XML may go some way towards solving this, but it's no registry. People also resist XML - it's easy to read, easy to tweak, but not as easy to

    • Re:Desktop Integration, X, GTK/QT, /etc, etc (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Master of Transhuman ( 597628 ) on Sunday July 17, 2005 @07:39PM (#13089648) Homepage
      "between GUI world and Console/Kernel world."

      And Windows has this integration exactly how?

      "X is to Linux as Win 3.1 was to Dos." Not even close. X is a display server. Win 3.1 was a shell on DOS. X can run remote displays. Try that with Windows 3.1. (Not to say X doesn't have its problems, but they're being debated and addressed as we speak, supposedly.)

      "But it's still there."

      You've never looked at your Windows boot log, have you?

      "it's no registry."

      Thank God, the Windows Registry is the dumbest fucking idea Microsoft ever had. A nightmare single point of failure with no documentation and apparently no rules.

      Text config files are infinitely to be preferred over such a thing. Especially when there are now numerous GUI tools that front-end them and do vetting of your choices so you don't have to worry about typos.

      "It would be an almost impossible task to write a GUI to manage all the disparate Linux components as elegantly as Mac OS X or Windows does."

      Never heard of Webmin, have you?

      And since when is Windows "elegant" in handling its component configuration? You've never used Windows Server 2003, have you?

      "I use Linux every day, and I can tell you, I fully understand why people hesitate to adopt it - despite the fact it's free."

      No, you're a Windows astroturfer trying to convince people that Linux has fatal flaws and covering your ass with that lame remark.

      This is the latest gambit from Windows trolls - pretend to be Linux users "dissatisfied" with Linux or only wanting to suggest "improvements" to Linux. You see it everywhere now on the Linux boards. They give themselves away by their lack of real knowledge about what is available on Linux and how Linux works.
      • This is the latest gambit from Linux trolls - pretend to be Windows users "dissatisfied" with Windows or only wanting to suggest "improvements" to Windows. You see it everywhere now on the Windows boards. They give themselves away by their lack of real knowledge about what is available on Windows and how Windows works.
    • Although this isn't a complete answer to what you suggest for configuration management in Linux, YaST seems to strike a good balance between different programs requiring their separate configuration files and the desire to permit the user to centrally (and graphically) manage the overall and, in some cases, detailed configuration of the system with the configuration management system synchronizing and collaborating the configuration changes to and between the many underlying programs and systems.

      If you hav
    • At present, there are simply too many widget toolkits and desktop environments present. Motif, GTK, QT, KDE, Gnome..

      Your list is inflated. KDE builds on top of Qt. Gnome builds on top of GTK. Whether an application is KDE versus Qt, or Gnome versus GTK is more a question of degree of integration with a desktop than it is a fundamental difference in toolkits.

      Motif is so seldom used as to be negligible.

      and none of these are strong enough for there to be a clear winner.

      Both KDE/Qt and Gnome/GTK are fine

  • I'm surprised more haven't switched (Score:4, Informative)

    by Ritz_Just_Ritz ( 883997 ) on Sunday July 17, 2005 @07:22PM (#13089561)
    Most office drones that I know and work with seem to have rather simple needs on their business PC. They use Word for documents, Excel for spreadsheets, Outlook for email and IE for surfing the Web.

    As long as those programs work and the navigation is similar to Windows, they're happy. The fact that they don't have to worry about virus infections, spyware, random crashes is a bonus.

    From the CIO standpoint, it's a win (as long as all your core applications work and people can transition easily to the new "look and feel." The CIO/CFO are now off the forced upgrade merry-go-round each time Microsoft decides to foist "upgrades" on their customers.

    I have converted my company to the following:
    CentOS 3 (clone of RHEL 3)
    OpenOffice
    Thunderbird for email
    Firefox for web browsing

    We have a few people with Compaq presario laptops that didn't seem to mix well with Linux (driver issues) so we're swapping in Linux friendly notebooks and donating the Compaq units to charity. The tax credit for the charitable donation makes the purchase of the new notebooks pretty much a wash. We also had to punt a couple of printers and replace them with Linux friendly postscript networked printers. That was rather painless and surprisingly cheap. (Again, we donated them to charity and took the tax credit.)

    The next step is to migrate all our servers off of Win2K server. That includes office file servers and web servers. We migrated mail and DNS to Linux a few years ago so that will be a painless move (to CentOS). So every system in the company will be running the same OS and we'll maintain our own internal yum repository to keep things in sync and up to date.

    Prior to this, we were probably spending a few hundred thousand dollars a year just in software licensing fees. The IT folks are pretty happy about the change since it makes their life easier in terms of support (we sent the entire group for "RH linux certification" as an incentive to be good sports about the change. After some initial grumbling from the hard core MCSE guys, the overall mood seems to be one of relief...both from the "guys on the ground" and from the "guys who pay the bills."

    Cheers,

  • Did anyone RTFA? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Linegod ( 9952 ) <pasnakNO@SPAMwarpedsystems.sk.ca> on Sunday July 17, 2005 @07:25PM (#13089576) Homepage Journal
    I know this is /. and no one RTFA, but the 'executive summary' at the top doesn't match the content of the article.

    It summarizes the article with "despite the growing maturity of Linux as a desktop operating system, it is little wonder that the vast majority of businesses are sticking with Windows." and then provides two examples.

    The first states "Novell had made savings of $900,000 on Microsoft Windows and Office licences as well as maintenance costs from the move." and "A voluntary migration also saw the company beat its goal to get 50% of users onto Linux by the end of October 2004." and the second says ""We came to the conclusion that our requirements are really only met by a commercial distributor" - that commercial distribution being RedHat.

    How the fuck did any of this get spun as 'vast majority of businesses are sticking with Windows'?

  • Why we need to beat, not match, OS X & Windows (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fsterman ( 519061 ) on Sunday July 17, 2005 @07:26PM (#13089577) Homepage
    First off let me say that the desktop situation is abysmal on _every_ OS. Their are fundamental decisions stemming from the earliest GUI's that slow the speed of the interfaces and allow for entirely unneeded errors.

    All this is _provable_. Speed of an interface can be modeled using the GOMS [gatech.edu] framework. If you are new to GOMS do not argue its accuracy here, there are several newbie mistakes that have been explained and would only serve to cloud the debate. Ever get annoyed at how fast the terminal is to use, and GUI's only seem to get in the way? GOMS explains it, typing is much much faster than the _multiple steps_ involved in using a mouse. Not to say that GUIs or mice are bad, but poorly implimented. GOMs can show when to use mice, when to use typing, and how to structure the size and conceptual model of an interface to be as speedy as possible.

    But GOMs in and of itself is only a tool. Not a guide on how to create an interface. Liken this to racetracks. Once can sure build a fast car when their motive and only measure is speed, but can be more expensive, unsafe, unreliable, etc, etc, etc.

    So where can one reliably make an interface that works well with humans? Most use "intuition." But this "intuition" is genrally nothing more than familiarity. And familiarty does not fix the current, demostratable problems.

    So where does one turn? To the science of how humans think, their limitations, and the subset focusing on human computer interaction. Cognitives cience [wikipedia.org]

    Using this one can construct an interface based on what humans can do. It has exposed our limits and abilities. What mental models we handle better. Folders and Files? A model based on our desks, not a model based on how our brains handle information and computer interactions.

    Using these tools we can end up with an interface faster than the terminal, easier to use, and less error prone than either GUI or terminal based programs. Don't believe me? Try Archy [raskincenter.org]. It is a nearly total departure from standard interfaces. Thus for anyone familiar with comptuers have to retrain their muscle memory. One will constantly reach for the mouse in a vein effort to select text. It will piss you off. If you habituate it's use you will find how much harder and more complex the other text editing interfaces are.

    Interfaces are a thing we can fix that Windows and OS X can't without major losses. We have upserped Windows in security and stability. Things Windows _cannot_ fix without breaking everything. OS X has poor performance. In fact horrific proformance thanks to the MACH core. The interface is one of the last major thing in OSS software that MS and Apple are beating us at.

    BUT ITS FREE!! Which is a lie. Yes, it is not their higher costs of administration, vendor support, and retraining. It is also the worst selling point. Ask any professional sales person. The only people that hooks are people you don't want to deal with. Just reimagine that mangager that was a cheapskate manager who pinched every penny and lost dollars in lost productivity. The old pinch pennies, trip over dollars.

    We have to beat them where they are sore, and believe me, their interface sucks. I use OS X. It is only less annoying than windows or UNIX.

    Okay, I really have to go, this thing needs to be edited in half, correct the spelling, etc. but I have dinner calling me. Agree, disagree but interested? Email me, we can bitch over the finer points : ) aal357 REPLACETHIS sent dot com
  • Lets say you are a biz and you are looking at alternative desktops to Windows. The alternatives are....OX X or the plethora of LINUX distros. It's unlikely you'll choose one without paid support, so the price per seat for licensing a supported version of LINUX is not going to be free.

    So...looking at what you get if you are PAYING..which you will be if you want support, OS X is SO much farther ahead than ANY linux distro on the desktop it makes NO sense to choose LINUX over OS X.

    Now..if you are NOT paying
  • When I want to plug in a USB mouse I have to hack the XF86Config. When I want to change screen resolution I have to do the same thing. Copy and paste is hopelessly broken as different applications seem to use independent copy-and-paste buffers. There's no consistency between one GUI application and the next. The 'productivity' apps are very poor imitaions of Office lacking countless features useful in everyday life. Printer support is horrendous. Linux is not the most pleasant option for your desktop. I don
  • it's been said before, and i'll say it again now: microsoft's dominance on the desktop has nothing to do with windows; it's all about Office. there are just too many people who need word/excel et al, so as long as their document formats are closed, they'll be able to maintain their death grip on the desktop.

    things like openoffice.org and abiword are noble efforts, but they just aren't 100% yet, and, of course, MS changes their formats with every new release just to prevent the FOSS alternatives from catch

  • Slow desktop annoys me too much (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Bender Unit 22 ( 216955 ) on Sunday July 17, 2005 @08:41PM (#13089975) Journal
    On normal office desktop machines, the graphics are just too slow, at least the one I have. I have run SuSE 9.1/9.2, since it became available, at the office and it is perfect except for the graphics.
    I run 1600x1200 on my 21" screen and the graphics are just too slow.
    We run all our MS apps via Citrix so I have all the programs I need. Although the Citrix graphics performance are horrible under Linux, I could live with that(and the flaky cut'n'paste between MS apps and Linux, that only works sometimes), if just the graphics speed were OK with Linux apps.

    After 2 years on Linux, it was refreshing/less stressful to boot up on Windows again(note that I do not run our windows network :D). It was like I got a much faster PC.
    And that bothers me because now I got used to Linux on the desktop, and I would REALLY like to run it, but the graphics just annoys me so much. It is just too slow that makes me think sometimes that I work on a 500MHz machine and not 2.6 GHz.

  • Marketing (Score:3, Interesting)

    by noewun ( 591275 ) on Sunday July 17, 2005 @08:50PM (#13090021) Journal
    Technical issues aside, I think there's another reason for the lack of Linux's success in the consumer desktop market: What is Linux?

    I don't mean that as a silly statement. Look at OS X - Apple has created a very strong image for their product. It's 'sexy', 'stable', 'lickable', etc. Every John and Jane Computer User knows what Windows is; it's the software which runs computers. But what's Linux? Is it a kernel? An operating system? A series of distributions? A free operating system?

    To me, marketing this is the biggest weakness of open source. Now, we all know that marketing has nothing to do with which OS is better, but in a market in which the actual differences between operating systems from the view of an average computer user are growing smaller and smaller, Linux doesn't have the kind of mindshare OS X and Windows do. What Linux really needs is a Steve Jobs, someone who will obsessively proselytize the OS to any and all.

  • This is actually great, if they switch completely (Score:3, Interesting)

    by melted ( 227442 ) on Sunday July 17, 2005 @11:24PM (#13090775) Homepage
    This is actually great, if they switch completely and "stick to it". One prerequisite, though, is that they should allocate significant R&D resources to fixing the problems with this migration and afterwards. FOSS developers, PLEASE take their patches and merge them in. This trial by fire is invaluable, and may uncover problems that are not obvious to you.

  • I'd switch to a Linux desktop today... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SleepyHappyDoc ( 813919 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @12:29AM (#13091111)
    if I had someone to help me when it breaks. I've dallied with Debian and now Gentoo, but each of them has ended up broken (due directly to my own ignorance) to the point where fixing it to make it usable was beyond my knowledge. I'm not a stupid person. I know how to google, and I know that the best answer to a question is a source of information, rather than a set of instructions, but it's not always easy to know what to ask or how to get the responses you need, and even if you do, often you're ignored anyways. I'd love to see a distro step up to address this, maybe with some kind of voluntary mentor/buddy system, where an experienced user 'adopts' a newbie and offers periodic, light email or chat help when needed, till the new user gets sufficiently knowledgeable to fix things herself (at which time, said user could become a mentor for a newer user if they so choose, perpetuating things). This is what keeps me on Windows, and a bit of my soul dies every time I turn the thing on, but I can fix it if it breaks (which, of course, it does).
    • Try (K)Ubuntu (neither vanilla Debian nor Gentoo are really aimed at a user-friendly Linux experience) and if you get a problem, ask in the relevant part of the forums. The Ubuntu denizens are very friendly and helpful (and the "RFTM n00b" attitude really doesn't fly; if someone hits you with this, they'll probably end up being banned!). The only bad thing I've found about Kubuntu is that the implementation of KDE is very buggy, but nothing show-stopping.

      Oh, and read ubuntuguide.org first - there's a we

  • Novell's Migration, etc. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Cyphertube ( 62291 ) on Monday July 18, 2005 @09:21AM (#13093234) Homepage Journal

    When the article deals primarily with Novell and what Novell is doing regarding their desktop solution, it's really a waste of my time to wade through responses regarding Debian or Ubuntu or whatever else. Are those designed for an office enivronment? Not that I've seen.

    When we talked about users in an office enivronment, we're primarily talking about a bunch of people who use an office suite, perhaps instant message others, and access a lot of web-based apps. Assuming that those web-based apps are platform-independent (i.e. not dependent on Internet Explorer), then the majority of people in an office setting will be perfectly fine with using a Linux desktop.

    Having managed an IT infrastructure, I can tell you that I would not want users to be able to do most of the things people complain about with Linux. I do not want them playing Sims 2 at work. I don't want them playing Doom 3. I don't want them trying to install new programmes at all, let alone new drivers.

    I have SUSE 9.3 at home and it works very well. Can I do everything I want to do at home yet? No. Did I have to tweak my install? Yes. But would I have needed to do that to do office-related work? No.

    For the business desktop scenario, I would say that Linux IS ready. With proper user security (don't give them all root), Linux would actually cut down the number of support requests for supported software (because they wouldn't be able to install unsupported software).

Slashdot Top Deals

"I'm a mean green mother from outer space" -- Audrey II, The Little Shop of Horrors

Close