Tales of Conversion - Using Ubuntu at Work

madgreek writes "Here is a short story about my switch to Ubuntu from XP at work. I have been Microsoft-free for 3 months now at a Microsoft heavy shop. Few people know I am using Open Office and Linux. I create countless documents that people open using Word, Excel, PPT and nobody can tell that they were created using Open Office. From the article: 'When I first started my experiment I was trying to keep it a secret out of fear of attacks from angry Microsoft worshipers (especially from the admins and desktop support). What I am finding out is that most of the folks that I was hiding from are sick and tired of supporting Windows and are proponents of Linux. Several of them are using Linux at home. One of the guys I talked to has Vista and XP installed on his laptop. He swaps out the hard drive when switching between OS's.'"

Applications are more important than the OS

[dybdahl]

Most office workers use more apps than e-mail and websurfing, and if 100% compatibility with Excel macros is required, you're going to run Microsoft Excel, no matter what. The same principle can be applied to most other apps in an office.

Ubuntu is still far behind Microsoft Windows, when it comes to Windows compatibility.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[timmarhy]

"Ubuntu is still far behind Microsoft Windows, when it comes to Windows compatibility."

While i agree that linux isn't ready for most business desktops and certainly isn't ready to the general public, that kind of logic escapes me. why SHOULD linux be focusing all this effort on being windows compatible? isn't the purpose to escape windows? it's also majorly retarded to sit there and proclaim linux is somehow inferior because windows is compatible with itself.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[nrgy]

You just cant ignore compatibility with Windows. People will and do use different operating systems then one another, this is why you have to spend some amount of time making sure both can work with the same material.

Since Windows is the dominant OS as of today it is only logical for another OS to have some form of compatibility with Windows. An example would be applications for OSX or Linux that are used for XYZ, XYZ should/would like to make sure the application for Windows that is similar to XYZ can open XYZ files and also save them. This is only common sense, with your logic it would be like Apple only designing the iPod to work with Windows.

I think you maybe don't understand the purpose of compatibility. It's not about escaping Windows or Linux or OSX, it's about making sure whatever OS person "A" uses can create and share things with person "B" who uses another OS.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

What the parent is saying is that using Microsoft as the standard with which to compare everything to is simply stupid. They do not have, by far, the greatest standards in many, many areas.

Just because Windows is the dominant OS does not mean that we should therefore use it as an industry standard. Standards need to be developed for the industry as a whole, not just as Microsoft sees fit. This is partly why Microsoft has such control is because people just roll over and accept what Microsoft does as stan

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[Sycraft-fu]

Well, maybe it doesn't need to be compatible, but he's right: Apps are important. So if not compatible, Linux needs to have alternatives. By that I mean REAL alternatives, not stuff that you have to argue about. For many people, the apps alone mandate that a switch to Linux can't happen.

I'm like that at home. I haven't even looked at Linux for home because I know that, regardless of any other problems, it isn't usable because it doesn't support the software I want. I am not going to compromise my computing experience, it's a tool, and I'll use what makes it do what I want the best, which is Windows in this case.

Well this holds true in many cases. You can't expect someone to realistically switch to your platform if you can't offer them apps that they need. Also it needs to either be that app, or one that is just as good. You can't start demanding compromise. You can't tell a professional graphics artist that GIMP should be "good enough" and they "don't need what Photoshop has." That's lying to them and to yourself. You can't expect them to make a switch unless you are offering something that's at least as good, and probably better.

So really, it is a big problem Linux faces right now. In so many settings, it simply doesn't offer the apps that people need and thus can't be considered, regardless of other merits. One real way to solve this would be total Windows compatibility. If you could execute any Windows app under Linux, well then there's nobody who uses Windows that won't be able to get all their apps. Then the argument is purely about technical merits, cost, familiarity and so on. I'm not saying that's the only way to go or even the right one, but it is a legit thing to consider. People need certain apps. If you can't offer them those apps or something very much like them, you aren't a contender, regardless.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[at_slashdot]

"You can't tell a professional graphics artist that GIMP should be "good enough" and they "don't need what Photoshop"

I don't know for others, but myself I'm getting tired to hear about Photoshop everytime switching from Windows to Linux is mentioned. Does anybody know what is the market penetration of Photoshop? 50%? 20%? 3%? of Windows users? Thanks!

Re:

[jimicus]

TBH, as soon as anyone says "$PRODUCT is not as Windows compatible as Windows", you can probably stop listening.

Windows is a proprietary software product. Much of what goes on under the hood is completely unknown - enough information has been reverse engineered for some interoperability (cf. Samba, ndiswrapper), but expecting any product to ever be as "Windows compatible as Windows" is asking for the moon.

Re:Applications are more important than the OS

[clarkn0va]

Ubuntu is still far behind Microsoft Windows, when it comes to Windows compatibility.

And Windows is still far behind Ubuntu when it comes to Ubuntu compatibility.

db

Re:

[mr_matticus]

Very true, but unfortunately irrelevant. In a different world where Ubuntu reigns supreme, someone might care. Unfortunately, the onus is on the bit players to be compatible with the standard, even if the standard is merely a de facto one.

Running Windows software out of the box is perhaps the most obvious way to get ahead--it's how Windows beat out OS/2!

That said, there is a philosophical disconnect as well. Most people don't have any real trouble with Windows, or perhaps more accurately, don't see what

Re:

[mr_matticus]

Connecting to a VM for users to access an application is not reasonable. Remote desktop poses the same problem, and Wine is just a shim. There are a million *suboptimal* ways for corporations to set this up. Ubuntu would most certainly benefit from improved Windows compatibility, not just for the corporate environment, but for everyone. Something like Parallels or Crossover on the Mac have the right idea, but it needs to be seamless, more like Rosetta, for it to take off.

Re:

[mr_matticus]

Thin clients are a massive and undesirable infrastructure change. Parallels is different from running a VM because all the handoffs are transparent. You put in a Windows CD or launch an .exe file, and it takes care of it more or less like Windows. A VM in the background only works for completely managed environments set up by the IT staff, and even still represents an unnecessary amount of network traffic and overhead for what should be done locally. Installing and managing local VMs gets right back to

Re:

[martinelli]

"Ubuntu is still far behind Microsoft Windows, when it comes to Windows compatibility." This may be the case, but Microsoft Windows happens to be far behind Ubuntu, when it comes to Linux compatibility.

I have to ask...

[SanityInAnarchy]

if 100% compatibility with Excel macros is required, you're going to run Microsoft Excel, no matter what.

Is OpenOffice not 100% compatible with Excel macros?

I ask because I remember hearing that it (or some other open source project) was 100% feature-complete, compared to Excel.

Anyway, 100% compatibility is never required, because you don't use 100% of the capabilities of Excel macroes. What you want is 100% of the features I need (be they parts of Excel macroes or otherwise), and as OpenOffice gets better, more and more people are finding that threshold has been crossed for them.

Even if you have 95% compatibility, it can be enough. Consider if you had to use a spreadsheet once a day or once a month for a few minutes that didn't quite work properly in OpenOffice. I realize many people would instantly abandon ship for MS Office at the slightest sign of trouble, but if it was just the one spreadsheet, you could probably fix it to work in OpenOffice -- or, worst case, you run one copy of Microsoft Office on a terminal server somewhere, and let everyone run Linux on the desktop for everything else.

Ubuntu is still far behind Microsoft Windows, when it comes to Windows compatibility.

Well, fucking DUH. I bet Windows is still far behind Ubuntu GNU/Linux when it comes to Linux compatibility, huh, Sherlock?

Re:

[jimicus]

The keyword here is "knowingly".

The type of spreadsheet I'm talking about, Excel making the odd incorrect calculation is the least of your problems.

Besides, my understanding of Sab-Ox is that it makes spreadsheets an absolute minefield - because spreadsheets make it trivially easy to change things, save it under alternative names and otherwise mess about with the numbers with no audit trail. My former manager has apparently succeeded in making a specific spreadsheet compliant - that was with a team of a fe

Re:

[1u3hr]

if 100% compatibility with Excel macros is required, you're going to run Microsoft Excel, no matter what. The same principle can be applied to most other apps in an office. Ubuntu is still far behind Microsoft Windows, when it comes to Windows compatibility.

"Paris Hilton looks more like Paris Hilton than any Paris-Hilton look-alike". Still, misses the point: Is Paris Hilton worth looking like, or emulating in any way?

Ubuntu drive partition

[Bombula]

I recently downloaded Ubuntu thinking I might do a dual-boot with Windows. But I didn't get past the first screen: drive partitioning. I'm reasonably computer savvy, but the partition utility left far too many unanswered questions: can I create a new partition on any of my drives without destroying the data that's there? How big should I make the partition? Can partitions be shared between OSs? The online help was useless, as was the most popular Ubuntu-For-Dummies style book at Borders. So I binned it.

Moral of the story is: the reason why Linux doesn't have a wide user base is because even though it is supposed to be the distro for noobs, it's still not user-friendly enough for the mass market.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[sqrt(2)]

Strange, were you using 7.04? I remember, back before I reinstalled and went Linux only for this laptop, the default partitioning was setup to shrink my empty space of the windows partition and install Ubuntu on the freed space. Grub set up the dual booting (with Ubuntu as the default option) and both OSs booted and worked perfectly. I found myself booting into Windows less and less and about a month ago did a clean install selecting the second option, "Use entire hard disk."

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[replicant108]

An even easier and less risky way to try Ubuntu is to use Wubi [wubi-installer.org]

How does Wubi work?

Wubi adds an entry to the Windows boot menu which allows you to run Linux. Ubuntu is installed within a file in the windows file system (c:\wubi\disks\system.virtual.disk), this file is seen by Linux as a real hard disk.

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

I'm reasonably computer savvy,

No - you're reasonably windows savvy. The rest of your post makes that abundantly clear.

Try dual booting between windows XP & Vista & you'll find that your lack of knowledge about partitions was the problem, not linux itself.

it's still not user-friendly enough for the mass market.

By your own account, you didn't actually use linux, just attempted to install it - so you've no basis to make that judgment.

Re:

[Romancer]

This is the exact reason that people get put off using Linux. The response from most Linux users is condescension when people tell them that using Linux is too hard. You dismiss the users ability to use computers because he doesn't understand partitions and qualify his ability as only "Windows" proficiency. You fail to see that he has been using windows and didn't need to understand more about partitioning to get the tasks he uses his computer for done.

Why does someone who wants to use an OS for daily offic

Re:

[unapersson]

You don't need any knowledge of partitions at all. You just run the installer and tell it to use the whole hard disk. What could be simpler than that? Not any different to installing a Windows PC from scratch.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[xophos]

You might want to try Wubi. It's still beta, but reasonably safe, und you don't have to do Partitioning at all.
http://wubi-installer.org/ [wubi-installer.org]
BTW: If you install Ubuntu the way one usually installs windows eg: Backup umportant data, Wipe Drive, Install, it is just as easy ;-)

Re:

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

In my experience, installing Windows hasn't ever been much more complicated than that.

That's because you're a troll - a sad, stupid troll at that.

Let me explain it in small words. You're comparing installing windows on a blank HDD, with installing linux on a drive shared with windows.

Installing windows on a HDD with an existing OS & preserving that OS is not easy, certainly not as easy as getting Ubuntu to coexist with other OSes.

By your standards, Windows isn't ready for the mass market (you dumbass).

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Calling me a stupid troll and a dumbass isn't helping

*shrug* I don't think anything I say is going to affect Linux's market share, but calling you a sad troll & a dumbass is both satisfying to me & educational to fellow slashdotters who otherwise might take you seriously.

The evidence speaks for itself: Linux can't even capture market share with its software by giving it away for free.

Nonsense. Linux occupies (or dominates) many computing markets (embedded devices, servers).

I don't think its any stretch of the imagination to say linux is the most widely installed general purpose OS (I bet you run it on your router without even knowing). Pointing out it hasn't made much inroads into Desktops (or mobile phones for that matter) doesn't change that.

Re:

[turing_m]

Ah, the internet... where men are men, women are men, children are FBI agents and rich, successful, good looking guys with gorgeous wives spend their free time trolling on slashdot.

Re:

[Splab]

To be honest I don't think the linux crowd wants you. I bet you decided to do the advanced option and choose partitions yourself.

Ubuntus installer is by far the easiest to use in my opinion, and I know its shared by many people out there - if you got an empty drive or partition for it to set itself up on it does everything you want while you get your coffee.

Re:

[dvice_null]

> Calling me a stupid troll and a dumbass isn't helping Linux capture any market share, now is it?

No, you are absolutely right. So here is a suggestion: Because you find Windows easier to use, create empty partition using Windows (Windows installation disk for example [I'm assuming it can do this, because you said it is easier to use.]) and once you have the empty partition created, installing Linux should cause you no problems. Simply select the partition, make few clicks and go get coffee. So your prob

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[ricree]

The point you're missing here is that the fault is clearly with you, not Linux. For a fair comparison, I'd suggest starting with a single boot linux computer and trying to add windows as a dual boot. From what I've heard, it is certainly going to be harder than the reverse. Like others have said, there are quick and easy choices, but apparently you couldn't get those either. That's fine, most people just aren't able to deal with installing operating systems and partitioning hard drives, but that is what preinstalled machines are for. However, you seem insistent on setting up lopsided comparisons and creating expectations for Linux that aren't even remotely what you ask for from windows. Those are the sorts of reasons that you are rightly being called a troll.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[penix1]

For all the linux fanboys out there, It's worth remembering that Linux doesn't just have to be user friendly to use in order to capture market share from M$, it has to be a one-click, no-brains migration process as well. So long as you don't have that, the evidence in the real world speaks for itself about Linux's failed strategy.

Where to begin...

False assumptions:

1. Linux vs. Microsoft market share matters. Most Linux users couldn't give a hoot whether you are using Linux or not. If you can't handle Linux, stay in Windows. No sweat off my brow...

2. Linux has to be compatible with everything Windows but the reverse isn't true. Try the reverse and installing Windows as a second OS and see how far you get getting them both working without special hacks. Try opening an ODF document in Office and see how far you get with a default Office install. Hell, even try something as simple to implement as reading you Linux partition from Windows and see how far you get.

3. That the general user is unwilling to learn new skills hence will always be in Windows. This is the most insidious, and quite frankly insulting, statement I've ever heard out of Redmond. Repeat something often enough and people start to believe it. The "Linux is too hard" mantra is an attack on the intelligence of their users. Not everyone is willing to remain ignorant of that expensive paperweight on their desk.

4. The install process dictates the "user friendliness" of the entire distribution. In general, people don't spend all their time installing an OS be it Microsoft, Linux, OSX, whatever... I installed my OS (Gentoo) exactly once in 2000 and haven't had to do it since. Can you say the same about your Windows install? In short, install process != entire experience. If you can't install it then do as they do in the Windows environment and find someone who can install it. Conversely, you could buy one with it pre-installed just like you did with your Windows box.

What all this boils down to is your Linux shortcomings are yours and yours alone. Millions worldwide have managed to install and use some flavor of Linux yet your failing is somehow the fault of the OS?!?!?! To somehow suggest that the failure of Microsoft to inter-operate nicely with other OSes is the fault of those OSes is the height of hypocrisy.

Re:

[penix1]

Are you saying that with a straight face? On Slashdot? ha! Of course market share matters. If linux is to be successful on the desktop, it needs to increase its market share. In order to increase its market share, it's going to have to work to make the transition from windows easy

Actually, I am. "Market share" is a false measurement especially since it can't really be measured where linux is concerned. So to use it as an advocacy tool is an exercise in futility. Those that do are in for a long haul and even

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[Daengbo]

I'm going to go out on a limb and support the GP. There are several options for partitioning when installing. They are

• Guided -- Resize Master and use freed space
• Guided -- Use the entire disk
• Guided -- Use the largest continuous free space
• Manual

You apparently know little about partitioning yet chose to use "Manual." That's akin to the Windows users who know virtually nothing about the filesystem yet insist on changing the install path for every program they install. Why didn't you use the (chosen by default) setting which would have handled everything for you automatically? Were you trying to make your life more difficult?

Re:

[nawcom]

Please don't take this as an offense at all. from what it sounds like, you seem to be reasonably windows savy, not reasonably computer savy. an easy to understand article on making linux partitions for the windows user (first one i found from a quick google search) : http://linux.omnipotent.net/article.php?article_id =11859 [omnipotent.net] yes, deleting your ntfs/fat windows partition will destroy the data. you can resize it, using an advanced partition tool like partition magic, acronis partitionexpert, parted, im sure

Re:Ubuntu drive partition

[clarkn0va]

the partition utility left far too many unanswered questions

True. I asked the same question when converting a Windows-only machine to a dual-boot.

it's still not user-friendly enough for the mass market.

This is a very Windows-centric conclusion, based on the generally needless assumption that "if it can't work with Windows, then it must not be any good"

Let's have a look at the problem from another angle: What if your computer had only Ubuntu, or BSD, or Solaris, or OS X on it and your friend recommended this great new 'Windows' product to you. How easily do you suppose the Windows XP installer would make it to get your computer dual booting?

Does your XP installer disk offer to repartition your disk and fully explain what will happen to your existing partition, along with the risks?

Does the XP installer detect what OSes are already on the computer and incorporate them into the boot menu?

Does the XP installer offer to import settings from the existing OS?

Will it mount all partitions with read/write support?

The argument that Ubuntu or any other Windows-competing OS is inferior simply because it has failed or threatened to fail to leave every brick of the Windows shrine untouched is both stale and lame.

db

There is no time limit

[NickFortune]

The evidence of Linux's failure to penetrate the mass market speaks for itself.

Failure is only possible with a time limit. This isn't like a commercial competitor where they have the capital for one big push and then they fold for lack of funds. Linux isn't going to go away, and it's not going to cease development. And it's going to keep on getting better and better. I think you're arguing based on faulty assumptions.

For that matter, even if we accept that Linux had a limited window of opportunity to

Re:

[turing_m]

'Linux has to do more than just be as good as Windows once it's installed. It has to actively capture market share. To do that, the migration process must be no more complicated than a single click:"Ubuntu has detected Windows XP installed on this system. Do you want to install a Dual Boot System?" Yes. Click. Done. If it's not as easy as that, guess what? No market share for you. Not yours.'

That's setting the bar ridiculously high if capturing market share is all that's required. For a Windows power user,

Re:

[Chrisje]

Try installing Windows on a system that's got some linux on it, and you'll get really scared too. Many of the Linux installers I've tried (Caldera Suse, RHEL, Ubuntu 6.x) have been better than the Windows equivalent in terms of user-friendliness and tweakability.

The thing that really kills me about that is this: Suse or Red Hat are deemed Server-side Linux distros and are seen as overly complex by many. The installation procedure will allow you to pin point exactly which segments of which physical disk to u

Re:

[Bombula]

It is true that Windows has advantages because it is entrenched, but that of course means a user-friendly Linux distro like Ubuntu must make migrating from Windows to Linux a one-click process. It isn't, and that is one major reason why Linux is not capturing market share from Windows.

Re:

[SanityInAnarchy]

the reason why Linux doesn't have a wide user base is because even though it is supposed to be the distro for noobs, it's still not user-friendly enough for the mass market.

You say this because you couldn't get partitioning to work. WTF?

Tell you what -- if you want to compare apples to apples, buy a Dell with Ubuntu pre-loaded. Or, if you're cheap, borrow a Geek to install it for you on a spare computer.

Then actually try it out -- yes, USE it, don't just try to install it. Actually, if you got as far as

Re:

[aaronl]

Go try to install Windows on a hard drive. The second question it asks is about a fresh install versus a recovery. Will a fresh install trash your data? It doesn't say for sure. Next it asks about partitions, but doesn't tell you what happens if you do things, or what a partition is.

The Windows installer has less documentation than the Ubuntu installer. It *can't* resize a partition, and it has absolutely no online help. It makes no attempt to dual-boot with another OS. It can't share partitions betw

Re:

[vux984]

The sad part is, if you had Ubuntu, and you wanted to try out windows, it would have been an order of magnitude LESS clear what was going to happen in terms of partitions, your existing data, and your existing OS.

Would you have then binned windows and claimed that it clearly wasn't ready to be a desktop for the mass market? Would you have found much help to these dual boot questions in the Windows online help? or in the Windows for Dummies book? Its almost comical to even think about it!!

Dual booting OSes i

Re:

[wikinerd]

I encourage you to read about disk partitioning [wikipedia.org] and then try to install Windows yourself. You'll see that the Windows installer is light years behind many GNU/Linux installers. Most users from the mass market are unable to install Windows themselves, and some times even to configure it properly through the control panel, not to say be able to work with Windows through its command line interface, and would of course be powerless to navigate in its predecessor, MS-DOS, even if they had to do that in order t

Re:

[siyavash]

Your reply is exactly why Linux has not gained market share. Who are you to dictate HOW I should use my computer? Some kind of nazi? Come up with a super easy GUI solution instead of telling the guy to fuck off and sending him to mercy of the OEMs.

Funny how Linux people dictate MORE than Microsoft ever done to its users. Specially when someone is asking "Why can't I" usually he/she gets the answer "You don't need to" instead of actual help.

And funny how he actually "can handle" "this" with windows and not L

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

It's quite humorous when ignorant people think they're smart.

Why don't you try comparing the flexibility and utility of disk druid that is included with many distro installers to that of the XP installer. You can do much, much more with disk druid than you can with the XP partitioner. The Vista partitioner has even less power.

What escapes so many people is that knowledge is helpful when it comes to using your computer whether its Windows, Linux, or OS X. The more you know about how to use it, the more us

Re:

[Bombula]

99.9% of all Windows machines just have the one NTFS partition taking up the whole drive.

Actually, most new machines I see have a recovery partition. That's what I didn't want to mess around with. And no, there was no automatic partitioning option. I assure you, the following did NOT take place:

"Ubuntu has detected Windows XP installed on this system. If you would like to create a Dual Boot setup, click 'Create Dual Boot System' and Ubuntu will automatically partition your drives for you." Click.

Re:

[flyingfsck]

So stop moaning and install Mandriva. Mandriva has been around much longer than Ubuntu and is very slick. Or if you are a true masochist and want to moan even more, install Slackware. Slackware has been around forever and is still just as clunky as in the beginning. My point being that there is a Linux system for all levels of incompetence...

Sorry but...

[SamP2]

Y'know, there's such a proverb: "To piss off the bus driver, I'll buy a ticket and then walk all the way instead of taking the bus". That's what you are doing.

As long as you are the only guy in your company who does things "your way" as opposed to "their way", as long as you use OSS yourself but adapt it to MS software when used for any collaborative purpose, you are helping nobody and doing nothing but wasting time and being an extra pain in the ass for the sysadmin.

Neither Microsoft itself nor it's dominance is impacted if the whole company uses it's software on the main basis. You can be the black sheep and avoid MS stuff, but look: you STILL have to synch with that MS server, STILL have to produce documents in MS format, STILL have to synch with MS print servers... And so on and so forth. Neither MS's grip on the company (be it the technological slavery, the lack of following standards, or the money going down the MS drain) are reduced by your activism.

Not only that, but you completely and utterly defeat the purpose of using OSS if you are forced to adapt to MS on every single turn. What's the advantage in open document format if you have to produce all documents in Word format anyways? As much as MS formats are bad, even you have to admit that MS software does a better job at following THEIR OWN formats than you can do at following THEIRS.

If you want to be truly MS free, get your company to drop MS. Get EVERYONE to kick the habit. Work to reduce or stop corporate-level contracts with MS. Make open standards the CORPORATE basis, instead of using OSS as a slave to closed source. THEN, and ONLY then, will you actually make a difference, and only then your actions will actually have some result instead of being a waste of time.

Yes, you made your point that you can have a rose grow in the middle o a pile of turd... But guess what, as nice as the rose smells, it won't make the turd stink less unless the said turd is removed.

Chickens and Eggs

[Shihar]

So long as compatibility with the rest of the world is an issue, Linux and OO are never going to make strides much bigger than the ones they have now. There are some small businesses that can probably get away with going to a nice open standard, but for the majority of the corporate world, the demand to operate with everyone else inside and outside of your company means that you need to use the standard, even if the standard is closed. OO is nice and all, but you would have to put a gun to my head before

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[secolactico]

If the reason why you switch from Windows to Linux is because you resent Microsoft, its practices or closed source in general, then yes, you are pretty much doing nothing in the grand scheme of things. Of course, every journey starts with the first step, so you might "infect" your co-workers and maybe eventually the company.

If, however, you chose oss because you feel more comfortable with it or need to run a particular software that doesn't run on Windows *and* your company doesn't oppose it, go nuts and t

Re:

[vonFinkelstien]

Bah! I an author of textbooks and have to write collabrative documents that are used by my co-author and editor. I have a Mac without MS-Office. They both have Windows PCs. Guess what. My using Open Office or TextEdit, or Bean or whatever has not caused any problems or smell like a turd. For 99.9% of business uses, Open Office is seemless in a "MS only" workflow.

Re:

[SanityInAnarchy]

being an extra pain in the ass for the sysadmin.

I'd say you're less of a pain. You've got a secure system, so the admin doesn't have to worry about patching you -- you'll patch yourself if necessary, easily enough. You won't have spyware issues or program conflicts, meaning he won't have to come over to your computer to clean up the mess you've made.

And if you convince enough co-workers to switch, he'll have to learn a bit, but then he gets to admin Linux as well as Windows -- at a certain point, the extr

Re:

[flyingfsck]

Not quite true - every individual who switches to Windows, reduces the support costs in that organization a little bit. This is a benefit even if the licensing costs are still the same.

Re:

[Kjella]

1) Eat your own dog food. If you can't stand up and say "I've successfully been doing my job using Linux for the last X months, and recommend we adopt it broader in the organization", you'll have even less credibility and it doesn't sound like he's in a position to make IT policy in the first place.
2) Even if it doesn't help anything at the office, you can help OSS interoperate better with MS networks and applications by finding and reporting bugs. Even if you could change the company, you probably couldn't

Re:

[NickFortune]

As long as you are the only guy in your company who does things "your way" as opposed to "their way", as long as you use OSS yourself but adapt it to MS software when used for any collaborative purpose, you are helping nobody and doing nothing but wasting time and being an extra pain in the ass for the sysadmin.

Furthermore, there's no point in walking anywhere unless you can walk right around the world. So until someone gets around to draining those nasty, inconvenient oceans, you might as well just sit

Good in theory

[kihjin]

I've been using Linux (LFS) on my home box since 2003.

However, at work I use Windows XP. The office I work in relies heavily on Nortel VPN + Outlook + Exchange for e-mail and calendar/scheduling access. Not to mention the application I'm working on is strictly for Windows (despite being written in Java, go figure). Most of the GUI code is WORA but there's some middle layer issues that will come up if not run on a win32 machine.

Too bad, I guess.

Re:

[SanityInAnarchy]

Outlook + Exchange

I'm not sure, but I think this is a solved problem. I don't know if Kontact can connect to Exchange itself, but it can certainly connect to an open alternative, so we've got to be close, right?

Can't help you with Nortel VPN, though there are more than a few VPN projects for Linux. You may or may not be able to make Linux talk to it. You certainly could (in theory) create an OpenVPN server (there is a Windows client), but that would probably not go over well with management, especially gi

It's not that uncommon

[bytesex]

I used to use Gentoo at the old job, and am now back at Fedora where I work. Sysadmins really would like you to use windows, but they don't care that much; they simply state that you're on your own when you don't use windows. Outlook was a bit of a thing, though everyone who runs exchange these days, runs OWA too. The plugin for evolution isn't entirely bug-free though, and refuses to reconnect when something bad happens.

Also, that powerpoint replacement in OO works, but it's heavy, much heavier than pow

Re:

[cerberusss]

For Visio, you could try running it with the commercial version of Wine, Codeweavers' CrossoverOffice [codeweavers.com]. Visio 2000 has silver status, Visio 2002 and 2003 have bronze status.

OpenOffice still has lots of problems ...

[Lazy Jones]

I don't believe you're a frequent user of Excel/Word/PowerPoint. Neither am I and I was recently convinced by other people that OpenOffice still has many problems with compatibility (I use OpenOffice only but only do simple stuff). Word documents render differently and Excel diagrams look completely different (sort order is different, the labels look broken, OO just doesn't have sane defaults for some settings and doesn't save some settings in Excel files, the same goes for Impress vs. PowerPoint ...). As l

Re:

[flyingfsck]

Hmm, you are just complaining out of habit I think. It is easy to screw things up if you try...

Documents look different if you use different fonts. If you install either the MS true type fonts, or the Redhat freedom fonts, then the formatting issues go away. Excel macros can be a problem for some people, in which case Gnumeric is a better option. These points are well known to anybody who cares.

Elitist BS.....

[Rooked_One]

Use what works... quit complaining about M$.... IF it does the trick - then use it. If for some wierd out of this world reason you HAVE to use linux on your home PC... well.. good for you - it doesn't make you any better, and personally, i'm bloody sick of these articles submitted by linux geeks (i'm one, so if you take this personal, go fsck yourself) dogging windows all the time.

Its a dog eat dog world - look at the most powerful gov in the world and if you can't see that, then you need new spectacles

Re:

[SanityInAnarchy]

i'm bloody sick of these articles submitted by linux geeks

It's relatively easy to change your preferences so you won't even see anything from the Linux section.

Alternatively, you could skim the headline and move on to the next story, instead of coming here and trolling about it.

(i'm one, so if you take this personal, go fsck yourself)

Then it wouldn't have killed you to actually read TFA and see that it's got nothing to do with hating Windows or Microsoft. Someone tried Linux, looks like it worked for th

Fantasy

[fm6]

I create countless documents that people open using Word, Excel, PPT and nobody can tell that they were created using Open Office.

Then I can only assume that consistent formatting is not an issue with you and your co-workers. But it is with me, and my experience sharing files between MS Office and Open Office is uniformly negative.

Word processor and presentation formats are messy , and even the best filters make nasty mistakes. And Open Office filters are hardly the best.

Getting away from the Microsoft

Re:

[flyingfsck]

Sigh - Install the Redhat freedom fonts, or the MS true type fonts. Obvious, isn't it?

Good luck with support....

[JakiChan]

Any project I've been involved with has been made MUCH more complicated by the requirement to support linux desktops. Since OpenVPN wasn't working on the Intel Macs (and this was about a year ago - yes it works fine now) we went with the Cisco VPN. Getting that to work for the Linux guys was a PITA - maybe that's Cisco's fault but one guy I opened a TAC case for just hadn't bothered to follow all the steps in the procedure we had worked out. Getting an 802.1x network to work was a pain - they were annoye

Re:

[SanityInAnarchy]

Since OpenVPN wasn't working on the Intel Macs (and this was about a year ago - yes it works fine now) we went with the Cisco VPN.

Did it end up being harder to support the Cisco VPN for the Linux guys than it would have been to simply run two VPN solutions?

(Also, I think there is a Linux server that will talk to what Windows and Macs consider a "VPN" -- there is some feature of the OS that allows you to setup a VPN connection.)

Getting an 802.1x network to work was a pain - they were annoyed that they had

Re:

[JakiChan]

We're using EAP-PEAP as well, due to the Windows folks (EAP-PEAP with MSCHAPv2 as the inner auth is just about the only thing you can be sure that Windows will support out of the box, although the Leonovo software works well for other schemes and most of our Windows folks have Thinkpads.) I don't know if they just overlooked it in the GUI but whatever at least one guy was running didn't have a supplicant that he could find.

For me, it's easy - I tell them that 802.1x is what is required, give them the deta

No, not really.

[BrookHarty]

I use linux in vmware and cygwin, I love the software, but linux and xorg has issues that make is so I cant use it as my main os. Cluster SSH is awesome, but I got it running under cygwin, so I'm happy.

1. Xorg crashs and takes out my ssh connections. I just cant have this issue happen to me. When I have multiple connections using putty on xp, explorer might crash, but my applications don't. (This is my main complaint, x crashs, all your apps die.)

2. Cisco VPN, my god what is it with IT using certs signed

Re:

[flyingfsck]

Firefox runs Exchange webmail pretty good too.

Re:

[the_womble]

1. xorg crashes are rare: possibly a vmware issue. Certainly not a reason for not using Linux as your main OS.
2. No ideas. Why can you not do a fresh install for Linux? Is this a policy issue rather than a Linux issue as such?
3. You can write scripts for Kmail with DCOP. There are other scriptable mail clients as well. Of course Exchange integration is another matter, but that does not seem to be your problem.
4. Tweak your settings. I have had people who had to move from Linux to Windows complain about Wind

This guy is an exception, but an important one

[Knutsi]

I enjoyed this article and it's related ones. I use Linux and MacOS at home with great enjoyment, and often wish I could run Ubuntu at work. Sadly, I develop ASP.NET solutions, and am completely dependent on Visual Studio to run flawlessly.

However, I do not see our IT department even considering adopting Linux here. They have the money to support the licenses (we're academic, saving us some), and apart from the Mac users, everyone uses Windows at home. However, what happened here with Firefox shines

Missing the point

[steveoc]

There are many comments on here presenting the sort arguments such as :
- "Open Office is not 100% compat with MSOffice"
- "My Visio docs cant be used on linux/other-non-MS-os"
- "I cant connect to our exchange servers without Windows"
- "Our company intranet requires active-x controls"
- "Yada Yada Yada, etc, etc, etc, ad-infinitum, ad-nauseum"
- "And therefore, linux is no good, and will never catch on until it does this and that, and anything else that Windows makes possible"

None of these arguments demonstrate anything lacking with Linux. The ALL demonstrate how very badly your organisation's IT policies and strategies has backed itself into a corner and locked itself so deeply into a closed and proprietary architecture ... that it has lost all ability to conform to international standards.

If Linux has a hard time co-existing in your current infrastructure, then that should be a huge red flag that there is something seriously wrong with the way you are operating, and the strategic decisions that have been made in the past. If your organisation doesnt have the agility to adapt to what is happening now in the wider world - then its only a matter of time before that lack of agility is going to hit you hard like a speeding train.

Thats all well and good if you are happy to thrive in isolation, like some extended family of inbred hillbillys far from civilisation, but in the meantime, the rest of the world will be passing you by. If thats where you want to be in 10-20 years time, then stick to what you are doing now, and ignore the obvious. Blame it all on linux if that makes you happy.

Re:

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

There are many comments on here presenting the sort arguments such as :
- "Open Office is not 100% compat with MSOffice"
- "My Visio docs cant be used on linux/other-non-MS-os"
- "I cant connect to our exchange servers without Windows"
- "Our company intranet requires active-x controls"
[...]
None of these arguments demonstrate anything lacking with Linux.

On the contrary. If, by Linux, you really mean "Linux and the apps that run on it", then something lacking is exactly what each of those things demonstrates.

Take the corporate intranet example. We have various web pages that do rely on ActiveX, for useful things. What alternative do you propose based on Linux and your browser of choice?

We also use many of the automation and customisation features within MS Office to streamline our document creation and review process. Again, what alternative do you pr

Admin people

[gilesjuk]

They wouldn't be annoyed at you for using Linux. It's more the fact you installed it without them knowing. They have to plan these things, virus protection etc..

Also if your job suddenly requires the use of some software you can't run then you'll be stuffed.

Re:Admin people

[fluffy99]

Actually, I doubt the original poster is in a managed corporate environment or that they have admin folks of any quality since they didn't notice. In a corporate (not a small office setup), real admins monitor the network and clients for changes like this. Hell, I know when someone installs software much less changes the OS. I keep a master list of installed software and I frequently verify that it's all up to date. In a larger security-conscious environment you absolutely must be aware of whats running on your network and what your vulnerabilities are. Rogue users installing Linux without even talking to the admin guys as a security risk, period. Most Linux guys are woefully ignorant of how nice a well establish AD environment is. It's more that just domain services. It's the ability to assign privileges at a very granular level, set domain wide policies, domain wide scripts for anything unusual, etc. I manage both Linux and Windows networks (>400 each). The Windows side is far easier to manage than the Linux side. On the linux side, I'm constantly fighting stupid stuff like file permissions. amba sucks at letting users change file permissions and user-group-world isn't exactly granular enough. Despite the Open Office lovers here, it's a piss-poor replacement for MS Office. It can't handle any of the VBA scripting that is ever so present in Excel. Most word documents look different between the two. Forget even trying to use MS Access or MS Project files.

Wait wait wait!

[clarkn0va]

Some quotes from the linked article:

I am not saying that because I can be productive that everyone should abandon Microsoft and start a project to implement Linux corporate wide.

I don't hate Windows, although I am not a fan of Microsoft as a company. I do give Microsoft credit for creating a product that has changed computing forever. For companies with huge budgets it might make sense to continue down the Microsoft path.

If you take on a pilot, make sure you have a few people on the team who are not married to Windows or Linux. Get some folks with an open mind who are interested in the overall good of the company and are not married to a certain technology.

Some quotes from your sig:

Yes, I am a Microsoft Employee.

Ok, now please go ahead and educate us on bias.

db

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Wait wait wait!

[phoenixwade]

Strangely enough there aren't many people calling for your blood when you don't use a particular OS.

You must be new here.

Re:

[datapharmer]

You'd be surprised... I was doing technical writing and documentation in an all windows shop and constantly got crap about it. Anytime something happened with the internet or a printer or anything the IT department would come yell (literally) at me and how my mac was screwing up their network. Never mind the fact that this was almost never the case and was usually a virus laden computer belonging to a boss who had a penchant for downloading porn at work. Strangely enough, I never heard a kind word when I

Re:

[_Sprocket_]

Using Linux is not like being gay. Strangely enough there aren't many people calling for your blood when you don't use a particular OS. It's only when you try and force what you use on everyone else that they get testy.

Most people don't care - or even notice. But that's not to say nobody cares. You have to be careful about who it is doing the caring.

I've seen Microsoft fanboys dismiss Linux (and Unix in general) as well as MacOS just as completely as the whiniest of Mac fanboys or fervent of Linux zealots dismiss Windows. Technology zealotry is very much alive in all aspects of the IT world. And when IT decision makers are also the Windows zealots, anyone who wants to use something different has a hard path ahead of

Tomorrow on Slashdot

[thegnu]

But Linux is on everyone's radar scope (it's unusual not to hear it's deployment discussed in IT meetings), and the small holes in the dams are beginning to outnumber Ballmer's fingers.

Tension Mounts As Eleventh Hole Is Plugged

Re:why does this sound overtly bias?

[Fred_A]

This "bias" thing is quite silly to start with. I started using Linux back in the WfW days because back then I had grown quite fed up with the instability of the document preparation programs I was using (Word 2.Oc notably which had a useable lifespan of about 6 to 8 minutes before it crashed depite my being on a first name basis with numerous people of the local Microsoft crew). Since then I've become quite comfortable with my setup (I did know Unix before through SunOS and (urk) SCO). Recently I got an iBook since it was one of the cheapest "decent" laptops.
However I don't like it. It just doesn't work for me. So it's hopefully going to make someone happy through eBay while I get a Dell and stick Linux on it.

As for Windows, I still use it for games but never really get to see much of it (just the start menu and the games sub menu) and I find its interface rather confusing. My copy is licensed bought directly on-line from microsoft. I wouldn't use it for working though because like MacOS I probably would have to fight it to do what I want. Besides I have no idea what software is available (apart for the few games I follow) and I couldn't care less.

All this talk of bias is mostly people finding something comfortable and finally finding an environment that works with them instead of against them. For me it was a customisable X11 desktop (KDE currently) with all the nifty Unixy tools, for others it may be MacOS or even Windows. The lucky ones get to gravitate towards the environment that works for them. The others are stuck with whatever was forced upon them in the beginning.

The ones that fight their machine every step of the way are the ones that show no bias.

Re:

[GFree]

I think the people who APPEAR pro-MS are actually people who are simply anti-Linux-fanboy.

If someone observes people continually praising Linux and yet their own efforts to get it to work for them have failed, then it's a common reaction to despise the fanboys/zealots who can see no wrong. Hence, by going after them, they appear to be pro-MS. There's no middle ground in some people's eyes.

Bingo

[Sycraft-fu]

That's the situation we have at work. A problem we run in to from time to time is a grad student that just has to run Linux on their desktop. They never have a reason why, they just have to have it. This is allowed, but you run your own system. That's fine with them, they want to be admin of their own box, they don't want it centrally managed. We'd be happy if that were it, but it isn't. Invariably the Linux guy isn't as smart as they thought they were. They start whining to us about how to make their syste

Re:

[ScrappyLaptop]

Funny comment, that.

I was given an old P-233 Sony, one of the little ones with a 1024 x 480 screen. A drive refresh from the CD produced an unstable Win98 system with an old version of IE that choked on any modern website. A couple of evenings later, it runs Puppy quickly and smoothly from a CF card instead of a HDD, greatly increasing battery life while reducing heat and noise. Runs in ramdisk, only dumping to flash when a session is ending. Even Wifi was quick to set up. So, you see, in some cases,

Re:

[lukas84]

Disclaimer: I'm an MCSE and currently work for a Microsoft Partner - still, it's my honest opinion.

I would call myself "pro-Microsoft Software". Mainly because i actually like most of their software, and think that they currently the best Business Desktop and Collaboration products.

That doesn't mean that Microsoft software is perfect, or that Microsoft the company is a good company. There are many idiosyncrasies in their products, mainly to retain backwords compatibility (which is a key point in the Microso

Re:

[lixee]

But I can't -- off the top of my head -- think of ever meeting anyone who defended MS to the death because of the way they implemented something...

You've clearly never spent much time around Digg.

Re:right tool for the job

[Swampash]

I personally don't give a sh*t what operating system and/or applications I'm using so long as the combination DOES WHAT I WANT. In my personal situation, that means Linux on the server, OS X on my desktop and laptop, and Windows in a VM so I can run a few Windows-only apps when I need them. But I don't use any of them because I have some sort of emotional or religious attachment to them.

Re:right tool for the job

[Bert64]

For many technically minded people, Linux does what they want and windows doesnt.
Remember, the more skilled you are at programming, the more linux will suit you because you can modify it to suit your needs. Similarly, the entire working environment is far more easily customised.
So you see, most linux advocates are technically minded people, who use linux for the above reasons, which fulfills the same basic requirements that you have.
Oh, and OSX is nice too but if the frontend doesnt suit you (and it cant possibly, one size never fits all) then your screwed unless you replace aqua with X11, and then you may as well be running linux.

stop the bullshit

[oohshiny]

People modify all three desktop operating systems (Linux, Windows, OS X) to suit their needs, and it doesn't require programming. Windows and OS X desktops usually have dozens of little third party utilities installed, many of which cost money and many of which haven't been tested together. Of the three, Linux probably requires the least amount of tinkering, and all you need is included out of the box.

Re:

[Bert64]

Sure you can alter windows with a disassembler, but is it legal to do so? And is it legal to distribute the changes? You may still be able to change things, but it's harder, slower and possibly illegal. Linux is free for you to change it however you want, and contribute the changes to others.

As for third party addons, shell replacements may exist but they always seemed very clunky compared to changing your window manager on unix. As for changing the filesystems, can you actually boot the OS from a new files

Me too

[PinkyDead]

I work for a large company who seem to be of the mindset that if big companies don't support each other that the world will end. Ergo, Microsoft good, anything else bad. I know that in certain geographical (unnamed) divisions the use of Firefox is a sackable offence - or certainly warrants a massive slap on the wrists.

Where I am it's not so bad - however, my (illegal) Xubuntu installation is on an external drive with the Grub RW CD for booting and I can pull the plug (literally) if there's a problem. Originally, I had a linux paritition but I've moved away from that and restored all my partitions to the way they were delivered. Although I use rsync to keep copies of my home directory on the D: drive just in case and I have dallied with the Linux swap on the Windows swap file (still working out the kinks). Xubuntu on an external drive is slow - but it's actually faster than Windows on the main drive.

Anyways, I would have two complaints from the point of view of someone sneaking Linux into the Workplace (Undermining the bastards from the inside!):

1. OpenOffice sucks. Now the response to this is the obvious 'Hey Stupid! OpenOffice isn't Linux'. To which I reply, 'Hey Nutjob! Wake up to the realities of the market you are trying to get in to'. It matters not that OpenOffice is not officially a part of Linux - it is a fundamental part of Linux in a business environment. OpenOffice is not able to handle the full array of rubbish that Microsoft Word produces leading to the inevitable - 'Oh that's strange I looks fine on my computer' {scramble to reissue document using Word in Wine} 'Try that version'. That said Word 97 works great under Wine, so I use that a lot - although I do prefer AbiWord.

2. It'd be nice to have a stealth Windows skin for Xubuntu. Needs to have all those nasty startup screens, skin the GDM, skin the window manager - and the big one, skin Xscreensaver especially so it can load 'corporate mandated screensavers' and ask for the password in a Windowsy way. Oh and some yoke that could be installed so that anyone enquiring from the outside using network tools etc (i.e. M$ Administrator), would be told 'Windows Machine - nothing to see here'.

Re:

[mackyrae]

I use PDF for files that are just being passed on and not modified.

For the rest of that, there's XPDE to make it look and feel like Windows, but then I guess you wouldn't want to be using it. You could screenshot Windows and then clip out a chunk of the taskbar and set it as the background on the panel. If you don't mind using a different window manager, I know there are Vista themes for Beryl. There may be an XP one too. Or just say you added a new theme in Windows if your company allows that. I'm

Re:

[mackyrae]

mozilla-plugin-vlc should handle your in-browser media needs.

Re:

[SanityInAnarchy]

It's being worked on. [kde.org]

There is GOOD support out there for groupware systems other than Exchange, and some of those (I think) can interoperate with Outlook. But there's not complete Exchange interaction.

Still, I think it's included on the Kubuntu LiveCD -- or if not that, I can probably find a LiveCD that has it -- so you could try it out for a day, see how well it works? Then again, it probably takes a bit of tech savvy to get it working right, especially on a LiveCD...

Re:

[flyingfsck]

In my experience, Evolution works better with Exchange, than Outlook works with Exchange.

Re:Here's An Easy One: Stop Using Viso for Modelin

[flyingfsck]

The other day someone asked for the original Visio drawing I used in a presentation - so I commented that I never had it, I did a screen capture and edited the drawing with The Gimp using PuTTY to a Linux box in the lab...

Re:

[Krokant]

Let me jump in and add something to that: three years ago, I went through the entire process of setting up a 80 desktop environment using Linux. I set up an LDAP server, Samba, home folders on a centralized share, print servers using CUPS, mail server using Dovecot/EXIM, a centralized configuration system and a minimal level of failover redunancy... in short: the works. The system worked nice and stable, but it took me 2 months to get everything up and running (granted, at the time, I was new to LDAP and it