Cendant Putting Linux in 4,000 Hotels 140
sean dreilinger writes "Hotel franchisor eyes low cost, stability of Linux, but says the OS has its drawbacks.
Cendant Corp., the world's largest franchisor of hotels, is rolling out Linux servers at about 4,000 hotels to run the company's hotel management software.
" It's on the server side, but still a large rollout, nonetheless...
Point and Click! (Score:1)
----Maybe someday people will fall to there knees and say, "Teach me something new and superior to that which I already know!". Then again they'll probably say, "Get Lost!".--- Anonymous Coward
Driver support issues??? (Score:1)
Really? That's funny. I turned up almost 8000 results. Did you try clicking on the little button labeled "Submit"?
A few minutes searching on the real internet turned up http://ati.veiled.net/ [veiled.net] and http://www.core.binghamton.edu/~ins omnia/gatos/ [binghamton.edu], sites which deal directly with support for the "ATI All-In-Wonder, All-In-Wonder Pro or Rage II/Pro with ATI-TV tuner card". Yes, under Linux.
I can just imagine a linux junky saying to a hapless newbie linux user who's new video card isn't supported "don't buy crap hardware!".
If you would care to show me a video card which has _no_ support under linux, then I will listen to you. Until then, you are just babbling.
Not having kernel level routines to implement UltraHyper8DQuakotronicRenderomatic instructions does not count as being "unsupported". If you have an "unsupported" video card, and bought it without bothering to spend a few minutes checking to see if it had support (an act comparable in stupidity to buying software labeled "DOS/Win95" to run on your Mac), then just run it in VGA or SVGA mode until the new drivers come out.
Ignoring a problem by having the user research for 2 weeks trying to find hardware that both performs at the expected level, has the required features, and is fully supported in linux isn't going to fix anything.
*cough cough* So you're saying that buying a new computer should be as simple as, say, buying a car or choosing a school to send your children to -- Just take whatever comes along first and expect that it will naturally meet all of your needs. Does it really take you two weeks to read the Hardware Compatibility Howto [unc.edu] and then follow up to see if your hardware is or is not supported by the latest releases?
-D
dcross@cryogen.com
Driver support issues (Score:1)
With press like this, what's there to complain about? Oh wait...
The Bottom Line here.... (Score:1)
Silly quote~! (Score:1)
Bye-bye desktop. (Score:1)
Why these oems always choose such crappy on-board stuff is beyond me. Well, it's because it's cheap, but still can't they get mediocre and supported chipsets? Sheesh.
What to do? (Score:1)
If you really want to look into what all Linux has, your best bet would be to pick up a book, RedHat comes with one and it's even available on their web site, or any of the $30-40 ones at a decent bookstore. They are written to take you step by step through navigating the command line, setting up X, setting up PPP, etc.
Without the proper help along these lines, you'd be just as stuck at a command line as I would be at Povray. Sure there's some cool pictures people make with it, but with no artistic talent, I'm pretty much helpless.
Is installation really that hard? (Score:1)
My brother which has no Linux experience at all and isn't a power user (although a bit more than the average person) was really surprised at how easy it was to do it.
After having lots of problems with NT (on a new preinstalled IBM Netfinity) working with an accounting app (DOS based) and about same problems with NetWare, I suggested he try Linux. I installed the first machine which is a P166 with 16MB RAM and a big HD. We put on Samba and after a week of testing removed the NT server. It's been a month now with no problems whatsoever. He is really amazed. Even the speed with 14 users doing heavy work is acceptable (although not great - it was the simplest machine we could find). So now he's moving the Netfinity to Linux and he is doing it himself!
He's planning deploying Linux on the other stores he owns. Having the server up for a month without a single reboot or problem conviced him
Install process? (Score:1)
Between the lines (Score:1)
Here, we have someone with the same complaints, but when it came time to put the money down, which way did it go? I think this is more along the lines of reality; people who are seriously considering Linux for it's benefits (performance and stability) aren't likely to be put off by the install process.
As for the video driver thing, you can blame that on Linux if you want to, but someone should have insured that they could deliver all the machines with a known (compatible) configuration ahead of time. Changing hardware midstream is asking for trouble. I realize it happens, but maybe I shouldn't be blaming my hammer when I run out of nails.
Bye-bye desktop. (Score:1)
Are these things more complex now? Do they do more, or is the programming more complex because of GUI issues? Or is it just that we're talking about a much bigger market, and therefore much bigger systems?
Is installation really that hard? (Score:1)
That, and USB support, are probably the two biggest problems.
This is massive work (Score:1)
I believe Linux would make an excellent platform for such a system, but it would take a lot of effort and thought to create a best-of-breed system for Linux. On the other hand, a quality, low-downtime system would be a big ticket item in terms of what hotels would pay in support and maintenance contracts (I'm guessing $10-20 grand per site per annum EASILY).
I wouldn't write it in JavaScript. (Score:1)
Single installation okay, but how do you scale? (Score:1)
To get such a rollout out of the door without many problems, you have to create installation servers. If you setup is a distributed setup, you may want to install a software distribution infrastructure for later software upgrades. You don't want compilers on systems deployed remotely, but you want to have a centralized testing and packaging center, where upgrade packages are being made, tested on reference hardware and then systematically installed and deployed - of course you have to keep an inventory database so that you know what version has been shipped to which system and if the install worked correctly or if it failed.
The article cited a single major problem with hardware support, caused by a video hardware change introduced by IBM. This, of course, can kill your NT rollout as well, because NT video driver setup isn't that rosy, too.
It did not talk about software distribution and maintenance issues, which I view as the major problem in a distributed rollout that size. I think that this is a good sign: While Linux has no tools that can manage and automatize such problems per se, you can surely build your own set of tools to manage such problems without to much hassle.
Of course it would be better if the distribution of your choice provided such enterprise scale deployment and maintenance tools instead of requiring that you hack them up yourself.
Free Tivoli, anyone?
Is installation really that hard? (Score:1)
The driver criticism is legit (and will probably remain a problem for at least a year) but the installation comment puzzles me.
I thought Red Hat and Caldera were really easy to install nowadays. Is it really harder than Win98? Does anybody have some recent new-user stories that illustrate the problems?
I'm wondering if the perceived difficulty in installation is simply because most users have been through the Windows install more often and it's just more familiar.
Try SAX! (Score:1)
SAX will probably be incorporated into XFree86 for the 4.0 version.
And on a related note, DDC support will take care of the monitor timings for most people (at least those with newer monitors). Also, the new driver module infrastructure will mean supporting new chipsets just requires downloading a small easy-to-install driver, rather than the whole X distribution.
Silly quote~! - I have to agree (Score:1)
Who is Damon Covey? (Score:1)
"We chose not to use Windows NT, since it's Linux support is still in it's infancy. Instead, we're now using FreeBSD as a cheaper alternative for Linux." -- The future?
Mathijs
{Free,Net,Open}BSD is great (Score:1)
"We chose not to use Windows NT, since it's Linux support is still in it's infancy. Instead, we're now using FreeBSD as a cheaper alternative for Linux." -- The future?
What I meant was that in some twisted future, Linux might be more popular than Windows. Microsoft would have to add Linux support to keep Windows a viable alternative. FreeBSD on the other hand runs Linux programs just nicely. And why FreeBSD as a cheaper alternative? I see the commercialisation of Linux with mixed feelings. The competence of users is droping (a lot of Redhat and OpenLinux users can't compile their own kernels), which I find, by lack of a betrer word, a bit sad. But I guess that's the price we have to pay for more mainstream acceptance. A couple of years ago you were weird of you used Linux, now your cool!
Excuse the typos. And for those Redhat (I use Redhat) and OpenLinux users out there, start your flametrowers, but do it to my email adres and not this forum.
Mathijs
Good AND Easy exists (Score:1)
If you want a free OS I really think SuSE has an easy setup - easier than Redhat's, actually.
Get a clue, please. (Score:1)
NeXTStep was Good and Easy.
MacOS X is the next generation of NeXTStep.
Furthmore, I find your argument to be rather flawed. What does it MATTER if graphics slow things down? As in all things with engineering, it is a TRADE OFF between asthetics and performance.
You're also toeing the line dangerously close to Godwin's law, with your silly rants about "Sovietism". Grow up, please.
I like FreeBSD. However, your "several years ahead" of the old BSD 4.4 system argument is flawed, considering MacOS X uses FreeBSD (and NetBSD) code, plus its own enhancements drawn from almost TEN YEARS of experience with Mach (the NeXT boys DO work at Apple now, remember?)
Judging things on technical grounds must be seperate from religious grounds. Don't like the proprietary GUI? fine. But don't start telling me that "it's not easy to use", or it's technically inferior. You have already shattered your credibility in claiming that FreeBSD is as easy to use as MacOS - it plainly isn't.
I'm not going to get into a Mac vs. PC debate, either. I've never owned a Mac.
Re: Get a clue, please (Score:1)
The NetBSD and FreeBSD source code stuff comes from what I recall being discussed on the MacOS X developer list by an Apple employee, and what Apple has mentioned at last year's WWDC. I don't have any concrete source for you, sorry, but I guess the only way to find out is if we download Darwin and check.
As for Mach, it is more like Mach 2.5++++. MacOS X final (the consumer version) will be on an extended 3.0 kernel. My sources here again, are informal mailing list discussions.
Regarding the Scoville analogy: I remember when that essay first came out, and enjoyed it immensely, however I believe that GUI interfaces can be made powerful enough to parallel the creativity available with the CLI - it just hasn't been done yet. Furthermore, the whole event-driven nature of WIMP-based gui interfaces does provide a degree of flexibility above the traditional model of "green screen" applications that businesses have traditionally used.
Note that I don't recall in your original rant you focusing on the power of the CLI vs. the GUI - it was more about the "proprietary, bloated nature" of the GUI. I understand fully the power of the CLI, and am not questioning that. Right now, it IS the tool for power users. However, augmenting that with a GUI as consistent as the MacOS's, no matter how propretary, seems to be a Good Thing, which is why I'm looking forward to using MacOS X Server.
It's about good and easy. Easy GUI's for the routine stuff, powerful CLI's for the hard stuff. And perhaps eventually, we'll figure away to get the expressiveness of a CLI into a GUI.
Silly quote~! (Score:1)
Setup vs maintenance (Score:2)
But once an app is installed, you don't really need to worry about it any more.
When I worked in tech support hell the biggest problems I faced were when users had installed something new:
Me: Good morning companyname, Joe speaking
User: Hi. I just installed the internet my mainframe. Now your program won't print.
Me: That sound odd. Will any other programs print?
User: I don't know. I can't start them. There's no mousey thingy on the screen.
Me: Can you tell me what is on the screen sir?
User: Just the normal screen. But it's blue and it's got all this white text on it
Me: (on mute) Bugger. (to customer) Have you got your NT rescuse disk handy?
User: I don't know. Where do I keep it? Can't you just dial in a fix this...
How often do you hear of Linux users reinstalling their OS for anything other than sheer enjoyment?
With Linux how often does upgrading a piece of shareware render a real app useless because of some obscure file being overwitten?
With Windows it has to be done just because you install/remove a simple (well it should be) browser.
For power users Linux can be a joy. We get our hands dirty setting it up, marvel at it's stability then break out fdisk and start again.
For people like my Mum this is insane behaviour. Unfortunatley for Mum she has been through the process twice in the last year. And geek or not, reinstalling Windows just isn't fun.
Elitist crap (Score:1)
Well said!
Most techies have a very short-sighted and narrow minded impression of their place in the universe. They think that just because that they know something well, everyone else should be equally familiar with the same topics. Wake up! The purpose of life is not to work on computers.
But the best part of it all is... (Score:1)
Beer recipe: free! #Source
Cold pints: $2 #Product
You've never done this before have you? (Score:1)
You also have to take into account the hundreds of different credit card platforms, in-room movie systems, call accounting systems, voice mail systems, in room game systems, etc...
There is no way to vanilla install these systems.
BTW, the install job is being done by Synergy. Strangly enough, they are located in the same building as Cendant in Phoenix, AZ.
The REAL Story!! (Score:3)
I am the lead analyst at a property management company that owns several hotels that are being
forced to perform this upgrade. I will not go into the down and dirty details of this since it is not appropriate
There are three different property management systems available. Each property is assigned a system based on the size of the hotel/motel. The three systems are:
1- Linux based system from HSS (well it was HSS about 18 months ago, its beeen bought out several times during this upgrade).
2- Win 95/Lantastic (no shit) system from MSI
3- Win NT system from Anasazi
The Linux system is the bottom of the line system for the smallest hotels. Virtually no support for call accounting, in-room movie, credit card, point of sale, catering or voice mail systems. This system is the pits. Its not the fault of Linux, its just a poor product from a mediocre (at best) software company.
The MSI system sucks as well. The fileserver is Windows 95 using Lantastic networking. What mental giant thought this up? These are critical systems that need to run 24x7. This is the system we've been stuck with and its actually semi-stable after massive tweaking.
The Anasazi system is not even being installed. After two years it still cannot pass quality control.
The bottom line....
This install IS NOT GOOD PRESS FOR LINUX!
Due the the crappy software installed on the linux system and the the total lack of ability of the Cendant and Synergy (who are doing the actual nstalls) installers, these installs are almost always complete failures. The small franchise owners who do not have a computer department and who are not familier with computers are litterally begging to be 'upgraded' to the MSI system.
Arrgh! My brain hurts just thinking about this (*^$%$@$! I need beers....
Point and Click! (Score:1)
Don't know about this guy, but... (Score:2)
they hire themselves a Linux consultant to tell them Linux is the best thing since sliced bread.
If the suits want M$FT, they hire a MS consultant to tell them the appropriate thing.
In the consultant biz, you are hired for what you'll say, not what you'll do. The suits want
to know what you'll say before they hire you. Consultants that spring surprises don't last very long.
In contrast, you are paid for what you'll do, not what you say you'll do. Consultants who forget
this often end up spending too much time on a project making their $$/hour drop like a rock.
If you want to be a consultant, be pretty sure you can do what you say you can do.
That's why many consultants still recommend M$FT. This is what the suits want you to say,
and the consultants know this is what they can do. Until the suits are convinced they want Linux,
consultants have no choice but to offer M$FT or they won't get hired in the first place.
It may surprise some
suits behind every possibility (no matter how wacky). It's just up to now, they were ignored.
However, it only takes a few converts before the tide switches the other way (as we have seen
lately).
-extecher
Um, well, kinda (Score:1)
Video cards are a bigger problem in Linux. In most cases you have to know and tell it. This is sometimes more,sometimes less friendly. Perhaps installs should make a more frequent habit of starting X in VGA16 (as windoze does) to provide a friendlier interface for continuing setup.
Isn't the solution to this to check
Bus 1, device 0, function 0:
VGA compatible controller: NVidia Unknown device (rev 4).
Vendor id=10de. Device id=20.
Medium devsel. Fast back-to-back capable. IRQ 10. Master Capable. Late
ncy=64. Min Gnt=5.Max Lat=1.
Non-prefetchable 32 bit memory at 0xe4000000 [0xe4000000].
Prefetchable 32 bit memory at 0xe6000000 [0xe6000008].
"Looks to me like you have a RivaTNT!"
Or do many installs do this these days? I seem to recall redhat will (tho it didn't know about my permidia2 when i installed it last). How about YaST? Of course many who use Debian or Slack have no problem telling it without it trying any risky assumptions.
I think a big part of the perception problem is just that corporate guys seem to be looking at slightly outdated linux distro's, which lack many video cards. Video card support has improved a great deal recently, especially w/X 3.3.3.1 (adding G200, Permidia2, TNT support, amond others). But even RH5.2 doesn't come w/X 3.3.3.1, so many people will find their installs lacking drivers for their vid cards. It's a shame, really, tho I know it's hard for RH to keep up with zillions of rapidly advancing OS projects
---
On a different note: USB. Works on the iMac, the one linux platform so far that really needs it. Under PC...well...we got a USB gamepad from Gravis (they gave us an armful of assorted pads/sticks at GDC). It promised "1 step install". We plugged it into a W95 machine. Didn't work. Plugged it into a 98 machine. Worked. No advantage over old-fashioned version. And I'm afraid support for those far-out USB peripherals will always lag, since no one who writes linux drivers owns them (too bad...digital speakers...cool...).
Result:
- Linux: Limited USB support where _absolutely_ necessary. Some issues w/USB code base (current one is a bit complex & hard to approach. Linus has tried to remedy matter some...)
- Win95 "with USB Support": anecdotally, USB doesn't work.
- Win98: USB works, completely extraneous (well, i could make a case I do _need_ those speakers
- WinNT: No clue. Anyone?
BTW, Alan Cox being Alan Cox, if you send him some cool USB speakers I bet he'll make'em work
Good AND Easy exists (Score:1)
FreeBSD is 3 versions and several years ahead in development of the old BSD 4.4 system. It's very easy, and you're not stuck in the Soviet world of the Macintosh Graphical User Interface. Sure, you can call up a command-line inteface in MacOS X, but if you're going to do that anyway, why pay for your OS, be stuck in a over-priced, proprietary architecture which shackles you to a particular and monopolistic OEM, and miss out on the benefit of several years of post-Berkely development by the *BSD community? Gimme a break.
Re: Get a clue, please (Score:1)
Alright, I admit I may have had rant switched on without realizing it, and for that I apologize. Godwin's Law is a good point, but I was attempting to make a point with the Soviet remark. My point was simply that by casting decision-making and problem-solving choices into dialog boxes, dropdown lists, radio boxes, OK buttons and so forth, the OS manufacturers rob the user/administrator of the option to make creative solutions to problems. It was actually an analogy I borrowed from Thomas Scoville's article "Elements of Style: UNIX as Literature" [performancecomputing.com]. He was discussing NT, but if you'll read the article, you'll clearly see how I thought his analogy applied directly to OS X.
By the by, your calling me to the mat on Godwin's Law was quite appropriate, but let's bag phrases like "grow up". No reason to get personal just because someone feels passionate about something.
like FreeBSD. However, your "several years ahead" of the old BSD 4.4 system argument is flawed, considering MacOS X uses FreeBSD (and NetBSD) code, plus its own enhancements drawn from almost TEN YEARS of experience with Mach (the NeXT boys DO work at Apple now, remember?)
You'll pardon me good sir, but where did you get this information? Certainly not from Apple, in their white papers, they claim OS X to be based on BSD 4.4 and Mach 2.5, but make no claim to possessing Net or Free BSD code in their system. The terms "based on" to me say that their arcitecture is based largely on the old 4.4 release. I stand by my original statement, but would be happy to retract if you can find me a reliable source to prove me wrong.
The NeXT boys do work at Apple now, but NeXT flopped, if I may remind you. A friend of mine had a son who worked at NeXT, too. From what I heard, it was the classical Job's style of management that helped keep the company from going too far. It'll be interesting to see how his style affects Apple now that he's back.
Judging things on technical grounds must be seperate from religious grounds. Don't like the proprietary GUI? fine. But
don't start telling me that "it's not easy to use", or it's technically inferior. You have already shattered your credibility
in claiming that FreeBSD is as easy to use as MacOS - it plainly isn't.
I never claimed it was as easy to use as the Mac, I simply said it was easy. The first time I installed FreeBSD it took me the time to download it from the Internet, basically. To get X running took another hour, perhaps. I would never claim it was as easy to use as the Mac, because that level of simplicity does reduce usability and render a product "technically inferior", to use your words, not mine. Again, I reference you to the Scoville essay above.
In the end, there's a level of irreducible complexity to computers that makes a GUI into a waste of time. I used to be a GUI nut, but then I realized what power and flexibility the command line offers. It's the same reason when a book gets turned into a movie the people who loved the book kavetch that the movie was horrible, it was glossy, and it lacked depth. (ie the Tom Clancy books, the John Grisham books, an so forth). Don't get me wrong, I like movies...but a good book is far more rewarding and enriching. Thus the GUIONLY mentality of Mac people annoy me, and encite me to rant.
As to the title of your rebuttle, I think it says more than I could say about certain matters.
Re: Get a clue, please (Score:1)
It's about good and easy. Easy GUI's for the routine stuff, powerful CLI's for the hard stuff. And perhaps eventually, we'll figure away to get the expressiveness of a CLI into a GUI.
Okay, your first statement I can believe, but the second? Not a snowball's chance in hell. Think about it. Piping, command-line flags, varying argument structures, outputs from executions as arguments, ASCII output/log files parsed and processed by Awk, Sed, and Perl...you'll never be able to wrap that kind of power into a GUI. In the end, a GUI will always amount to click,drag,&drop, select, unselect, etc. Its the flexibility, brevity, and arcane nature of the command line which gives it such power. If that wasn't the case, UNIX would never have evolved in the way that it did. Remember, this is an OS which has been around for 30 years, developed by thoughtful and introspective academics, inventive industrialist researchers, and various computer gods. Allow me to quote from The O'Reilly book "Essential System Administration", page 18, in the subsection Menus and Icons Aren't Enough, "Somebody has to know how things really work.
So I say it's not about good and easy. It's about Outstanding Quality and Knowing How Things Work. In UNIX, that's been the underlying design assumption, and attempting to merge that with the Macintosh philosophy of Everything Can Be Easy for Everyone is just doomed to disaster.
Modularized X? (Score:2)
Why not write an X server that uses binary modules for just about everything? I mean the kernel does it right? Why not just have video/mouse/monitor/joystick/keyboard binary modules? There would be a base code that does the very basic framebuffer stuff and then you attach an output module for your specific video card/monitor combination. Then there would be another module for your keyboard layout/mouse type. This way video card manufacturers could publish binaries for their video cards. For that matter, monitor vendors could distribute binaries for their monitor specs. I think you get the idea about how far this could go though. This would also cut down on the amount of bloat that X has (face it, X isn't pretty) and allow video card manufacturers to publish drivers without having to give up their proprietary specs.
Think about it. It would be very lean and only have support for what is currently needed (just like a modularized kernel). Distributions could compile everything as a module (just like they do for the kernel) and during setup, write the config file that will load the appropriate drivers for the current configuration.
Gordon
PS I'd be interested in what people have to say about this idea. Please mail me with your thoughts. Heck, if there is enough interest, I might start a project.
Driver support issues??? (Score:1)
Driver support issues??? (Score:1)
Then I was given the newer IBM PC300PL that was mentioned in the article (uses the trio 3d). I am running in X as I type, using the fb device and Xserver. There are performance losses compared to the NT drivers but at least I do not have to use just NT at work.
The article did not say if they got theirs working or if they switched hardware. A quick trip to the newsgroups would have told them to use the fb until the trio 3d drivers are finished. Of course using fb may not have been worth the work of upgrading their systems (what is required to bring their Caldera release up to 2.2 readiness?).
Is installation really that hard? (Score:1)
As for inferior software running on superior systems, this is sad but probably true, but from the sound of it the alternatives aren't that much better. I would assume that when you own a large chain of hotels you can probably commission someone to improve the thing for you though.
Between the lines (Score:1)
This is really the manufacturer's fault. They should (in an ideal world) make Linux (or XFree86) drivers available with hardware release.
I agree that they should have ensured hardware continuity accross the rollout. This is common practice on all rollouts. Sometimes you have no choice though.
Adrian
"On the server side?" (Score:1)
The Bottom Line here.... (Score:3)
"Linux's less-mature setup infrastructure increases the up- front work required to deploy an application, but companies find the struggle worthwhile because Linux is more stable than Windows NT."
- Andrew Allison
I don't know about the rest of you, but personally, I'd prefer to choose good over easy every time. This is an intelligence thing. The intelligent would rather struggle than accept inferior solutions.
Driver support issues??? (Score:1)
The whole world domination thing that everyone throws around all the time won't happen any time soon until linux can blanket support a mass number of peripherals. I can just imagine a linux junky saying to a hapless newbie linux user who's new video card isn't supported "don't buy crap hardware!". THAT should turn him on to linux in the future.
Ignoring a problem by having the user research for 2 weeks trying to find hardware that both performs at the expected level, has the required features, and is fully supported in linux isn't going to fix anything. Did you ever dare to venture into blasphemous territory and say the problem might be that linux's hardware support isn't what it could be?
Bye-bye desktop. (Score:3)
doubtless have wordprocessing, and payroll
and so on. It would be easier for me to
train people to use CRT or whatever than
to train them to use CRT, StarOffice, GnuMeric,
and whatever accounting packages that don't
even exist yet, they probably want to print,
they sure don't want to learn TeX... or even
what lpr is...
Okay, so bring it on... What full-charge accounting systems are available for linux?
Don't write to me about CBB. QuickBooks and
Peachtree probably work fine under VMWare, but
that doesn't count.
Point is, there is a whole world of software
that hasn't been touched by the free software
community, nor even developed *for* the free
platforms... Probably because it lacks interest
for technologists. We have a surfeit of
applications that are useful to technologists (various nerds) (you), but we are talking about
the desktop application market... So who's working on accounting, billing, ledger, payroll
and ics systems? These are things that really
do need to be mature before suits will buy them.
I don't think I'd base a real business' inventory
or trial balance on beta software. I'm not trying
to pull MS vs. AlternativeOS strings here, just
realizing out loud that the sort of computerization
desired in a business like a hotel might not be
provided in the current free software idiom.
The accounting software for Windows isn't that good either! (so don't take this comment the wrong way!)
Order up some food & a server (Score:1)
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Super 8 (part of Cendant) (Score:1)
Michael, ex desk clerk.
major cost of a system is hiring people (Score:1)
>> I actually disagree with this point (although not the sentiment behind it!).
I think the point was, if any idiot can set it up and run it, why not hire an idiot?
NT has this facade of being easy to admin - what that means is, the few things that are easy are very easy. The many things that require slightly more intelligence are much harder. But that's ok, cos we can pay the guy less - after all, he doesn't need all those new-fangled fancy-dancy skills the UNIX folk have!
Good to see this company using a decent OS, though but, although as several others have pointed out, why use Windos~1 at all if all they are running are X-servers, which I bet cost at least as much per PC as Winfoze itself?
Up front versus day to day (Score:1)
In the US, car purchasing (up until recently) has been a chore second only to buying a home. The dealers, the research, the test drives, etc. all take a long time and drain a person. However, someone who goes through all the steps gets exactly what they wanted to begin with: a new car that will be reliable and long lasting, while a person who walks in a pays "sticker" gets it in the end, if you know what I mean. (Now, someone might bring up the point that the web has made car purchasing easy. But that is after *how* many years since the car was made a commercial product?!)
I think the same holds true with enterprise computing decisions and roll-out. Furthermore, there is a tendency for people to remark about Windows' ease-of-installation. Let's do some logic here:
Windows is developed based on customer needs
Windows crashes
Customers *need* to reinstall/reconfigure Windows
Microsoft fulfills customer needs by making installation easier.
Time spent making the installation easier is time *not* spent making other parts of the system more stable.
Linux was developed with "do it right first" in mind
Linux is tough to install (I personally disagree, but I can't place my opinions on others' statements)
Once installed, however,Linux rarely requires reinstall
Linux was developed right in the first place
More time is spent on Linux reliability
Jesse
This article points out real important stuff (Score:1)
This can be tricky; if a company is choosing Linux for the $, they may not be entirely focused on purchasing the best hardware. It's a fine line between being a hero 'cause you saved $100,000 on hardware, and a dolt because the hardware you got doesn't work.
If any hardware that is chosen is not WELL supported, there is a risk that if changes happen which break the driver for your hardware, they would not be as quickly fixed as they would had a larger number of people had the hardware. This is all common sense stuff. Most of these problems are easy to overcome, but they involve serious planning.
I'm not sure I buy the maturity of the install/setup infrastructure as anything. Does this mean software in general or the OS? Jump/kickstart installs allow for some pretty nifty stuff, they just aren't in a gui, and a make install is usually easily undone if you can read.
just my two cents
Linux? Hard? Bah. (Score:3)
To make some kind of point as to how easy linux is to setup, in the past three days, I:
- Built a PC from spare parts I had (p60 MB, 16MB RAM, VGA, 2 ethernet cards, 150 & 250MB HDs, and fd0).
- Made 9 floppies for Debian install (first time using Debian was the same week.)
- Installed Debian base, manually configured DHCP to get my cable modem.
- Ran dselect, which ftp'd the rest of what I needed (GNU, etc.)
- Recompiled the kernel w/ IP masqing
- Setup ethernet & IP masqing
- Coming to you live right now off a IP masq'ed windows box with my very own web server in my closet running debian linux. Took me 2 1/2 days. Now I just have to put some web pages up
:)
This is the reason I get annoyed when technical competent people (like hotel sysadmins) complain about the hard installation of linux.Umm...Jobs, anyone? (Score:1)
Bye-bye desktop. (Score:1)
The servers, running Caldera Systems Inc.'s OpenLinux Version 1.1, will deliver the applications to Windows 95 desktops running a terminal-emulation program.
Sounds to me like they're running an X server on those Win95 boxes. Which means that the only reason they still use Win95 is due to legacy apps. Make something equivalent available on Linux, and they can wipe the Win95 boxes clean.
... 4,000 NT licenses down the drain, oh my...
Driver support issues (Score:1)
AC
The Bottom Line here.... (Score:1)
I thought that was really amusing. They wanted to hire someone for the unstable operating enviornment so they could get rid of the stable one..
lEeTist xrap (Score:1)
e.g.: the INTELLIGENT [used as a collective noun, I might add, which just reeks of looking down your nose @ the rest of us, emph mine] will struggle [or whatever] rather than accept an inferior solution...
or: that's why I get annoyed when technically competent people...complain that Linux is hard to install...
gimmee a break.
end users aren't really stupid. they are often ignorant about computers and operating systems, and for good reason: the point of being an end user is that you don't want to know a damned thing about computers.
you don't. you want to know how to do something that involves the use of a computer. learning about computers is a waste of, say, a research librarian's valuable time. s/he doesn't want to use a computer, s/he just wants to find a bibliographic reference, or create a document, or....
just because our lives (i'm a slolaris admin) revolve around the things that go on inside the box doesn't mean that everone else's should. computers, within society at large, are a means to an end, not an end.
when you're buying 4000 computers, whether or not the hardware is supported by your operating system isn't your only consideration. the OS is just one component of a larger system, and if IBM provides good support and good hardware at reasonable prices (and they do, as hard as it is to believe that i'm saying that), then that is a major factor in your system design.
Linux has beautiful hardware support, but it's not any more perfect than anyone else's, and that an unsupported graphics card merited only a one-line comment is actually remarkable in a good way.
As for installation: I've installed linux at least as many times as I've installed WinXX, and I can tell you a few things:
1) WinXX installation is no picnic. You have to pretty much know what you're doing.
2) Linux (Slackware 2.0,96,3.x, Red Hat 5.0,5.1, SuSE 6.0) is worse.
3) It's not an issue with Linux. It's an issue with installation progs. YaST is kewl. sax didn't work for me, despite the fact that all my hardware was listed (and I selected it).
4) something else.
here's a clue: a lot of us obviously want to see an end to M$ world domination. if you *ever* want to see that, you're going to have to stop treating people like shit just because they don't want to screw with kernel source. because 99% of the world doesn't want to do that. EOS.
^D
Video drivers... (Score:1)
The Bottom Line here.... (Score:1)
I think Andrew Allison's comment is certainly a valid criticism.
The [real]Bottom Line here.... (Score:1)
So you're saying Linux should stay behind MS.
The install process (Score:1)
Kick fscking ass (Score:1)
Bye-bye desktop. (Score:1)
Bye-bye desktop. (Score:1)
Good idea, wrong facts (Score:1)
However, I have seen several places with UNIX and NT. And most of them are like the one I work for now:
There are 25+ UNIX Boxes (Servers + workstations), and 3 Admins (actually 2, with an open position). We easily keep up with the servers (most time being upgrades, not troubleshooting).
There are approx the same # of NT servers, and there are 6 Admins, (All MSCEs), and they have trouble keeping the boxes running and get support from our group AND Network services to maintain the boxes.
This doesn't include the extra groups for the desktops.
While the UNIX Admins cost a little more than the NT Admins (not much anymore, NT guys get extra $$ becuase their OS's owner has his face on TIME more often, which is more important to PHB's), we don't need nearly as many of them.
-- Keith Moore
Who is Damon Covey? (Score:1)
Maybe I'm wrong here; are there alternative solutions? What would have done if he couldn't convince the suits to use Linux? WindowsNT? Solaris? SCO?
If he had a tremendous struggle to get Linux accepted, perhaps he should write some sort of dissertation on how to fight FUD and what steps, what actions were necessary to win and get Linux installed as the OS of choice.
What do the suits want to hear? What do they need to be told? What convinces them the best?
Just curious, I guess
AS
Drivers and such (Score:1)
Video drivers... (Score:2)
The problem is that all the video drivers for Linux are being written by a third party. Nowadays, if you buy a new video card and use it with Windows, most of the time *IT WILL NOT WORK IN ANYTHING BUT 640x480x4bpp*
The reason? Windows has no driver support.
"Say what?"
That's right kids. Windows doesn't have driver support; the manufacturers do. In fact, if you were to compare Windows to Linux (XFree86 in particular) in terms of video card support, Linux is miles ahead. The reason devices are supported in Windows is that manufacturers write drivers and give them to you with the video card. THAT is what makes the card work.
Now let's analyze why manufacturers can't release drivers for Linux. Support for video has been traditionally put into the X server (with the exception of fbcon, of course). Adding support means that you would either have to make your own X server, hand over the specs, or force you to sign an NDA for the specs.
Now how can we prevent this?
I'm no expert, but as far as I'm concerned, writing a set of drivers for Windows is relatively easy for the designers of the chipset who know all the features inside out. But writing a driver for XF86 means releasing the source. And Windows video drivers are more of a "plug in and go" thing. So what we need is an X server which supports binary-only video drivers which can be loaded when it is starting. That way, a manufacturer can write a driver, compile it, release the binary, and the user can specify it in the configuration and go.
Poof. No NDA, no harrasing, less trouble. We don't get the benefit of Open Source, but we do get more hardware support. If the drivers are buggy, well, we can't do much about it. But hey, it can't be THAT much worse than Windows, can it?
- ed
Sounds like a challenge (Score:1)
Well guys, if this upgrade is bad publicity for Linux, sounds like we should do something. How about getting together and writing some hotel management software? Sounds to me like we've got a knowledgable poster in the field who could give us some specs. Could be a real coup if we pull it off. Goal: stop people wanting to `upgrade' to Win95!
BTW, I'm actually moderately serious. Anyone interested in setting up some a workgroup, reply to this or drop me a line [mailto].
CUI interface. - no need for GUI. (Score:1)
This would mean that their having win boxes is indeed for WP and accounting, or that some of the M$ marketing got to them before they wised up
look at the article below (Score:1)
Warning warning (Score:1)
ObComment: why were they worried about videocard on server end - unless they were using X? I have yet to meet a video card that doesn't run under console mode in linux ;)
Driver support issues??? (Score:1)
FUD - it's not just for breakfast anymore
Bye-bye desktop. (Score:1)
Most linux distro's come with hundreds, if not thousands (at least a couple) of games.
Is installation really that hard? (Score:1)
Recently I installed Debian 2.1, and it is a lot better about that kind of stuff. Partitioning will still confuse a lot of people no matter what. The biggest problem with the Debian install is the 100 questions you have to answer while it's setting up the packages, and for anybody who doesn't know what they're doing, that can be very frustrating. Also, if you have a poorly supported vid card, you need to find drivers for it in the SUSE distribution, and download libgz while you're at it. Anyway, with the windows installation, it doesn't ask you nearly as many technical questions. "What timezone are you in" and "What parameters do you want for gpm" are 2 different things
So yes, installation is hard for somebody who hasn't done it at least 5 times before. After that it's easy. And after you install everything, you still need to have some kind of idea about how the system works to really make it work for you. It's not a rational alternative to put on the desktops of accountants who don't read slashdot.
The REAL Story!! (Score:1)
lEeTist xrap (Score:1)
a couple of months of your time in getting to know
Unix and some of the particulars of installing and
using Linux.
For 'the average computer user'. this process will take less
time with MS Windows, if only because the people they
know that can help them with their problems are
more likely to be able to help them with MS Windows
issues than with Linux ones. If it took months to recover from Windows crashes, it would be a different story.
okay (Score:1)
Video drivers... (Score:1)
Even ATI has finally released specs for their TV tuners.
Linux is gaining the critical mass necessary to pressure companies into supporting open source. If we accept binary-only drivers, what incentive will they
Coincidentally, I believe XFree86 4.0 will have a modular driver architecture that separates the video drivers from the X Server. I believe the code was donated by the MetroX folks. That will hopefully lessen the burden on driver writers and spur more commercial driver development for X.
Bye-bye desktop. (Score:1)
The Linux community has produced some really great software, but would anyone write such a goldmine and give it away? Open source is nice, but if I can grab your code, recompile it with a few tweaks and sell it myself, where's your motivation?
I understand that the Free Software model isn't about "free beer", but I have to say, from reading a lot of posts here, if you close up your source, you're evilbadnasty. I'm sure the community could hack together a chunk of business apps, but how long would it take? I figure a couple of years, whereas a more "corporate" development team, presumably, take less time (it would be, after all, their full-time job). If you could prove that Linux software development can rake in the moolah, people will write for it commercially. Of course, the first hurdle is getting them to view the OS as a viable platform.
This is massive work (Score:1)
Um, well, kinda (Score:1)
This is slated for inclusion in Windows 2000. But then again, isn't everything?
major cost of a system is hiring people (Score:1)
I actually disagree with this point (although not the sentiment behind it!). I agree that the _perception_ is that NT server is easy, but I my experience has been that in order to make the thing fast and stable (i.e. what you want from a server) takes a lot of understanding and a fair bit of work.
In that regard I guess it's like Linux... the more you know about the platform, the more you'll be able to get out of it. But I definitely agree that people have a _perception_ that NT is so much easier than other NOSes... I guess Microsoft stokes that perception so they get more sales.
Silly quote~! (Score:1)
Windows can do this---Linux has a ways to go yet. Face it, my extremist friend----Linux *does* have weasknesses.