Office-Worker Linux: It's Here and It Works 615
A few weeks ago, dot.kde.org featured a great why-should-this-be-amazing story about Linux being used as the day-to-day desktop operating system for city employees in Largo, Florida. Roblimo got a chance to see the system in action to find out how ordinary office workers are proving that the old "Linux is tough to use" shibboleth is nothing but FUD, and how a medium-sized city is saving buckets of money by minimizing the tax dollars spent on licenses and hardware. Oh, and they've also pre-empted the kind of costs (in hassle and money) that can face any organization that Microsoft suspects may have some licenses out of order. This is the kind of thing every elected official should have politely waved in his or her face by concerned taxpayers. The Largo system uses KDE on Red Hat, but since both KDE and Gnome are paying much attention to user interface, similar systems could easily be running on various combinations of hardware / distribution / desktop system.
That's great... (Score:2)
Like most businesses our size, we use a variety of custom, semi-custom, and prepackaged applications. While, yes, we could use free alternatives to our operating systems, office software, and email/scheduling software, there's no way in heck we're going to find a free replacement to our inventory, financial reporting, or human resource management software, for example, any time soon.
Even if someone came up with one, the cost of switching to the new packages would be enormous, given the complexity of such software and its impact on day-to-day business.
What's more, the specialized software we use requires that MS-Office be installed or it can't do simple things like generate reports. So, if we have to stay with these inventory, HR, and financial reporting packages, that means staying with MS-Office and MS-Windows.
Oh, how I'd love to move the whole corporation to free software. But there's just no way that's going to happen until all the mid-size apps are moved to Linux.
Until then, I'll continue to use FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and Linux on the server side as much as possible. But that's where they'll stay for the forseeable future.
City of Progress (Score:2, Interesting)
This an excellent example of how Linux can get it's "foot in the door" for everyday office use. Most of us already know that using it is not really difficult, especially when dealing with a limited set of applications, though setting it up and administering it can be a little tough for the average user. Presenting office workers with a stable and predictable environment and allowing them to get comfortable with it is the best thing that can happen for the OSS movement and the central server/diskless workstation is clearly an efficient and economical way to do it. This applies to both the admin and the user side.
Let's face it. Fear is primarily based on lack of knowledge and unfamiliarity. As more companies (and government agencies, etc.) get their employees to understand that our beloved OS isn't really so scary after all, and installation becomes increasingly easier, home users will eventually migrate on their own. Why? Because that's what they use at work and they're comfortable with it.
Do we have a ways to go yet? We sure do. But the more oppressive M$ gets (and they are taking it to the limit with XP) the better chance we have of gaining ground. I applaud the "City of Progress", where I happened to spend my high school years. Go Largo!
Configuring it is the snag. (Score:5, Insightful)
Easily, my non-tech-savvy friends could get used to KDE and become comfortable in it, but I don't think they could set it up to be usable (nor do they care, and rightly so, they shouldn't have to). They could actually install easily--the Redhat install was exquisitley easy--but as far as installing programs, setting things up the way they like, etc., I don't think they could.
Then again, many people can't do the same with Windows (installing programs and configuring it to their liking).
Re:Configuring it is the snag. (Score:2)
And that's a good reason to prefer Mandrake over its Red Hat cousin (or Caldera or Corel over either) in that situation. Half the bitching here and elsewhere about Linux could be eliminated if people would pick appropriate distros for the job at hand, rather than becoming too attached to a particular one, often for ideological reasons, which are often the wrong reasons. Try several - cheapbytes is your friend. When you find one you like, buy a boxed copy.
The "right" distro depends on what I'm trying to do: I prefer Caldera or Mandrake on the desktop, Red Hat on servers (it reduces support problems), e-smith for garden-variety multi-purpose office servers, Turbo or Red Hat on mainframes, and Lineo or BSD for embedded devices. Choosing wisely (and widely) keeps you from the IT equivalent of hammering in screws with a pair of vise grips...
Oh, and be flexible - the costs for switching between distros are low and becoming less as we move to LSB-land, so don't be afraid to switch when it makes sense.
Not "varius combinations ..." (Score:4, Insightful)
I am all for being nice to "the other side" on these things but what I see is people strugling to use Gnome for ideological reasons and other people getting work done with KDE for financial reasons.
You know Finacial reasons like "Less money spent on Asperin", "fewer monitors shot at" and best of all you can fix the problems that do come up for less than it costs to fix the stuff you pay a grand more per seat for.
Re:Not "varius combinations ..." (Score:2)
Re:Not "varius combinations ..." (Score:4, Insightful)
What are you basing this on? As a consultant in St. Louis, MO, I have had the pleasure of working with a few firms who provide Red Hat/GNOME solutions for corporate desktops and workstations. And GNOME use is rapidly expanding from Red Hat (and other distributions such as Debian and Turbo Linux) to other Unix variants. With Solaris switching to GNOME 2.0 in place of CDE as the default desktop environment, and HP-UX likewise embracing GNOME, you're going to see even more validation for GNOME on the desktop in the next 6 months to a year.
All this is to say, where are the facts that support your statement?
Re:Not "varius combinations ..." (Score:2)
I didn't make the initial statement, but I will respond. All my GNOME systems are up to date as of today.
The GNOME 1.4 release significantly diminshed speed and functionality to achieve only a baic file manager / web browser type app. Its very unusual that someone would create a new version that does LESS things than then old did, but I still can't create a new application launcher from the desktop or edit an existing one as with KDE
* The current GNOME control center (yes there's a new one on the way, no it isn't here yet) is confusign with its `test' `OK' implementation. This isn't consistent with many other GNOME apps
* 48 x 48 icons that are `supposed to look good' at 20 x 20 often don't. One size does not fit all.
* AFAICT there's no MacOS / Windows / KDE type style guide which can be used to define consistency between applications
* Defining a filetype -> program mapping is difficult in KDE but especially more so in GNOME.
* GNOME still has many programmerisms within it. Sawfish and GNOME might be seperate apps but from and end user viewpoint they should work seamlessly. Having a `meta' button under the GNOMECC which only defines options avaliable for the Sawfish branch is one such programmerism. And what does `meta' mean to a non tech?
Free software, not free [training/support] (Score:2)
Huh? Why? I love Linux as much as the next
I've worked in government offices, I've seen these people first hand. They aren't the most computer-literate bunch, and they are doing well to navigate Windows. Not to say that they couldn't navigate KDE or Gnome, but why spend the time and money to teach them?
Bottom line (and it always comes back to the bottom line) is that it would cost too much to make the transition.
ot: just on time (Score:3, Funny)
Cheers,
-N.
Gotta love it! (Score:2)
Second paragraph, quoting one of the admin assistants:
"...but I like to do it this way on my computer."
'nuff said!
Not quite but almost (Score:2)
But unforunately it's not Linux for the corporate desktop, something i am always chasing. What corporates want and need is a Linux distro that is easy to set up, easy for users to cope with, does everything their windows box does and with software that can save in the same formats, ie word, excel (so they can still communicate with the outside world) and which is secure and user friendly as well.
I have looked at a couple of solutions and some of the distros (Red Hat, Corel) are almost there but the back end software isn't there and besided here and many things dependent of the next kernal release etc etc, this may be good for a home machine or a Terminal server implementation but its no good for over 1000 desktop machines.
Stability, Ease of Use, Ease of Rollout and Cheaper support costs - thats what we want, Linux is Stable - (im not talking uptime as this is NOT relevant for a corporate desktop) but not easy to use for beginners, isnt easy to rollout and IMHO the support costs increase even thought its free as the ratio of support staff drops - (i think i read something about it bein 1 support person to 10 staff rather than 1 to 20 for Win)
That said i watch with bated breath praying for the day i can move to a new OS for my corporate desktops and get rid of the MS attitude - i dont hate their products i hate their arrogance.
My company was 100% Linux... (Score:2, Interesting)
My MOTHER uses Linux (Corel) and was happy that she can leave it running for days and no glitches.
My fiance uses Linux (she prefers mandrake) and i have now set her up with a Diskless PC using our network. She had ZERO problems, she is not a computer geek (she's a writer). Our secretaries were told "The icon for yuor browser is here, the icon for the word processor is here", and this was when Linux was still raw! I have been preaching the joy of Linux for years, but I'm talking to deaf ears. The company I work for now was a 100% M$ house..I secretly changed over all the servers to Linux. People were saying how fast the file server was..it shows up in Net Neighborhood SOO fast! Well, this did cause a big problem with management (and the NT admin) because what I did, made their decisions "wrong", and it became a pissing contest. They didnt care that the network is more reliable and i was able to RETURN 5 servers because they were no longer needed. I hurt some egos, so now I am on "indefinite" leave...oh well, The new company I will be working for WANTS a Linux network..maybe i can secretly switch over the user pcs too
For crying out loud... (Score:2)
The developers of this setup should have their fingers smashed with mallets... well OK that's a bit extreme, but I mean, really - if this is people's idea of a reference site for deploying Linux... god help us all. *head in hands*
Re:For crying out loud... (Score:2)
Did you notice that the entire system runs the X protocol? I doubt they are even using XHOST auth on the NCD terminals (Of course I don't actually know anything). With the entirety of the X sessions going over the network in the clear I doubt that they are as worried about the security of their big beefy servers. Those can be kept on their own switches and under tight administrative control. I suppose that they could use SSH and maintain keyfiles for each user across all hosts serving X apps, but this wouldn't help with hosts that are serving Citrix apps and any user who can break root on one of the servers has access to all accounts on all machines anyway. It might give you warm fuzzies but I think that it would only add overhead.
Of course, I could be wrong. I'm just playing devil's advocate.
Hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)
The complaint that Linux is hard to use is not one necissaryly of GUI per se, it's set up. Basic quality assurance questions are hard to answer: What hardware are you going to use? What software are you going to use? Where is that software located? How do you install that software? Where is the software located on the Hardrive after you instal it? How do you get OpenGL to install? Why did it take me 15 minutes to find the PPP dialer? How do you set up a network where hard drives are shared? How do you put things into the menu?
If a sys-admin takes the time to form a planned approach for Linux installs, makes a custom CD for installing the "supported apps", then Linux can be usable. Problem is the Linux approach of shipping not only with the kitchen sink but 10 different kitchen sinks to choose from, all of which are disassembled and in their boxes is not one for newbies.
This reminds me of... (Score:3, Troll)
Followed up a year later by another story stating that never happened because Linux was too hard to use.
I say
Re:This reminds me of... (Score:5, Insightful)
2) This is a done deal, not a "someday" or "we plan to" thing. I wandered around Largo city hall and talked to actual, everyday users.
3) I'd like to go back and speak to Dave and Mike in a year, yes -- to see how their plans to use OpenOffice pan out. The biggest holdup (as I wrote in the NewsForge story [newsforge.com] linked to above) is the lack of a good OpenOffice filter for WordPerfect files.
- Robin
Re:So Robin, I gotta ask (Score:4, Funny)
Gee, how unusual. I suppose the average corporate drone is handed a Windows CD and an Optiplex?
Re:So Robin, I gotta ask (Score:3, Funny)
<sarcasm> Oh, right. Let me guess: where you work, all the secretaries installed NT on their own, and as soon as those W2K boxes arrive, they're going to upgrade. </sarcasm>
Re:So Robin, I gotta ask (Score:3, Insightful)
Where the network admins get involved is usually when it comes to interfacing with the main databases. With 400 seats, you _need_ a database system that makes MS Access look like a toy. (And I speak as one who has attempted to take Access right up to the limits MS admits to...) So unless you've somehow managed to put your whole database onto a IExplorer-compatible website, you are going to have to install a database client on each machine. The front-end one I'm familiar with (for a Progress database running in Unix) is a one-floppy disk 5-minute install, which is a heck of a lot easier than installing Win or Linux.
IMHO, the best way to provide corporate desktop computers is to buy hundreds of identical boxes, find the optimal installation for Linux and required applications, and then clone that configuration. But if they won't give you the budget to buy computers and put them in the closet until needed, then you wind up ordering one at a time for new hires or to replace broken down machines; almost every !@#$% machine is different (at least from lowest-bidder sources), so in Linux you'll spend hours on each one downloading drivers, setting up the configuration, etc. Windows pretty much requires the same time if you install it yourself and bother doing it right, but when you buy pre-configured boxen, it certainly looks like you've saved all that labor -- except for the six times that box is going to crash or catch a virus and have to be re-installed, but that cost comes later, and management isn't going to add it up and realize that buying the alleged industry standard was really boneheaded...
Re:So Robin, I gotta ask (Score:2)
If you would have read the article you would have realized that the folks at Largo aren't putting computers on people's desktops. They currently have over 400 X terminal devices deployed. These devices have no moving parts, and boot off of the network. Basically you plug the bad boy in, and you are in business. Any idiot could do it.
With this arrangement there is precisely one machine to administer, the server.
Using dumb X terminals as clients is so much less labor intensive than putting PCs on people's desktops that it is almost ridiculous to compare them. There is no need to painfully construct a master PC image, and there is no need to purchase big piles of identical PC hardware, and there is certainly no need to install operating systems on client PCs. Add to that the fact that the Linux + X Windows set up costs a heck of a lot less to purchase in the first place and you start to see how brilliant the folks in Largo really are.
Re:So Robin, I gotta ask (Score:3, Interesting)
One thing that many of the people on these forums forget is how much of a special case we are. Your average office work is never permitted to install their own software. People have been arguing the case for thin clients for year because the average office user has no need to do their own installations and should be discouraged from doing so. I mean, we don't 'em wasting time with net Quake or anything. Not to mention ungodly mess a user administered machine can become. And, if you're running the type of place where people share work-stations like in a call center or clerk desk then you need to preserve uniformity from one session to the next so as not to confuse or completly derail the workers. Customizing the desktop is one thing, but installing any random app is a bad idea.
In that light why the hell should the place even expect the users to need to know stuff like that. ? In terms of apps being available the usual course is to go through IT management and request it. And, if you have a user who's knowledgeable enough to want a specific linux app by name, why not consider moving 'em into the tech department?
Re:So Robin, I gotta ask (Score:2)
Of course, having installed all flavors of Windows more times than I can count, I can state unequivocally that many Linux distros are much easier to install than Windows. Have you ever tried to get NT running? It's not exactly easy.
Re:So Robin, I gotta ask (Score:5, Insightful)
Man what type of crack are you on? I've been a sysadmin here for 2 years, and tried to push out linux to users who wanted it on several occasions. And guess what? Linux is great -- that is if, and only if, you have perfect hardware and perfect setup and a standalone system. The minute that something is out-of-spec, linux goes AWOL and the poor desktop user is SOL because they don't know the difference between KDE and dd. OTOH, I've plopped in the install CD for W2K, filled in a few simple details, walked away, came back 30 minutes later and had a system up-and-running without any problems. Sure back in the day of WinNT4 (I humbly agree that Win9X was a POS, but don't get me started on why those existed and why customers demanded Win98SE and WinME...) there were a bunch of problems, but I have had very few problems installing windows 2000 systems (and *zero* on reputable machines (i.e. Dell), well there was that 1 problem, traced to a defective HD)... And secondly, as soon as the user wants to do something new with their system, they're SOL again, not only because installing isn't as simple as "click here to download, run setup.exe and you're installed" (albiet lately in linux it has gotten a LOT better), but also because the apps simply aren't out there.
Oh BTW -- check out my W2K Server, up for 131 days without a reboot, and also survived CodeRed without a scratch because I set up security properly from the day that I installed the server. There's a cool realtime stats program up on the CodeRed attacks and other neat things: here [ohmygodmyarmfelloff.com].
To recap, simply, I like linux. I think that it has a lot of potential but it simply isn't anywhere close enough yet to be a mainstream system. Remember this [slashdot.org], and the fact that it's manhours spent with linux as well. I hate to be the harbinger of news here, but windows is much easier to use, period. There's no debate about that one, and with XP it just gets easier. Try putting your mother down in front of a linux machine, and then do the same with a windows machine. There is a reason why windows is used on 90% of desktops, and why Microsoft is the software giant that they are (reasons beyond the typical slashdottery about squishing competition and cheating and crap), more than just "being in the right place at the right time".. It's because, for better or worse, they have the best set of software products out there. Office and Windows are extremely successful because they're good, and people like them and use them a lot. That's a fact, hard to dispute.
I don't think that linux will make it as a mainstream OS anytime soon, or at least until most of the linux users (BTW, I think that part of the reason of linux non-acceptability is because of the typical i-love-linux-and-hate-windoze attitude and immaturity, not everyone, but just enough are immature and slander and swear and yell and scream and kick and fuss and act like children to give linux a bad name. Don't believe me? read our very own CmdrTaco [slashdot.org]. I think that he made some really good points there, the thermostat in hell must have broken that day...:> ) are part of the reason.
Oh well. I think that until linux users give up the I-want-everything-for-free-as-in-beer-as-my-god-g
Ahh... I'd seriously like to see a competetor to Windows and Microsoft products, but unfortunately right now I just don't see it, and
{/end rant}
Re:So Robin, I gotta ask (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't Ignore the Silent Majority (Score:2)
But even though it makes my life a little more complicated (e.g., having to sometimes compile apps, or download dependencies), I still use it out of the very principle you espoused: Windows needs some competition.
To be sure, as much as things have improved, you still have to be a bit of a technical pioneer to want to use Linux, but if nobody takes the first steps and becomes the pioneering early adopters, there will never an alternative to Windows.
Windows may not be ready for the average home desktop yet, but as this article proves, in a corporate environment where there is a support staff to deal with the technical issues, it is possible to use successfully. Yes, at this point in time, in some ways, e.g., applications, it is still more challenging than deploying Windows, but I applaud those companies who are poineering enough to give it a go and make it work. If everybody just takes the easy way out (perhaps even against their principles), we will never see any meaningful competition.
As far as software freedom gos, I personally don't have any problem paying a reasonable price for software, and I think most members of the silent majority don't either; however, commercial competitors to MS have had a difficult time competing. Making software free (either as in beer or speech) removes one of the barriers to get people to use your software. I feel that if Linux had not been free from the get-go, it would never have become as successful as it has -- it's freeness means that is is eclectic, it is not owned by any one entity. At this point in time, this seems to be the only way to even have a chance of competing against MS.
The other thing I disagree with is the Linux user issue. Sure, there are a small minority of users who have an attitude and flame newbies in forums, and certainly this probably causes some newbies to switch back, but by far most of the Linux users I know barely have time in their lives to read slashdot let alone post here, and they are all polite to new users. I believe that there is a vocal minority that does this, and the vast majority of people trying to get Linux ready for prime time (IBM, Sun, HP, Compaq, Linux distro companies, etc., etc.) are well meaning, polite, and helpful.
OOPS! (Score:2)
Re:So Robin, I gotta ask (Score:2)
Biased. Plain and simple.
Granted, Windows is far easier to use than linux. That I will not argue with. Windows is not easy to use. Macs are easy to use. Windows boxen are ubiquitous. They are how the majority of computer users are introduced to computers, and that is a shame. Therefore they are the standard that all computers are compared against.
As for the fact that putting out a linux distro is expensive. Bull crap. Put out something popular on a slow link. If it's popular enough, it will be mirrored. At no cost to you. There are both Apache modules [cohprog.com] and FTP servers [proftp.com] that allow you to specify bandwidth limits. I use both. It costs far less to put up an FTP server and host an ISO image than printing, labeling and distributing CDs.
The moderator that declared your post "Funny" had it right. You make some valid points (Microsoft is finally making some headway in the stability department) but declaring them "best" because they are the biggest is just plain foolish.
I use MS products at work, cause I have to, at home cause the game support isn't there yet for Linux, and never has been for Mac. But neither of these windows boxen are mission critical, or "on the internet" (i.e. each hides behind a firewall).
Each OS has it's strong points. Windows' strongest point is its prevalence.
Re:So Robin, I gotta ask (Score:3, Interesting)
My wife has worked in more than a few government and commercial office environments that ran Windows, and they *always* had a separate IT or network support staff to take care of the computers. She wasn't supposed to add software or even mess with the things at all. In fact, in her last "real" job, doing customer support for a pager company, the biggest office computer network problem they had was employees bringing in software (especially games) from home and installing them on their own. Often the self-installed software screwed things up like mad.
Running a client/server network completely eliminates this problem. It also makes updating productivity apps a lot easier for the sysadmins.
- Robin
Re:So Robin, I gotta ask (Score:2)
The actual "special case" is probably the single machine senario (and certainly the "home" computer senario).
My wife has worked in more than a few government and commercial office environments that ran Windows, and they *always* had a separate IT or network support staff to take care of the computers. She wasn't supposed to add software or even mess with the things at all. In fact, in her last "real" job, doing customer support for a pager company, the biggest office computer network problem they had was employees bringing in software (especially games) from home and installing them on their own. Often the self-installed software screwed things up like mad.
Not only that it probably helps turn the IT staff into BOFH clones.
Re:So Robin, I gotta ask (Score:2)
I guess I don't understand what you're getting at then. If your point is that using a computer is easier for someone who has an admin working for them than for someone who doesn't, you're right, but that's not really OS-specific. Are you trying to say that this case study doesn't prove that Linux is a good home desktop system? If so, you're right, it doesn't prove that, but I don't think anyone is trying to say that it does. The point of the study is that Linux is a great choice for large organizations with office-type requirements.
True enough. But if it the self-extracting exe does fail, you're SOL. No amount of googlizing can save you. And you can do that in Linux (e.g. Mozilla's installer), just most non-commercial app developers don't. And then there's the ever-popular "Remove Program" option, which usually doesn't remove everything. But again, this is tangential to the original point of the story, which is that Linux is easier to set up and admin for a large office organization.
Proof once again that self-deprecation gets you nowhere on Slashdot. :)
Re:This reminds me of... (Score:5, Interesting)
That's twisting thet truth significantly. The major reasons cited in the Wired article for the failure of Linux adoption were:
Furthermore, it appears the ScholarNet initiative is not over yet. The current progress has not achieved the penetration desired, but future iterations hold more promise, as hardware compatibility improves and the "seeded" Linux knowledge from the successful installations trickles down.
Anyone interested in the attractions of Linux implementations in developing countries might want to have a look at a paper I wrote for a final year Engineering unit: postscript version [uwa.edu.au]. It has some mistakes in it I haven't corrected yet, but I'm open to revising it :)
Re:This reminds me of... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not talking about man pages/how-tos etc (which I personally find are usually of a much greater standard in terms of usability in an open source arena), but outlining:
* the exact steps taken to build the environment in the first place,
* maintenance steps (the where/why and how of upgrades, bugfixes, sec pathces etc)
* new user tasks - from both the admin and user perspectives
* general usability guidelines
If these tasks are done at the beginning, and tailored for whatever particular business environment you are in then I've found it is much easier to get it accepted by management and perhaps even spread to other departments.
One common stumbling block I've come across in trying to build these types of office environments is management fear that if I (or the admins with experience with open source setups) were to leave then they'd be stuck - after all it is much easier from a corporate view to find someone familiar with setting up/running a wintel / nt backend environ than linux.
Providing detailed outlines covering conception through to delivery/expansion really helps make a choice like this seem much less risky from the management view. After all if you are the only open source 'evangelist' in the company it is going to be a tough sell no matter how convincing your arguement.
When it is time to move on the steps you leave behind can help less experienced admins really get a grasp on not only the how, but the why of 'open offices'. Its how I really started, and I've now left many converts in my wake.
Re:This reminds me of... (Score:2, Informative)
This is what happened at the last place I worked at (an IP Law firm). They wanted robustness in their Servers so I implemented both a Linux firewall and a Samba Server for home directories. WELLL! they didn't like that since if I got hit by the proverbial bus they felt they wouldn't be able to find someone qualified (course this is Ottawa where the two biggest employers are the government and High-tech) so I had to rip them out and implement boxes running NT 4 and Proxy.
The ironic thing is that before I left they were way over the amount of licensed workstations/servers they should have had and this place does intelectual law!! Sooner or later I am going to snitch on them to CAAST (www.caast.ca) just need a job first.
No I'm not bitter ;)
OfficeSpace Linux (Score:5, Funny)
Re:OfficeSpace Linux (Score:2)
Linux printing Pantone colours to that Winprinter over there
WinPrinter? The one which breaks down every five days under Windows? Here's an idea: rather than using a hundred dollar desktop printer designed for a single user who doesn't print often, lets act like very other business in the world and use large reliable laser printers (invariably HP Laserjet models). I've never found one which doesn't work under Linux.
Oh...and don't forget those TPC coversheets!
If I knew what these were (Transaction Processing Council?) I'd respond.
When you've figured out how to make Linux print as well as Windows, go print yourself out a dozen copies.
Use a business printer rather a home one. But if its an emergency, add a printser shared from a Windows PC to your Linux box via printconf.
talk about the strange interface (Score:4, Offtopic)
Then do your job for once (Score:2)
So if you don't want AOL or other crap installed, apply a policy that the user can't install it. You can cry all you want that OS A is better because on OS B you can't prohibit a certain action, but all you have to do is read a couple of docs and get your butt in gear.
Re:Then do your job for once (Score:3, Informative)
we run 3 seperate vertical apps that require, (that's right REQUIRE) administrator access to the machine. Now this is the Traffic and Billing software (also requires Admin access to the SQL server!) which by the way is the largest T&B software package out there... it is the de-facto standard in media, you use it, discussion over.
Second we have an AVID. everything MUST be run as administrator. Dont log in and use as admin? too bad.. you don't get to work.
finally. I have a nice self updating Software package for the sales software suite. Now I am 1 IS/IT guy that supports 3 offices spread about 2 hours apart and over 100 machines. If I were to do it your way I need to spend every thursday and friday installing software via VNC or by drivig there.
It may work for you in your small computing environment, but in a large scale corperate environment NT cannot be configured to keep the cluebies from demolshing the hardware....
Oh, and management responds to my request to reprimand users that trash their desktop pc's?
"What did we hire you for? go fix it and shut up."
so... I am doing my job... better than any MCSE ever has here (awarded 3 times for productivity and excellence) and NT cannot do what I need. Linux can. Hell Linux can force the user to drop everything in their user directory (documents and files) instead of spreading documents all over the machine. NT? not possible.
Re:Then do your job for once (Score:2)
And your problems would be the same for Linux if your badly written app required root priveliges to run.
Re:Then do your job for once (Score:2)
Second, I have yet to see an application written for linux/unix that states "must be run as root". It would be banned/ laughed out of existance. While in the NT world this is ignored.
skeptical (Score:3, Insightful)
It sounds like the system definately meets the City's needs, but it also seems like the Newsforge article is trying to overstate what those needs are. Lets look at the system specs.
400 Clients (800 Users)
Dual 933MHz system
3GB of Memory
18GB Hard Drive Space
Peak of about 230 concurrent users (from the first article)
Each concurrent user gets 11 to 12MB of system memory in which to work. They stated that they designed the system so they didn't have to hit the swap space. The 18 GB of hard drive space needs to be split between the OS application software and user storage space. Some users will need less space than others, so lets just ignore the space for the software and divide the total by the number of users. 18 GB/800 users = roughly 22.5 MB. How many people can here can honestly say that they don't have more space than that used for their email. The numbers tell me that the secretary they interviewed that was using Word Perfect, and email at the same time was one of their power users. I wouldn't be surprised if several hundred of their users don't even know how to access their email.
The big question is, so what? It's still a real system, that's meeting real users needs. The problem I have is that the article goes on to make tons of apples to oranges comparrisons.
It compares the cost of a thin client system in which users have very limited needs to a system with Windows desktops for everyone. How about Windows Terminal Server or other solutions that are more similar. I just don't buy the $300,000 a year hardware savings either. THese users have very limited needs, they don't need a new computer every year and a half, and $300,000 / 400 = $750 a year. Even if your buying new systems with monitors, that's way too much. $400,000 or $500,000 to run Exchange for their user base? Bullshit. I'm not saying that a Microsoft solution is cost effective, or even better excluding costs. It sounds like they found an exelent solution to their needs. The Sourceforge article however was too full of FUD to have much credibility.
Re:skeptical (Score:2)
Re:skeptical (Score:2, Informative)
Re:skeptical (Score:2)
I have almost no experience with Windows Terminal Server. The cost of running Exchange still sounds high to me, but I'm too far out of my limited area of expertise to know. It sounds like you've designed an exelent network that meets your users needs well. Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post.
Re:skeptical (Score:2)
Anyway, even if the display/keyboard wear out, the thin client (less display/keyboard) has a better lifespan than the PC (less display/keybaord). But I agree that it's a moot point.
Joe Shmoe doesn't mind KDE?! Run with it! (Score:5, Insightful)
While this issue has been in full-fledged war mode for years, I think *nix proponants such as myself would have far more success focusing on the suitability and usability of KDE and Gnome than always boiling it down to a Xwindows vs Windows debate. Sure, Windows does the job, I run it at home; but if this article proves that End User X, dumb as a post, doesn't mind KDE (I'd use it daily if my audio-apps ran in *nix), force it on em! Well, at least in situations where it's my tax dollar
Of course, the long term upside is that newbies 'n average users would finally have some variety in their computing experience before they blindly pledge allegience to the only OS they see commercials for; thus helping solidify *nix and KDE/Gnome as a viable platform for the Everyday Joe in the minds of the consumer.
Re:Joe Shmoe doesn't mind KDE?! Run with it! (Score:2)
Okay, so here it is. I make salary programming. I'm a programmer. I also write electronic music, and know the underground breaks/jazz scene fairly well. I can only assume you're dumb as a post in this area. I am dumb as a post when it comes to the heavy metal scene.
When it comes to my health, I'm dumb as a post.
When it comes to my legal rights, I'm dumb as a post.
When it comes to fixing my car, I'm dumb as a post.
When it comes to investing, I'm dumb as a post.
When any of the experts of these subjects calls me dumb as a post, I thank them for their knowledge and expertise.
Don't get so wrapped up in the semantics. I only meant to say that these users, when it comes to computers, are DUMB AS POSTS. There's nothing wrong with that, as we're all dumb as posts in some respects.
Dumb as a post wasn't meant to demean or otherwise insult these users; and I certainly don't expect them to be reading this, thus you can't claim I'm tarnishing the image. I only meant to say that when it comes to HR, I'm dumb as a post, and when it comes to an HR person knowing computers, they are dumb as posts. Lighten up and concentrate on the point, not the semantics. If we were always tip-toeing around our words and image, we'd never actually solve the problems that exist.
And hey
Incidentally, I'm not lambasting the peasants here - quite the opposite. I understand that these users don't have the time, interest, or level of knowledge required to properly assess OS and desktop alternatives. That was my point
SirSlud
total cost of X-Windows (Score:4, Interesting)
This is not a victory for Linux. This is a victory for one old variant of Windows: yes, X-Windows.
Re:total cost of X-Windows (Score:2)
Re:total cost of X-Windows (Score:2)
Problem is that these can easily end up huge. So logging in and out takes a long time. Let alone that logging in on more than one workstation can make a complete "dogs dinner" of the whole thing.
The really daft bit is that Windows could actually work with most (if not all) of the stuff simply staying on the server in the first place...
Re:total cost of X-Windows (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously though, I was administrating a company which all users had roaming profile - and it's a PAIN in the ass if a user move from one machine to another - you simple have to wait until of his desktop will be copied from the server - sometimes is few megabyes, but some heavy users have gigabytes of data to move...
On Linux/Unix it's different - nfs mount, finished...
Re:total cost of X-Windows (Score:2)
Grinding to a halt is probably the lesser of two evils. With the profile writeback caching algorithm if the server is unavailable at logout you loose all the modifications...
Re:total cost of X-Windows (Score:2, Informative)
True but misleading. The default place that office 2k takes you when you want to save your files? My Documents. Since this is a folder that's on the desktop, it gets stored in your roaming profile. Every user that I have, and I mean every single one of them, stores their files in "My Documents", and I can see why. Not only is it easy when saving, it's also easy when loading. Guess where office 2k takes you when you choose "File->Open".
The difference between roaming profiles and NFS shares is significant. Specifically, an NFS share only requires the user to send data over the network that they are actually going to use. Everything else just sits on the network server until its needed. But with a roaming profile, the entire profile whether it will be used or not, gets downloaded everytime you log into a computer you haven't used yet. Of course, it gets cached there so that you don't have to do it again the next time. But then when you logout, if you made a change to any part of your profile, the entire profile gets uploaded to the server. Combine this with the fact that Microsoft does darn near everything they can to encourage users to store stuff in their profile, and you end up with roaming profiles being a *huge* drain on the system.
Re:total cost of X-Windows (Score:2)
This is more a failure of a design. Since a network workstation does not need a per user web cache. Indeed most of the time the only kind of web cache a workstation really needs is a volatile one anyway.
Re:total cost of X-Windows (Score:2)
The other variation of this is where you get programs which fall over if certain registry keys in the per user section of registry arn't there.
It must have been just too hard for the programmer to use IF...THEN...ELSE when reading paramaters. Or even providing sufficent documentation for a sysadmin to put together a
Re:total cost of X-Windows (Score:2, Insightful)
what that does is install a specific instance of windows on a particular client, but keeps the disk storage remote. This can be a big improvement, but it requires that all the clients be identical (impossible to maintain over time) or that each worker sit at the same desktop (which defeats one of the main benefits). It also keeps the support work at the client end which undermines the main benefit that Largo was enjoying.
No, Microsoft's OSes really are quite limited in the network world. X-Windows was designed for networking and handles this stuff without a sweat.
Re:total cost of X-Windows (Score:2)
I hope you're not seriously suggesting that VNC or PCAnywhere is a good idea. It's not an application server. You're using *two* computers to get one desktop and nobody else can use either computer at the same time. VNC is how you turn two computers, one of them local, into one computer with the display bottlenecked by the network.
Ciiiiiiiitrix. Say it. Citrix. I knew you could. (Score:2)
If Citrix's website was up right now, I'd point you to a demo page where you could run a remote desktop over the web. Wow, intrestingly enough, the site just back up (or maybe it was my connection). The demo login is here [citrix.com]. The UNIX/Linux client download page is here [citrix.com].
That's not FUD Ti-MAY (Score:5, Interesting)
We all know that the truth is, linux is hard to use for novices, and a good portion of linux users are not inclined to help newbies out. Read a few usenet posts to see this. "Linux is tough to use" is not FUD, it's the ugly truth. The people who realize this, and don't shrug it off as "FUD" are the ones who are positioned to correct this flaw.
Don't get me wrong, there's been tremendous progress made in linux usability, but the majority of it has been in the initial install area. There are still a lot of problems with UI consitancy, and any usability [slashdot.org] expert will tell you that this isn't a minor flaw. There's also the problem with installing software, because there's not the same one-click method for every program that Mac and Windows have.
Progress has been made, but we are certainly in no position to dismiss problems with linux' usability as FUD. When we do that, the progress will stop.
Adding FUD to FUD doesn't make it any less FUDdy (Score:3, Interesting)
This simply isn't true, and my mother is a perfect case in point. Not terribly computer literate and with no desire to be, she simply wants her email, her web browser, and her word processor. Oh, she was delighted by the Bach, Beethove, and Mozart ogg's I ripped from her CD collection and made available on her hard drive
I bought her a $50 copy of applixware so she could read and write word documents, and guess what? She prefers her GNU/Linux box over her windows box at work by orders of magnitude. In fact, she has become much more zealous in advocating GNU/Linux and disparaging Windows than I ever was. Why? Because she, as a user, has found GNU/Linux to be much easier to use, much more stable, and much faster than her old windows install (to which she has never returned and which now provides additional storage for her burgeoning ogg-vorbis collection as she, herself, rips her own CDs using grip). Indeed, her discovery that it wasn't her, or her "stupidity" that was the root of nearly all of her computer mishaps, but the underlying instability of the operating system itself, has made her positively scathing when speaking of Microsoft. I guess she took Microsoft blaming the shortcomings of their products on her, and the denigration of making her feel stupid in the process, a little personally
GNU/Linux is as easy, if not easier, to use than any version of Windows out there, and as others have pointed out, many GNU/Linux distributions are easier than Windows to set up and install as well.
Yes GNU/Linux is different, and yes, users must be willing to take an hour or two to learn those differences (ie "something new"), but new isn't the same as "difficult" or "tough to use." I spent an hour with my mother showing her the basics of navigating the KDE desktop and the differences between it and Windows, as well as the differences between Applix and MS Office. Again, this wasn't because GNU/Linux is "tough to use," this merely because it was a little different, and therefor new to her. Indeed, according to my mother, Linux is actually easier than Windows to use, so yes, saying GNU/Linux is "tough to use" is FUD in no uncertain terms. Saying "we all know it is tough to use" is adds a whole new level of dishonesty to the discussion, indeed it could be said that such as claim is FUD to the second power.
Now my mom's non-computer savvy friends are bugging me to come and set them up with GNU/Linux as well, so it looks like Microsoft's worst nightmare is in fact slowly coming true: regular, non-savvy Microsoft users are defecting to GNU/Linux in increasing numbers despite all the FUD Microsoft and its shills can possibly muster. Sometimes justice can be poetic.
Re:That's not FUD Ti-MAY (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, I'll accept that.
Linux isn't hard to use. It's a pain in the ass if you screw with it for fun. But it isn't hard for most users. They just need Email, a Word processor and solitair.
And those run just fine.
Re:That's not FUD Ti-MAY (Score:2)
My point is to dismiss some very valid complaints as FUD, is ignoring the problems that do exist. Most criticism of linux should be taken as constructive. We can correct the problems that exist by identifing them, and addressing them. I think several distros have done that in the install process.
Sure, Email, Word Processing work just fine, but can't they be better? Can't they be a lot easier to use? Can't the word processors have better on-screen rendering of fonts out of the box? Can't all these tools have tighter integration with each other? Yes they can. 'Good Enough' never is.
Do we want to strive to have a product that is acceptable, or a product that is superior?
Beyond that, people need to be able to screw with it for fun. People who have computers at home, and play with them, in my experience, tend to be more productive with them at work. UI and Software installation problems can be addressed and correct these problems. Installing Mozilla on Linux isn't like installing it on Windows, but it should be, because there's no reason it can't.
Re:That's not FUD Ti-MAY (Score:2)
Note that changing resolution while running only changes how much appears on the screen-- the server will scroll the screen when you move the mouse to the edge so that you can get to the whole thing. The total size of the screen is set by the largest video mode listed for the depth (== bits/pixel), and can only be changed by editing the config file and restarting X.
If you want to change the color depth, either start X with the -depth <n> option or change the DefaultDepth parameter in the Screen section (where the resolutions are).
This information is from a number of different versions of XFree86, so not all of it will be right for your particular configuration. If all else fails, read the XFree86 man page (man XFree86) and possibly some of the other documentation it refers to.
As a more general point, there's a lot of good documentation for Linux stuff. The main problem is that it takes a certain amount of sophistication to know which thing you're dealing with, so you can read the applicable documentation. E.g., resolution is determined by XFree86, but background color/pattern is done by xsetroot, which may be called from a number of places, and what happens when you click on the background depends on your window manager.
Re:Yes it is (Score:2)
Guess what corporate admins tend to do with Windows OEM installs... The only people who actually tend to use these setups are the home/hobby group. Even then OEM installs can be sub optimal, especially for users outside the USA.
They're quite accustomed to clunky interfaces. (Score:4, Interesting)
That's when I read they've been running Unixware for the last several years. Hell, they're accustomed to clunky interfaces! Moving from one clunky interface to another is no big deal. They simply don't know what they're missing.
I've seen secretaries and the like jumping through hoops trying to use poorly designed character/terminal interfaces in corporate environments who were PLEASED as PUNCH! Why? They didn't have a better system to compare it to.
So before you all start patting yourselves on the back, I think you need to give those secretaries some credit: Anybody can learn how to do most anything given time. There's no specific reason why a secretary can't learn to deal with clunky interfaces like KDE or Gnome just as easily as they can learn to deal with some hideous 1980's character based interface.
This says nothing about KDE's usability. It's still clunky. These folks simply don't know what they're missing.
I am trying to do the same, but... (Score:5, Informative)
I see two types of objection to switching.
The "Necessary Condition" objections are mainly "Office", "Outlook", and "IE". Which is, alas, what everyone spends all day using. And until MS gets spilt up, this will not change. But also "that new accounting package", "my scanner", "our new CRM software", "our ERP project", and so on. And these are actually much harder to overcome. I think maybe we can identify a small group of users who do not use accounting, ERP, CRM etc. If we have to change all those, implementing Linux would actually cost us a lot of money.
Eh, before you say it:
StarOffice etc do not work well enough. Always some problems converting Word and Excel files.
VMware is slow, but it also defies the entire object (you still have to pay for an MS license)
Anyway, then there's the...
"Usability" objections. These are easy to fix in time - or they should be. But we are not there yet! I just spent a whole weekend setting up a new desktop machine for myself - Athlon 1 GHz, 512 MB RAM, RedHat 7.1. I had to do a kernel upgrade before it would see my Envidia graphics card. I still cannot print to my samba printer. And having installed machines ([pre-]CP/M, DOS, Win, Novell, Linux) for 20 years, I am not new to PCs or to Linux, but I still cannot figure out how to rewrite the Gnome/Ximian menus! And the config tool core-dumps: I have had 20-odd core dumps in the first day alone. And the lack of "OLE" drives me mad - an experienced PC user spends his life cutting and pasting, and the lack of this in common Linux desktop environments are a real obstacle.
So now I am looking for small groups of "expert users". Our (mainly hardware-) engineers come to mind first. But I am looking hard for real interoperability so we can roll out across the company. My estimate: 2 years out. I hope I am wrong.
Re:I am trying to do the same, but... (Score:2)
StarOffice Worked for Me, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
At least 95+% of the time someone sends me a Word file or Excel sheet, it is something that I only need to read, not edit, modify, and send back.
I'm an independent contractor, and whenever I receive a Word or Excel file that I cannot read in StarOffice, I politely reply back that I don't have Microsoft Office and I cannot read their files. I suggest that they resend the document either in PDF format, or RTF if they can't generate PDF. For Excel files, If they can't save as PDF, I suggest saving to an older version of Excel that StarOffice can read, albeit with some loss of formatting.
I have been able to change the file sending habits of a surprising number of people, especially when they realize that PDF files actually look more consistent on other people's systems, especially if they use non-standard fonts.
I do have one system with VMWare and one copy of Office for those very rare occasions that I receive a Word or Excel file that I actually have to modify and send back, or if the sender absolutely refuses to send another format, but this option doesn't get used very often, so I don't need it on all my systems.
Invalid comparisons (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at how they talk about backups: it sounds as though their concept of backups in the Windows world is to have users saving documents on their local hard disk, rather than to a server. The users have become accustomed to system crashes and network failures. I'll address at least part of the former complaint in a moment. The latter is the fault of either poor network administrators (as opposed to systems administrators, or a flaky server that hasn't been set up correctly. One of the biggest reasons people think NT is unstable is because the pretty GUI encourages rank amateurs to call themselves systems engineers. Blame this on the paper-MCSE syndrome, or on Microsoft's psychology, or whatever: but let's at least be honest and admit that, should the quality of admins increase, so would the quality of experience.
The other problem I have with this, and what really prompted my subject line, is that the comparison is between a Linux-based thin client network and a MS-based fat client network. Hello? If you took away all the Windows desktops and put in something like Citrix MetaFrame, then guess what? You'd realise several of the same benefits that the article touts or implies as being advantages unable to be put forth in a Windows-based system.
If you take the article as being a good example of how simple it is to migrate users over from Windows to Linux, then fine. But the system level comparisons are obfuscatory at best, and dishonest at worst. Yes, there's no way you could get the same level of performance out of the hardware they use if you went with a Windows implementation; but an article that compares a 10-person IT staff supporting Linux (or any OS) on 400 thin-client devices with supporting that many devices all running Windows on individual desktops is simply not a valid comparison. Is that really fair? By all means, let's point out the advantages for Linux in terms of ROI, open-source, and so on -- there are plenty of valid bases here -- but let's also be intellectually honest. Pretty please?
Re:Invalid comparisons (Score:2)
Its a great solution BUT
1. Be prepared to increase your bandwidth A LOT - most of these users are on remote sites and we have one here with a 320 k link and 20 staff that is slower than a wet week -Citrix admit (off the record) that runing a full desktop and apps sucks up as much as 32k each desktop
2. Servers - Minimum has to be a dual pentium with a gig of ram - we specced all ours to be quad xeon with 2.5 gb and they work - but the costs hurt
3. No FDDs, no CD roms, Palm Pilots are shit to set up and much of the software doesnt run properly - Flash for one, printer driver unsupported etc etc.
But i agree with the comment on admins - the MCSE as god syndrome has fucked this industry and left us with morons - but dont blame MS for that totally, the training companies and the corporates did it.
I agree lets see an honest comparison
Re:Invalid comparisons (Score:4, Insightful)
You can compare these apples and oranges because, simply put, in the end the job they are to accomplish is the same. Supply the required office/administrative capabilities to 400 people in a work environment for the least amount of support headaches and cost.
There are a dozen of ways to try to accomplish it. This just happens to be one way that works well.
Re:Not a fair test of ease of use (Score:2)
What is a valid usability test?
Re:Not a fair test of ease of use (Score:2)
Windows systems can be and are regularly used, totally unsupported, by novices. They add and remove programs and occasionally add stuff like printers and it's not a significant problem.
GNU/Linux systems do not yet, from what I see and hear, provide this degree of ease of use. This means that they are not considered sufficiently easy to use as they cannot be considered for unsupported novice use.
Office workers are supported, so this issue goes away - but they're not a fair test as the problem area (which is very relevant indeed for home users) is simply bypassed for them.
Why is this seen as a complicated or strange concept?
Re:Not a fair test of ease of use (Score:2)
Exactly how many novice Windows users do you know? I can't count the number of times I've been asked to fix my girlfriend's parents' computer... usually it's because they got infected with a virus or Windows decided to gut itself. Currently, my mom can't use OE to get her email through MSN. They sent an email to their users a few months ago detailing changes that needed to be made to make it work, but she couldn't figure it out (and I couldn't help her over the phone...). So she's without OE email until I come out for Xmas. (She uses Hotmail as her primary email anyway...)
Office workers are supported, so this issue goes away
Home users are supported too... not "officially", of course, but by someone who "knows computers", so your "totally unsupported" claim is a bunch of bullshit.
Re:Say OpenSource if you're for more IT unemployme (Score:2)
This form of automation is the basis for the entire digital age. Microsoft takes advantage of it, but doesn't pass that advantage onto the customer. Only pirates get replication automation. Dont get left behind. Dont work for companies that license software as-is, with no responsability. Use freesoftware and pay for service contracts and insurance. Much wiser, I think. Plus the strange twist (paradoxical?) that freesoftware is usually more robust and stable than proprietary.
The future is away from proprietary commodities in software. There will always be proprietary specialty software, I grant that, but operating systems, web servers, web browsers, music players, on down the line, are all simple commodities and should be free, or cost a small sum (say your computer retail would charge to bundle them with your system). I'm glad I have staked my mental future on proprietary API's (win32 for most of y'all). I am free from manipulation, or so I think.
Re:Won't office working kill Linux? (Score:2)
No. What kind of logic is that. Where do you think that M$ got its start? In the office of course! People will start using Linux at work and then want it for home too. As demand grows so does demand for games and MP3 players.
On a side note for the most part games and MP3 players are sub-culture of teenagers. Joe User doesn't play Quake III
Re:Won't office working kill Linux? (Score:2)
Office working won't kill Linux (Score:2)
> really matters is the success of linux on the home desktop.
Not even close. The corporate world spends more by factors than the home market, and so Linux must find its way into the corporate world if it's to get widespread acceptance. I agree that soul-killing business apps aren't the best way to use Linux, but those business apps are a necessary step in the process.
> Sod Linux in the office, it is a stupid idea. Linux on the home
> front is all that matters. The rest follows naturally.
Actually, by history you've got it backwards. Familiarity is what most people aim for in a home PC, not "cool" features. People who got familiar with Windows at work, using lifeless applications, then went out and began buying Windows PCs for home use because it's what they knew. As an example, many users who started out with Macintoshes at home, then worked with Windows PCs, switched to Windows for home systems, for compatibility and familiarity reasons. For this reason, Linux needs to find its way on to the corporate desktop, where users will not be able to choose to avoid it. Then, when their enforced use breeds familiarity, they'll be more comfortable getting it for home use. The increase in home use then drives the demand for the cool features for which you're longing.
Virg
hahahahahaha (Score:5, Informative)
From first POST to "installed":
Linux: 35 min
Win2k: 45 min
Time to get drivers up to speed.
Linux: 0 min (had all my stuff)
Win2k: 25 min (nvidia, creative)
Time to get Quake3 running
Linux: 5 hours (still doesn't work right)
Win2k: 10 min
Time to get my RAID ATA-100 card working
Linux: 0 (it doesn't work)
Win2k: did it at boot, only took 2 min
-Jon
Re:Linux surpassed W$ in ease of use long ago (Score:3, Insightful)
I have to say this to people all the time. If you think Linux is hard to install, try installing Windows sometime. I have to reinstall Windows a lot at work and at home (mostly due to hard drive / processor upgrades), and it's a very laborious process. Even once you do get it running, you have to grab drivers (and reboot), reinstall all your apps (and rebooot, and reboot...). Linux, on the other hand, I just answer a few questions, take a 30 minute break and do something else, and come back to a ready-to-go box. Depending on the distro's age, I might also run LiveUpdate for Mandrake or apt-get for Debian. The best part is that none of these things requires rebooting, which means I don't have to sit in front of the machine while it works, wasting my time.
Re:Linux surpassed W$ in ease of use long ago (Score:2)
Re:Linux surpassed W$ in ease of use long ago (Score:2, Interesting)
Linux has beaten Windows hands down in the driver arms race... And Microsoft even admits it! check the Hardware Compatibility guide for W2K, it's shorter than the HCG for Linux.
Re:Linux surpassed W$ in ease of use long ago (Score:2)
Also adding additional hardware profiles onto the same CD is easier...
Faster too in case one computer has different hardware (I.E. a scsi card for a scanner or capture device)
Still, having to download a driver that should have been there? (the network,video and sound were out before 2000 was made and RH6.2 even found them)
Re:FUD? (Score:2)
Re:I submit to you (Score:3, Insightful)
we removed all floppy drives over a year ago. It solved tons of problems IS wise and it eliminated the fired-employee taking files syndrome.
Work is for work, it stays there. If you want to work at home, then apply for a laptop.. if your super approves it then we give you laptop+docking station. (no CD drive or floppy but 2 extra batteries.)
Re:I submit to you (Score:2)
If I worked there, I would still 0wn all of your files in 10 minutes just by bringing in my trusty old parallel port zip drive. I hope you don't have a false sense of security.
Re:I submit to you (Score:2)
now If you put a laptop on the network and can get the domain to believe that it is trusted then yup you will get that users files.
you didn't mention the one way to get all those docs.....
PRINT THEM! DUH.
Re:I submit to you (Score:2)
Re:Sound good but.... (Score:2)
Re:Masturbation (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can change their views and switch them over to Linux, then and only then can you claim some sort of victory.
I thought the point of articles like this were to show those people that it can be done. In order reach that point other companies have to show they can do it first.
Re:Masturbation (Score:4, Insightful)
And I don't think that the rest of the articles make for a mutual admiration society. I can use information like this when I discuss things like licensing terms, alternative solutions to problems with my co-workers. These are pertinent stories that can be used to advocate linux.
Re:Masturbation (Score:2, Offtopic)
This story is nothing but mental Linux masturbation. It's an article posted on a Linux oriented website (dot.kde.org), linked to on an admittedly pro-Linux weblog, and being discussed by a group of pro-Linux computer users.
Your post is totally on topic. That's what I love about slashdot, the official blurb didn't mention the potential bias, so you did. The same thing happens with usefull links here too.
Hopefully a (linux) independant news site/paper will pick this up and confirm the numbers and get new quotes, stats, budget figures, and new interview material.
Such an article could be very powerfull once coaberated. Our government agencies occationally need a kick in the butt to resist slothy/financially stupid behavior.
If I had mod points... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If I had mod points... (Score:2)
who cares (Score:5, Interesting)
So to asnwer your point, yes, I've been there, I converted Windows shops to Linux, I keep hearing from my friends that their companies use Linux more and more and yes, I do think that this kind of articles are useful and inspirational. to those of us who actually go out and convince management guys that Linux is a better choice. For those like you on the other hand, who can only bitch and moan about how Linux is not ever going to makie it in what your head tells you from inside your ass it's the "real world", they're probably useless. You'll never get it anyway.
Re:How Linux can make it to the desktop... (Score:2)
None of Wine, Vmware, Win4Lin, possibly dosemu (if they are really old) will handle them?
Re:They just upgraded to a new version (Score:2)
If you have a high-paid IT person, and that equates to a more reliable network/computer for your users then you have probably saved money, or, better yet, allowed the company to make -MORE- money.
People waiting for their computer to be fixed are not very productive.
EIther because they cannot work, or they cannot work in their usual fashion. (Even if they can do their job without the computer you have completely disrupted their usual method of working. Productivity will drop considerably in most cases).
Re:where is the redundancy? (Score:2)