Board index » kylix » Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop


2004-01-24 11:51:53 AM
kylix0
Quote
The fundamental problem with a small company *moving* to Linux is that the
technology is not significantly "better" than Windows, in some ways it is
worse. In other words, this is a lateral move at best. Lateral moves are
always difficult to justify.

Tell that to my company who had 7 of their techs spend 2 weeks
cleaning up the last virus disaster 6 months ago. We are very
seriously considering getting rid of our desktops in the field
altogether and replacing them with PDA's. If palm would just come out
with a clamshell device with a decent keyboard and VGA screen......
 
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

Mike Margerum wrote:
Quote
>The fundamental problem with a small company *moving* to Linux is that the
>technology is not significantly "better" than Windows, in some ways it is
>worse. In other words, this is a lateral move at best. Lateral moves
>are always difficult to justify.
>
Tell that to my company who had 7 of their techs spend 2 weeks
cleaning up the last virus disaster 6 months ago. We are very
seriously considering getting rid of our desktops in the field
altogether and replacing them with PDA's. If palm would just come out
with a clamshell device with a decent keyboard and VGA screen......
Mike,
If you are serious, check out Sharp Electronics. They have just released the
type of device you are asking about.
However, sadly the OS does not come from Redmond,WA. I understand, it
features a little artic animal with a cute tuxedo :)
Of course, this means you will not have access to these viruses you have
become so familiar with. Your poor admins may also have to succumb to the
lifestyle of the Maytag repairman.
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

Quote
Mike,

If you are serious, check out Sharp Electronics. They have just released the
type of device you are asking about.

Im drooling over the CL700 (Clamshell) but they dont sell it in the
U.S. Beautiful device. 400mhz strongarm, vga screen, decent sized
keyboard, 802.11. Almost the perfect form factor for me. You can run
GCC and python on it too :)
Quote
However, sadly the OS does not come from Redmond,WA. I understand, it
features a little artic animal with a cute tuxedo :)

Embedded linux has to imrpvoe a little on the usability side and
frankly the built in apps stink but they will improve over time. I
also don't like the QTopia stuff because it isnt royalty free. I have
no doubt embedded linux will overtake all of the other players but it
will take 5 years or so I think.
We are pretty commited to palm for now. I'll be going to palm source
and I am very interested to hear whats coming up in OS6. We have
1000's of palms deployed in the field and they work beautifully. They
are mostly tethered to a laptop/cradle but we have begun deploying
palm only solutions using both the Treo600 and Tungsten T3/Modems. If
these trials go well we may get rid of the laptops altogether. The
Docs to go apps are really good at importing/exporting word. The only
problem is the t3 is only 1/2 vga. I'd really like to see a full VGA
clamshell type solution come out of palmSG.
Quote
Of course, this means you will not have access to these viruses you have
become so familiar with. Your poor admins may also have to succumb to the
lifestyle of the Maytag repairman.

I feel for them. when we ditch windows, they can spend more time on
other things to help the company. They are all for it im sure.
 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

MM>Tell that to my company who had 7 of their techs spend 2 weeks
MM>cleaning up the last virus disaster 6 months ago.
This mean that your company has lazy sysadmin that should be fired. Our
company has about 150 desktops, half Windows half Linuxes and certain amount
of servers with same proportion. A email virus plagued once our network,
however no harm was done and lession was taken. Now virus epidemies do not
hit us, however i know that sometimes virus emails come to our mailboxes
from outside. I know that our ONE sysadmin take appropriate precautions both
of technical and administrative character, and so we adequately protected.
From another side, two years later we accidentally exposed one of Linux
machines to internet which initially was internal purpose server (no special
security tuning was made). The hackers immediately breaked in, stealthy take
control over that server and begin exploring our network. With options that
standard Linux distro offer they was able to download sources and results of
our work. Guess what machines remain untouched? Windows workstations.
Linux is secure? Ha! Good myth.
So i think that any security problems are primarily failure of
administrative IT staff, not particular OS.
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

So you should know that Qt offer much less functionality than, for example,
VCL.
p>OK, lets see if I can make even more plain.
p>Linux has more server market share than Windows and is gaining more
p>everyday. OK, so I am going to code only for Windows, so that I can
p>increase my business. Does this make any sense at all?
You may increase your business developing high quality things that required
by customers. This is straightforward, simple, fair and efficient way to
increase your business.
Difference in market share may increase business but i'm not sure that
having "small" difference, say 20%..25% percent, will give to your business
significantly better chances. That may play if difference will be great like
80 vs 20 or 90 vs 10. And this exactly what currently happens with Windows
development. It HAS that advantage from market share.
Even if you get some advantage from distribution of market share, it may be
eaten by various expences like increased development and support expences
once you go to cross platform.
p>Linux is growing on the desktop as well.
p>It is also growing in the semi-computer market, like telecommunications,
p>PDAs, Smart TV type computers, Tivo, etc. faster in all of these areas,
p>than anyone else, including Windows. So, therefore I am going to code
p>only for Windows. This way I can ensure my future viability and
p>marketability. Does that make any sense at all?
You constantly forgetting about subject. The subject is "Linux Desktop".
p>Now I will give the reverse (yes I know you are an avid Redmond fan,
p>so we will turn it around. It is, after all, REALITY).
p>Windows has approx. 30% server market share. So I am going to code
p>only for
p>Linux and/or Solaris, and skip Windows. Sure, this may cover 50-60%
p>of the server marketshare, but I am going to purposefully leave out,
p>by my stubborn, ill-informed fanaticism. coupled with an uneducated
p>mindset, 30% of the market. Does it make sense for me to avoid 30% of
the market,
p>because I like Linux better than Windows?
What you mean under coding under Linux or Windows on the server market? If
i'm work with Oracle i'm code under Oracle. If i'm code under Java i will be
automatically cross platform. If i do some turn-key system it is often does
not matter what platform it use.
p>On the Desktop, Windows has approx. 90% of the Desktop market as of
p>last reports. But I use and like Linux better and see it really
p>growing (one of my largest customers' customer is starting this
p>month, switching out 15,000 desktops to Linux). So because I like
p>Linux better, I am going to ignore that 90% (even though it is on the
p>decline), and code for the 10% of Linux and Mac. Does that makes
p>sense? Of course not.
p>None of the above scenarios make any sense. Now if my company was
p>focused only on special utilities for one OS and not the other (say I
p>work for a
p>Virus software company, where sales for Linux would be nil,
p>since viruses are so rare, no one even worries about very much on Unix),
p>I might not need to put in the special effort. But that would be the
p>exception, not the norm. For most every consumer type or customized
p>business application, you had better worry about xplatform, or see
p>your competiton beat you into the ground in a very short period of
p>time. It is this simple.
So you have to select truly x-platform development tools and lose certain
amount of productivity and flexibility or have to create two development and
support branches for Windows and for Linux (which more expensive). I think
that you had first worry about quality of your applications and quality of
support instead of "being x-platform".
p>You may not do it, but you can bet your competition will. And they
p>will be expanding their business while you watch your marketshare,
p>shrink.
Being x-platform is just tool to gain some more money if time and resources
permits.
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

Quote
This mean that your company has lazy sysadmin that should be fired. Our
company has about 150 desktops, half Windows half Linuxes and certain amount
of servers with same proportion. A email virus plagued once our network,
however no harm was done and lession was taken. Now virus epidemies do not
hit us, however i know that sometimes virus emails come to our mailboxes
from outside. I know that our ONE sysadmin take appropriate precautions both
of technical and administrative character, and so we adequately protected.

We have three of them and none of them are lazy. We run Norton Anti
Virus and do everything conceivable to protect their machines. These
people are not on our WAN, they are on laptops out in the field wtih
dialup/cable modem accounts. They dont use our corporate email
because they are not employees. So tell me again genius how we are
supposed to protect these machines anymore than we already are. We
cant force them to update their virus definitions. We cant force them
to install microsofts security patches. We cant force them to not
click on attachments. We can however cut out the source of the
problem. Microsofts swiss cheese OS. I cant wait.
Quote
From another side, two years later we accidentally exposed one of Linux
machines to internet which initially was internal purpose server (no special
security tuning was made). The hackers immediately breaked in, stealthy take
control over that server and begin exploring our network. With options that
standard Linux distro offer they was able to download sources and results of
our work. Guess what machines remain untouched? Windows workstations.

You are either an m$ shill or completely ignorant on the matters of
security. Equally exposed to the net, linux is 10x more secure than
m$ out of the box. They dont expose little goodies like RPC, DCom,
netbios, IIS, and all the other {*word*99} Microsoft turns on by default.
Even if you do break into a linux box with a non root sign on, you
still need an exploit to get root access because you can only do so
much damage with a normal account. Sign in with any account on m$ and
see how much damage you can do.
Quote
Linux is secure? Ha! Good myth.

So i think that any security problems are primarily failure of
administrative IT staff, not particular OS.

Ok ill be sure to forward them this insightful post. These guys have
our WAN completely locked down. They dont even allow VPN anymore. In
our 3 year existence, we have never had a internal virus or trojan.
They do port level security at the office so you can only use one cat5
jack in the office. We never get viruses or trojans on the wan or our
exchange servers. But they are at the people in the fields mercy to
follow some very basic procedures to keep their machines safe and they
dont follow them. Pure and simple.
Quote

 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

Mike Margerum wrote:
Quote
They do port level security at the office so you can only use one cat5
jack in the office. We never get viruses or trojans on the wan or our
exchange servers. But they are at the people in the fields mercy to
follow some very basic procedures to keep their machines safe and they
dont follow them. Pure and simple.
So you trying to compare safety of Linux protected by admin with safety of
not protected Widnows with ignorant owner? :-))) It is so childish. I'm
wonder why i never get windows virus on my home PC?
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

Quote
So you trying to compare safety of Linux protected by admin with safety of
not protected Widnows with ignorant owner? :-))) It is so childish. I'm
wonder why i never get windows virus on my home PC?

No, I was refuting your claim that we should fire our admins because
they cant lock down laptops in the wild. They got a good chuckle out
of your post.
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >, XXXX@XXXXX.COM says...
Quote
"Phil Shrimpton" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
Hi,
Quote
>Which means little in the real world, Windows will always win in terms
>of dollars.

Why?
Because Windows is much more expensive than Linux in terms of Licences,
and in a lot of cases, people are not paying anything for Linux, so one
Windows server sale is going to be a lot bigger, in terms of OS dollar
value, than 100 Linux server sales.
Quote
If people are buying new servers to install Linux instead of Windows, I'd
expect the sales figures to show this in some way --- a decrease in Windows
sales if nothing else.
That assumes that the people buying the Linux servers would previous
have purchased Windows, or that people buying the Linux servers are not
also buying the same amount of Windows servers as they normally do.
Because Linux is not licensed the same way as Windows, it is near
impossible to compare the 2. If we had to purchase a copy of Linux for
each machine we install it on, and CAL's etc., we could directly compare
the two.
Quote
And we are seeing just that --- but in terms of Unix
sales which are down, but not Windows.
As above, UNIX is licensed similar to Windows, so sales figures are easy
to compare. UNIX sales maybe losing out to Linux, maybe Windows, but
nobody can know for sure unless they ask they people who are not buying
UNIX what they are buying.
Quote
>We have 10 'development' servers, all running Linux that I installed
>from a CD a burnt from a download. 5 of these servers came preinstalled
>with Windows (the rest did not come with an OS), so from a 'sales'
>perspective this looks like Windows = 5, Linux = 0, when in fact it is
>Linux=10, Windows=0 (although we do have 5 Windows licenses{*word*154}
>about).

Obviously, the data was for *new* server sales only. It never pretended to
measure conversions of old hardware.
All these 10 servers were purchased *new* to run Linux on.
Phil
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

"Phil Shrimpton" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
Because Windows is much more expensive than Linux in terms of Licences,
and in a lot of cases, people are not paying anything for Linux, so one
Windows server sale is going to be a lot bigger, in terms of OS dollar
value, than 100 Linux server sales.
A lot bigger?!? How much do you think a Windows license costs?
It is a very small part of the cost of a server.
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

JQP wrote:
Quote
"Phil Shrimpton" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>Because Windows is much more expensive than Linux in terms of Licences,
>and in a lot of cases, people are not paying anything for Linux, so one
>Windows server sale is going to be a lot bigger, in terms of OS dollar
>value, than 100 Linux server sales.

A lot bigger?!? How much do you think a Windows license costs?

It is a very small part of the cost of a server.
No, it's not. A basic 5-user license version of windows 2003
Server costs around 700ukp here in the UK, about the same
price as a basic server. Want to go Enterprise with 100 users?,
try 10,000ukp, with a suitable server costing 20,000ukp.
Either way, the cost of loading Linux on both of these
can be zero.
B
--
www.mailtrap.org.uk/
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

"Bob { Goddard }" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
message news:bv3mnc$njk3r$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
Quote
No, it's not. A basic 5-user license version of windows 2003
Server costs around 700ukp here in the UK, about the same
price as a basic server.
Don't know about your side of the pond but very few businesses here pay "off
the shelf" prices for MS software. Package deals and subscriptions are
available. I pay $299 per year and get virtually everything that MS
produces with up to 10 desktop licenses for Office and XP.
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

JQP wrote:
Quote
"Bob { Goddard }" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
message news:bv3mnc$njk3r$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>No, it's not. A basic 5-user license version of windows 2003
>Server costs around 700ukp here in the UK, about the same
>price as a basic server.

Don't know about your side of the pond but very few businesses here pay
"off
the shelf" prices for MS software. Package deals and subscriptions are
available. I pay $299 per year and get virtually everything that MS
produces with up to 10 desktop licenses for Office and XP.
$300 for everything? As in MSDN? As in not to be used
for production?
B
--
www.mailtrap.org.uk/
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

"Bob { Goddard }" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
message news:bv3rtl$n5ode$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
Quote
$300 for everything? As in MSDN? As in not to be used
for production?
As in Microsoft Action Pack Subscription. As in "internal business use" is
allowed. Here's the UK page.
www.microsoft.com/uk/partner/sales_and_marketing/actionpack/.
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

JQP wrote:
Quote
"Bob { Goddard }" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
message news:bv3rtl$n5ode$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>$300 for everything? As in MSDN? As in not to be used
>for production?

As in Microsoft Action Pack Subscription. As in "internal business use"
is
allowed. Here's the UK page.

www.microsoft.com/uk/partner/sales_and_marketing/actionpack/.
Interesting.... Never seen it before.
However, this is not for end users, is it? The vast majority
of companies and individuals cannot use it. Your argument
is therefore entirely null and void.
B
--
www.mailtrap.org.uk/