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

Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop


2004-01-18 05:08:40 AM
kylix1
"R.F. Pels" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
Quote
Hilton Evans wrote:

>"juliusz" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
>news:4009721d$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>>Hilton Evans wrote:
>>
>>>A small business with a couple of dozen PCs won't gain much in
>>>dollar
>>>savings moving to Linux and stands to lose and savings on
>>>procurement to service and training.
>>>
>>
>>It is really worth to consider switching from Windows to Linux because
>>the potential savings from it can be considerable.
>>
>>- The immediate savings in Licensing cost can be considerable; it
><snip -- many per server savings>
>
>Those are all good reasons for considering a switch to Linux as a
>back end server. They're not good reasons for switching to Linux
>clients.

Says you. Oh, and BTW, go into the whole article.
???
--
Hilton Evans
-----------------------------------------------
ChemPen Chemical Structure Software
www.chempensoftware.com
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 1/13/04
 
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

On 01/17/04 23:24 +0900, R.F. Pels wrote:
Quote
Trane Francks wrote:
>Corporate question, corporate approval.

Hello! Rattling your chain here only! Do I need to add the :-)?
<g>Well, it does help in this context-ignorant medium. :)
Quote
>Those are the standard answers.

Ah. I forgot a couple. Better security, better resistance against viruses,
almost free support, more documentation than anyone can read.
Security isn't a valid point, IMO. I've administered both Windows
and Linux systems and it's just a matter of what needs to be tied
down on a particular system. Once it's configured and patched
accordingly, it's safe (until the next vulnerability is found).
The viruses thing is true, but whether viruses are introduced
into the corporate network is a matter of how the network is
used. In the end, you're only as secure as the lock on the door.
If you use vulnerable software and a poorly configured (or no)
firewall, you'll have trouble no matter what. There are HEAPS of
cracked Linux and UNIX boxen out there.
Nobody actually reads documentation, they just like to {*word*75}
about it.
Quote
>Now, let's say I've just bought 20 systems for my new startup. They come
>preinstalled with, say, XP and SmartSuite. My staff have been using
>Windows at home for

Then you didn't shop properly in the first place. How much cheaper could you
have done with 20 barebones systems? I'd guess half price. If selected
I think it's pretty safe to assume that the average "wee startup"
is going to go with mainstream players (Dell, Compaq, HP, IBM
...) and you're not going to get bare systems from them. I'm not
going to buy a noname because I want a 3-year warranty, which
fits in nicely with the 3-year refresh cycle I've decided upon
for my systems. When the warranty runs out, I replace it and get
updated software "for free" while I'm at it. That's a good deal
in the eyes of many.
Quote
would have to secure all the 20 boxes before handing them out to your
coworkers. Plus install any additional software necessary. And at least one
Yep. That's a foregone conclusion, but the same whether it's
bare-bones or preinstall.
Quote
of the boxes would be a server. And the run-of-the-mill mail transfer agent
would set you back again a bunch of dollars plus you are required to have
it installed and maintained by a third party because it ain't simple
The owner sets up Hotmail accounts for all the staff. An ADSL
modem with configurable NAT and IP filtering keeps the network
safe. ;^)
Quote
A comparative study of Windows and KDE has been done. The result is that
they were equally useable. Second of all, OpenOffice and Microsoft Office
Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder. I like KDE and have been
using it since V1 showed up as a Slack install option. I would
not, however, say it is an equally usable interface when compared
to Windows. It's getting pretty good, but it still lags a bit
behind. That's a very, very subjective call, however, and
therefore I can't consider it compelling. I love emacs and vi
equally; there's no accounting for taste.
Quote
totally works the same. Anybody that has some Microsoft Word experience
doesn't need 5 minutes to figure out how to work with OpenOffice, and in
99% of all cases all that is used in wordprocessing is styles and tables.
Basic word-processing might be one thing, but I have yet to see
any of the other spreadsheet candidates match Excel for ease of
use. Here, again, we have the question of "best tool for the
job." Gnumeric isn't bad, but KSpread has a way to go yet.
Quote
Top it off with a good book on the subject and you're pretty much done. The
same goes for KDE. Almost all desktop metaphores are the same.
In a very real sense, you're preaching to the choir. The point
here is that in the scenario I spell out, it's not likely that
the guy in question knows Linux. It's still the case that most
people might have heard of Linux, but they've never seen it let
alone work with it. That 20-seat startup is most likely going to
be headed up by a guy who has Windows or Mac smarts. Wanna use
QuickBooks Online? Sorry, only Win+IE users need apply. Oh, well.
Quote
>them? As long as I don't let staffers install their own software,
>those XP systems will be stable.

Rapidly turning it into an almost weekly effort running around the firm
spending at least 10 minutes on each workstation to update software.
This is the downside of the small shop. A 20-seat office with
Linux desktops is likely to face the same problem because there's
not likely to be any IT staff to handle remote maintenance. By
the time the shop is big enough to have a full-time IT staffer,
it's also big enough to have Windows-based login scripts handling
automated software updates.
Quote
>I'll grant remote maintenance, but that doesn't apply to small businesses.

Oh yes it does, because 1.) it enables you to immediately service people
requiring only an e-mail or a phonecall if you do that yourself or 2.) it
Ah, now I see. You're discussing remote as in out-of-office.
You've outsourced IT in your scenario. In my 20-seat scenario,
the owner was doing it himself. Both are likely and common
situations.
Quote
reduces the price if you buy such maintenance. If I need to travel to your
premises I use more time plus I need to invest in a car plus I need to buy
gas, so my price per hour is higher.
Hmmm. It invokes an interesting question: At how many seats
should a shop have a full-time IT staffer?
Quote
I'd say that the recurring amounts of money to be paid for license fees
because a software supplier forces you to upgrade will start that company
earning dollars in 12 to 18 months...
I dunno. I'm still using Office 97 in my company and there
doesn't seem to be any momentum to change that. This brings up an
interesting issue (Microsoft's latest licensing). It's certainly
going to be noticeably cheaper to avoid recurrent subscription
fees in the case of a startup these days. New startups have
compelling reasons to look outside the MS camp, for sure. My
aforementioned "economy of scale" could be seriously tipped in
favour of Linux for any company needing to update software.
Interesting times, these are.
trane
--
//------------------------------------------------------------
// Trane Francks XXXX@XXXXX.COM Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

Andreas Prucha wrote:
Quote
I see such systems here from time to time. Not many, but they exist.
They are also beginning to show up regularly on ebay. Not a lot, but a steady
flow.
--
Ralph
"Everyone has a photographic memory, but not everyone has film."
.. Author Unknown
 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

"R.F. Pels" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
The fact is that it is better in areas where it mostly matters at this day
and age: security is better and it is almost impervious to viruses.
Does security override consistency and ease of use, compatibility, software
availability, trained labor pool, etc.? Windows security is easier to
address than some of the other concerns.
These are the judgments and tradeoffs that a small business owner will have
to make. For any area where Linux is better, there is another where it is
worse. Hence, my judgment that overall, it is a lateral move at best.
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

RP>Cost. stability. Ease of remote maintenance. Choice. A better
RP>bargaining position when dealing with the commercial OS vendors.
I'm curious, if Linux so cool and deffinitely better than Windows why it is
still not on desktop?
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

p>(1) Total control of the OS. If I do have a problem, I can upgrade or
p>fix myself any and all parts, without having to depend on some
p>upgrade, reinstall, or buy a new version. For instance, if I need a
p>new kernel to support x options, I can do this. If I need a new X
p>that supports new features of improves performance in certain areas,
p>I can do this.. If I need xpatch, but not patch my entire system, I
p>can do this. If I need to customize configuration parameters to allow
p>on certain functionality for users, I can do this. None of these are
p>options on Windows. You install what Windows gives you and usually
p>this means an update to a newer version of Windows, which means new
p>rollouts to every desktop. Patches from MS are all or none, in many
p>cases and I can only customize what Windows allows. I cannot do
p>incremental upgrading at all.
However there is extremely rare occasions when user need total control of
the OS. There is no necessary to upgrade windows microkernel, upgrading
certain part of interface with hardware is upgrading/installing driver.
There is no necessary to do incremental upgrading because it often lead to
compatibility problems. The ability to replace parts of OS deffinitely is
not advantage. It is way to get advantages but it is way to get problems.
Guess why there is never questions/answer in Windows newsgroups: "It is not
working?" - "Yeah, install kernel version X.Y.Z on distro A or P.Q.R on
distro B".
p>(2) Security: Virus problems, firewalls: In the four years I have
p>been running Linux, I have NEVER had a virus, period!!! How many
p>Windows users can say this?
I Windows (and linux too) user. I never had virus since times of MS DOS.
Most viruses targetted on Windows because:
1. It is most poular.
2. There are most count of stupid users who able to run suspicious
executable just because it named "britney_spears_{*word*192}.txt.safe.exe".
Once Linux get more popular, once it's applications get more functions like
Word's VBA it will be same amount of viruses for Linux.
p>Windows firewalls are not customizable. Sure you can use the options
p>you are given from some interface, but that is not purely
p>customizable. I can control each and every port with Linux using
IPChains or IPTables,
p>Heck I can even see the source code and create my own extensions.
p>Why do
p>you think most routers are running Linux, like Cisco?
Thinking that good software is only Linux prerrogative? Just look on Agnitum
Outpost Firewall for example.
p>(3) Installation of new software: Never requires a reboot.
In fact reboot it is stupid behavior introduced by Microsoft, and many
stupidly follow it. 99% of Windows software actually not needed reboot. This
is question to put or not to put checkbox in the InstallShield or
WiseInstaller near words "require reboot".
p>On a single machine this might not be a problem. Try rolling a new
p>software out to 25-1000 machines and have to reboot them.
Oh. I have 200 machines that running certain software in Linux. Upgrading
all 200 not easy way. Or i need to force user stop working, roll on local
copy, then run again. On each for 200 machines. Another solution to run soft
over nfs. There is another problem, after changing executables on nfs we
need to close programs, unmount nfs mountpoints, upgrade software, mount
nfs, then run again. This option is not better that Windows'es.
p>Oh, wait a minute, with Linux I can remotely control everything on a
p>client desktop.
Windows RemoteDesktop. Windows terminal server. Same level of control. And
work significantly faster than Linux X over slow connections.
p>Heck, We can use Linux terminals and Terminal services
p>with Linux and control practically everything, and never have to touch
p>the user's desktop. I know, that doesn't save you any time at all does
p>it?
p>You can BUY terminal services for Windows, and get maybe 75 users on
p>a single server. Largo, Florida is running over 400 clients and now
p>police cars on a dual Zeon server with 2 gig of Ram. Try that on
p>Windows.
400 X-clients?
p>(4) stability: Windows may try as they like but no version is as
p>stable as Linux, period.
BS. Linux on desktop failing with same rate as Windows on desktop. In some
hands less, in some hands more. Personally i'm sometimes able to kill or
hang entrie X-subsystem with Kylix de{*word*81} while debugging certain
programs. Few times it was total hang-up when even network connect was not
possible. stability of Linux desktop - myth, not more.
p>Windows 2000 was pretty stable until I installed security patches from
p>MS. That was why I made my final and complete decision to run
p>Linux full time on the desktop. Servers have been Linux for years.
Windows servers have been running for years also. Until i switched to
company which work with Linux we have certain amount of W'NT 4.0 servers
which runtime was about year each. There was pair of interrupts when there
was power failure or company relocated into new office.
p>(5) Cost. It is hard to beat free, verses 100s of dollars, both for
p>initial installations and upgrade cost for each and every machine.
That 100$ will be spent on solving of various problems. What american
programmer salary per hour? Imagine $20/hr. When that programmer spend only
5 hours on doing something Linux specific (for example compiling Qt - 7
hours on C700, or guessing
how_to_run_that_program_in_that_conditions_and_how_to_configure_it_to_run_pr
operly) Linux advantage is wanish.
p>(6) A plethora of free software and utilities. Nearly everything you
p>need for Windows cost you. Nearly eveything you need for Linux is
p>free.
There are plethora of free software for Windows.
p>(7) More secure Internet experience. Viruses are almost never even
p>heard of on Linux. Trojans are there, but easily customizable
p>firewalls are a CD,download, or DVD away. And they are free.
p>Running a Windows machine on the internet is a gamble period. You may
p>say that you have never had x happen (which I would doubt), but how
p>many millions of Windows users are constantly plagued by security
p>breeches and viruses? Even one of MS' former VPs stated that Windows
p>is a totally flawed system in terms of security and will be until the
p>entire Windows infrastructure is totally rewritten.
Just use right firewall and not run suspicious content, okay? I'm browsing
internet regularly and securely. And about VP's... i don't trust to them if
they woriking on Bill or not working on Bill.
p>Linux with Unix roots, was meant to be secure from the beginning.
p>Sure, there are some vunerabilities in Linux and badly written code
p>as well. But compared to Windows, it is like comparing the holes in a
p>doughnut to Swiss cheese. That would too, bring us back to root
p>causes. Most security problems in Linux are modular, while in Windows
p>it is inherent.
Did you saw Windows code to deffinitely say that it is inherent?
p>In other words, I can modularly replace any part or the whole of a Linux
p>system, from the kernel to the Graphical engine, to any or all of my
p>software. This is not possible on Windows, it requires a new version of
p>Windows.
p>(8) Better support of open standards. Linux is based much more on the
p>open standards like ECMA and W3C which the open source world work
p>closely with.
p>Microsoft is a lesson in being propreitary, which = lock in.
Personally i'm don't see negative consequences that something inside windows
is not belong to open standards.
p>Most companies do not want to be held hostage to a single entity.
p>With MS, that is a garantee, with Open source, is a garantee not to
p>be locked in.
As long MS will be stable, they will be stable. And that why they will
remain with windows and both make millons while linux still crawling under
the dinning table and loudly scream.
p>In closing:
p>The only downside to Linux, is that some software is only offered on
p>Windows. Dreamweaver is a good example, as is Adobe acrobat. You can
p>Lin4Win or VMWare these, but this is the only area where Windows may
p>have to be a consideration. For Word Processing, Spreadsheets,
p>Presentations, development, email, Web browsing and general overall
p>business use, Linux is a much better option, plus it can save you
p>hundreds of dollars per client desktop.
p>Internet wise, Windows has been and will be, a gamble. Game wise,
p>Windows wins, hands down. This is not Linux's fault, it is where the
p>game developers are and what they write for. This will change as
p>Linux grows in popularity, but for now, for games, it is Windows or
p>nothing. Mac has more {*word*143} titles available, but it too, lags far
p>behind Windows.
Guess why there is "some software"? Guess why it feature rich or why games
on windows? Because of development tools, IDE's etc.
p>Another area where Windows wins, is what is referred to as "trained
p>admins"
p>There are more Windows admins than Linux ones. The problem is how
p>many good
p>Windows admins are there? The dependence upon GUI interfaces and
p>point and click, does not make a very good admin, IMHO. Many so
p>called Windows admins do not know how to write a batch file, run FTP
p>from a command line, or write installation and configuration scripts.
p>MS has been very good in making people believe they are experts, when
p>indeed they are power uses.
Then they not admins.
p>Same goes for programmers. Many have never touched a command line,
p>written a make file, or done any incremental builds and links. If it
p>isn't GUI and drag and drop, they are lost. That to me, is an
p>untrained programmer or some of which might be better described as point
p>and click, drag and drop
p>Gurus :)
If machine can do something for programmer, it must do not to force him to
write makefiles. CBX fine example, programmer not need to write that
makefiles, he not need to lose time to learn how that files should be
written, he may use his time to solve real problems instead fight with
results of laziness of creators of development tools. The system that
required that human must do something when system can do it itself - flawed
system by deffinition.
p>Still that being said, Windows has traditionally been available for
p>the average user, which means that they will have more exprience with
p>Windows than Linux. However, this too, is changing, due to the
p>increased use and deployment of Linux and Open Source.
p>This is what you call an assesment JQP, not based on opinions read
p>from some sponsered site, but rather experience. When MS sent out a
p>survey form, asking how they could get us Linux users to switch from
p>Linux, we told them the same things.
Eventually MS learn from good sides of Linux (and we see attempts of it),
but seems linux community do not want to learn good sides of Windows. And
such blindness cannot remain unpunished.
---
Andrew V. Fionik, Papillon Systems, Unix Programmers Group
For reply use "ender" instead of "fionika" in e-mail.
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

RP>Ah. I forgot a couple. Better security, better resistance against
RP>viruses,
This is temporary...
RP>almost free support,
... or not existent ...
RP>more documentation than anyone can read.
... scattered over Internet or horribly prepared.
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

Ender wrote:
Quote
RP>Cost. stability. Ease of remote maintenance. Choice. A better
RP>bargaining position when dealing with the commercial OS vendors.

I'm curious, if Linux so cool and deffinitely better than Windows why it
is still not on desktop?
Because of laziness, stupidity and the lack of audacity. 99% of businesses
and consumers buy computers like cars. If it's shiny and nifty, they
swallow it.
--
Ruurd
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

Ender wrote:
Quote
RP>Ah. I forgot a couple. Better security, better resistance against
RP>viruses,

This is temporary...
But for how long?
Quote
RP>almost free support,

... or not existent ...
Inform yourself before using stuff.
Quote
RP>more documentation than anyone can read.

... scattered over Internet or horribly prepared.
Then why keep {*word*75}ing instead of helping out. It's so easy for the
complainers to keep standing by the side hollering it's bad and scattered
and horribly prepared etcetera etcetera, but generally they're not prepared
to contribute.
--
Ruurd
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

Trane Francks wrote:
Quote
>Ah. I forgot a couple. Better security, better resistance against
>viruses, almost free support, more documentation than anyone can read.

Security isn't a valid point, IMO. I've administered both Windows
and Linux systems and it's just a matter of what needs to be tied
down on a particular system. Once it's configured and patched
accordingly, it's safe (until the next vulnerability is found).
That's a narrow view on security, isn't it? Buy a Windows XP box and every
user account has administrative rights. Buy an XP Home box and you can't
even change rights on directories and files. The point is that any Linux
box is pretty safe to begin with and it's quite easy to set it up so that a
user has minimal rights and remote systems have no access at all and you
start working from there. That's not a choice you have when starting with
XP. You install it, then you have to start tying things down to a degree
that is acceptible.
Quote
The viruses thing is true, but whether viruses are introduced
into the corporate network is a matter of how the network is
used. In the end, you're only as secure as the lock on the door.
If you use vulnerable software and a poorly configured (or no)
firewall, you'll have trouble no matter what. There are HEAPS of
cracked Linux and UNIX boxen out there.
True. Badly configured ones.
Quote
Nobody actually reads documentation, they just like to {*word*75}
about it.
And when they're hit and you answer that they should have Read The Fine
Manual they're insulted.
Quote
>>Now, let's say I've just bought 20 systems for my new startup. They come
>>preinstalled with, say, XP and SmartSuite. My staff have been using
>>Windows at home for
>
>Then you didn't shop properly in the first place. How much cheaper could
>you have done with 20 barebones systems? I'd guess half price. If
>selected

I think it's pretty safe to assume that the average "wee startup"
is going to go with mainstream players (Dell, Compaq, HP, IBM
...) and you're not going to get bare systems from them. I'm not
going to buy a noname because I want a 3-year warranty, which
fits in nicely with the 3-year refresh cycle I've decided upon
for my systems. When the warranty runs out, I replace it and get
updated software "for free" while I'm at it. That's a good deal
in the eyes of many.
And in my eyes that's stupid and wastefull. I can't see the ration behind
this. If there is a way to detach the hardware and software upgrade cycle
you should do that. There's absolutely no reason to upgrade hardware if it
is still functioning. It's a waste of natural resources to phase out a
perfectly good machine for the simple fact you have a three year upgrade
cycle. Does a secretary work better on a P4 2.4 than a P4 1.2? No. Is her
machine too slow? Adding memory and faster harddisks often solves that
problem.
There is also no reason to wait three years to upgrade your software. In
fact, that's idiotic. You upgrade the stuff when it's necessary or when
your version has been declared End-Of-Life. Why break what's working?
Quote
>would have to secure all the 20 boxes before handing them out to your
>coworkers. Plus install any additional software necessary. And at least
>one

Yep. That's a foregone conclusion, but the same whether it's
bare-bones or preinstall.

>of the boxes would be a server. And the run-of-the-mill mail transfer
>agent would set you back again a bunch of dollars plus you are required
>to have it installed and maintained by a third party because it ain't
>simple

The owner sets up Hotmail accounts for all the staff. An ADSL
modem with configurable NAT and IP filtering keeps the network
safe. ;^)
Then the owner is an idiot. What moron would swap corporate e-mail and data
over hotmail accounts?
Quote
>A comparative study of Windows and KDE has been done. The result is that
>they were equally useable. Second of all, OpenOffice and Microsoft Office

Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder. I like KDE and have been
using it since V1 showed up as a Slack install option. I would
not, however, say it is an equally usable interface when compared
to Windows. It's getting pretty good, but it still lags a bit
behind. That's a very, very subjective call, however, and
therefore I can't consider it compelling. I love emacs and vi
equally; there's no accounting for taste.
The point is: Is it useable and what is the cost? As a matter of fact, I
find the XP interface totally unuseable. Horrible, really.
Quote
>totally works the same. Anybody that has some Microsoft Word experience
>doesn't need 5 minutes to figure out how to work with OpenOffice, and in
>99% of all cases all that is used in wordprocessing is styles and tables.

Basic word-processing might be one thing, but I have yet to see
any of the other spreadsheet candidates match Excel for ease of
use. Here, again, we have the question of "best tool for the
job." Gnumeric isn't bad, but KSpread has a way to go yet.
OpenOffice does that job quite nicely. Downside is that it's slow on Linux.
Why? I don't know. Its performance on Windows is much better... Still, it's
better than koffice as a whole at the moment.
Quote
>Oh yes it does, because 1.) it enables you to immediately service people
>requiring only an e-mail or a phonecall if you do that yourself or 2.) it

Ah, now I see. You're discussing remote as in out-of-office.
You've outsourced IT in your scenario. In my 20-seat scenario,
the owner was doing it himself. Both are likely and common
situations.
Not so. I usually remote maintain computers in house from my own box. No
need to stand up, walk over to the guy, have him sit on his hands while I'm
fiddling with his box. In most cases the user happily goes along with his
business while I'm fiddling with his machine. And yes, if necessary, I do
that from home or a clients site when I'm there and it is necesary at that
point.
Quote
>reduces the price if you buy such maintenance. If I need to travel to
>your premises I use more time plus I need to invest in a car plus I need
>to buy gas, so my price per hour is higher.

Hmmm. It invokes an interesting question: At how many seats
should a shop have a full-time IT staffer?
Well, I'm part of an IT outfit, and I'd say in that case you need 1 IT
staffer for 1 developer :-) No really, I'd think that if an outfit is
reasonably well installed and the installation is documented properly, it
would suffice to hire 1 person that is computer savvy and have him do IT
staff stuff parttime. I'd hire someone that meets the proper requirements
for the job and has a notable insight and willingness to tinker with
computer stuff and give him the job of IT responsible. Depending on the
technology set, I'd say that in a Windows shop the amount of time he spends
on IT staffing might be bigger than in a Linux shop. Really. Once set up
properly (which can be difficult in some cases) a Linux shop almost runs
itself.
Quote
>I'd say that the recurring amounts of money to be paid for license fees
>because a software supplier forces you to upgrade will start that company
>earning dollars in 12 to 18 months...

I dunno. I'm still using Office 97 in my company and there
doesn't seem to be any momentum to change that. This brings up an
interesting issue (Microsoft's latest licensing). It's certainly
going to be noticeably cheaper to avoid recurrent subscription
fees in the case of a startup these days. New startups have
compelling reasons to look outside the MS camp, for sure. My
aforementioned "economy of scale" could be seriously tipped in
favour of Linux for any company needing to update software.
AS I said, our outfit is 7 people, one is using Windows because nobody
bothered to convert his machine to Linux (mostly because he was scared he
could not hack it) and we have one for the things we use that really don't
run under Linux, in particular private banking. The rest uses Linux for day
to day work and use Windows to test client stuff and do networked shootout
games :-) For the {*word*155} Word users I additionally install
CrossoverOffice and Word if I have a license. Personal machines tend to
have a shorter upgrade cycle than server machines. Most of the time I only
upgrade server software at End-Of-Life of the distro version and patch them
regularly. Desktop stuff is moving much faster, especially KDE, but most of
the time the users themself patch and install their stuff, sometimes
leading to surprises a more savvy user (the undersigned) has to solve :-)
And that's most of the time nVidia problems after kernel upgrades.
Quote
Interesting times, these are.
Most certainly they are!
--
Ruurd
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

"R.F. Pels" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
Quote
Ender wrote:

>RP>Cost. stability. Ease of remote maintenance. Choice. A better
>RP>bargaining position when dealing with the commercial OS vendors.
>
>I'm curious, if Linux so cool and deffinitely better than Windows why it
>is still not on desktop?

Because of laziness, stupidity and the lack of audacity. 99% of businesses
and consumers buy computers like cars. If it's shiny and nifty, they
swallow it.
If that was true there would only be one or two types of car.
--
Hilton Evans
-----------------------------------------------
ChemPen Chemical Structure Software
www.chempensoftware.com
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 1/13/04
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

JQP wrote:
Quote
>The fact is that it is better in areas where it mostly matters at this
>day and age: security is better and it is almost impervious to viruses.

Does security override consistency and ease of use, compatibility,
software availability, trained labor pool, etc.? Windows security is
easier to address than some of the other concerns.
The primary concern for businesses is that they can perform their task and
do not get into a situation where they cannot do business because their
systems are malfunctioning. And in this day and age, that means that proper
security and proper defense against vulnerability is maybe more important
than the other factors. What use is a very useable system for which there
is enough personell available that grinds to a halt every other day? And
no, Windows security is not easier to address, for the simple fact that out
of the box, any Windows system is insecure as hell.
Quote
These are the judgments and tradeoffs that a small business owner will
have to make. For any area where Linux is better, there is another where
it is worse. Hence, my judgment that overall, it is a lateral move at
best.
I'd be most happy to discuss this item by item. For now, from experience, I
say that a Linux solution is more stable, more secure, pretty compatible
and there is a huge load of software available to do your business with.
And in the case there really is a need to run Windows software, just add
one machine to the pack that runs it. FWIW, my outfit is mixed that way.
There is one user that really wants to stick to Windows because that is
what he knows and he's not exactly computer savvy, however, he often
complains. There is one (old) box that runs Windows to be able to do
private banking. For the rest, we all use OpenOffice, KDE and SuSE on the
desktop, the rest (ticketing, financials, administering hours, revision
control, inventory control) is all done mostly through web services and
otherwise with native Linux software. Complaints? None. Maintenance? Almost
zero. Uptime? We experienced zero unscheduled downtime in three years.
--
Ruurd
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

Ender wrote:
Quote
However there is extremely rare occasions when user need total control of
the OS. There is no necessary to upgrade windows microkernel, upgrading
certain part of interface with hardware is upgrading/installing driver.
Requiring a reboot.
Quote
There is no necessary to do incremental upgrading because it often lead to
compatibility problems. The ability to replace parts of OS deffinitely is
not advantage. It is way to get advantages but it is way to get problems.
Guess why there is never questions/answer in Windows newsgroups: "It is
not working?" - "Yeah, install kernel version X.Y.Z on distro A or P.Q.R
on distro B".
That's not because it is possible in Linux, that is because it is impossible
in Windows.
Quote
Once Linux get more popular, once it's applications get more functions
like Word's VBA it will be same amount of viruses for Linux.
Maybe, but the impact always is smaller than under Windows, for the simple
fact that the underlying security model is more robust.
Quote
p>Windows firewalls are not customizable. Sure you can use the options
p>you are given from some interface, but that is not purely
p>customizable. I can control each and every port with Linux using
IPChains or IPTables,
p>Heck I can even see the source code and create my own extensions.
p>Why do
p>you think most routers are running Linux, like Cisco?

Thinking that good software is only Linux prerrogative? Just look on
Agnitum Outpost Firewall for example.
Payware, no doubt.
Quote
p>(3) Installation of new software: Never requires a reboot.

In fact reboot it is stupid behavior introduced by Microsoft, and many
stupidly follow it. 99% of Windows software actually not needed reboot.
This is question to put or not to put checkbox in the InstallShield or
WiseInstaller near words "require reboot".

p>On a single machine this might not be a problem. Try rolling a new
p>software out to 25-1000 machines and have to reboot them.

Oh. I have 200 machines that running certain software in Linux. Upgrading
all 200 not easy way. Or i need to force user stop working, roll on local
copy, then run again. On each for 200 machines. Another solution to run
soft over nfs. There is another problem, after changing executables on nfs
we need to close programs, unmount nfs mountpoints, upgrade software,
mount nfs, then run again. This option is not better that Windows'es.
Get yourself a decent distro, create the scripts and run them overnight. Or
pay through your nose for Windows remote upgrade stuff. Pick your choice.
Quote
p>Oh, wait a minute, with Linux I can remotely control everything on a
p>client desktop.

Windows RemoteDesktop. Windows terminal server. Same level of control. And
work significantly faster than Linux X over slow connections.
Insecure and insecure. I can pick ssh, vnc or spawn an extra X session to
that box.
Quote
400 X-clients?
Yes Ender, quite easy. They all share their text segments, and the X server
runs on the desktop machine. If I would have to accomodate the same amount
of clients on a Windows Terminal Server, I would have to shell out major
bucks in hardware and software.
Quote
p>(4) stability: Windows may try as they like but no version is as
p>stable as Linux, period.

BS. Linux on desktop failing with same rate as Windows on desktop. In some
hands less, in some hands more. Personally i'm sometimes able to kill or
hang entrie X-subsystem with Kylix de{*word*81} while debugging certain
programs. Few times it was total hang-up when even network connect was not
possible. stability of Linux desktop - myth, not more.
Plain stupidity on the programmer part this is. It's high time you study how
to set limits to the amount of memory and processor time a process can use.
If it runs away, kill the process before it gets out of hand. This kind of
behaviour is almost in all cases attributable to either runaway processes
or committing so much memory that the swap runs out.
Quote
p>Windows 2000 was pretty stable until I installed security patches from
p>MS. That was why I made my final and complete decision to run
p>Linux full time on the desktop. Servers have been Linux for years.

Windows servers have been running for years also. Until i switched to
company which work with Linux we have certain amount of W'NT 4.0 servers
which runtime was about year each. There was pair of interrupts when there
was power failure or company relocated into new office.
Pff. I've seen outfits that had to reboot dayly because otherwise their
Windows boxen would fail pitifully.
Quote
p>(5) Cost. It is hard to beat free, verses 100s of dollars, both for
p>initial installations and upgrade cost for each and every machine.

That 100$ will be spent on solving of various problems. What american
programmer salary per hour? Imagine $20/hr. When that programmer spend
only 5 hours on doing something Linux specific (for example compiling Qt -
7 hours on C700, or guessing how _ to _ run _ that _ program _ in _ that _
conditions _ and _ how _ to _ configure _ it _ to _ run _ properly) Linux
advantage is wanish.
You're forgetting the upfront cost. Plus he didn't say $100, he said
hundreds of dollars. Like EUR4000 for an Exchange license which comes
preinstalled as an open relay thank you very much. And you're equally
forgetting that setting up and securing Windows software is equally or more
difficult than Linux software. Not to mention the fact that if one process
poops on your registry, you're having a disaster. And failing to notice all
kinds of trouble with the totally dim filesystems available under Linux.
Quote
p>(6) A plethora of free software and utilities. Nearly everything you
p>need for Windows cost you. Nearly eveything you need for Linux is
p>free.

There are plethora of free software for Windows.
All payware.
Quote
p>(7) More secure Internet experience. Viruses are almost never even
p>heard of on Linux. Trojans are there, but easily customizable
p>firewalls are a CD,download, or DVD away. And they are free.
p>Running a Windows machine on the internet is a gamble period. You may
p>say that you have never had x happen (which I would doubt), but how
p>many millions of Windows users are constantly plagued by security
p>breeches and viruses? Even one of MS' former VPs stated that Windows
p>is a totally flawed system in terms of security and will be until the
p>entire Windows infrastructure is totally rewritten.

Just use right firewall and not run suspicious content, okay? I'm browsing
internet regularly and securely. And about VP's... i don't trust to them
if they woriking on Bill or not working on Bill.
And that is exactly the point where Linux shines. It won't even run
suspicious content in the first place.
Quote
p>Linux with Unix roots, was meant to be secure from the beginning.
p>Sure, there are some vunerabilities in Linux and badly written code
p>as well. But compared to Windows, it is like comparing the holes in a
p>doughnut to Swiss cheese. That would too, bring us back to root
p>causes. Most security problems in Linux are modular, while in Windows
p>it is inherent.

Did you saw Windows code to deffinitely say that it is inherent?
Yes, inherent. And you don't need to look at the code to know that. Add a
driver? Windows requires a reboot, Linux does not. Add a server process?
Windows needs a reboot in most cases, Linux does not.
Quote
Personally i'm don't see negative consequences that something inside
windows is not belong to open standards.
Just wait for the moment that Microsoft is charging you 10 cents for every
Word document you create. Just wait and see what happens if they only
support a Word document version that's not backward compatible and see how
much money your government has to shell out to make all the old shit
useable again.
Quote
p>Most companies do not want to be held hostage to a single entity.
p>With MS, that is a garantee, with Open source, is a garantee not to
p>be locked in.

As long MS will be stable, they will be stable. And that why they will
remain with windows and both make millons while linux still crawling under
the dinning table and loudly scream.
Fact of the matter is that Windows is not stable. Period.
<snip>
Quote
p>Same goes for programmers. Many have never touched a command line,
p>written a make file, or done any incremental builds and links. If it
p>isn't GUI and drag and drop, they are lost. That to me, is an
p>untrained programmer or some of which might be better described as
point p>and click, drag and drop
p>Gurus :)

If machine can do something for programmer, it must do not to force him to
write makefiles. CBX fine example, programmer not need to write that
makefiles, he not need to lose time to learn how that files should be
written, he may use his time to solve real problems instead fight with
results of laziness of creators of development tools. The system that
required that human must do something when system can do it itself -
flawed system by deffinition.
Only holds as long as you stay in a single environment. Plus a programmer
that's unable to specify how to build his stuff in a particular language
isn't worth diddly.
Quote
p>Still that being said, Windows has traditionally been available for
p>the average user, which means that they will have more exprience with
p>Windows than Linux. However, this too, is changing, due to the
p>increased use and deployment of Linux and Open Source.

p>This is what you call an assesment JQP, not based on opinions read
p>from some sponsered site, but rather experience. When MS sent out a
p>survey form, asking how they could get us Linux users to switch from
p>Linux, we told them the same things.

Eventually MS learn from good sides of Linux (and we see attempts of it),
but seems linux community do not want to learn good sides of Windows. And
such blindness cannot remain unpunished.
As a matter of fact, Windows made a huge step backward with XP. And if you
think pilfering the property of others euqates learning, I'd say it's high
time you looked again.
--
Ruurd
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

On 01/19/04 06:48 +0900, R.F. Pels wrote:
Quote
Trane Francks wrote:
>Security isn't a valid point, IMO. I've administered both Windows
>and Linux systems and it's just a matter of what needs to be tied
>down on a particular system. Once it's configured and patched
>accordingly, it's safe (until the next vulnerability is found).

That's a narrow view on security, isn't it? Buy a Windows XP box and every
user account has administrative rights. Buy an XP Home box and you can't
even change rights on directories and files. The point is that any Linux
It's a narrow view, perhaps, but Windows and Linux do equally
well on a network, IME, when:
* The door is locked (good firewall)
* Anti-virus software is installed
* "Virus-resistent" apps are used (e.g., Netscape instead of Outlook)
* Users do not install their own software
* Security-related patches are applied
I freely admit that a default Windows Whatever installation isn't
all that safe, but neither, IMO, is a default Linux installation.
Keeping the network safe is the primary concern. Subsequently,
having "Critical updates" and anti-virus stuff installed takes
care of the rest of it. Once that's done, a responsible
administrator takes time to ensure that all boxes on the network
are updated as required.
Quote
>firewall, you'll have trouble no matter what. There are HEAPS of
>cracked Linux and UNIX boxen out there.

True. Badly configured ones.
I consider an unsafe Windows box a badly configured one. In my
way of thinking, there is no such thing as "Windows security" and
"Linux security"; there's just "security." Either the responsible
admin knows the job or does not.
Quote
>fits in nicely with the 3-year refresh cycle I've decided upon
>for my systems. When the warranty runs out, I replace it and get
>updated software "for free" while I'm at it. That's a good deal
>in the eyes of many.

And in my eyes that's stupid and wastefull. I can't see the ration behind
Stupid and wasteful, hmmmm. Well, it could be seen as such, but
there are issues of depreciation, asset handling and tax
write-offs to consider. Just because I happily squeak 5+ years
out of my systems (and had a 486 that I got a full 7 years out of
before it finally quit) doesn't make it the best business
decision. Corporate tax laws also vary from country to country,
so there's no hard/fast rule here. One handles assets in a
fashion that best suits the bottom line. That may be wasteful,
but it's also worth considering that "waste" is significant in
driving economies.
Quote
is still functioning. It's a waste of natural resources to phase out a
perfectly good machine for the simple fact you have a three year upgrade
I agree, but what's good for nature and what business sees as
good are very often at odds.
Quote
There is also no reason to wait three years to upgrade your software. In
It could be argued that there's no pressing reason not to wait.
Quote
fact, that's idiotic. You upgrade the stuff when it's necessary or when
your version has been declared End-Of-Life. Why break what's working?
Agreed. On the other hand, when EDS is your IT provider, you do
what they say. When EDS says you replace your systems in 3 years,
you do it. (It sounds odd, but I've seen it with my own eyes. The
customer/supplier relationship seems to be confused in that
arrangement.)
Quote
>The owner sets up Hotmail accounts for all the staff. An ADSL
>modem with configurable NAT and IP filtering keeps the network
>safe. ;^)

Then the owner is an idiot. What moron would swap corporate e-mail and data
over hotmail accounts?
That's precisely the point. A lot of small businesses are run by
people who just don't know any better. Still, a more likely
small-office solution would come from Microsoft. It doesn't
scale, but it's a solution.
Quote
OpenOffice does that job quite nicely. Downside is that it's slow on Linux.
StarOffice was the same. I have v5.2 here and it doesn't see much
use these days.
Quote
technology set, I'd say that in a Windows shop the amount of time he spends
on IT staffing might be bigger than in a Linux shop. Really. Once set up
properly (which can be difficult in some cases) a Linux shop almost runs
itself.
"Might be" is accurate. I think it largely depends on how many
boxes on the network get "special" software. The further away
from a common standard installation you get, the more work it
takes to keep things running. At least, that's been my experience.
trane
--
//------------------------------------------------------------
// Trane Francks XXXX@XXXXX.COM Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

RP>>>Ah. I forgot a couple. Better security, better resistance against
RP>>>viruses,
Quote
>This is temporary...
RP>But for how long?
As long as Linux is not popular in wide masses. As long Linux become more
popular there will me more viruses targetted at Linux or Linux apps, there
will be more developers that write apps (no one is perfect) and these apps
will have vuinerabilities.
RP>>>almost free support,
Quote
>... or not existent ...
RP>Inform yourself before using stuff.
RP>>>more documentation than anyone can read.
Quote
>... scattered over Internet or horribly prepared.
RP>Then why keep {*word*75}ing instead of helping out. It's so easy for the
RP>complainers to keep standing by the side hollering it's bad and
RP>scattered and horribly prepared etcetera etcetera, but generally
RP>they're not prepared to contribute.
Because there is no money in it.
That's why one prefer windows solution. Buying something one spend money but
get solution and support immediately (not in future when Linux will be more
popular and widespread). No need to spend time and forces to contribute
something to community, wait while community accept it and integrate it into
common results and share with others. Businness usually based on exchange of
common easily convertable resource in the form of money, you actually offer
barter where measure of resources is time/work/product.
Once i was needed to introduce some enhancements into open-sourced app (i
will not name it). I wrote letter to maintainer and explained what i'm want.
The answer was roughly following: "It is my app and i'm do not want to
change it because it pretty good for me, if you want do it youself." Funny.
From now there is two alternatves: deal with existing app and spend time and
forces or just buy something commercially available for $20..30 and get
required functionality in matter of weeks. Of course i selected second.