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

Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop


2004-01-17 09:18:07 AM
kylix1
R.F. Pels wrote:
Quote
Trane Francks wrote:

<snip>

>install Linux? Until LinDVD or PowerDVD for Linux are released to
>the general unwashed masses, Linux isn't going to get more than a
>passing nod.


As if 'desktop market' is equivalent to 'home desktop market', which it is
not. How big is the percentage of corporate users that really need to watch
DVD's?

For that matter, what's the % of home users who need to. I've had the
capability for quite some time and use it about twice, just to see if I
could.
 
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

"JQP" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
Maybe they figure it's like predicting the weather. If you say it's gonna
rain and you say it long enough, eventually you'll be right. Of course,
in
the process, you'll demonstrate to most people that you really don't have
a
clue.

I guess the operate by the maxim: We can't lose em' all!
Steve-O
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

On 01/17/04 07:35 +0900, R.F. Pels wrote:
Quote
Trane Francks wrote:

<snip>

>install Linux? Until LinDVD or PowerDVD for Linux are released to
>the general unwashed masses, Linux isn't going to get more than a
>passing nod.

As if 'desktop market' is equivalent to 'home desktop market', which it is
not. How big is the percentage of corporate users that really need to watch
DVD's?
I'll grant that the home desktop is not business desktop, but
desktop IS desktop. Linux has been ready for the business desktop
for some time now. It's still off the mark for Aunt Edna. While I
cannot speak for the vast majority of corporate users, when I
travel on business (4-5 times/year for 2-3 weeks/trip), DVDs are
a welcome addition and having a DVD drive in the ThinkPad was
part of my purchasing criteria. Three weeks of CNN gets really old.
In the meantime, I can safely say that the company for which I
work won't be changing its 2000+ seats to Linux anytime this
decade. Maybe 2004 will be the year of the Linux corporate
desktop for some folks, but it sure won't happen for me. With a
strong installed base and a trickle of new systems having Windows
something-or-other preinstalled, just where is the motivation?
Changing a corporation over to a new OS and an entirely new suite
of applications requires that there be a monumental return on
investment. I just don't see that ROI at all. I suspect that many
companies will feel the same way.
trane
--
//------------------------------------------------------------
// Trane Francks XXXX@XXXXX.COM Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.
 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

ken moffat wrote:
Quote
>As if 'desktop market' is equivalent to 'home desktop market', which it
>is not. How big is the percentage of corporate users that really need to
>watch DVD's?

For that matter, what's the % of home users who need to. I've had the
capability for quite some time and use it about twice, just to see if I
could.
Same here. Plus, if I would like to, I'd buy a set that I connect to my TV.
--
Ruurd
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

Trane Francks wrote:
Quote
>As if 'desktop market' is equivalent to 'home desktop market', which it
>is not. How big is the percentage of corporate users that really need to
>watch DVD's?

I'll grant that the home desktop is not business desktop, but
desktop IS desktop. Linux has been ready for the business desktop
for some time now. It's still off the mark for Aunt Edna. While I
cannot speak for the vast majority of corporate users, when I
travel on business (4-5 times/year for 2-3 weeks/trip), DVDs are
a welcome addition and having a DVD drive in the ThinkPad was
part of my purchasing criteria. Three weeks of CNN gets really old.
If I would play the devil's advocate, as your boss I could tell you you were
misappropriating company funds for your personal entertainment.
Quote
In the meantime, I can safely say that the company for which I
work won't be changing its 2000+ seats to Linux anytime this
decade. Maybe 2004 will be the year of the Linux corporate
desktop for some folks, but it sure won't happen for me. With a
strong installed base and a trickle of new systems having Windows
something-or-other preinstalled, just where is the motivation?
Cost. stability. Ease of remote maintenance. Choice. A better bargaining
position when dealing with the commercial OS vendors.
Quote
Changing a corporation over to a new OS and an entirely new suite
of applications requires that there be a monumental return on
investment. I just don't see that ROI at all. I suspect that many
companies will feel the same way.
Then maybe you're not looking.
--
Ruurd
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

Hilton Evans wrote:
Quote
And, that market is probably overblown. Here in the U.S. most
businesses are small businesses. Big corporations with 10,000 desktops
and 100 geek staffs to babysit them are willing to go through the
hassle to convert from Windows to Linux; and they will get significant
savings from their economies of change.

Even in big corporations some are sufficiently compartmentalized so
that a move to a single platform makes no sense. When I was working in
as a research spectroscopist our analytical and physical chemistry
departments mostly used PCs while our synthetic chemistry department
favored Macs. And, the choice of platform on a scientific instrument
was determined by the supplier.
Niche market.
Quote
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.
However, they /can/ save money on commmercial licenses and such businesses
aren't able to support their information infrastructure in the first place,
so they have to buy that anyway.
--
Ruurd
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

Hilton Evans wrote:
Quote
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
includes the cost of the operating system and licensing, cost of many
peripheral applications, like Data base, WebServer, Mail servers,
Print servers, News servers, file sharing servers and many more
programs, utilities and applications which you would need to buy if
your system is Windows based. So it is not only the cost of the
operating system.
- Saving in future upgrades and modernization.
- Savings on potential cost of auditing and license tracking.
- Data protection ?open standards (how you measure this in money)
- Security and reliability (how to measure these with money)
- Flexibility (how you measure it with money)
- Expandability (how you measure it with money)
- Scalability ( how you measure it with money)
- Savings in system maintenance cost (it is true that Linux
professional charges more but you need only one or two Linux engineers
for your organization since one can maintain and administer multiple
Linux systems. (sort of Maytag repairman)
The retraining cost is negligible, and is comparable to switching from
one to another version of Windows. Anyway, staff must be trained, no
matter what is the system in use. Training and retraining is a normal
cost of doing business. Most businesses in fact are using one
custom made application for example client-server type and the
employees usually interacts only with a subset of this application
therefore they must be trained to interact with this application. This
employee does not need to know Linux system administration or even to
know on what operating system the application is running. The setup
and maintenance of the system is done by a specialist, one retrained
employee or an outside contractor. Furthermore, the flexibility of
Linux permits to mimic the familiar environment the staff was trained
on, if it is needed.
But any such transition must be base in reality, because a very small
business which does not deal with any important or otherwise sensitive
information and has already modern equipment and is running expensive
Windows application and with great dependence on them, then it may not
be cost effective to do this transition.
But if there is a need to modernize old system then in most
circumstances choosing Linux and open standards makes sense from the
economical point of view as well from gained flexibility and potential
savings in the future. Also, if the business does not yet utilize
computers or wants to expand its use then it is almost an obligation
to consider Linux as an alternative.
Additionally, for many businesses it makes perfect sense to utilize
heterogeneous computing environments that consists from Windows and
Linux, to preserve current investment and to take advantage form the
best of both.
Each, business situation is unique and each business solution must be
carefully considered. However, there is no doubt that Linux is making
constant progress; The Linux situation is changing from year to year
from month to month the big computer industry are investing in Linux,
the Linux user base is increasing and what is probably the most
important Linux is improving in a rapid manner. The choice is yours.
juliusz
--
InstallMade - Kylix-specific installer/builder
www.superobject.com/installmade/
www.superobject.com/imoe/download.html
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

On 01/17/04 20:53 +0900, R.F. Pels wrote:
Quote
Trane Francks wrote:
>travel on business (4-5 times/year for 2-3 weeks/trip), DVDs are
>a welcome addition and having a DVD drive in the ThinkPad was
>part of my purchasing criteria. Three weeks of CNN gets really old.

If I would play the devil's advocate, as your boss I could tell you you were
misappropriating company funds for your personal entertainment.
Corporate question, corporate approval. I merely made the choice
that best suited my business arrangements, based on the choice of
systems offered by the IT folks.
Quote
>strong installed base and a trickle of new systems having Windows
>something-or-other preinstalled, just where is the motivation?

Cost. stability. Ease of remote maintenance. Choice. A better bargaining
position when dealing with the commercial OS vendors.
Those are the standard answers. 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
years. Tell me exactly how it's cheaper to toss the preinstalled
stuff, install Linux and OpenOffice and train everybody to use
them? As long as I don't let staffers install their own software,
those XP systems will be stable. I'll grant remote maintenance,
but that doesn't apply to small businesses. Finally, my 20-seat
startup won't have bargaining power with anybody.
Quote
>investment. I just don't see that ROI at all. I suspect that many
>companies will feel the same way.

Then maybe you're not looking.
I've looked. Were I to start my own company, I'd most likely run
Linux on the desktop. That said, I have a harder time seeing the
ROI for the average 50-seat company making the switch. While I
could be mistaken, it seems to me to require a fairly large
economy of scale before the investment of switching is worthwhile.
trane
--
//------------------------------------------------------------
// Trane Francks XXXX@XXXXX.COM Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

"Trane Francks" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
I've looked. Were I to start my own company, I'd most likely run
Linux on the desktop. That said, I have a harder time seeing the
ROI for the average 50-seat company making the switch. While I
could be mistaken, it seems to me to require a fairly large
economy of scale before the investment of switching is worthwhile.
Technology generally moves forward, occasionally sideways and almost never
backwards.
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.
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

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

>And, that market is probably overblown. Here in the U.S. most
>businesses are small businesses. Big corporations with 10,000 desktops
>and 100 geek staffs to babysit them are willing to go through the
>hassle to convert from Windows to Linux; and they will get significant
>savings from their economies of change.
>
>Even in big corporations some are sufficiently compartmentalized so
>that a move to a single platform makes no sense. When I was working in
>as a research spectroscopist our analytical and physical chemistry
>departments mostly used PCs while our synthetic chemistry department
>favored Macs. And, the choice of platform on a scientific instrument
>was determined by the supplier.

Niche market.
Irrelevant to my bigger point compartmentization point.
Quote

>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.

However, they /can/ save money on commmercial licenses and such businesses
aren't able to support their information infrastructure in the first place,
so they have to buy that anyway.
And the biggest part that they pay for is people, service and specialty
applications and not OS licenses. A small business is not going to sweat
over the price of an OS license embedded in the cost of a workstation.
--
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

Trane Francks wrote:
Quote
>If I would play the devil's advocate, as your boss I could tell you you
>were misappropriating company funds for your personal entertainment.

Corporate question, corporate approval.
Hello! Rattling your chain here only! Do I need to add the :-)?
Quote
>>strong installed base and a trickle of new systems having Windows
>>something-or-other preinstalled, just where is the motivation?
>
>Cost. stability. Ease of remote maintenance. Choice. A better bargaining
>position when dealing with the commercial OS vendors.

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.
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
carefully (and that may require some study, I agree) you could have picked
20 of them maybe not top notch but perfectly OK boxes. Second of all, you
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
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
either...
Quote
years. Tell me exactly how it's cheaper to toss the preinstalled
stuff, install Linux and OpenOffice and train everybody to use
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
might differ in details but really are very similar, as is almost all
desktop software nowadays. It might not look the same, but it almost
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Quote
Finally, my 20-seat startup won't have bargaining power with anybody.

>>investment. I just don't see that ROI at all. I suspect that many
>>companies will feel the same way.
>
>Then maybe you're not looking.

I've looked. Were I to start my own company, I'd most likely run
Linux on the desktop. That said, I have a harder time seeing the
ROI for the average 50-seat company making the switch. While I
could be mistaken, it seems to me to require a fairly large
economy of scale before the investment of switching is worthwhile.
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...
--
Ruurd
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

JQP wrote:
Quote
"Trane Francks" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>I've looked. Were I to start my own company, I'd most likely run
>Linux on the desktop. That said, I have a harder time seeing the
>ROI for the average 50-seat company making the switch. While I
>could be mistaken, it seems to me to require a fairly large
>economy of scale before the investment of switching is worthwhile.

Technology generally moves forward, occasionally sideways and almost never
backwards.

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.
That is plain BS. RF gave you a list of WHERE Linux is better,. Now you are
back to your "I do not have to use x, to know that y is better."
Try something before you offer an answer of expertize. I doubt that you have
have ever seriously tried Linux at all.
I have run both for years and I can honstly and completely tell you that in
90% of cases for businesses, Linux is a much better option. Why?
(1) Total control of the OS. If I do have a problem, I can upgrade or fix
myself any and all parts, without having to depend on some upgrade,
reinstall, or buy a new version. For instance, if I need a new kernel to
support x options, I can do this. If I need a new X that supports new
features of improves performance in certain areas, I can do this.. If I
need xpatch, but not patch my entire system, I can do this. If I need to
customize configuration parameters to allow on certain functionality for
users, I can do this. None of these are options on Windows. You install
what Windows gives you and usually this means an update to a newer version
of Windows, which means new rollouts to every desktop. Patches from MS are
all or none, in many cases and I can only customize what Windows allows. I
cannot do incremental upgrading at all.
(2) Security: Virus problems, firewalls: In the four years I have been
running Linux, I have NEVER had a virus, period!!! How many Windows users
can say this?
Windows firewalls are not customizable. Sure you can use the options you are
given from some interface, but that is not purely customizable. I can
control each and every port with Linux using IPChains or IPTables, Heck I
can even see the source code and create my own extensions. Why do you think
most routers are running Linux, like Cisco?
(3) Installation of new software: Never requires a reboot. On a single
machine this might not be a problem. Try rolling a new software out to
25-1000 machines and have to reboot them. Oh, wait a minute, with Linux I
can remotely control everything on a client desktop. Heck, We can use Linux
terminals and Terminal services with Linux and control practically
everything, and never have to touch the user's desktop. I know, that
doesn't save you any time at all does it?
You can BUY terminal services for Windows, and get maybe 75 users on a
single server. Largo, Florida is running over 400 clients and now police
cars on a dual Zeon server with 2 gig of Ram. Try that on Windows.
(4) stability: Windows may try as they like but no version is as stable as
Linux, period. Windows 2000 was pretty stable until I installed security
patches from MS. That was why I made my final and complete decision to run
Linux full time on the desktop. Servers have been Linux for years.
(5) Cost. It is hard to beat free, verses 100s of dollars, both for initial
installations and upgrade cost for each and every machine.
(6) A plethora of free software and utilities. Nearly everything you need
for Windows cost you. Nearly eveything you need for Linux is free.
(7) More secure Internet experience. Viruses are almost never even heard of
on Linux. Trojans are there, but easily customizable firewalls are a
CD,download, or DVD away. And they are free.
Running a Windows machine on the internet is a gamble period. You may say
that you have never had x happen (which I would doubt), but how many
millions of Windows users are constantly plagued by security breeches and
viruses? Even one of MS' former VPs stated that Windows is a totally flawed
system in terms of security and will be until the entire Windows
infrastructure is totally rewritten.
Linux with Unix roots, was meant to be secure from the beginning. Sure,
there are some vunerabilities in Linux and badly written code as well. But
compared to Windows, it is like comparing the holes in a doughnut to Swiss
cheese. That would too, bring us back to root causes. Most security
problems in Linux are modular, while in Windows it is inherent. In other
words, I can modularly replace any part or the whole of a Linux system,
from the kernel to the Graphical engine, to any or all of my software. This
is not possible on Windows, it requires a new version of Windows.
(8) Better support of open standards. Linux is based much more on the open
standards like ECMA and W3C which the open source world work closely with.
Microsoft is a lesson in being propreitary, which = lock in.
Most companies do not want to be held hostage to a single entity. With MS,
that is a garantee, with Open source, is a garantee not to be locked in.
In closing:
The only downside to Linux, is that some software is only offered on
Windows. Dreamweaver is a good example, as is Adobe acrobat. You can
Lin4Win or VMWare these, but this is the only area where Windows may have
to be a consideration. For Word Processing, Spreadsheets, Presentations,
development, email, Web browsing and general overall business use, Linux is
a much better option, plus it can save you hundreds of dollars per client
desktop.
For the average Home user, Linux is not there yet. Not because it is
inherently more difficult to use than Windows, but because of {*word*143}
software. Most Home PCs are used to pay games, in addition to internet use.
Internet wise, Windows has been and will be, a gamble. Game wise, Windows
wins, hands down. This is not Linux's fault, it is where the game
developers are and what they write for. This will change as Linux grows in
popularity, but for now, for games, it is Windows or nothing. Mac has more
{*word*143} titles available, but it too, lags far behind Windows.
Another area where Windows wins, is what is referred to as "trained admins"
There are more Windows admins than Linux ones. The problem is how many good
Windows admins are there? The dependence upon GUI interfaces and point and
click, does not make a very good admin, IMHO. Many so called Windows admins
do not know how to write a batch file, run FTP from a command line, or
write installation and configuration scripts. MS has been very good in
making people believe they are experts, when indeed they are power uses.
Same goes for programmers. Many have never touched a command line, written a
make file, or done any incremental builds and links. If it isn't GUI and
drag and drop, they are lost. That to me, is an untrained programmer or
some of which might be better described as point and click, drag and drop
Gurus :)
Still that being said, Windows has traditionally been available for the
average user, which means that they will have more exprience with Windows
than Linux. However, this too, is changing, due to the increased use and
deployment of Linux and Open Source.
This is what you call an assesment JQP, not based on opinions read from some
sponsered site, but rather experience. When MS sent out a survey form,
asking how they could get us Linux users to switch from Linux, we told them
the same things.
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

JQP 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.
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.
Quote
In other words, this is a lateral move at best.
It is not. It is a jump forward, both in economics in the short and long
term and in the technical sense.
--
Ruurd
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

"juliusz" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message news:4009721d$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
Quote
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.
--
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

Hilton Evans wrote:
Quote
"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.
--
Ruurd