Discussion
Interesting idea, and it may work in large corporates where this is an abundance of technical knowledge.
But for SME and home users forget it.
I'm a big advocate of Linux for servers (did a project a while back using RedHat advanced and Oracle RAC). It certainly puts a threat to the other big *nix players as far as OS's go (especially where the TOC is a winner).
However, where Linux falls down (in the same way that Microsoft does), is that it's very difficult to ensure 100% stability because the OS and hardware are NOT always compatible. That's my only reason for not using Linux across the board. I know that if I buy Sun kit that the hardware and software are created by the same vendor and hence can guarentee 100% compatibility (same applies for IBM - shudder!).
I have yet to meet a "standard Microsoft" user that has migrated to Linux for desktop. The bottom line is that you need a far greater degree of skill to install and maintain Linux of Microsoft. That said, you are equally far LESS likely to have to unwind things when they go wrong (which MS is infamous for).
Well, thats my war and piece bit!!
Steve
But for SME and home users forget it.
I'm a big advocate of Linux for servers (did a project a while back using RedHat advanced and Oracle RAC). It certainly puts a threat to the other big *nix players as far as OS's go (especially where the TOC is a winner).
However, where Linux falls down (in the same way that Microsoft does), is that it's very difficult to ensure 100% stability because the OS and hardware are NOT always compatible. That's my only reason for not using Linux across the board. I know that if I buy Sun kit that the hardware and software are created by the same vendor and hence can guarentee 100% compatibility (same applies for IBM - shudder!).
I have yet to meet a "standard Microsoft" user that has migrated to Linux for desktop. The bottom line is that you need a far greater degree of skill to install and maintain Linux of Microsoft. That said, you are equally far LESS likely to have to unwind things when they go wrong (which MS is infamous for).
Well, thats my war and piece bit!!
Steve
Microsoft make the best desktop OS
unix makes the best server OS.
you wouldnt put a Diesel engine in a racing bike would you.
you COULD, but why, when petrol is 10000x better..
Thats how I feel re: Nix and Doze.
I will only ever have Doze on my Laptop / Home PCs
I will only stick Doze on a Server if its specifically requested by the client. Granted there are rare occasions where Doze is preferable to nix on a server, but 9/10 you can replicate the function on nix, for half the server spec, and quarter of the cost.
But Terminal Services makes a great point for Doze on a server tho
unix makes the best server OS.
you wouldnt put a Diesel engine in a racing bike would you.
you COULD, but why, when petrol is 10000x better..
Thats how I feel re: Nix and Doze.
I will only ever have Doze on my Laptop / Home PCs
I will only stick Doze on a Server if its specifically requested by the client. Granted there are rare occasions where Doze is preferable to nix on a server, but 9/10 you can replicate the function on nix, for half the server spec, and quarter of the cost.
But Terminal Services makes a great point for Doze on a server tho
The bottom line is familiarity.
Linux desktops are great for us techies, but as I said, your average user (not all 100% pc literate) needs a familar look and feel. If they're using MS at work, and MS at home then they will generally be more confident. Throw another UI in the equation a people lose their bearings. You have to remmeber the bulk of PC users are technical numpties (for lack of a better word).
I had a similar argument when I was at school since we used Archimedies. They're very capable machines but in the "real world" everyone uses PC's, so after leaving school I had to learn the basics again (file management, startup/shutdown, installing software etc).
Sorry for the waffle, it's a passionate subject of mine, since I'm on the fence when it comes to Linux;
linux servers = great, low TOC, ubundance of GNU software etc.
linux desktop = fine for techies to hone(sp) their *nix admin skills on, or to devel apps. Not suited to "real" users.
Steve
>> Edited by fatsteve on Sunday 8th February 11:50
Linux desktops are great for us techies, but as I said, your average user (not all 100% pc literate) needs a familar look and feel. If they're using MS at work, and MS at home then they will generally be more confident. Throw another UI in the equation a people lose their bearings. You have to remmeber the bulk of PC users are technical numpties (for lack of a better word).
I had a similar argument when I was at school since we used Archimedies. They're very capable machines but in the "real world" everyone uses PC's, so after leaving school I had to learn the basics again (file management, startup/shutdown, installing software etc).
Sorry for the waffle, it's a passionate subject of mine, since I'm on the fence when it comes to Linux;
linux servers = great, low TOC, ubundance of GNU software etc.
linux desktop = fine for techies to hone(sp) their *nix admin skills on, or to devel apps. Not suited to "real" users.
Steve
>> Edited by fatsteve on Sunday 8th February 11:50
fatsteve said:I guess you're right on that one. It's a bit like moving house (o/s) for someone who already got used to his local area (administration stuff).
...
I have yet to meet a "standard Microsoft" user that has migrated to Linux for desktop. The bottom line is that you need a far greater degree of skill to install and maintain Linux of Microsoft. That said, you are equally far LESS likely to have to unwind things when they go wrong (which MS is infamous for).
When I bought my first own PC, I had experience with installing Windows, applications and setting up a home-LAN on Win98.
I had a lot to learn (which I was prepared for, albeit I'm a student in Industrial Design and I have no education in IT) to get my Linux desktop stable and adapted for my requirements (hardware and software wise).
The only people who will have no problems migrating are
a) professional computer users (Unix-experience etc.)
b) unexperienced DAUs, who let someone else administrate their system anyway (maybe 90% of all computer users)
One of my mates, a section b)-type, who only used Windows to browse and email before, started his own business last November. He's an independent trade representative for Italian companies in Germany, and needs to care cutting costs down.
I proposed that he uses open-source software for his business, because software-licenses would have made 50% of the total cost of his IT-environment, and he probably won't any money in the first eight months of his business.
We shopped around for a laptop, a printer/scanner/fax combination and an ISDN-modem. I took care that all devices could be run with Linux, and within a half day everything was up and running, including his email and internet settings, own www-page and all applications on the laptop.
On the next day, I gave him a short introduction into using OpenOffice (spreadsheet basics, text processing and presentations), KDE email client (multiple adresses, filtering, adressbook), Mozilla Firebird browser (faster browsing with tabs, bookmarks), TheGimp (image resizing, format conversion). That was a couple of weeks ago, and he now utilizes his computer just like it would be Windows or Macintosh
He saved money for not having to pay licenses, and spend some more on the printer-combination (postscript instead of GDI) so it is eligible for Linux; but it was still a lot cheaper.
One downside of Linux on the desktop is, that you have to find somebody who is skilled enough to look after the system. Not a problem in his case, but when I'd move away he'd had more problems with finding another than with Windows.
One day, he will be skilled enough to help himself, and then help other mates - those Linux distributions get easier to service from version to version.
When I started some years ago (SuSE 7.3), I had to compile the Nvidia driver myself, today SuSE 9.0 automatically downloads and installs it with the online-update functionality.
The USB-modem was automatically recognized and then configured with a graphical frontend.
I have to say, I really was impressed how easy everything fitted together in his example, but much is down to a sensitive choice of the hardware though.
Interesting - although with HP they're effectively selling it with no OS and just sticking an image of Mandrake on the disk before it ships so it has some usable software. No software support offered by them at all. I think Dell did a similar thing a while ago, or with these big companies you can get your own image (of whatever OS) put on if your order's big enough.
In my opinion the big problem with desktop linux (esp for home/SME use) is choice - the very thing that the linux zealots prize so highly. With dozens of distributions and countless pieces of software that do the same thing, it's hard for less experienced users to know what's what. About every year I install a fresh copy of the latest desktop-focussed linux and force myself to use it for a week. Still there are glaring problems - you may have a printer attached that was detected perfectly on install, and test page was fine. Later, you open up a PDF and want to print it. Nothing happens; when you look at the print setup there's 3 or 4 different options for printing systems, and whichever you choose will need information typed in to get it working. How on earth is the average user expected to do this?
Irritations like this mean that although I can get everything working, lots of stuff takes longer for me to do on linux than windows. A lot of the things that are good on linux have been ported anyway - I run cygwin and perl on my windows desktop, and things like Openoffice are fine for my home use.
Desktop distributions need to get the balls to limit the choice, and getting their chosen stuff to work flawlessly with each other. ONE printing system. ONE window manager. ONE web browser. ONE pdf viewer. If the experienced people have other preferences, they'll probably know how to reconfigure it to work how they want it.
Linux can work great on business desktops that have a very narrow range of use, and where you have in-house developers who can tailor software to your needs. Things like call centres, where staff are sat in front of the same app all day, are perfect for it. However most businesses need more flexibility, and lots of professions have niche software that aids them enormously in their jobs and would cost a fortune to replicate on linux. Almost everyone at my previous companies have needed more software than windows, office and a groupware client.
For me, Mac OSX is the best "unix geek" OS. Has all the commercial software you'd need, everything just works as it should, and all the UNIX stuff is there to be used if needed. Only downside is relatively expensive hardware to run it on.
In my opinion the big problem with desktop linux (esp for home/SME use) is choice - the very thing that the linux zealots prize so highly. With dozens of distributions and countless pieces of software that do the same thing, it's hard for less experienced users to know what's what. About every year I install a fresh copy of the latest desktop-focussed linux and force myself to use it for a week. Still there are glaring problems - you may have a printer attached that was detected perfectly on install, and test page was fine. Later, you open up a PDF and want to print it. Nothing happens; when you look at the print setup there's 3 or 4 different options for printing systems, and whichever you choose will need information typed in to get it working. How on earth is the average user expected to do this?
Irritations like this mean that although I can get everything working, lots of stuff takes longer for me to do on linux than windows. A lot of the things that are good on linux have been ported anyway - I run cygwin and perl on my windows desktop, and things like Openoffice are fine for my home use.
Desktop distributions need to get the balls to limit the choice, and getting their chosen stuff to work flawlessly with each other. ONE printing system. ONE window manager. ONE web browser. ONE pdf viewer. If the experienced people have other preferences, they'll probably know how to reconfigure it to work how they want it.
Linux can work great on business desktops that have a very narrow range of use, and where you have in-house developers who can tailor software to your needs. Things like call centres, where staff are sat in front of the same app all day, are perfect for it. However most businesses need more flexibility, and lots of professions have niche software that aids them enormously in their jobs and would cost a fortune to replicate on linux. Almost everyone at my previous companies have needed more software than windows, office and a groupware client.
For me, Mac OSX is the best "unix geek" OS. Has all the commercial software you'd need, everything just works as it should, and all the UNIX stuff is there to be used if needed. Only downside is relatively expensive hardware to run it on.
Gassing Station | Computers, Gadgets & Stuff | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff