Linux.com

Oh, wait...

#

I have a customer that can never migrate to Linux.
As they are an independent insurance agency that has ALL of the companies that they represent MANDATING that all their agencies use Microsoft Internet Exporer... and nothing else!

The nature of the insurance company app is that it is used in some cases to interface with web applications that are a mixed breed - some using local applications that MUST run on Windows and MS IE (or ftp) to send data and updates via the web or dialup... , AND other companies use just web applications for getting certain business related functions to work for them. The point is that all require 100% functional use of the latest version of MS IE in order to work! Even CodeWeavers does not have WINE working with the latest IE! AND as it seems, there is no other choice that Linux has to offer as an option that will be supported by the Insurance companies.

- This is the case in more than just the insurance business.

Articles like this are fine for a business that does not have to interface with others and so can dicatate their own Linux solutions to only it's own employees... however, this will not work for everyone as the case above points out! AND we will be in real trouble if this crazy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET thing takes off - I think that the anti-trust folks should take a close look at it BEFORE it becomes too big of a problem.

#

Just what MS wanted! total lock-in. I know of several Financial apps, web based and standalone, that are heavily linked to IE DLL exports and so won't run on anything else. The worst part is, as more companies get roped into the MS/IE prison, the harder it becomes for a single company to break out of their chains.

#

Please give me the name of that company so I can avoid doing business with them. Thanks.

#

What Insurance companies was asked by someone?
Ans- ALL OF THEM ! TAKE YOUR PICK!
I do not know of one that is not Mandating IE !
I do not know of one that is thinking of Linux!
Why,
Well, because the insurance agencies also run 3rd party "all-in-one accounting with customer database applications" (and rating programs) that are all written for only Windows! Some of these use IE too (for online help and other functions)!
AND with the big companies using IE and the 3rd party application developers using IE and Windows too... then, which one switches to Linux first, whereupon the other is left incompatible at that point and the business can not run! There is a way to migrate... however it is thru Open Source apps for Windows first and then to Linux (as they need to use open source apps for Windows at 100% (to get away from IE and other MS tools) BEFORE any migration to the same or equal Linux application is possible. Apps RULE !

The 3rd party application developers don't like Microsoft because every change that Microsoft forces at them means that their programming costs go up (passed on to customer). Fewer changes for them mean higher profits and that is why many do like Linux and the control that Linux would give them to make changes on their own time tables and not Microsoft's !

Note that this is also true of the Farm Equipment retail businesses as they are also running 3rd party Windows based accounting with inventory and customer databases that interface with Windows based parts and pricing software packages from their Equipment and parts manufacturing companies.
They also use IE for certain tasks. So - one is entwined with the other... If the manufacturing companies ran their own retail shops then migration could be easy! This is not the case as their retail part is often made up of independent dealers that often can represent more than one manufacturing company! The parts apps need to run on the computers that the retail vendors are using!

So timming a Linux migration where all the software apps become Linux overnite in these cases would have to be coordinated at all levels (in some cases the distributors would have to be migrated as well - meaning 3 levels on the parts supply chain migrating at the same time)!

If someone set up Linux booths at the specific industry trade shows for these industries (and others) then, the Linux education could start to get the seeds of change started in the minds of these folks toward OPEN SOURCE windows first, then toward Linux apps second. Note that Linux education will be easy because there is not one business that I know of that likes being pushed around by Microsoft (they hate Microsoft as much as everyone else does)!

#

> Ans- ALL OF THEM ! TAKE YOUR PICK!
> I do not know of one that is not Mandating IE !

Well then you don't know much at all.

The last time I visited my insurance company, I was curious about the desktop my agent was using.

At first it looked unfamiliar, but then I realised...

It was OS/2.

#

Was it an independent agency that represented many insurance companies. OR a brokerage that can represent just about any insurance client that is looking for insurance on any type of risk?

Sounds like if using OS2 that it was a insurance retail part of just one insurance company where they can dictate any OS or applications as they don't do business with the independent agents.

However, as of today I know of just one company that have said they will allow support calls for their agents using the Mozilla browser...so, this news is an improvement! Others should follow the model of this company! I wonder now how many do?

#

That's pathetic! Some web devel project managers had decided to lock in the entire company, their agencies, into one product? Gee, give that group a big "YOu dUmbasses" when you speak to them next from us.

Do they even know what the Web is for? Heterogenous collection of systems that can COMMUNICATE? et al?

I REALLY hope someone posts the name of the company, to make sure to not give them a cent, and to hire extra annoying lawyers for if I'm ever find myself on the other side from them...

[fake quote, for the really gullable reader...]
".NET is *the* answer to open standards. It works with everything! Windows 2000, Windows XP,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Yep, guess that's everything! Oh, Sorry Java people, we don't make enough money on you, so java can't be 'open' (what seems to be M$'s definition of 'open' in open standards...). we'ed much rather take your work and make it just different enough to break your work and still manage to make money selling developers a whole new set of tools that they'll now have to use..."

#

I have a customer that can never migrate to Linux
Man, do you realize never is a damn long time? It's even longer than copyrights and patents are valid for. Sure, it may appear to you that they are stuck using IE, but the pace of development here on the Linux side of the world is actually rather rapid. I remember when people were saying there was no way any business could run on anything but Intel processors. Now, I know of three people in a town of 100,000 that are using intel processors. I know more people (and businesses) are running Macs than that. The vast majority of the people and busineses here are running AMDs, or Sun or IBM servers(RISC). Anyway, don't think they will never be able to use anything else.

#

Oddly enough, I have run IE 6.0 under crossover office 1.3.1 quite well. The new Beta of 2.0 includes the option to upgrade to 6.0 (you have to install 5.0 first) and that works better than it did under 1.3.1 and it also supports OfficeXP although you still have to go through the registration process which leaves me running Office2K instead but as that appears to run much better under 2.0 I am happy. Visual glitches are far fewer so good job Codeweavers.

#

If you're going to use Crossover to run IE and MS Office, then you might as well stick with Windows, because you're helping Microsoft just the same.

You are helping Microsoft to poison the Internet. When you use IE instead of a standards-supporting alternative, such as Mozilla, you are telling web developers that they don't need to worry about standards, and they must as well give in to Microsoft's non-standard protocols.

And you are helping Microsoft to poison Linux. By using MS Office data formats on Linux, and then encouraging others to do the same in your post, you are just locking Linux users into MS formats.

Remember what Microsoft said about their strategy in the Halloween document:

> OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized, simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market.

http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween1.ph<nobr>p<wbr></nobr>

Do you value your freedom? Do you want Linux to succeed? Do you want to be able to access the Internet without paying a toll to Microsoft, now and in the future?

If you answered "yes" to those questions, then don't use Crossover to run Microsoft software.

#

Though I'm not the original poster, I would like to respond to your comments.

If you're going to use Crossover to run IE and MS Office, then you might as well stick with Windows, because you're helping Microsoft just the same.

Not quite. Crossover can help as a stepping-stone towards freedome from MS. Instead of using 100% MS, you can use MS products only when you must, and OSS everywhere else. For instance, you can do your regular web-surfing with Mozilla and then use IE when you visit the website of the client that requreis it.

Though this is a suboptimal solution, it is an improvement, and thus, it constitutes a seed for change.

You are helping Microsoft to poison the Internet. When you use IE instead of a standards-supporting alternative, such as Mozilla,

By using Mozilla part-time and IE part-time, you have increased the overall usage of Mozilla and decreased that of IE as compared to where you were before. This is a step forward.

Do you value your freedom? Do you want Linux to succeed? Do you want to be able to access the Internet without paying a toll to Microsoft, now and in the future?

Yes... yes!... YEEEES!!!
(sorry, got caught up in the euphoria)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

I still think that Crossover can be used as a stepping stone.

#

As I am the original poster you are referring to I will cover your points. First off, I have never been a Windows user so there is nothing to stick to. I went from old 8 bit machines to UNIX back in 1990, got into SunOS until Solaris came along and then switched to Linux gradually from 1994. Never had to use Windows in anger, started a company and put Linux on all servers and desktops so don't give me the stick with Windows crap.

OK, Crossover is a life saver, while we use Mozilla and OpenOffice for the majority of our work there are times in business when you have to use Windows tools. Previously I would boot into Windows, use VMWare, or Win4Lin depending on when this was. Now with Crossover I can use Office2K and IE 6.0 directly within Linux when I absolutely have to and I don't have to run Windows at all now. That is great news. Yes, I have paid MS money for a copy of Office but I prefer OpenOffice and everyone in the company uses that. Where I can I get those people we collaborate with to use OpenOffice so we can share docs back and forth.

As for IE, frankly there are so few sites that Mozilla fails with that I simply don't care about IE but some may have need of it and the fact that it works is also great.

I have real work to do, my company uses the tools it needs to do its job and for 99% of the time that is Linux, bit without Crossover that 1% would give us some real issues and might make it necessary to actually have a few Windows desktops which we don't.

The main use of Office2K is to open Office docs that OO can't get at reliably, or to check that docs that people want in Word format have been correctly exported from OO and can be fixed if needed. It is awful that we have to use it but it does mean that we can get the job done and at the end of the day Linux is the more flexible solution and I make sure all my business contacts know that.

#

> I have real work to do, my company uses the tools it needs to do its job and for 99% of the time that is Linux, bit without Crossover that 1% would give us some real issues and might make it necessary to actually have a few Windows desktops which we don't.

So instead of keeping one Windows PC in each work area that people can walk to for that 1% of the time that they find it necessary, you bought everyone in your company a license for Crossover plus Windows plus MS Office?!!!

What a foolish waste of money.

Not only that, but you are forcing everybody in your company to learn MS Office when you could save money by having just one office administrator with the responsibility of converting documents. Some posters complain about the cost of learning both OpenOffice and MS Office, but you seem to want to spend extra money.

#

No problem, slap a Linux install on their desktops and grdesktop for Windows Terminal Services in 2000 server.

I'm no big fan of Microsoft, but that's one thing they managed to get right (probably because they didn't code most of it, they bought it). Anyway, there are good clients for most major OSes and it only costs you the Terminal Server license.

That's an easy sell considering how easy administration will be with that setup, and how quickly you'll be able to roll out a new version of IE.

#

The problem with Terminal Server is you have to buy a client license for each user. Then Office2000 has a license per user as well. I was looking into, and even called CodeWeaver on this. You don't save the money there and endup making it more expensive and more complicated.

#

I use mandrake 0 and dont have any problem acessing M/S pages in fact it works better and faster than msI/E

#

This Linux User Group would have as members ONLY business groups and corporations! They would have a membership fee that would create a sum of money where they could directly control a browser (or an office suite, etc...) that they want to use world-wide.

The money that they are paying already to Microsoft only aid the balance sheet of Microsoft. If they paid an equal amount of money to this LUG then they would be in better hands as they would be memebers of this democratic LUG and have an influence on it's directions.

In time - after their applications (IE, Office Suite, Accounting packages, etc) are standarized and require very little time to maintain development... they, can keep their money (vs if they stay with Microsoft they will have to keep paying more and more money... for as long as Microsoft exists... and they will have to compete with others that joined the LUG that now have lower TCO).

By creating this "well endowed" corporate LUG style user group they could save money, create standards for applications that business could use on a Linux OS, and free themselves from the chains that Microsoft keeps them in. They could even buy existing companies like SuSE, RedHat, Ximian, Intuit, Apple, or any other cheap deals out there that would enhance their portfolio of technologies. In the end all this technology would be GPL/GNU and would trickle down to the end users that these folks need to communicate and do business with!

It might all even be based on Security Enhanced Linux (creating a standard that everyone can be somewhat secure to work with)!

#

Well you can install IE on linux with WINE and you are ready to go--> so no big deal<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

#

They could always switch to Linux and then use an option like VMWare to run Windows as necessary, and with all the work going on in emulators, virtual machines, and network desktop serving there are options available right now that would work, much less a few years down the road. That's not even considering just using dual-boot desktops, so you've got both Linux and Windows available by simply restarting. My office used to be just about 100% Macintosh, so we got a lot of experience in jerry-rigging for compatibility, and the situation isn't as grim as you might think.

#

This is very brave and incisive commentary.

The Linux world has been crying out for a writer with the courage to step up and pen a "Linux is too ready for the desktop" column. It may have been a week ago that the last one appeared, and that's simply too long. If the point isn't reiterated ad nauseum by every cheerleader columnist looking to phone yet another one in from the pulpit next to the choir loft on at least a weekly basis, it might expose the crisis of imagination that's had this exact same column appearing from everyone and his dog for the last two years.

#

Linux has always been ready for the desktop as far as I know. I was using it back in 1995, and compared to Windows 3.xx and even Windows 95, the user experience in X was so much smoother. At the time, there were far more Internet apps for UNIX/Linux.

#

*nix_'03 smooth as WinXP? *nix_95 smooth as Win95 ?? Jeeez, pad're I've been there, done that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... it's how I earn my living and YOU my good fellow are hallucinating. WinX GUI has always been slick as a horny rattlesnake in olive_oil. The Linux desktop has always been slovenly as a drunk staggering thru piles of pig*hit. What HAVE you been consuming, pad're? Yer supposed to SMOKE the stuff not BOIL it and serve over blo-fish!

#

viewing web was much smoother on xwindows with p100+16mbytes of mem than on win95 with same machine, 'back in the day', the isdn drivers were far better on linux too(teles bri 16.3, non-pnp, made 1995) not to mention how ip-masq helped.

x can be slick, that's why you have choice of wide range of window managers, some fast, some slow.

win95 was pile of shit as far as the gui responsiviness went when something happened(and with ms windows that was a lot of times..)

3.11 was a joke.

#

Show me a collection of technologies that cost less than Windows 2000 Server (basic), Exchange 2000 Server (basic) and the supporting CALs that can take me within 72 hours from nothing to a fully functional 2 site environment.

The starting point was: 2 servers per site, wiped; about 50 PCs per site, wiped; existing brodband connections at both sites. A list of about 150 users, a registered domain name (for email - web hosting is outsourced). No pre-loaded PC software, profiles, email, etc. Oh, and 1 old Novell box to pull the existing (document) file shares from.

By the end of that 72 hours I (one person only) had set up 4 servers with all the necessary file shares and permissions, created the necessary file shares and permissions, groups, email boxes, special policies, etc. Established domain shares and replication that that allowed users seamless roaming (individual user desktops with full features) to any PC in either site. Set up RIS to be able to completly load new PCs with one of several specific PC images in about 20 minutes of unattanded downloading per PC. Futher cusomize each PC / user login combo based on environment wide managed policies. And a number of other details I'm not even thinking about right now.

I've been hoping to find a set of tools under Linus to address this problem for about 3years, but I always come back to cost vs. work vs. time. In the *nix world every example I've tried to set up in a test lab has fallen into either the versioning pit (versions needed vs. versions shipping vs. the distro you're using) or crazy amounts of poorly documented set-up. Sure after a couple days of digging, searhing, reading, experimenting I can usually make stuff work, but I'm not about to bet my job on the kind of solutions that come out of that. There have been too many time I've though "that should work now" and then had to dig for a couple more days or scrap the project.

Anyway - sorry for the rant. Just show me a fairly well documentated set of tools to do what I did above and I'll give it a try in my lab. Oh, please be specific.

#

I think people need a change in mindset about deploying Linux- they need to think thin-client or server-centric computing. Installing Linux on every desktop is liking installing Win2k server on every desktop- it makes little sense. Rather, have one big server at every site, and make those pc's into thin clients and many problems are solved. I personally like using VNC as the remote-display protocol for clients since it is stateless like terminal server client and runs on any hardware. Try this approach and I think you'll find it has more to offer than the rigamorole you go through now.

#

they need to think thin-client or server-centric computing

That's precisely what needs to happen. With the rise of the PC, we started thinking of the PC as the standard unit instead of the computing environment as the standard unit. This leads to a number of big problems -- how do we make sure all data is backed up? how do we ensure that a user's data is available where and when they need it? how do we secure data that is distributed over a number of clients, any of which may be down for any number of reasons? how do we deploy applications to the entire company? Many security problems that occur are because of users setting the security on their data instead of the company; backup solutions have to worry about backing data off of each individual PC instead of just the server.

In the old days of computing, you worked off terminals connected to a mainframe, and your user environment travelled whereever you went. Users didn't have "computer envy" when their neighbor's terminal was upgraded -- because the applications were still being served from the same location. It was bliss.

My SOHO now has a gateway/firewall/web and mail server, and an applications/XDMCP server; all the other machines connect to these for their functionality. It makes switching desks with office mates trivial, we all share the speed of the server, and we have plenty of physical desktop surface due to the small size of our thin clients. It's a much better way to work.

#

Thin clients? ohmeohmy. Did you mean to say "dumb terminal"? So much for Lusr-power, eh pad're! It's back-to-the future for *nix, with a 1965 mainframe mentality. Who woulda guessed it, a drooling system_fascist inside every penguinista. Fact is - WinX in the last 20 years has delivered more power and freedom to more individuals than anything since the USA Constitution. Gag on that, pad're instead of the Norwegian (red)herring ya want us to swallow.

#

Obviously you have not experienced a thin client with a properly running server on the back end. Go find an LTSP installation and try it. Done right, I could put you in front of two identical cases, one with an 200-300MHz CPU, diskless, networked to a server providing 20 other clients and the other with a CPU twice as fast running the same Linux on the local hard drive. Other than more noise coming from the stand alone installation because of the hard drive, the performance would look and feel THE SAME! I have seen it.

And, the user of the thin client has just as much customization capability as the stand alone box user does.

Please, thin client does not equal dumb terminal!

#

Can you say that the thin client (LTSP or K12LTSP) is able to produce better graphics?

Can you say it can do multi-media?

Can the thin clients run Gnomemeeting local on the desktop off of the server (what happens to the server if the thin clients all want to run these kinds of apps at the same time)?

How thin can these clients get (Citrix does it down to about 10-15k per... and is very fast over a 28.8 modem)?

Can VNC and TightVNC allow a "client" to connect over the web and have the server auto-setup an attached printer (without going thru hell first)?

#

I'm a different A/C<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) but want to address a few points:

Can you say it can do multi-media?
Yes. Not very easily, it can be done. Schools in Norway
are there already.

Can the thin clients run Gnomemeeting local on the desktop off of the server (what happens to the server if the thin clients all want to run these kinds of apps at the same time)?

a) don't know, b) depends on the specs of the server. Any server can be brought to its knees by an overload of
thin clients, don't forget available bandwidth. Skolelinux
uses about 20 clients per server, which is more than we
schedule for the Citrix servers at work.

How thin can these clients get (Citrix does it down to about 10-15k per... and is very fast over a 28.8 modem)?

With Citrix, aren't you running the client under a full
Windows workstation? LTSP et al boot from a floppy
and load everything else it needs from the server.
No local disk needed. Granted, X11 could be faster over
a 28.8, but we don't see that kind of use in schools or
businesses. (Our remote users at work have either ISDN or
ADSL connections, on Citrix)

Can VNC and TightVNC allow a "client" to connect over the web and have the server auto-setup an attached printer (without going thru hell first)?

Let me see if i understand correctly: At work, I connect to my home machine over TightVNC ( and VPN). I want to print from my home system at a work printer.

OK - I haven't done that, will try next time in the office, since I'm printing to a network printer already it should
be easy enough to set up another network printer for the home CUPS server? As long as there is no blocking at a firewall, there should be no problem.

A printer attached to my office computer, well, that computer must of course make its printer available first, either by running an IPP service or by 'sharing' the printer. In the first case, I'd use CUPS again, and in the second case I'd have to run smbclient on the home machine to reach the Windows printer.

Interesting - it will be useful to find out about this, for my current project.

I hope others can answer your other questions !

kattemann@linuxmail.org

#

Tell you what, bud.

Thin clients boot, load the network and a minimalistic OS and then arrange for remote login and export of the resulting screens.

If you really want to know the capabilities of thin clients under Linux, google for LTSP and/or PXES (there are others<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but these two come quickly to mind).

Thin clients allow you to build (and maintain) one beefy server which an entire department can use as if it were sitting under their own desks. The clients themselves take hardly any maintenance. This has the net effect of lessening the support workload.

Google for "Largo, FL" and when you get to the corporate website for the city, follow the links to their IT department. They run Linux throughout the city (all offices, libraries and so on) off just a small handful of servers.

This is not 'technofascism'<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... this is the elimination of wasteful public spending for hardware and software not needed to accomplish a goal. They still run a few Windows machines<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but only in those circumstances where it actually makes sense to do so. I still run a Win 98 machine at my home while I wait for a software vendor to port an essential application. However, I run it inside Linux as a virtual machine and not on its own hardware.

Linux is definitely ready for the desktop<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... just ask my wife.

#

Can you chop an onion into 3x6x6mm chunks with a 2-metre length of nylon-braided garden hose? Look at anything with enough scrutiny and you can make a case for it being useless. If you're so all-knowing, why don't you just implement your beloved features into such GPL (!!!!!) projects.

#

What loss of freedom do users of *nix thin terminals have? If they want more programs, they can install them into their home directories. In fact, if you want to see loss of power and freedom, you should see the kind of lockdowns Windows admins have to do to keep their userbase from screwing up everything.

#

>Set up RIS to be able to completly load new PCs
>with one of several specific PC images in about 20
>minutes of unattanded downloading per PC

Do you take into account the time to create these initial images ? Do you count the analysis time ? These factors are the most important and take much time !

>I've been hoping to find a set of tools under
>Linus to address this problem for about 3years,
>but I always come back to cost vs. work vs. time.

If you need replication, you can try
http://packages.debian.org/testing/admin/replicat<nobr>o<wbr></nobr> r.html

50Pc x 100$ (Windows - I forgot server licences) = 5000$
500$ a day you can take about 10 days for a free solution... (and problably saves a lot of in the next years !)

#

All of those capabilities are available in OSS. I do the same thing for my customers, but with Linux, and in the same timeframe for a cheaper price (gain to the customer) and therefore higher profit margin (gain to me).

What you forgot to mention is you have a great experience working with Windows and Microsoft products and none or little with Linux. So yes, it will take you longer to setup a Linux solution. The same way it would take me longer to setup a Microsoft/Windows solution, as I don't use any of their products and have no motivation in trying to.

Look, the last time I tried to install MS office 2000 on a Windows 2000 Terminal server edition I gave up after 2 days. Now, I could conclude, that MS products are a pile of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... when I could do that in Linux my eyes closed. But I know better than that. If it was that important to me, I will have made it work.

What I know is, as a small business owner, I can now compete with larger companies and provide a product that is at least comparable, if not superior, to MS products in feature/reliablity/security/ease of use for a very reasonnable price.

So it all come down to experience. And mine has been great with Linux and OSS in general. Like they say I will never come back.

Regards

Pascal

#

Two days to install MS Office on a Terminal Server? Stick in the CD. Choose Add/Remove programs. Install. How the HELL are you convincing anyone to use your services? You must have a knack for finding IT departments and companies filled with bigger idiots than yourself.

#

Not quite. Office 2k requires a transform creating from the resource kit and then that applying to the msi file in order to install on Win2k terminal server.

Office 97 & XP, just bang in the CD. But the poster did specify 2k.

#

In Solaris it's called JumpStart. A Solaris license costs US$100 for 100 systems.

In Redhat Linux it's called KickStart. It's free.

In FreeBSD it's called sysinstall. It's free.

The point I'm making here is that support for network installation is the norm for Unix systems. What you call "seamless roaming" does not require any special effort in Unix, and requires no replication. Filesystem sharing is something that Unix has been doing for 20 years.

None of this is a big deal. The point that you seem to be making is that you're not up to speed yet with anything outside the Microsoft monopoly. That's okay, but it's not reasonable to conclude that nothing exists if it lies outside your sphere of knowledge.

One other thing that really needs to be said. It's one thing to whip together some kind of computing environment in a few hours. It's quite another to make it secure. Beware of solutions that are so easy that any user can do them. It's probably also the case that any user can undo them.

#

I wasn't actually concluding that the tools I'm looking for didn't exist outside the MS world; I was saying that I had been unable to find good information about Linux equivlants of the MS components I'm used to using.

You are correct in that I'm somewhat of a Linux newbie. I'm not completely outside the Linux, loop though. My home network is based around a Mandrake Linux box running Samba, Currier-IMAP, Squirrelmail with a number of pluggins, CUPS, and several other great tools. In that environment I've been able to replicate about half of the services I depend on at work. Another problem I would like to overcome is the time it takes to manage the environment; my home network is much more time intensive to manage than my work environment.

I'd also like to say "thanks" to the people who have provided constructive comments and information here; I've more tools to research now.

#

Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy!

Ok.

<A HREF="http://rhems.sourceforge.net/" TITLE="sourceforge.net"> RHEMS</a sourceforge.net>

for your server server needs

<A HREF="http://www.feyrer.de/g4u/" TITLE="feyrer.de">Ghost for Unix</a feyrer.de>

for your rapid desktop deployment needs, just build a gold disk, slap in a floppy and 15 mins later you have a fully deployable machine.

I could comment on a few more tools but I think you should play it safe and stick with Microsoft. Unix takes a certain aptitude for researching the solution yourself not just getting the information spoon fed to you, not every system administrator is up to this task.

Remember give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime.

#

Let me see you set up your favorite Windows distro on a regular desktop faster than a a later Linux distro. Including all the necessary extra programs... OK, load XP reboot, load Word reboot, Load graphics program reboot, load firewall reboot, load latest virus program, oh gosh I don't have the latest, let me run to the store and spend $$$ and get it (time and money), and this program and that program. Heck in an hour I can have soo many programs....

On Linux comming and now even adding programs are easier and faster...

Hmmm, I would like mplayer and all the extras...

urpmi mplayer

wow that was tough..

I really would like abiword...

urpmi abiword

How about the latest Insta Messaging client...

urpmi kopete

I just loaded Mandrake on a friends computer 2 weeks ago. I told him that I had a Windows disk laying around, I asked him if he wanted to go back, he said, No.... I think Linux is better!

And another friend with LITTLE money facing the end of life of his Win 98 computer it also considering Linux... Wrestling with his virus program and whats a dll file....

I told him that he now has 2 choices...

"Windows XP and Linux" he said... Yes, I told him that either would be an improvement.... But since I'm buying linux anyway, one would be free...

It's a little harder, but the payoff is worth it!!!

MarkP

#

.... hmmmm showing you a fairly well documented set of tools:

http://www.ltsp.org is great and I personally use Mandrake. v. 9.1 has the DrakTermServ wizard included (in a not too secure way).

I deliver the freshest Mandrake KDE terminal screen to 5 users at once in my small training cabinet with old P1/75Mhz/32 MB RAM dumb old clients from my fairly average $800 noname notebook (AMD 1500+ Mobile/ 512 MB RAM, 20 GB). It chokes when OO loads but that was it.

Imagine a good server with RAID5 arrays and loads of RAM plus some processor power (for 50 clients I think dual P4/2.8 is absolute minimum) and you have it ready within 2 days with zero investment in new client hardware and licenses.

Get some experience with LTSP first, I tried 3 months with different setups in my 'personal lab' (the dusty basement<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;o). Ltsp.org is very well documented in 4 or 5 languages. I found a solution for each issue I had in the docs.

STIBS () stibs ! cc

#

I have to agree! I've played around with remote booting in general, and also specifically with the LTSP (I even bought one of their T-shirts to help 'em out a little, since they are a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.org). It's possible to remote boot a room full of clients all running from a centralized server with very little effort. And if you don't want to run X, you can use the rdesktop client to access your MS Terminal Services server.

Or another alternative - Knoppix! Burn a bunch of CDs, plop them in the drives of the workstations and go.

Linux, and Unix in general, is infinitely more customizable and flexible that Windows!

#

Show me a collection of technologies that cost less than Windows 2000 Server (basic), Exchange 2000 Server (basic) and the supporting CALs that can take me within 72 hours from nothing to a fully functional 2 site environment.

Dump Exchange and use a conventional email server (use m4 if you go with an up-to-date sendmail version and make sure to read the sendmail.cf file comments on relaying and security options, or use postfix; set up with SSL if you need it http://www.linux-sec.net/Mail/secure_pop3.gwif.ht<nobr>m<wbr></nobr> l for documentaion on secure mail scenarios); Use Evolution 1.2.x+, or other for email, tasks, etc and a web-based calendar system with SSL ( docs: http://www.modssl.org/docs/ has never steered me wrong for setting up SSL, and making certificiates/keys translates to many other SSL-related uses, such as with email authentication methods, tunneling, etc) that can email users calendar alerts ( homepage/docs: http://www.neosystem.com/wcal/ is one option ); Use Samba ( docs: http://hr.uoregon.edu/davidrl/samba/ ) for a PDC or Workgroup File/print services or use NFS, Lisa, etc and LPD.

Less bloat on the server, less bloat on the client, and with all the control and features you'd want... And plenty of scalability for other services databases, remote file access, etc.

Documentation with linux may be spotty, but its also mostly community driven. So if you do use something like the above, submit your experiences and example configs to the linux documentation project. I like http://www.google.com/linux for looking up answers. It always puts me right where I need to be.

--

#

I've done that many times with RedHat and Bynari. We even got use from those old MS Office licenses we paid for, by using codeweavers. It took about 48 hours to convert my present employer to a 100% linux shop, I created a disk image and converted 50 windows desktops to linux in one day. The next day I set up mail, dhcp, apache, postgresql, bynari connector and a firewall with DMZ using shorewall. On the third day I rested! I guess I'm just alot better than you, your employer should hire me and not you!

#

Umm.. can't you just auto nfs mount the home drives from a linux server to keep all the settings? (All unix programs keep their settings in ~). I'm not even a sysadmin and that's basic knowledge.
And can't you just set up one box, then use a linux boot floppy with dd to image the thing from the network? i.e. boot with floppy, start nfs, mount remote drive, dd hdd image from server to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/hda.. done (set the all going and leave it overnight)

#

Oops, sorry I replied to the wrong post. This was directed at the parent post.

#

Microsoft is trying to sell you something, so they have to prove something to you. With Linux, it's up to you to discover that. And if you don't contribute to the Linux community, nobody really cares what you use. Use Windows if it makes you happy.

Note that UNIX/Linux server-side stuff usually does not do a lot of handholding, by choice. UNIX/Linux administrators usually know what they are doing, and they value simplicity and portability more than handholding.

By the end of that 72 hours I (one person only) had set up 4 servers with all the necessary file shares and permissions, created the necessary file shares and permissions, groups, email boxes, special policies, etc. Established domain shares and replication that that allowed users seamless roaming (individual user desktops with full features) to any PC in either site. Set up RIS to be able to completly load new PCs with one of several specific PC images in about 20 minutes of unattanded downloading per PC. Futher cusomize each PC / user login combo based on environment wide managed policies. And a number of other details I'm not even thinking about right now.

Wow, it took you three whole days to do that: it's too bad that it was that much work. For an experienced UNIX/Linux administrator, that's perhaps a couple of hours work. If you are new to UNIX/Linux, it will take you a year or two to get to that point, however.

#

" nobody really cares what you use."

No, *you* don't care. Others do!

Why did you even bother to post, you arrogant fellow?

#

Umm your kidding right????

you should be able to do this in under a day with Linux/Unix, just whip out your trusty disk pack, and install

Choose the Server build with
NIS - Shared hosts, auto.mounts, etc (i.e. your policies)
IMAP and Postfix/Sendmail - Imap mail server
Autofs - Auto mount daemon
mars_nwe - You'll need to download this
NFS/SMB - Network file system
G4U or Ghost - for deploying workstations or use PXE Daemon and Kickstart
DHCPD & DNS - For ip allocation and domain name services e.g. mx, a and cname records.
FTPD - File Transfer Server

Server creation time = 4 hours (1 disk set)
2 hours for initial server build
1/2 hour for dhcpd config and nfs export of CD's and kickstart file
1 and 1/2 hours to build 3 other servers in parallel using NFS mount and kickstart file.

For the workstations just use your distro's personal workstation/desktop install, configure the right nis domain and ghost image it.

Build of 50 PC's = 4 hours (100 Mbit network)
Initial PC build and Ghost image 3 hours
Ghost image deployment of 50 pc's = 1 hours (or 15 minutes if you use multicasting)

You'll be up and running in about 8 hours after that you can go home, have a life and get up early the next morning and write a bash script to create all your users [should take about 30 minutes if the list is in text a bit longer if you have to do it by hand). Then make the nis maps and hurrah.

This is all assuming that you have only one set of disks if you have 2 you could do the servers and the workstations at the time, add a fudge factor of 1 hour and thats 5 hours.

By the way this isn't rocket science its Unix 101 people have been doing it for years.

Total Cost = 0
Achieving a decent work/life balance = Priceless
Karma Bonus = +10

#

"Established domain shares and replication that that allowed users seamless roaming (individual user desktops with full features) to any PC in either site."

This does not even have to be specially enabled in Unix - since we don't have these strange concepts of "C:" and "D:"-type drives, we can simply mount our home directories directly. It doesn't require a separate "special" tool.

What part of this would be more difficult in a Linux environment? In fact, in a Linux environment, I can give the users even more features - I can set up the server to have a "Print to PDF" function without buying crazy-expensive Acrobat licenses (the interface is even easier, too). Each user automatically gets a spot on the web site, if you desire. All sorts of things. In addition, it comes with secure tools for copying - the GNOME ftp client has an option for sftp, while on Windows that costs mucho dinero.

Anyway, if you want an even easier setup, you can go the thin-client route. In this case, you can actually _make_ money by selling the hard drives in your PC's, or put them together to get a really huge RAID array to be shared by all. This way, you can update all applications on all workstations simultaneously (you can still do this in the PC-centric way as well, since most Linux programs are installable/upgradeable via the command-line, while Windows programs usually aren't).

THAT's administrative power.

#

I use Linux as the primary desktop for my consulting company, yet I still don't have the guts to recommend it to all of my clients. It is the little things which make it hard to push it. I can tell them about a good accounting package (Quasar for example, www.linuxcanada.com), but then someone will ask - will they send me tax updates like Quickbooks does? Its those little gotchas which cause the most grief.

It is going to take time. I think it would help that we continue to support the open source cause BUT also remember that supporting open source doesn't mean that we should be bashing companies which aren't open-source. Linux will require these companies coming onside too.

#

Correct!
Linux needs a Quickbooks-like program that will have the Payroll Tax updates too! Or else the businesses that I know will never use it - NOT EVER. Because they are dependent on Quickbooks as the core to their operations! Note that if someone did a Linux Quickbooks they could still charge for the Tax Update Subscriptions the same as Quickbooks does (and make money developing for Linux - actually Intuit could do a whole Linux distro, or better yet merge with Xandros, and throw the accounting package in too AND charge for the security updates and Tax updates as a monthly subscription AND be free of Microsoft's dictations to them)!

Quickbooks now has a developer option where folks can use the financial core of quickbooks and build 3rd party database decorations that are specific to a particular business around it!

Also needed is an office suite that works like Access works with all the rest of MS office.
This could be a whole financial accounting package that had hooks for custom database builds using MySQL etc... but, it would still need those Tax updates for businesses to warm up to any idea of changing!

#

Intuit software is a big deal for lots of people, as is Access.

Personally, I think Adobe apps (Photoshop, Illustrator) would be a major plus for Linux desktops.

#

All your saying, pad're is that current *nix distros lack BASIC, REQUIRED functionality in the computer desktop world of 1998<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... er, 2003.

#

These should work with the next release of Codeweavers Wine. I'm testing the beta now and it looks good.

#

I think Quickbooks is supported (or soon to be, anyway) by Codeweavers Crossover. I know Quicken is, I use it everyday. I also use Microsoft Office (there's still a few functionalities not available with StarOffice).

Access support is almost a done deal, from what I've heard. So it is possible for a company to migrate to Linux and keep using the software it's bought licenses for...

#

It would be nice if Intuit themselves fully supported a CodeWeavers Wine port for their Software! Has anyone asked them if this will be the case?

#

I have asked Intuit Tech support this very question...actually as a fall back position to "Why not offer a Linux compatible version?" You can guess the tech's answer to that (something about a hot place freezing)...although he sounded amenable to "helping Codeweavers resolve technical glitches".

I'm still waiting...not holding my breath, especially after their fiasco with the installer from Turbo Tax. Heck, I've been using Quicken for 13 years, and Turbo tax for 7 (but not this year), so I definitely would like to see migration here...

#

It would be nice if GNU Cash could move to the front here with more parts for business, along with Tax modules. Are these modules planned for GNU Cash? If so, then how to keep them up to date is the next question?

Idea:
What about approaching the CPA associations (worldwide, nationwide, or just in the states themsevles) to take a managing role in GNU cash's application development direction? In fact, they could help with major parts of this! CPA's all over the country could use this and distribute the tax softare updates to their customers (and make money doing this). Many now do this with Quickbooks!

A nationwide/world-wide standardized accounting system (just like the old days when it was done by hand)! All with a GNU Cash core... that can be changed and updated with out any competing CPA (or CPA group) being excluded.

As an afterthought they could even do inventory, shipping, human relations management modules too.
This would be a good thing maybe!

#

http://newsvac.newsforge.com/newsvac/03/04/11/152<nobr>8<wbr></nobr> 259.shtml?tid=11

MySQL is being hyped by Linux articles all over the place... if this is not GNU/GPL then should it be included in any debate about Linux?

#

Finally someone who put the myths aside. I have been praching this for quite some time now. It really depends on which apps you need to run in your organization whether or not Linux is ready. Enduserusability of a well configured System is as good or bad as with any other system out there. Possible installation hassles are something the admins have to deal with (and they should manage just fine). So it really boils down to wether the apps you need or something aequivalent is available.

#

As much as I would like to agree, this just isn't correct. It's a cheerleader story that ignores some basic fundamentals of the destop space. First it's hard as hell to get Linux to do all the standard things right out of the box. Second there are so many Linux distros that it's overwhelming for a newb. Finally coorporate inertia is very much against Linux for the consumer because they already have the support staff, developers, etc. for a windows-centric world.

Can Linux do all or most of the things Windows does? Yes. Can it do more? Yes. Is it ready for the desktop on technical merits alone? Yes. Is it easy to setup and use to the point that a new user can sit down and immediately do all they want...not quite. The other remaining issue is that the desktop war is like a heavyweight fight. You can't win the belt by just being as good as the champion you actually have to knock the bastard out. People and by association corporation will always take the path of least resistance as a group and that said Linux has to be better than Windows...it has to become the path of least resisitance and it has to be easy. Then it will be ready.

That said, I like the optimism and it's certainly ready for my desktop but my desktop is a mishmash of systems and I don't mind spending days or weeks trying to get something to work.

#

My parents could not install Windows and use it out-of-the box. So there goes that theory that Win is easy to for EVERYONE. They could not figure out how to install the 4 driver set that came on the CD. It had a glich that required the user to point windows to the correct CD directory (which happens a lot in my experience). Plus you had to reboot between each driver (you were given NO choice).

Now if you argue that Win comes preinstalled then so could Linux when it becomes more popular.

My Linux installed with only one reboot no problems and was up and running. Gee, it sounds like you can't generalize either OS these days.

It comes down to individual hardware and the experience that fate is going to dish out.

I tell you, after experiencing the freedom from all the crap you get from Microsoft, it is a welcome relief to use Linux. Have you seen Microsofts new licence agreements for future releases? It is nasty. Big business is now taking control of your box. If you don't value that, then it is no big deal to throw your rights away. But I value who owns my box.

#

First it's hard as hell to get Linux to do all the standard things right out of the box.

Is it really? I just recently installed Mandrake 9.1 on my Laptop. The only thing that didn't work right out of the box was the shitty Winmodem that's in there. Everything else worked after switching through the 3 CDs and one reboot. I can even use my old scanner right away. The last Win-driver for it was for NT, no support for W2K not to mention XP. When I say everything works except the Modem, I mean it. Even the various PCMCIA Cards I have are hotpluggable and functional.

I agree, there sometimes are problems installing Linux but you can have problems with windows, too. The last thing I had to fix for a friend was an XP Box that stopped after login. Shitty Logitech drivers were the reason.

Is it easy to setup and use to the point that a new user can sit down and immediately do all they want...not quite.

I tend to disagree and I have to reasons. First, a user can do just about nothing after installing Windows. There is not more than the basic OS, a webbrowser, an Emailclient, some Games and a mediaplayer that can't even play DVDs. After installing a linuxdistribution in about the same time you have a complete system with a huge load of applications if you just chose to do a rather complete install.

Recent distributions do a very good job of autoconfiguring stuff. You can have your weird hardware that causes you trouble. But that can happen in both worlds. If you have to manually do things, it can happen both ways. If I take my laptop again, I don't have to do a thing after installing Mandrake. With XP, I have to install drivers for the soundcard and the graphics adapter. This is different with my desktop system. There I don't have anything that needs special drivers either way. It just works out of the box. You can build your case either way. Linux used to be really bad at detecting hardware but recent distributions really smoothened the ride.

#

I haven't upgraded to 9.1 yet, but I still haven't gotten Mandrake 9.0 to see audio CDs. XMMS can play them, and a few CD recording programs work ok, but I just can't browse the files via Konqueror. That's going to be unacceptable for a Windows user...

#

It took me 5 times to install NT on my box (blue screens on login) and I refuse to install the ISDN/ISP drivers as my stomach can't face another trial (you should try it).

This is unacceptable to a Linux user!

#

Um dude, you made my point parts don't work...that said lets assume that your box is an excellent example...what about wireless...not out of the box for cards (or at least not 6 months ago) Also just because Mandrake works doesn't mean SuSe does or Debian...Linux is all these things.

Second by buying from an OEM (shudder) most users can get going right out of the box.

#

I had to intentionally go to a 'bleading edge' distro to find one that doesn't work 'out of the box'. OpenOffice, KOffice, Evolution, and Mozilla all come with the big distros and are built right in to the applications menus.

Is it easy to setup and use to the point that a new user can sit down and immediately do all they want...not quite.

Since when did Windows start putting MS Office right into their OS install? You seem to be comparing apples and oranges, when comparing what heppens during a Windows install and a GNU/Linux install. One gives you the opportunity to spend more money and time installing what is needed on top of it to do your work, and the other, GNU/Linux, lets you be productive with its GB's of included software, after installing the first time. You can pay or you can not pay for GNU/Linux depending on the options and level of ease of install (a shoe for every foot...). Try that with Microsoft and you'll get a visit from the authorities.

GNU/Linux as we know it is tons more than the Linux kernel (which is the OS, often small enough to fit on a floppy disk or two) itself. Its a framework of users, a framework of developers, some paid, some just appreciated, that make and test gigabytes of software for EVERYONE to use and pass on freely.

Get into the reasons, the ideas behind opensource, and you'll see why using it makes any other option laughable to even consider, for indevidual homes and for most business and institutional/gonvernmental environments also.

--

#

The point is, for a business IT department, you are customizing the interface anyway, and it is being installed by a professional, which cuts out 90% of the reasons people think Linux is hard (the other 10% relating to application availability).

FOR BUSINESSES (which is what the article was considering), the article was right on the money.

#

Subject says it all. These free cad programs are crap.

#

Autocad is crap, use Pro/E.
<A HREF="http://www.ptc.com/go/wildfire/index.htm" TITLE="ptc.com">http://www.ptc.com/go/wildfire/index.htm</a ptc.com>
Also linux version is available.

#

that is a stupid comment. most companies need 2d drafting. pro/e would be overkill for most.

#

AutoCAD is overkill for most companies. Unfortunately it's the de facto standard.

#

try http://www.cycas.de/ compatible with Acad and more.

#

Any replacement for AutoCAD would have to be able to use any files already produced by AutoCAD. The man hours invested in past projects already is huge and must be assessable. AND projects that are being built at the time of any conversion need a 100% seamless file and application transition with no learning curves for the engineers using the product (can't afford any migration related delays or can not afford any migration caused by "not knowing the application" mistakes to happen).

#

A fellow GEEK by the name of John Walker is the main founder of AutoDesk that produced AutoCad.
He is a fairly smart guy as you can tell by his personal web page found listed below.

AutoDesk could constuct their own Linux Distro for the Engineering folks and control their own future (note that John Walker has complained on one of his web pages about Microsoft)! Linux gives application development folks the ability to control their own destiny. The reason why anyone chooses any OS is because of the apps (not because of the OS)!

I think John used to have a personal e-mail address posted on his web page, since I don't see it posted anymore maybe he pulled it off his web pages...! So - you may have to write to AutoDesk first and ask them to forward the e-mail to John (also don't forget to request that AutoDesk constuct their own Linux Distro). It would be a good idea for John to construct a Web Form for people to tell him thanks for some of the cool things on his web page (for example: the Earth and Moon Viewer, the free use of his book and software "The Hacker's Diet" that is the best weight loss book ever written, and other stuff that makes his web page a very interesting read - you can spend hours here reading and find that you learn something at the same time... - this guy likes to share, does not love Microsoft, so I think he would favor Linux - write him and see what his views are).

http://www.fourmilab.ch/
http://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/vplanet.html
http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/www/hackdiet.htm<nobr>l<wbr></nobr>

#

You forgot this:

"The top ten reasons Eternal Damnation is better than Windows Software Development",

by John Walker.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/top10.html

#

If AutoDesk did their own Linux Distro...
then, they would also have to produce a top quality accounting package that AutoCAD dependent firms could use with no problems.

I know of one HUGE constuction company, with a huge engineering staff, that can not move to Linux because of the fact that their accounting package (with years of back data in it that they depend on for forecasting, etc) will not port over to Linux from Windows!

#

http://varicad.com/

#

yes, i have to agree with the parent post on this. varicad is really awsome. Pro/E is a little more refined and has been around quite some time, but I see varicad as direct competitor in the near future. It has many of the features of auto cad, not to mention 3d rendering and a slew of other cool stuff. Plus, its not all that expensive, when you consider the costs of CAD software.

#

Someone using CATIA might say AutoCAD is crap.

#

<A HREF="http://www.linuxcad.com/" TITLE="linuxcad.com">LinuxCAD</a linuxcad.com> from Software Forge $99.00, fully compatible with AutoCAD for a fraction of the cost.

(No, this is not a paid (or unpaid) endorsement. Simply found the site by chance one day.)

#

As someone who has been using GNU/Linux as his primary desktop for 3 years, I usually find articles like this tiring-- though not as tiring as the "Why Linux isn't ready..." type.

Okay-- I'm a self-professed geek. But three years ago, my wife (a fashion designer) decided to join me when Windows crashed on her one too many times in a day. She was appalled that a restart (along with the attendant loss of data) was something she had to factor in to her work schedule (she was in school at the time and doing a lot of writing-- both research and articles for several publications. StarOffice 5.2, even as slow and dodgy as it was, was better than having to schedule time for reboots. If StarOffice crashed, it didn't bring down the whole OS and even recovered what was being worked on with minimal, if any, data loss.

That was all it took for her-- a decidedly non-technical person. Of course, that led to other uses, but the overall trend was better and better performance, functionality, and-- perhaps most significantly-- no arbitrary extra software costs for all that.

#

Why IBM doesnt support Notes for Linux/Unix desktop?
Is Linux just a Server OS?

#

I'm right there with you. It WAS a learning curve, coming from wondows, and my motives are somewhat political, but I haven't looked back since. In fact, I find myself constantly excited about new linux distro releases. I can't believe how far it has come in the last five or so years!!! I remember being sooo frustrated at some of the differences with linux, but everything is going according to plan:) I feel that some folks are just to anxious and need to back off pushing linux into the mainstream so quickly. Whats the bloody rush? the linux community isn't going anywhere soon. I know I'm not. Cheers!

#

I agree with you.... linux is going to eventually win. It might not be now but its not going to just go away unless everyone just decided to leave it alone. It can't be tooken apart by M$ normal tatics of having more money to push around tell the other company can't afford to attempt to compete. There is no company making linux; just distro's putting it together for people for easier use. But since linux is a community effort that doesnt require money to continue. What can M$ do? Nothing their stuck with linux growing. Even if it takes a couple of years, linux will grow so much more extremely better than microsoft that it cannot be ignored. Look at its speed of growth already, all the time more people are getting into the community which means even faster development. linux will only grow in speed it will not slow down. Maybe not today but M$ will fall; everything is already in motion.

#

and it's a flaw that might not go away for a while now: it's the fact that the *world* might not be ready for people to use Linux on the desktop.

for example: out of the box on ANY distro, you won't be able to view WMV or Quicktime movies. or open<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc files.

the real gotcha here is that file formats all over the Internet are M$-oriented, and Linux needs help (in most cases) using these formats. can Linux use/open them ? sure, but not in a default install, which is what desktop users will use.

i am a 4 year linux desktop user, and i still don't see star/open office replacing anything yet...my current client (i'm a consultant) can't open with Win2k the documents that AbiWord, Star, or Open Office spits out.

#

Ok - agreed...
However, this is why we must make available to everyone the Windows versions of open office (as then the files you mentioned will work).
For every document that is created then the user on the other end needs to know that they too can have access to an Open Source option.

#

> for example: out of the box on ANY distro, you
> won't be able to view WMV or Quicktime movies.
> or open<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc files.

I have to mention something here:

Out of the box, Windows 2K (to the best of my knowledge) can't open<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc files either... you need Office or StarOffice for that matter.

WMV is a Windows standard... I prefer Quicktime personally. Most people will have a media in both formats available. Quicktime is also not out of the box in Windows.

I'm all for analysis of Linux/Windows.. which is better, whatever. The fact is that Windows is an OS, the applications are independant. Linux simply needs more applications. As for an OS it is well upon its way to being a solid replacement.

#

> Windows 2K (to the best of my knowledge) can't open<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc files either

Wrong. WordPad does.

#

Wrong again. WordPad does saves files as<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc files, but just because the extensions are the same, doesn't mean that that is a Word file. A ".doc" file != a Microsoft WORD file. The extension has nothing to do with the file type. Don't believe me? Try it! Save a Word doc and then try opening it in WordPad. Watch the garbage you get.

#

Even if it can, I don't think there is any argument necessary to convince anyone that OO-writer does a better job than wordpad.

#

Well, obviously you haven't tried Mandrake 9.1 yet. It can do all of what you ask, out of the box.

#

what is the media player that opens those formats ?
what is the word processing application that opens and can re-write a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc file, retaining its formatting ?

#

There isn't a media player for WMV yet. But as posted earlier this week M$ is actually making one to cover that! (scary I know)

As far as the doc file, ever use a program called Open Office. Last time I checked I could open, change, save doc files just fine. How 'bout you?

#

last time i opened a doc file as an invoice, made some changes, and sent it to my client (i'm a linux consultant) he couldn't open it with windows office on XP *or* win2k. not a big vote of confidence for linux.

#

"what is the media player that opens those formats ?"


      mplayer. I use it to view WMV and Quicktime files all the time. It's quite nice, too, and even comes with a GUI (that I don't use)!

"what is the word processing application that opens and can re-write a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc file, retaining its formatting ?"

OpenOffice, or AbiWord. Again, works quite nicely.

#

is mplayer easy enough for a receptionist to install ? (point-and-click) ?

i'll send you proof that you can't open a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc file on Windows after it's been written with AbiWord or OpenOffice. and btw, AbiWord can not write a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc Word format for Windows consumption.

#

I am a student which goes to a college that is totally a windoze shop,Now at home i have openoffice running on gentoo linux, All my reports that i had to submit and are in doc format saved from openoffice as the piece of shit that is called word will not open/play with none ms formats bar some old ones. TO cut a long story short i did not even have to change one thing when i saved then as a word doc,you should really wake up because open office is the best thing that has happen to the computer world in along time,(not including linux) it cross platform it free so what more could you want, and if it about support then buy star office.
your truly,
a linux users.

#

Yes it is.

As for the OpenOffice<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc thing...I guess I'll have to stop writing<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc files for use by other companies I work with.

I wish someone would have told me that what I was doing on a regular basis was impossible to do.

I guess in this case ignorance is power.

#

*ring ring*

Hello, miss receptionist who installs software on her system? YOU'RE FIRED! Oh, and on your way out, tell our lax sysadmin that he's fired too.

#

I think the fundmental flaw is that a secret and proprietary format was used in the first place. It won't take long to get off the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc format. You need to seriously question ANYONE who provides public information in a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc format. That is, this person is very inconsiderate and assumes too much regardless of how may people use Windows because there always has and will be people who don't. Rembember, there were computers and operating systems before Windows even existed with established standards that the greedy, arogent Windows refused to adopt.

#

"That is, this person is very inconsiderate and assumes too much regardless of how may people use Windows because there always has and will be people who don't"

Right, it would be wrong to assume that since 95% of people use Windows and/or office, that the person to whom you are sending a document should be able to open it. Get real.

#

Yeah sure, one can ignore the minority of non-windows-users. No problem there. But using<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc is dangerous, too. If the file is only to survive a small amount of years, everything is fine. But Word has a track record of having problems to open older files saved with previous versions. It will work mostly and with the more recent versions things got a little better but how can you be sure that you will be able to read your docs much later on? You can't. Open Formats are better, nuff said.

#

Word can save in RTF, so what's the problem? If I ever receive a DOC file from anyone (coworkers, business partners, clients, friends, family, it doesn't matter), I politely ask the sender to send the same file to me in RTF. I've yet to run into a situation where the sender has a problem with this, and it ensures that when I edit the document in OpenOffice or Abiword that the formatting is identical to what they will see when I hand the file back to them. Using open formats, everybody wins.

#

i have run into the situation many times where a client needs to have a Word file, period. for no other reason than they want it that way. and they shouldn't have to change what format just to suit me.

#

yeah right. look on almost every resume/job-bank....most potential employers want people submitting their resume/cover letters in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc format....when you don't have a job and need one, you don't have the luxury of questioning a potential employer.

#

I don't really buy this. Heck, wehn MS were looking for interns at my university they wanted the resumes in RTF format, not doc.

#

however you'd like to see it, the formats that are used by M$ office (.ppt,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc, and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xls) are ubiquitous, and most businesses require the reading and writing of these formats. my point is that Linux and its applications are not yet able to read and write these formats flawlessly.

they are close, and one day will be able to, but not yet.

#

I don't really buy this. Heck, wehn MS were looking for interns at my university they wanted the resumes in RTF format, not doc.

When I was hiring a tech support guy, I required resumes in either HTML or straight text format<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)

#

Um... no.

Look around-- many many many jobs are now requesting either PLAIN TEXT or HTML resumes. I can't remember the last time I saw a shop asking for one in DOC that wasn't a headhunter. All the true tech shops that I've seen doing their own hiring want either fax, plain text, or HTML.

#

i just did a search on dice and monster, and came up with over 100 linux jobs that want resumes in word format.

headhunters or not, you need to send it in Word format, or they won't look at it.

#

I don't know about you guys, but I watch *both* QuickTime and WindowsMedia files c/o Mplayer on my Gentoo Linux box.

#

not Sorenson codec quicktimes you don't.

#

With Mplayer on Mandrake 9.1, I do. Mplayer uses win32 dlls for Sorenson. I just have to use urpmi mplayer on the PLF packages to install the needed stuff.

#

exactly. so "out of the box" it doesn't work. until it does, it's not ready for the desktop.

#

windows doesn't play sorenson codec QuickTime files out of the box either, why should linux?

#

timely put....can you run any *decent* tax/accounting packages on Linux ? no.

i WISH i could. i'm a consultant, having built high performance backends for large sites, all on linux. i have it on my desktop, yes. i would use it in ANY cases where i can....but face it, on the desktop, there are some cases where you can't. my point is that one of those reasons is that the desktop world simply isn't ready, despite this article.

#

You said:

> my current client (i'm a consultant) can't open with Win2k the
> documents that AbiWord, Star, or Open Office spits out.

Sure, they can. If you use RTF format then you can pass files back and forth with almost no issues at all.

#

i can't tell my client what format to use to suit *my* needs. he uses word, so i have to, too.

#

Why does everyone think that Word == DOC??

Word can spit out RTF files with the best of them. Clients I've worked for don't have problems using RTF. Usually, most of them didn't even know about the format until I mentioned it after they became rather annoyed that the new latest version of MS Office completely horked their old DOC files. Once I show them that there is a file format Word understands that doesn't change greately from Office version to version, they don't look at DOC the same way again.

It be much more difficult to sell open standards if MS didn't do such a fantastic job of blowing their own proprietary ones.

#

Why is everybody bitching about<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.docs anyways? As far as I know any Wordprocessor with MS-Office import filters can open docs better than MS-Office can open other formats. Where is the OpenOffice imort and export filter in Word? It would be the easiest thing for MS to do since those formats are open and well documented.

#

for example: out of the box on ANY distro, you won't be able to view WMV or Quicktime movies. or open<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc files.

Ok, ya got me on the WMV/Quicktime stuff. It's not hard to install some mplayer RPMs, though they're not included with any distro, but it CAN play those formats.

As for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc files, I just installed RedHat9, and OpenOffice.org had zero trouble opening any of my MSWord-made<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc files.

#

right, i understand, and most office programs will open it. but can it make changes and *retain* the formatting to be read on a Windows Machine again ?

#

YES! how many times does someone have to tell you this?

I have been using OO 1.0 (just upgraded to 1.0.2) and I have been able to open, edit, format, save and retain ALL the information from a MS Word/Excel/PowerPoint document template and file in all of the following settings:

1. At work. As a devloper using Linux, all project managers and upper management can send me docs which I can edit and send back. They can view them no problem. They don't even know I am using linux (that speaks volumes).

2. At school. I just used a very specifically formatted document template for publishing my Master's thesis and I used OO to edit<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc template file and send it back. Worked flawlessly.

So...yes...you can...now stop your whining.

#

well then that's good to hear that it works for you. why it doesn't for me, i'm not sure. i believe you, and i'll look into my own issues with it.

1 - i am not "whining", i WANT linux to win the desktop. i'm trying to be 'devil's advocate, and reporting results of what i've seen. if you can't see the difference between that and "whining" then you're not being realistic about its adoption. you say your management uses windows office apps. if you're advocating the use of linux in the business desktop environment, (are you ?) then are you arguing that they could switch at any moment ? and why not ? try being productive in the conversation here.

2 - no one here has even ATTEMPTED to address my claim about finance/tax applications. until someone presents a viable solution for users to use in the way they are using it now (i.e. Windows) then i don't see how linux is ready for the business desktop environment.

well ? anyone ?

#

On your #2 point, I think it should be noted that QuickBooks has been running under Codeweaver's CrossoverOffice for at least the last few months.

#

What about GNUCash?

I haven't used it but it's been around for years and years and people do
use it and it's fully GPL'd. For a full list of features look here:
http://www.gnucash.org/en/features_5.phtml

Quicken QIF files can be imported, Multi-Currency Transaction Handling,
OFX Import, Scheduled Transactions, has a GNOME gui, makes pretty graphs
etc.

When looking for applications, a good place to search is the Free Software Directory:
http://www.fsf.org/directory/

I found GNUCash and a load of others by usings the terms you gave:
"finance tax"

Hope this helps.
Ciaran O'Riordan

#

Its ready, and has been ready...it just needs a bigger hug from app developers. I have used Linux for the desktop for a few years now, and let others see for themselves. Sure, there are some issues with distribution's packaging and delivery methods that might make it somewhat a trifle to set up on every system on the market, but the gap closes more and more. This is debateable at least, but not the point. The point is systems powered by Linux are way ready for the desktop, and the reason most people think that it isn't, is that they are not USED to using it. If you take two people who haven't used computers before, you will find that they can learn to use either system efficiently. You think that new computer learners don't make Windows look difficult? HA! Its a mindset, that's it.

#

Was Windoze 3.1 ready for the desktop? Why doesn't anyone ask THIS question?

I really think the latest versions of RedHat, Mandrake, SuSE, Lycoris, etc. are all on par with Windows 95/98/ME...

Another question we should be asking is:
Has the general public learned enough about computers to use advanced OS's like Linux?

They got it all backwards!

Sheesh.

#

how can you view sorenson codec quicktimes with linux ? or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.wmv files ? or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc files that you can re-save and still retain formatting ? which distro can do all of that after a default install ?

#

1) Sorenson codec quicktime files can be read using mplayer/gmplayer.
2) WMV files too (including WMP9 files).
3) DOC files can be read, edited, and resaved by OpenOffice.org.

Windows can do only #2 by default. (Unless you count DOC reading in Wordpad, but I don't).

My Mandrake 9 distribution did #1 and #3 out of the box, and maybe #2. I'm not sure if the codec was installed or not. Legally, I don't think its allowed to do #2.

So pish-posh!

#

I only use open formats, so I don't leave myself vulnerable to the type of extortion you describe.

Second, I don't do business with criminals, so Microsoft's formats lose on two counts.

#

Why are you so excited about sorenson codec quicktimes?

Do they clean your laundry or something?

#

Can Windows by default open bz2, ogg, mpeg2, divx, rar, dia,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...? No? Oops, most Linux distros can. Where is your point? I think we can keep this up and either side will have no problem finding some strange file formats the other platform doesn't support. And Windows by itself is a dumb piece of software compared to a linux distribution.

#

What desktop? The problem with a question/comparison like this is, when Windoze 3.x came out there was no Windoze XP - nor a zillion people already "locked in" to Windoze anything. Linux on the desktop (and off the desktop) is quite easily on a par with the DOS and Windoze I first had thrust upon me. But nearly twenty years have gone by since then. From a technical standpoint, Linux may be able to beat the crap out of Microsoft (and I pray that it does). But from a usability standpoint, it has a lot of catching up to do.

#

Was Windoze 3.1 ready for the desktop?

No, but Windows 3.1 was.

It was a very primitive "operating system", but it was ready for the desktop based on the technology level deployed on the market. The only users that don't know how to use it shouldn't be involved with computers.

Besides, Windows 3.1 is light-weight and faster compared to its W95 counterpart (as it had to run within 640k). The cost of being light was being fragile - a faulty process kills the entire operating system without any chance of recovery.

#

Linux has been my desktop for a while now and meets all my needs and I love it.

So I guess it comes down to the individual as to whether it's ready or not.

#

It's simply a matter of corporate and user inertia that's keeping Linux marginalized.

That, dear friend, is a reason why Linux isnt quite ready to take on Windows XP. Linux has been ready for desktop ever since X, but not ready for mass market and competition with Windows. There arent enough standard apps that EVERYONE uses for Linux..


  The AutoCAD was a good example in another comment there, and then MSN messenger, DirectX games, and so many specialized apps. There ARE alternatives but theres a double-hurdle. Firstly the user needs to learn the new apps useage... Someone used to Winzip, would have trouble with gzip or gui based zip apps. Secondly, theres learning the window manager. Everyones used to right-click, properties, etc.. and the clipboard is heavily used. Some Linux window managers work this way, most dont. I only know of the XPWM project that seriously works like Windows, and it wasnt perfect last time I checked.

I manage two offices using custom accounting, real estate and other apps that have no equivalence in Linux... or at least will require a lot of learning by the users. I'm ready to dive into all the printing issues, with generous support from HP's linux drivers, but I cant find ports of these well known applications yet. Till then I have to keep cleaning viruses and spyware, and the occasional windows reinstall.

The author here says Linux is ready for the market, but for the wrong reasons. It CAN run as a desktop pretty well, just not useable for bigger non-technical reasons.

Ghazan Haider

#

Yea well, obviously you haven't tried Mandrake Linux ever either. Things have changed a wee bit in the last 3 years or so.

#

You are right, Windows is too different from Linux. When will Windows catch up 8-)

No rebooting after installing an application (how primative).

Crap network control and script languages

NO vitrual windows - and believe me once you get use to it, you will think MS sucks in this catagory.

Crap terminal support.

Expensive add-on server software (Linux is very flexible here).

But wait, I bet you are not interested in networking and probramming (or freedom). So of course you find Linux not fit. Similarly, I don't play games, scam music or do much fluff stuff on the computer. So Windows is no big deal.

In short, you can't generalize these days. Linux has it all for a lot of people. Windows has it all (especially your money and your rights) for a lot of people too.

#

Has it all, pad're ? HA! Linux "has it all" for about 0.025% of the computer using public<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the twinkee_munching shellscript_drooling weeniers. WHAT -- no ACCESS? Yer punched out.

#

I'm with you. Linux has everything WE (my wife and I) need in an operating system.....and more. We use our computers for the internet, word processing, CD burning, JAVA programming (we're CS students), notating music (NodeEdit), music recording and playback, etc. We have 1 computer running Windows XP and 2 laptops running Redhat 9. XP doesn't have anything that we don't have in Linux.

One thing that amazes us about Linux is that distributions like Redhat and Mandrake come with Office Suites and graphics editors (GIMP). You can't say that about MS products. If you wanted a Windows machine with the same commercial software you would spend about $100-200 for the OS, $300 for the Office Suite, and $100 for Adobe Photoshop Elements. I can download the equivalent software (ISOs or RPMS) for FREE!!! Yeah yeah, I know....you can get OpenOffice and GIMP for Windows. My point is, what is the incentive to purchase these MS products?

Long live Linux!!!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

-Todd

#

A well written article that's accurate, truthful, and also completely irrelevent.

This "debate" over whether Linux "is" or "isn't" ready for the "desktop" (or "mainstream", or "primetime", or whatever) is mostly just a bunch of false arguments.

There hasn't been any REAL reason why X window based interfaces running on "UNIX-type" systems weren't prefectly suitable for 90% of business office work for many, many years now. There have been many organizations and businesses using such systems for as long as others have been using MS based systems. It really just comes down to a matter of personal preference.

All these various arguments and excuses about why most Microsoft-centric businesses and organizations don't want to "switch" over to the current freely available Open Source solutions for their IT needs are merely the requirement for managers and executives to make an emotional decision appear to be a "sound, logical business" decision. Most businesses and organizations will continue to use Microsoft software products on the desktops at work because that's what the people, and the families of those people, who make the decisions are using at home. They WANT to use the same system at work that they use at home. It's as simple as that.

This effort to listen to those arguments and excuses and then knock yourself out trying to address them in a honest and logical fashion is just beating your head against the wall. In the end people are still going to want to use whatever they're using at home. The numbers will, in the end, be simply: those places run by people who prefer Microsoft will use Microsoft, those run by people who prefer MacOS will use MacOS, and those run by people who prefer Linux (and other UNIX-like systems) will use Linux (and other UNIX-like systems).

It's EMOTIONAL. Logical, sensible debate on the subject is just irrelevent...

#

Yup, people have been using *nix on the desktop for over 30 years already - way longer than MS has existed...

#

> There hasn't been any REAL reason why X window based interfaces running on "UNIX-type" systems weren't prefectly suitable for 90% of business office work for many, many years now.

Wrong. The reason was that a Unix workstation was much more expensive than a PC.

But now the tables have turned. Linux will run on your existing PC, while Windows XP requires spending additional money on a new PC.

> They WANT to use the same system at work that they use at home. It's as simple as that.
> It's EMOTIONAL. Logical, sensible debate on the subject is just irrelevent...

That can only go so far.

The day will come when the boss will walk into the IT manager's office and say, "Hey Fred, why did we spend half a million dollars on software last year when we didn't have to?"

If Fred answers, "Because I wanted to. It was an emotional decision," then the game is up, and Fred is out of a job.

#

the REAL reason - stock value. A lot of these corp execs have stocks in big companies like IBM, MS, and Sun. Time and time again I've done consulting work in large firms where older technology is embraced for no good reason.

The best example I can think of it Token Ring - advanced for it's day, but expensive and comparitively slow now. A lot of big banks here STILL use this. When one bank decided to switch over - they insisted on using all IBM equipment - a demand ordered by the C**'s.

#

"They WANT to use the same system at work that they use at home." It IS as simple as that! And if Joe & Mary Deskbound-decisionmaker can't install it at home as easily as Win?? they are never going to sign the buy-order at the office. And if this week's version of ???ix isn't light-years better than the latest Win?? version then it'll never gain enough market share to matter.
Smart decision making? perhaps not, but that is the reality. So the argument becomes irrelevent at the most basic level.

#

This topic isn't really debatable since the three main words of the
title don't have definite meanings:

Is *Linux* *ready* for *the desktop*?

*Linux*: is a kernel that has supported the X window system for eleven years now. (calling the OS "Linux" is a bit like calling my dinner: "plate", sure there's almost always a plate but it would be useless without the beef.)

*ready*: huh? how do you tell? will a little bell go off like when the oven announces my dinner is ready?

*the desktop*: does it have a point-and-click interface? can it do all things any computer can do? If you use WINE then it's probably as ready as MS Windows... (is MS Windows ready for The Desktop?)

people love to write down there opinion on this non-topic. Maybe because it doesn't require a high technical knowledge, and peoples answers don't really matter anyway.

PING! (ah, plate is ready for The Stomach)

Ciaran O'Riordan

#

calling the OS "Linux" is a bit like calling my dinner: "plate"

LMAO!

Can I quote you in my sig?

#

I still was laughing when I submitted that post<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

> Can I quote you in my sig?

of course. (no attribution/whatever requested.)

#

> *Linux*: is a kernel that has supported the X window system for eleven years now. (calling the OS "Linux" is a bit like calling my dinner: "plate", sure there's almost always a plate but it would be useless without the beef.)

Since you had an issue with abstraction, it is referring to GNU/Linux kernel based operating systems.

> *ready*: huh? how do you tell? will a little bell go off like when the oven announces my dinner is ready?

Ready implies that a majority of most home computer users as well as business users could utilize the said operating systems for their personal tasks.

> *the desktop*: does it have a point-and-click interface? can it do all things any computer can do? If you use WINE then it's probably as ready as MS Windows... (is MS Windows ready for The Desktop?)

Utilizing a variety of X-Servers (XFree86, Accelerated X, MetroX, etc) and a GUI w/ environment (KDE, GNOME), most GNU/Linux based operating systems achieve having a desktop. WINE, the emulator, is not a desktop. WINE is currently not fully compatible with Windows, so its currently not as ready as MS Windows.

To summarize, my operating system that I sometimes loosely refer to as Linux, is really the Debian operating system. Its powered by the Linux kernel.

Secondly, give a critical statement, receive a critcal answer.

#

You know what? We are all right. I call the OS "my FAV OS" since beside CP/M tis the only one I run. One day I do hope this discussion goes away. I really think it's time for one and all to sit down and think of a really good name.

  Yes GNU/Linux or Linux lets people know what you think or were you stand. Maybe just maybe a name that incorporates all the emotions as well as the hard work done by all from around the world is needed. Least then we can say that we are united. Just like having a LSB is to OS so can a name. Or do we take a cue from the vendors and just call it by the name of the one we chose (i.e. Debian,RedHat,SUSE,Mandrake,Peanut,etc..)

#

GNU/Linux kernel?

#

Think harder

#

I totally agree with the article: Linux IS ready for the desktop.

We've got a bunch of PCs running Linux exclusively. We aren't having any troubles save the odd web page won't view properly in Konqueror and Open Office isn't quite as refined as we'd like. (That doesn't mean that it doesn't work, because it does !)

There are a bunch of things that we had trouble doing in Windows that are easier to do in Linux.

Linux is great ! We are very happy with how everything is working. All this stuff about "Linux isn't ready" is a pile of crock ! I think it is time that some of these news sites stop taking posts about Linux from Linux neophites.

 

#

Word on that, brutha. Aside from the Konq crashes, and OO.org's 35 second loading time on my modern PC's, I can't really think of a reason for EVERYbody not to switch. I mean, so farking WHAT if you've got to recompile your modules/Xfree/whatever whenever you upgrade? Deal with it! On Win32, you're stuck with "windowsupdate" which takes an inventory of your SOFTWARE, for crying out loud. Which would you prefer, 40 hours of recompiling X on a P3-1GHz or half an hour of unattended updates from Microsoft?
All these closed-sores zealots really cheese me off, especially when I consider how stable and fast my Win95 clone desktop really is. Red Hat 9 is the best thing going, even though I can't re-arrange my desktop menus and whenever I uninstall shat using RPM it leaves garbage there too. Little niggling things that piss of 99% of the population don't bother ME.
I think it's just average computer users who are responsible for keeping Linux off the desktop. I say, FARK 'em! Linux is ready, there's no denying it. Let the INVASION begin!

#

I think latest RH 9 and Mandrake 9.1 take massive steps in the right direction as far as desktop goes.

I'd say there isn't one big area where there is a large gap of functionality, but rather it's a matter of details. There are many details that just need to be worked out. Rough around the edges type of stuff. For example, RH 9 has crappy sound support. Why should I have to download ALSA? Why isn't it already installed? SB Live didn't work under RH 9 out of the box for crying out loud! It's a very minor niggle for a Linux enthusiast, but it's a major, MAJOR hassle for a casual user. In a corporate environment, this doesn't matter because admin would setup it up.

But, there are many rough edges like that. Many times I have to drop into command prompt. For example, I install ALSA and I have to edit modules.conf file. Annoying. Stupid. Bad.

Why can't config files be in a machine and human friendly form? XML may not be a bad choice, but if you think that's overkill, then why not standardize on some simple machine AND human friendly format for ALL<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc config files? This will have a huge advantage over Windows registry in that all configs will be easily human editable (something admins like), and yet, have the same benefits as Windows registry in that all configs are easily accessible to automatic configurators and system tools.

If Linux distros, say RH, standardized on the above (a massive undertaking), imagine what a leap this would be for desktop AND server configuration? Linux would not only match but would exceed Windows by leaps and bounds in the area of configurability.

Anyway, with some know-how a Linux desktop can be very functional. With a friendly or staffed admin it could be a pleasure to use. But it is NOT ready for a completely casual user, no SIR.

This comes to you from a huge Linux enthusiast who has been using Linux since kernel 0.6x days, Slackware 3 (some time later) and many, many distros after that for many years on both servers and desktop. I love Linux. I think one day it will be a superior desktop platform. I think it's moving in the right direction rather rapidly. But it's not polished enough yet for a casual user.

#

Just the other day I upgraded RH 9 kernel and guess what? X and sound don't work! Of course this is expected by a Linux enthusiast, but it's totally unexpected and it totally sucks for a casual desktop user. Stuff like that should not happen on desktop.

#

Aside from the Konq crashes, and OO.org's 35 second loading time on my modern PC's, I can't really think of a reason for EVERYbody not to switch. I mean, so farking WHAT if you've got to recompile your modules/Xfree/whatever whenever you upgrade? Deal with it! On Win32, you're stuck with "windowsupdate" which takes an inventory of your SOFTWARE, for crying out loud. Which would you prefer, 40 hours of recompiling X on a P3-1GHz or half an hour of unattended automatically scheduled updates from Microsoft? Easy choice, people.
All these closed-sores zealots really cheese me off, especially when I consider how stable and fast my Win95 clone desktop really is. Red Hat 9 is the best thing going, even though I can't re-arrange my desktop menus and whenever I uninstall shat using RPM it leaves garbage in the programs menu for no good reason. Little niggling things that piss of 99% of the population don't bother ME.
I think it's just average computer users who are responsible for keeping Linux off the desktop. I say, FARK 'em! Linux is ready, there's no denying it. Let the INVASION begin!

#

The last time I compiled anything was when I was writing my own tools. If I want to install an update, I can do that over the internet, via a cd of pre-compiled software, or if I run into some really strange piece of software that does not already have a distribution binary, ask someone else to make such a distribution binary and install that.

The only distributions that I am aware of that nearly require you to compile stuff are Gentoo and Slackware, and even Gentoo has binary distributions available, and can install from other distribution's packages if you happen to find that it's available.

I really like the idea of you telling Microsoft about all the shareware and competitor's software that happens to be installed on your system every time you want to install the latest patch for the newest Outlook exploit. Incidentaly, too bad that the patch took out the security patch against an earlier exploit.

But if you happen to think that the 2% gain in efficency you might get by compiling X to your specific processor and video card is worth the 40 hours on that system, more power to you. Far be it from me that I even consider suggesting you look at any of the improved package management tools. After all if RPM is included in the distribution, it must be the best there is.

Enjoy.

#

WooooHooo ya ripped that POA, pad're listen ta them weenies howl! Betcha the 13_world-wide Slackmolians gonna start suckin' on purple koolaid<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... hehe. Only fly-in-ointment is M$lime really has become dedicated to removing the individual Lusr power - to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... compute in all it's aspects! - that M$ once so casually and artlessly granted. For that reason alone I pay for and maintain a *nix box<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... just to stick-my-thumb in Unkil Bill$ eye.

#

There are a few things that will keep Linux on the desktop down.

1) Learning Curve
Most people use Windows simply because it's what they use at work. They had to learn Windows in order to keep their job. They don't love Microsoft. They use their products because its what they're familiar with. They don't care about technology, nor do they want think about it. They merely want it to work. If Linux doesn't look and act like Win9x or Win2k, they'll panic. You should see the reaction WinXP gets from some people. They're not interested in our revolution. They don't want to learn anything.

2) Hardware Support
Most hardware manufacturers do not ship with Linux drivers. Jane and Joe Public will not download, write or compile their own drivers. They want their stuff to just work. Telling them that they can buy old hardware will not make them happy or allow them to compete with the Joneses. Hardware support on the desktop has been very good as of late, but laptops are another story. Wireless networking is also lacking in ease.

3) The 3l33t members of the community
Everyone at one point in time knew nothing of UNIX or Linux. Yet some peoplpe in the community seem to be deeply offended that others do not know every single aspect of Linux and respond with the infamous RTFM. These people are going to hurt the community far more than MS in the long run. With no 800 number to call people will turn to the web. Making someone feel stupid because they didn't learn something before you won't endear Linux to many. The MS and Mac crowd tend to be less hostile to those who want to learn and both MS and Apple have 800 numbers.

4) Software
Once again, Jane and Joe Public don't want to learn something new. Look at how much trouble Apple has had getting their faithful users to OS X. These are people who went nuts back around 2000 when Steve Jobs told the MacWorld crowd that Apple had decided to change the orientation of the Apple logo on the powerbook. If they're going to have trouble getting people to migrate, Linux will have a terrible time! Apple even offers emulation OS 9 emulation from within OS X. This emulation is infintly superior to the WINE. Still, people don't want to migrate to an OS that is infintly more stable and developed by a corporation know for its simple and intuitive design. OS 9 works for them. They don't have to learn anything new. Linux is know, fair or not, for being a difficult OS to use. Hopefully once Adobe and company finish porting their software to OS X, they look into porting to Linux. This will draw more interest to the Linux desktop.

#

Can a Window user learn a Mac? I think so... and it is no different with Linux. Linux is a sophisticated OS with a journaling file system and very flexible networking capablility. You need to be ready for it! And if your not then just like cars, there are all kinds to choose from.

#

Anyone can learn anything given the time and desire. The average user doesn't know or care to know what a journaling filesystem is. How many times have you heard non-techies discussing the pros and cons of NTFS over FAT32? The desktop user only cares that they can connect to the internet via dial-up or broadband by plugging in a cable and launching their browser. Most home users won't use Samba.

I'm not trying to say Linux is bad. I trying to say the main Windows desktop crowd is largely a simple and demanding bunch. They don't want to be ready for Linux. They want Linux to be ready for them. This involves excessive hand holding.

#

"Excessive handholding?" Not when you're paying for it, byteboyz. When I pay, all I want to hear from you is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... where can i kiss your azz<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... SIR<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."

#

two issues; money & standarization:

money:

shure thing, linux is READY 4 desktops, as far as i`m concerned linux do all the job i need, it even do all the job my organization needs (basic office & file sharing thing), the big thing is money, companies are afraid of not making money in linux, or having to share it source code.

the real thing would be (in my newbee & inexpert point of view), making some other scheme than GNU, don`t misunderstand me, GNU is great, it have save us a lot of money, but as long as those companies are afraid of loosing or not making money at all in the linux world.

so if we do pay 400 for the acad 2k3 for MSWx, why we don pay the same for the linux ver.?

standarization:

ok, lett`s face it, linux is as unique as i do, this is for me the best part of linux, i can make it the way i want when i want, this is great when u have to deal with few boxes, name desktop workstations or servers, but when u are developing something and u want that something running smoot in every box, is far from easy, the string-related apps, make it really well, but other such as multimedia, sound editing / recording, complex games, etc, etc, are very, very, difficult to make it work / develop.

thanx everyone!!

#

If you have ever tried to input any non-Latin language in Linux and want to have consistency in every window/console, you will find you are disappointing yourself.
A matured Desktop OS must have mature international support, not so crippled as Linux. Just ask your Asian friends how do they use their native language in Linux. Don't be limited by your small world!

#

> Don't be limited by your small world!

In my small world I do not speak any asian languages. Perhaps your large and unlimited world could learn all the worlds languages and single-handedly provide international support. Don't be a liberal cliche!

#

Well, it seems we have lots of Linux users here, this web site is Linux-oriented anyway.
But here is a site with readers that come from different platforms, and here is what they think about Linux on the home dekstop:
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=3261
It seems that the large majority of them, find this editorial laughable. This should explain a few things to the readers of this Linux-oriented site that Linux in the desktop market might not be as close as you think it is.

#

IMHO, they don't get it. I drive a Honda, it doesn't look or act like a Ford... it is not as good? It has to look and act the same to be as good? That is the lodgic of the arguments.

One BIG thing those folks are missing is the control of their computer they are losing. MS new licence agreement for 2003 products give them the legal power/right to enter and alter software running on YOUR machine!

If you don't find that alarming then you don't place any value on your rights (and I guess that's okay). But I value who owns my computer and it is me not big business.

Linux frees you from that but it may cost you some convenience... big deal. The trade-off is worth it.

#

> I drive a Honda, it doesn't look or act like a Ford... it is not as good?

Fords and Hondas use the same type of fuel and roads. Highways do not have to be reconstructed to accomodate a Civic or a Focus. Maps used in a Medcedes with work flawlessly in a AMC. Fords and Hondas are a preference in vendor (Debian vs. RedHat).

> It has to look and act the same to be as good?

It does if you want to be a major player in the desktop market. RedHat and Windows 2000 Server look nothing alike, yet RedHat (and others) are doing quite fine for themselves. This is because the sysadmins are techies. They will compile kernels and hack a solution to a problem. The desktop user is a different animal all together. Look at all the problems people had voting in the 2000 elections. Do you honestly thing people who can follow arrows could configure source code?

> MS new licence agreement for 2003 products give them the legal power/right to enter and alter software running on YOUR machine!

Actually, this license change appears in Windows XP SP1 and Windows 2000 SP3. Windows MediaPlayer 8 reports your listening and viewing habits to the beast before playing the media. WMP9 apparently gives you the option to diable this 'feature'. XP reports all of your installed software when you run Windows Update. Not too many people are aware of these facts. They'll never hear about this licensing issue. If they do, MS will simply state that they'll only ever install service packs and critical updates in order to protect you from hackers and terrorists. The people will ohhh and ahhh and go back to there lives secure in the knowledge that MS is taking care of them.

> Linux frees you from that but it may cost you some convenience... big deal. The trade-off is worth it.

It depends on your technical abilities. Most of the Windows users couldn't install Windows on there own. If Dell and friends offered dual installation, it would help draw more interest. Users could have their Windows until they learned to kick the habit.

#

Well, If you don't like the comparison between Ford and Honda, think of it as different vehicle types with LFS being a car assembled personally from a kit of parts, Mandrake being a limosine Windows being another and Gentoo being a highly optimized sportscar. They can all be used on the same highways (Hardware), they use the same Maps (Networking) but they use different fuel (Software).

Linux hopefully never looks and feels exactly like windows. It's not necessary anyways. People are usually not THAT dumb. What about all the people that used to work on terminals attached to a host. They learned the application(s) and they used it(them). Now they probably have Windows Terminals with some sort of client, well, there is no similarity at all and they do or will manage. The userexperience of a Gnome or KDE Desktop bears enough similarities to Windows that even new users can find their way around easily. Konfiguring the stuff might be a different matter but most distributions have config tools that are not less easy or more difficult than the windows equivalents (look at the drak tools for example). Those who can't manage to configure their PC with something like the drak tools won't be able to do it with windows either. The point becomes irrelevant.

#

> XP reports all of your installed software when you run Windows Update

Actually, XP downloads a list of available updates and compares it against what is available on your system and then downloads the required update. If Microsoft really wanted to wade through a list of the 57000+ files on my system on their server to see which need updating, rather than my machine wading through a list of a couple of hundred to check for itself then good luck to them, especially when you multiply it by the tens of millions of Windows users out there.

#

I'm divere user. I have a Linux and Windows box. Having used both extensively, I CAN make judgments tempered with experience which is a lot more that can be said for most of the folks on the link you gave.

The first-string box is Linux at my home. And it became the primary box after about a year of use. My experience is that you can't judge until after using it a while. It grows on you.

And those who knock the command line do so because they only experienced Windows terrible command line support. Unix is steeped in tradition on the command line and it truly augments the GUI for the savey! And there is NO arguing that. Only the GUI baby generation try to argue it.

#

There's nothing wrong with the command line, or, the GUI. Each has their place. Linux does not require you to use the command line. Like Windows, a command line is available if you'd like, but it's not required to use the operating system. Working on a Linux server via ssh allows me to manage multiple servers from my main job. This allows me to make the changes I need without having to be at the front of the machine. I wish Windows would offer this kind of flexibility as well as the GUI. I feel better about ssh than I do about vnc.

#

The arguement between CLI & GUI is long lost, pad're. The benefit/cost numbers make that clear, so follow along:

****Most folks: ( > 87%, actually<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... see Piaget)

For a N digit string, cost =complexity = 2^N
benefit= function =~N

thus: benefit/cost = N/2^N ~ 0 !!!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... for N of any decent size. That just KILLS DEAD the command line.

****Most Weenierdudes:

cost = 2^N --> N*(ln)_2
benefit = N*N

Thus: benefit/cost = N/(ln)_2 which increases with N !

Get the drift, why Linux will NEVER make it to a mass audiance??

#

That formula makes no sense. You can apply that number of clicks to perform a function on the GUI too!

You can gee-whiz all you want. The bottom line is some things CAN be done faster and more conveniently on the command line. I'll say that again... some things.

And I believe every system admin uses it too.

#

Actually, those "formulas" are perfectly plausable. Can you point to an error?? Didn't think so. Still, you are Correct about the GUI !!!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but ONLY if the GUI were used to click-on-icons representing each **letter or numeral**. But that's not how the GUI/point-click is used! A single click is used to assert a TASK, that is a command(s) requiring some arbitrarily long string of alpha_numerics. The difference is HUGE, not small between CLI & GUI<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... information production is the same while error probabilities (~difficulty) vastly decrease; that's why 99.975% of serious computer users (== folks earning a living by their computer) prefer & use a GUI interface.

#

the fact that they earn a living by their computer doesn't make them serious users, and doesn't imply they know what they are doing. if not, think why there are so many security flaws out there?
command line is the fastest thing ever, if you know what you are doing. guis are for those who doesn't want to learn, or think already know a lot (and of course that's false). i've nothing against gui's, but i prefer command line. the fact is windows bored are switching to linux, and instead of starting with command line and learn, they want gui's just to think they learned something. in the process, they are trying to turn linux into a sophisticated windows.

#

Your argument is like saying my favorite color is wrong and it should be some other color.

#

i absolutely agree! command line is the best thing, and the best (the only?) way to really learn what you are doing. please, read my posts:
'if you want nice desktops keep windows' and 'can't understand'.
i've nothing against windows (except the classic arguments: it hangs - though if it is well set up, the hangs are indeed rare-). but i'm watching how the windows bored are trying to change the essence of unix (or linux), by making it user friendly or whatever, with nice graphics and all that. what's happening here? who needs that?: those who can't understand vi or midnight commander, evidently. even in windows, i often use windows dos editor to edit small files, and a file manager similar to mc, and command line ftp. it's faster, really faster. but these guys just can't get it.
i'm not saying linux should not evolve, i'm just thinking: evolve to please who?

#

So what you're saying boils down to this:

Those who are the most knowledgable about linux think it's ready for the desktop. Those who are clueless about Linux don't think it's ready for the desktop.

Whose opinion is more worthwhile? You get one guess, and keep in mind that while most windows users know nothing about linux, but have heard only bizzarre FUD, most Linux users OTOH are quite familiar with ms windows.

#

I didn't comb through the whole pile, but I didn't need to. This pretty much puts down what I'm getting tired of saying and typing:

"Linux isn't ready for the desktop and probably never will be, the reasons why have been gone over thousands of times. If a person lacks the intuition to understand why, then it is probable that no amount of explaining will make them understand the human-usability factor of computing."

Until the Linux community and software developers can learn to take criticism of their baby, it's just gonna be the same old sh*t. Most companies or "ventures" ask what their customers like and dislike - and listen. To not listen is to fail. (Except in the Redmond Beast's case; when you're a monopoly you can do what you damn well please.) But people - regular users, not propeller-heads - have been saying what they want, and the Linux community has been saying "You're wrong!" while the distros have been cobbling together sad excuses for "easy."

The masses may be wrong and, who knows, might even be able to be taught better. But Linux has to learn a few things before the masses are ever going to accept it. And if it can't sell to the masses - the lowest common denominator - it ain't going nowhere. Nearly everyone out here howls about what a piece of sh*t Windoze is, but that piece of sh*t is on 95% of the PCs out there....

#

That just means OSNews is behind the times. Most everyone else is already at GhandiCon 3<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)

#

Which one do you smoke? Help me, momy, hold my hand and make it okay for me.

#

Please don't breed.

#

How long are you window weenies going to still be breast feeding on momy? Get yourself a REAL operating system. It's that simple. It ain't how the buttons don't look pretty... I can't bla, bla bla. BFD Get over it and tell Bill to go fly a kite!

#

yeah...get a REAL operating system like VMS, right ?

it's not about people on this board being ready, it's about the business mainstream being able to use it on the desktop as well as they use Windows.

no one's going to tell Bill to fly a kite until Linux gets some better office-oriented applications and stability.

#

What a well articulate opinion. I bet your words of wisdom will help convert thousands to Linux.

#

I was thinking more along the line of OpenBSD

#

Back ta the closet, byteboyz<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... close the door. Shut up. Suck some JOLT! Stick that Twinkee up yer nose and yer thumb up yer a*hole; grope yer fav electromechanic blo-up dolly. What's that you say? Sure --- like any smart dude, when it's free we'll keep the tit.

#

Last time I looked at Netcraft Linux/Apache combos made up 75% of the Web connected universe. Thanks to all the GNU guys and Linus - its a gift. No one wanted to screw no one for more money they just did it for the love and the pride. Thats ready enough for me. And if business means underhanded / clever marketing, 'suckering people in' techniques you can keep your business and I hope GNU/Linux doesnt take us all down that street.

As it happens I am writing this from Mandrake 9.1 - yet again a free DL but I chose to make a contrib becasue it does do most of what I want and to be honest I kinda like setting things up and moding to my hearts content. In that other OS I have to do work like invoices and letters - in my Linux world I can set up servers and have great fun doing it - best of all I didnt have to splash out my hard earned to learn how to do this stuff and now I can set up a server for my customers real cheap and they like me becasue it doesnt crash all the time . . .

No one makes you learn Linux - you either want to or you dont - those that dont should go away & stop complaining it isnt like Windows - thats because it ISNT WINDOWS - God help us . . .

#

1 - the article is about desktop in businesses, not servers, so your netcraft stats mean nothing in that context.

2 - it also doesn't talk about desktop users at home...only in the workplace, by *mainstream* users, not contractors like yourself.

#

At my new job I have the good fortune of having an open minded office manager who does not seem to suffer the Microsoft Windows crack addiction that many users do. This is very good, since everyone else in the organization is on either Solaris thin clients, or laptops running OSX. The office manager's Dell PC came with MS Windows (for $200-$300, no choice), which I have no desire to support.

So I installed Mandrake 9.1, and set her up in KDE. At first, she didn't notice that anything had changed from Windows (!). This gives you an idea of the perception of average users. The only question was: "Where's Office?". I had planned on installing CrossOver Office, so that she could still use MS Office 2000, but to my disappointment, CrossOver won't yet run on Mandrake 9.1 or Redhat 9. They're working on it.

In the mean time, I showed her AbiWord, Kwrite and OpenOffice. Don't do this! Give the user 1 choice, it will be easier for them to choose. Otherwise they'll end up saving in 3 different formats, failing to distinguish one word processor from another, and get totally confused. It didn't go over well. In normal business correspondance, people send MS Office files constantly, and she must send them back. While she was familiar with the standard "File -> Save As" routine (thankfully), she often forgot to, and even when she did remember, there were too many formatting problems, which wasted time and earned resentment. We have a StarOffice license on the Sun server, and a Linux version came on the CD, so I installed that. It seems to handle the Word files better, and the spell checker actually works. I'm still counting the hours until CrossOver is ready -- its only a matter of time before a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc file won't open properly in StarOffice, or there is some other compatibility problem with MS Office documents that arrive from the rest of the business world.

To make matters worse, KDE didn't work very well with her home directory NFS-mounted from the solaris server. Opening folders in the File Save dialogue windows just didn't work half of the time, and there were permissions related problems as well. It made the whole experience more frustrating. After failing to solve the problem, I changed the set up to use the local disk, which makes backups slightly more work for me, but KDE works as expected now.

On the positive side of things, it is very nice to have the plethora of desktop applications that is available for free in Linux. K3b is an awesome CD authoring program. I was delighted to see an icon appear on the desktop when I plugged the digital camera into the USB port! The photos are easiliy accessible, even for novice users, and there is plenty of free graphics software, like GQView and The GIMP. There simply IS NO better media player than MPlayer, and Mandrake made its installation effortless by providing current rpms. Evolution is a great interface for the company LDAP directory, provides an intuitive interface for email without the huge security risks that come with Outhouse, and it is perfectly compatible with vcards and ical files that are commonly passed around.

In closing, I would disagree with the original poster about doing a phased roll-out. If there is Windows available, your users will probably go out of their way to find it, instead of telling you about problems in Linux so that they can be addressed. In their view, its faster just to use what they know, rather than make a tech support call and have a problem fixed, or rather than learning a new procedure. In fact, they may not understand bugs or problems as such, but rather think that they are doing something wrong, and don't want to bother with a support call. Additionally, if some people are on Linux and others Windows, you only increase the chances of running into compatibility problems.

Microsoft Office, in my view, presents the biggest challenge to adopting Linux on the desktop. Not because its such a great application, but because of its pervasive use in business.

#

WHAT???

So I installed Mandrake 9.1, and set her up in KDE. At first, she didn't notice that anything had changed from Windows (!).

Your colleague must be the stupidest person in the universe, do you work in a "special office"?

As a Mandrake 9.1 (and KDE) user at home I simply can't believe you wrote that!

#

The EU and the US anti-trust prosecutors should focus on the Office and IE monopoly...
AND then require that Microsoft keep both of these products with-in a common file format that would allow them to work easily with other applications.

Otherwise - Microsoft will keep it's illegal monopoly possition intact. File sharing and collaboration in this world is a reality and if MS can force all users to use Office or IE then they will gain and not loose market share (and Linux or other OS will be at a disadvantage)!

#

Why is it that I seem to be one of those few who 'get it'?

Physically, usability-wise, Linux is more than ready for the desktop with just a few niggling points:

1) Decent hardware. Running [pick your distro] with KDE or Gnome on a P-150 with 64 MB is bullsh1te. That's NOT really usable by any standard. The machine has to have some guts. To me, that's usually at least 500 MHz and 128 MB of RAM - anything less and you're kidding yourself.

Now, how many companies out there can match this desktop spec? Well... Don't get too excited. Probably about half right now. I've consulted for firms recently that are still using P-75's for God's sake!

2) Windows domain support. Most corps use Windows Domains (NT or Active Directory) to control their system-wide resources. This fact ISN'T GOING TO CHANGE ANYTIME SOON. Get over it. Novell is certainly better, but it's not 'free'.

MS managed to squeeze Novell out of the picture - not because NT 4.0 was so well designed, but because when you bought one of their server products, you automatically get built-in licenses (isn't that 'free'?) Consequently, most server-side apps that run on NT/2000 require this as well.

Now... Anyone here ever try to manage Linux desktop boxen for a Windows-based domain? It's a pain in the a$$. There's only ONE distro that does it right so far - XANDROS. Everything else is a hack - I mean it. Xandros did it with custom code, Samba alone is not enough... Yet.
When this becomes a standard AND when Wine is more professional THEN Linux on the corporate desktop will be a choice that few will ignore. Until then, Linux is a curiosity. It's something most admins work with for a while, sigh, and think, "God, they're SO CLOSE!"

Please do not misunderstand me here, I WANT this to happen. I've used Windows in the past because of the ease of use and general acceptance. When Linux reaches this state, when I can just as easily add a Linux box to my domain as I do a Windows 2000 client, I'm there. What's not acceptable is having to do things like, create users manually on each desktop, and then add them into the domain.

3) Application support. I believe this will work itself out. Why? Java, HTML, XML, and other 'universal' standards are starting to get notice.

In our<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.org for example, we switched to Open/StarOffice last year. We are tired of getting the MS lock-in every few years and we're not playing the game anymore.

And another example; most of our teachers and students access their mail through their browser and some Windows applications are run through our Citrix thin-client server.

#

My company uses old Pentium 166's with only 64 MB of memory for Internet connections. Even running the KDE desktop they work OK, although better with the Enlightenment lightweight desktop.

Our office workstations are rather faster Linux and OS/2 machines (some are dual boot).

It is my experience that most large corporations (in Australia and Asia at least) actually use mainframes and not PC's at all. The desktop PC's you do see tend to be running as X-servers to the mainframe.

#

Agree with the points made in the article. Linux is ready, but thats not the issue.

In order to overcome this inertia, the competing option must offer an order of magnitude improvement over the status quo, otherwise, companies, users etc will not invest the time and effort to make the move. History supports this in the form of OS's like OS/2.

#

People, listen I like Linux. Until I finally freed myself from Windows XP and got Windows 2000 working on my labtop I had Red Hat Linux 8 and liked it to a degree. Now im waiting till I can get the time to download Red Hat Linux 9 before installing Linux on my labtop again.

However Linux is far from ready on the desktop. This author is wrong to totally ignore the desktop users here. If Linux gained more end users (like Mac OS X) it would gain more ground in the IT world. However Linux is TREMENDOUSLY Lacking in some things.

(1) Installers - While I was on Red Hat 8 I thought it'd be nice to download and install the latest version of Mozilla. So I did, but I was disapointed to see that there wasn't a setup program. I had to go to the unix terminal and run some scripts. Why can't Linux make it easier? In Windows you just double click a setup program and it does the rest - in mac os x you just open a disk image and you can even run Mozilla without dragging it to the Applications folder. Linux will NEVER gain users if they have to go about everything the hard way like this.

(2) Documentation - I do like Linux but sometimes it's hard to find a simple explanation to do things. Supposively I had a windows emulator on Linux but I could never find anywhere to run it or any explanation on how to use it. There are many more instances like that I had..

(3) Menu Organization - To most of the people I talk to who start Linux they find it confusing when there are like 3 different places for Office Programs on the menu.

However I do like how fast Linux is advancing. When I started I wanted to get into Linux, but there was a problem with the display driver and I couldn't even get Linux to run in graphical mode. Now it's easy to install Linux and get it configured. Personally I prefeer Mac OS X as my Windows OS alternative but im finding it easier to use Linux everyday and im looking into building myself a PC that will run Windows 2000 & Red Hat Linux 9 (but mainly Linux) to act as a file server.

#

Your arguments are irrelevant -

(1) Installers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... "I was disapointed to see that there wasn't a setup program. I had to go to the unix terminal and run some scripts. Why can't Linux make it easier?"

How would "linux" take responsibility for writing a decent installer for mozilla? If mozilla chooses to supplies the linux version in the form of a tarball rather than an install program, that's their choice. Linux can't magically make there be a mozilla installer if the mozilla folks didn't write one.

(2) Documentation

I always found linux docs pretty helpful - but to get the benefit of the docs, you have to read the docs. Sorry, no magic instant answers. As far as windoze emulators, I always found the documentation that came with things like vmware or win4lin to be quite easy to understand.

(3) Menu Organization - To most of the people I talk to who start Linux they find it confusing when there are like 3 different places for Office Programs on the menu.

Ah, the agony of choice - seriously, can you give some examples? A cursory look at the gnome menu on my RH 9 box here shows all office programs under the same general menu...

#

To be fair, having installed Red Hat 8 for my wife, it *does* need to work on laying out the menus better. Like having all the stuff that deals with settings in *one* location instead of the 3-4 main offshoots of the Hat menu.

That, and I *really* want to see them add GUI SAMBA adminning, so my wife can admin the filesharing instead of having to move files into a special folder I set up for it. [Which, admittedly, is actually very easy, since she just moves files around, but it's still lacking for the General User.]

#

You need SWAT: Samba Web Admin Tool<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
Try these links to start:
rpmfind.net/linux/RPM/redhat/updates/8.0/ i386/samba-swat-2.2.7-2.i386.html
samba.linuxbe.org/en/samba/learn/swat.html

HTH
Chris

#

Linux is many things, one thing it is not is easy.I have used linux for 1 year and am still very lost most of the time. I just cant understand linux and many people i know feel the same way. Ive spent countless hours trying to figure out what needs to be done with a "tar.gz"
& have failed at every occasion.

  I have found doc walkthroughs however they seem unhelpful, being that they are geared for persons

  who have an understanding of linux.
Maybe im an IDIOT? But maybe most PC users want to be IDIOTS not programmers. When linux lends and bends itself alittle more towards users from windows etc.. it will, im sure draw much more attention.At home or business people need to feel confident about what they are doing and linux as capable as it may be, is much too complex. Make tar.gz as easy to install as RMP's
from the disk and no worries<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

#

I asmue you are talking about source tarbals here. The standart rutine is to open up a terminal...
$cd<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/home/username/wherethetarbalis
$tar -zxf name-version.tar.zxf
$cd name-version
$./configure
$make
$su
#make install

#

very cool..see this is the kind of info linux
rookies need<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. i would like to see a practical walkthrough for this.. maybe a small file users could download and be walked through the process
step by step, actually giving a working example
for such a thing would help rookies feel less intimidated by LINUX..thank you for this it is much appreciated

 

#

I can't think of a specific tarball howto, but check out The Linux Document Project:

http://www.tldp.org/tldp-redirect.php?url=/

Also, if you're ever looking for information on a specific subject (like 'tar'), just search on Google for "(subject) HOWTO". "HOWTO" is the agreed-upon term technical people use for tutorials/walkthroughs/help files/etc.

PS. As a matter of fact, I very quickly found a tar howto by searching on Google =) Do the same and you'll see how many HOWTOs are really out there.

#

Need I say more.

#

Fer gawds sake! He dosnt want a script! READ the post! He wants a "click on this" and its done. Sadly, hes right, Linux is NOT ready for him ot 90% of the people out there. It wont be until they can dbl-clk on an icon and get the job done.

#

I agree. As long as issues like installation, documentation, and organization are addressed with "Well, maybe you aren't smart enough," Linux will never be anything more than a nerd's toy, like Mac is for "creative types."

Seriously, I can write a better installer myself on a windows box in like, five minutes. Exercise some friggin' consideration when attempting to distribute software. Write a damn readme file, and a script that installs the software. If it requires building on the user's machine, provide a GUI that can get the relevant info either from a basic search of the user's system, or by querying the user. This ill-advised reliance on command-line interfaces is sily. The human brain evolved processing information in three dimensions, while some computer scientists insist on communicating in one dimension:confused:

Ask a Unix guy how `find` works, and you will hear, "Read the man page." Ask a Windows user how Find works, and they will tell you that you can search for files by name or words in files. It is mostly used for searching for files by filename. As a business owner trying to decide which OS to implement, which would you choose? The OS that has helpful users, or the OS used by those who treat ignorance as some affliction, and enjoy belittling those asking for help?

#

How true...makes a person near afraid to ask for help in fear of being belittled! The LINUX gods should listen to newbie's and use there concerns and lack of understanding to help build a linux that is truely ready for the desktop.

  I think linux is capable of dominating the market<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..but only when the support for new users arrives and veterans find ways to make the OS transition easyer for newbies. I mean i can learn to speak japanese but... umm.. i dont want to, im just comfortable with my bad english like im comfortable with other OS's, LINUX is at times like learning to speak JAPANESE with a guide book written in JAPANESE for JAPANESE.

#

Well, if you look at linuxquestions.org or similar sites help and often very qualified help is always and often given. The often heard RTFM is usually nothing more than an indicator for people that they asked the question at the wrong location or that they obviously never even thought about reading the provided documentation. If you ask the question that's answered in the first section of the FAQ in a developers-mailinglist, what do you expect? They either send you a link to the file, tell you to read it and come back if the problem persists or if they got pissed of by the 500 others that did just that tell you to RTFM.

There are people at the other end that will help you but that don't want their time to be wasted on answering the same question over and over again. That's what FAQs are for.

But there is a positive side to that. If you really have a problem you can't fix even though you bothered to read the documentation and if you provide enough information to the people subscribed to the list to understand what your problem is and what you tried, you might get highlevel support from a developer right away. That's something you usually don't get for commercial software. It's something that is a little different compared to commercial software but once people get it they are usually happy with it. I at least prefere it that way than having to call an expensive support hotline, tell the first level support person the issue just to be but on hold (still paying) to wait for the second-level person which might put me on hold again after explaining things again (still paying) to patch me through to third-level support. Eventually there might be someone who can help you but this can become a costly experience.

#

Your are telling ME Linux is not ready. But I'm using it. I have a Windows box too. I use the Linux box more! Tell me again how it's not ready because I really need to know why YOU think I should not be using this spyware from Microsoft. Oh, and read the new MS licence agreement. You give them the right to enter and alter you software without your permission. What a wonderful system. Is this what you want the world be become?

Or is it because you want everyone to use what you use? Or think like you think? What a boring world that would be.

Freedom, freedom from big business controling your computer! Tell MS to take their licence agreement and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

#

Do you know what is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>./configure ?
Guess what,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>./configure can collect all the information that you're ever gonna need.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>./configure, make, make install, three simple commands.

And oh yeah, most source code came with README and INSTALL files. And they are much much much shorter than that user license agreements for those windows apps. Hope that helps

#

Lovely article mate, but having argued persuasively that Linux and Windows are evens on Reliability and Manageability and then admitted that Linux lacks a little on hardware compatibility and application availability aren't you arguing that Linux is "nearly but not quite" ready?

#

The system is one thing, the GUI another. Windows have, believe it or not, a great GUI. So do also thousands of programs. Do you realize that there is a profession named 'GUI Designer'? Most Linux softwares' GUI's are designed either by programmers or GUI-designer-wannabes. Not the true professionals. Have you EVER heard that a Linux program has had its GUI evaluated, re-implemented and evaluated like the 'real software' has? A major software company could easily invest $500,000 in researching and designing the GUI. We mostly get something slapped upon something CLI-based.

99.9% of Linux-programs are totally awful GUI-wise, the only exceptions I can think of is whatever is contained within Gnome and KDE, and they are not on par with Windows just yet.

Don't expect casual users to ENJOY using Linux until such time the GUIs are coherent, GOOD and logical. They for sure are not now!

#

yet another reason why Linux is not ready for the desktop is that it just isn't friendly to handicapped users. It can barely support blind users with text-to-speech and a few tts enabled applications. It has absolutely no support for folks needing speech recognition. ViaVoice for Linux was a piece of crap that didn't work except under very rare and special circumstances. Sphinx is still a grad student research project and not suitable for use in the real world.

If you want to see just how far Linux needs to go, watch a mobility impaired user with NaturallySpeaking or a blind user using JAWS.

---eric

esj@harvee.org (refusing to get yet another login at yet another web site)

#

While a good part of your commentary is spot on I do have to disagree with you about Linux being ready for the desktop. It's true that in the corporate world there are a number of reasons (mostly inadaquate ones) why Linux hasn't been embraced like it should have and probably will. But the fact remains that the MAIN things that are keeping the average desktop user from moving to Linux are 1) difficulty in configuring Linux software and 2)the definate lack of certain software on the platform.

Let's face it folks, configuring Linux software for a newbie (or even a somewhat experienced Windows user) can be difficult. Sure, most of this difficulty comes from the users seeming inabillity to RTFM but that doesn't matter. They are used to an OS where they don't HAVE TO THINK. Most Windows software comes ready to run out of the box and nay configurations are simple and straightforward. One certainly doesn't have to drop to the shell prompt and deal with endless options just to get most of it up and running. Does that mean I believe that Linux should "dumb down" to welcome these users? Absolutely not! But this really is an issue of lazy developers IMHO. How hard is it really to design an X based configuration system for your software? Not at all. So why FORCE the user to use text based config files? There really is no excuse.

Lastly, if we are all honest about it, a LOT of Linux software is still pretty buggy and there are a few MAJOR areas that Linux has failed to address at all. Until users can play their favourite game on both Linux and Windows we're not going to see a huge migration. Even then, can you imagine the MASSIVE config file for something like EQ?

Don't get me wrong, I love Linux. But it's time that we developers stop programming like only other highly knowledgable people will be using our software. The average user ISN'T highly knowledgable and DOESN'T WANT TO BE. In reality, THIS is what is stopping desktop adoption of Linux. Stop thinking like a programmer and START thinking like an end user. You'd be shocked where your apps (and consequently Linux) will make in-roads.

Anthony

#

But everyone likes M$ Office. Most of the individuals out there does not care about the OS all they care is about e-mail, documents, spread sheets, slide shows, etc.... and being lazy on not learning other OS. The average user likes to install the latest pesky games the web can offer and dumb screen savers.

That Linux is ready for the masses, the answer is YES on my view. What is need it is eduaction. If someone can provide a working Linux presenation and prove that it works.... it can be sell. At my job we provide with classes on M$ all the time, so Linux is not different. A slow migration will be in order, starting from the server down and giving to the average DUDE a linux box as a testing bed. Co-workers will feel like he got a better PC than me or why his PC is the only one differnt here? They will jump the badwaggon of being unique and will spread as a Cancer...

#

Emotional involvement with an OS is childlike. Demanding value is being rational, efficient not lazy. Value is simple the ratio: benefit/cost<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... generationg output from application proggies == PRODUCTION: that's a benefit. However, learning is a COST whether of a new application, GUI or of the OS itself.
So for the rational Windoz user to switch over to *nix, his/her increased productivity must exceed the transition costs. Not likely from what I've experienced using both WinX & *nix for years. 'Course if you feel the need to drool over Komrade Stalin<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... er Stallmans latest spew then enjoy, but donot expect others to follow.

#

Anybody every read this book? While I do not agree with its conclusions, I do think it makes very interesting points. The author of this forums' article made an important distinction between Endusers and Corporate IT environments. Sound like most of the frustrations experienced by the comments posted here are from personal involvment or in trying to help endusers. There is no way I would even attempt to support Linux (in any distro) to the enduser, except in a learning environment!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;D If people in general are unwilling to learn, then your stuck from the beginning. There are incredible problems with even supporting Windows and endusers as been stated by comments made here.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D

One vital question should always be asked (as I was when starting in computers) and that is "What do you want to do with it?" This gave a very "real" direction as to what I would start in. The programmers environment is not the same as a person who just wants to check his/her email and cruse the web. Did Linus want to "just" program or did he have specific thing in mind? When dealing with support, what are we really supporting!?

I would like to propose that it is a much larger thing then a particular OS or application. Whether it is writing source from a engineers standpoint, building the electronics to support functionality or helping folks with printing pictures on their wonderful new HP photo printer, the spectrum is vast. No one answer fits all the catagories, does it? We all make discisions, let us grant freedom to each other to decide how, why and when would like to support the industry. Whether it is in issueing paid licencing and and "locking" people "in" or in open source solutions. There are obvious pros and cons on both sides!! For me supporting the enduser (In corporte or individual) funcutionality is the key.

Tom

#

I've been using Linux as my primary desktop for about three weeks solid now. Is Linux ready for the desktop? No. Not yet. Here's my reasons for consternation:

OpenOffice sucks. There, I said it. It's feature poor, and does a REALLY bad job of converting MS Office docs. I've seen others say that they conversion works well, but I don't think they've ever seen the docs they've converted in MSO before viewing in OO. Worlds of difference. It's also about the slowest friggin' app I've ever worked with. I've tried released binaries, and compiled them from scratch optimizing the crap out of them. It still takes up to a 45 seconds for OO to load, sometimes longer if you're opening a doc with it. I get better performance out of Office 2000 on a Pentium than I do with OO on my Dual-PIII 1.3Ghz. Yes, I do use hdparm, before the I get the obvious question.

Mozilla. Eh. Versus a stock IE, it is slightly better. Add in Avantbrowser (www.avantbrowser.com) to IE and Mozilla is as lovable as a red-headed stepchild. It's also slower than IE. Then, there's the majority of sites that don't work right. Yes, this is a limitation on the site's side, but since 96% of all visitors (basing on the sites I've administered) us IE, you go where your customers want. The Mozilla team should stop whining about "standards compatibility". IE is a de facto standard, HTML standards are de jure. Once you understand the difference, you understand why Mozilla will not succeed quickly.

X is ugly. Yes, you can setup anti-aliasing fonts, etc but it is a LOT of work. And, even then, it doesn't have as polished a look as even Windows 3.1.

No standards. Yes, Linux FOLLOWS standards, but it HAS no standards. What does a standard Linux desktop look like? Ain't one. Desktops can vary so much between machines, the average user can't possibly keep up. This leads to flexibility, but users don't want flexibility. They want to learn one thing, and that's it. Corporate desktops are not for geeks, they're for the users. United Linux is a good start, 'cause you'll have one standard "default" desktop. What's wrong with that? Nothing. You'll have a desktop that anyone who's ever used Linux somewhere else will be comfortable with, AND you have the flexibility to change it. Nothing has to be permanent.

No standards for widgets. This month's LJ has a great article on the beginnings of standards, but it misses the biggest point: widget libs. Do you use Qt apps? How about GTK? What's the difference? Nothing really, just what lib you link to. How 'bout a libwidget.so that's just a link to the lib you want to use, then the libs have to standardize on calls. That eliminates Gnome/KDE/Gnustep incompatibilites. I realize this last one makes little sense. It's a theory I'm working on.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) If you standardize on things like menus and such which is the additional "Gnome stuff", then an author can write an app, and anyone can use it, regardless of their environment or WM of choice.

No good mail clients. Evolution is as close as you can come, but it's still very primitive. Sorry, but the killer app for me that kept me switching was Outlook. I love Outlook, I think it's the greatest. That's just my opinion, but since this is an opinion piece...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) The worst part for me was that there was no easy way to get my data from Outlook into Evolution. Yes, PSTs are proprietary, but Mozilla was able to get my data without problem, why wouldn't Evolution? Here's the steps I had to go through:

1. Install Mozilla in Windows.
2. Import my mail into Mozilla.
3. Export my contacts, calendars, and tasks to CSV files.
4. Import my mail into Evolution (one folder at a time, a long task when you have hundreds).
5. Import my contacts into Evolution
6. Clean up the contacts because of limitations of using CSV (not to mention all the dupes)

Well, it continues from there with more importing and cleaning....simpler? Ximian creates a small Windows app that uses MAPI to pull data from Outlook into a format they can use. If I'm using Outlook, I have Windows installed for a while at least, I can run such a util. We're also not talking a difficult app for a good programmer (I'm not, so I can't).

Now, the flip side, 'cause it ain't all bad.

Mplayer: the killer app for me at the moment. This thing is awesome, I'm constantly finding new things to do with it. I used to convert ALL of my media files to Divx AVIs (including the Quicktime). That cut their usage in half. I was also able to create thumbnails for everything, a task impossible with any other app. It's important to note, though, that it runs under Windows, too. This means I wouldn't miss anything I really liked if I switched back.

Wine: I guess this is the real killer app, as it allows me to use the software I need that doesn't yet exist under Linux, such as Photoshop. I'm sure the Gimp is better, but I haven't been able to figure it out as quickly as I could PS. I'll continue to play with it, but when I need to get something done, I use PS.

I'm sure this is going to generate a lot of flames, but please, take it as constructive criticism. If you can live with Linux as your primary desktop, great. I just find it to be more hassle than it's worth. I'm sticking with it for now, though, but there's too much that's just harder than it needs to be.

#

Constructive criticism is ok, but I have a problem with some of the things you said:

The Mozilla team should stop whining about "standards compatibility". IE is a de facto standard, HTML standards are de jure. Once you understand the difference, you understand why Mozilla will not succeed quickly.

You mean, anybody developing a browser should just let Microsoft do whatever they like, and have to continually add what Microsoft has added?

They have to follow Microsoft's self-imposed standard (made a standard by anti-competitive and monopolistic practices)?

If people follow Microsoft now, they'll be doing it forever. The Web is not owned by Microsoft, yet it is controlled mainly by Microsoft. I'm sorry, but Microsoft should have no control over what isn't theirs.

X is ugly. Yes, you can setup anti-aliasing fonts, etc but it is a LOT of work. And, even then, it doesn't have as polished a look as even Windows 3.1.

What? Take a look at KDE or Gnome on the most recent distributions (e.g. Mandrake 9.1), Looks 'better' than Windows to me (anti-aliasing automatically set up, no work involved).

#

>You mean, anybody developing a browser should just let Microsoft do whatever they like, and have to continually add what Microsoft has added?

Yes, I do. The problem with the Linux advocates is they're TOO concerned with what Microsoft does. You're no competition for Microsoft...yet. You widen this gap further by not at least "playing along" to get what you want. Microsoft did that to get to the top....

One seems to forget that Netscape started this trend years ago. There was a time that every site was "Best Viewed in Netscape Navigator". Every time a new version of W3 standards appeared, Netscape added to it. Then, MS came along with IE and added the same "extensions" and then some, then Netscape added the IE ones and then some, and so on and so on and so on. However, note...they each added each others extensions (yes, for the most part). They "played along". No, it wasn't perfect, and yes there were some major incompatibilities, but it mostly worked, unlike the Mozilla of today.

What's wrong with allowing users to set an IE compatibility mode? Or adding a "this doesn't play right" plugin that will render the page as if IE? If the purpose is to move people into your camp (which is the nature of this article), then you need to make your camp as comfortable as the one they came from. Once they're in, you can start weeding them off what you don't like.

#

So, Netscape started it? Do you think I'm going to say "Well, Netscape are cool with me, they Open Sourced their code, I don't care whether or not they adhere to standards"? No way, people should adhere to standards, and the standards body should be open to new extensions - within reason.

Microsoft's excuse for not adhering to standards is because they're held back by the standards body looking into or not accepting their extensions.

Unless there's a good reason not to allow the extensions, as long as they're not anti-competitive or promoting lock-in tactics, I don't see why the standards body shouldn't consider them.

Somebody needs to step in and prevent ANYBODY (whether Microsoft or not) from OWNING the Web, yet I don't believe that this 'somebody' should hold developers back.

The current situation shouldn't be allowed, considering Microsoft has been found guilty of upholding an illegal monopoly and using anti-competitive practises. But yes, if nobody is going to do anything about it, the best thing to do is just follow Microsoft. What a great way to go. Justice? I wonder what the Eurpoeans think of that...

#

What about we flip over the topic to find the answer. Is Windows ready for desktop?

How many years I have been using Windows? hmm...10 years and more, I don't quite remember. What about Linux? hmm...less than 5 years.

Until now, I still have friends who do not know what the heck the problem his Windows 98/ME/2000/XP has. They always ask me to fix their Windows. You may say immediately "You and your friends suck". But think about this way, you think Windows is ready for desktop, it is good and easy enough for non-technical users to install, maintain, and use; then why the heck are there still many people do NOT know how to install windows and ask me to install it for them? Why they always crash their computers because they open too many apps? Why they stare at me and a question mark pops from their eyes when I tell them to defrag? As I said before, they are non-technical people. You have to understand that they do NOT want to learn how does Windows work, install, and maintain, what they need is just a desktop OS with loads of apps that can WORK RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX.

When you install windows, the installation is still alright, but when it comes down to the driver problems, and patch updates, all non-technical users would say "What the heck? Okay, I am going to give it up". Is this called "ready for desktop"?

My younger sister who is definitely a non-technical windows user. She does NOT know how to install, what defrag is, and cries for the crash. Whenever the computer is hang for 5 seconds, she press CTRL+ALT+DEL, but it may be the IE problem only, if she finds no response in 2 seconds, she will press the "reset" button. Everytime I see that I will say "Just wait..." and her response is "But it hangs...". Obviously, as long as the computer cannot do the things she wants, or the computer "interrupts(crashes lead to a reboot)" her work, she does NOT like it and it is not a "ready" OS.

So now, you have the answer of Is Windows Ready For Desktop.

Whenever people compare the level of user-friendly between Windows and Linux, they always ignore their problems occurred in Windows. They will never tell people that their Windows actually crashed last night at 3am and their friends went to their house and fixed it after 3 hours at 6am. What they tell others are all about "Windows is so good...Start button is easy to use...it's stable...".

In my opinion, I still think that users need manuals to install both Windows and Linux. If Linux is not ready for desktop, I would say Windows is not too.

#

Too true. I'm seeing plenty of people now starting to use computers for the 'first time', and they don't have a clue what to do. Everything is complex when you're not used to it.

I think far too many people have become used to Windows (or should I say institutionalized), and see anything that appears different as "not as good".

Driver problems in Windows are still a major pain.

There are down-sides to both Windows and Linux, Windows certainly isn't as glorious as most people make it out to be.

But, technical things aside, what about Microsoft's trustworthiness?

Microsoft's 'Trustworthy Computing' initiative did no more than admit that they never were trustworthy. They only admitted it because it was so obvious, and everybody else (due to bugs, security and stability issues) pointed it out first.
What do you do, deny the obvious, or admit it? Microsoft had no choice, and they didn't start 'Trustworthy Computing' for Windows users' benefit. They were untrustworthy then, and they still are now - I can't see how anything has changed. Do you trust a company that's obviously untrustworthy?

#

If you're gonna rant dude, atleast get your story/rant streamlined. You bounced around enough and didn't come to a conclusion,

But in reply to this, I'm an ISP admin/Onsite admin. I work with all kinds of ignorant individuals starting with the ones that ask "will my computer check my e-mail when it's turned off?" up to, "but you said you had a proxy on our server to connect all of our PCs to the internet 3 years ago. When I have a connection problem I reboot the server" Of course for the past 2 years I've been telling them they have a router now and not to reboot the server when they have internet problems.

I also deal with people, such as yourself, that seem to think they actually know all there is to keep a computer in good working order and help their friends keep theirs going. What that almost always results in is "I don't know what's wrong, let's format and reload" when it's a virus, or a simple bug that's been known for 3 years that needs a patch.

Bringing this back to the actual point, I have users that are on linux now. I placed them on it, I loaded their desktops and installed the software they needed. This particular company would call me out atleast once a week for a problem, the switch happened a year ago...I've heard from them twice now for software upgrades. No problems with anything they do, no calls for removing viruses, no calls because someone accidently deleted a file they needed from their harddrive....NOTHING has gone wrong.

Converting to Linux has saved them tens of Thousands of dollars in tech calls alone, let alone the aggrivation and downtime they were getting when their machines would go down due to stupidity.

I've also installed Linux on machines for our custom built systems for the average joe schmoe off the street in dual boot systems. I've had some of them come back and ask me to take the windows partition completely off their system because they like linux so much better and will just use it because they have less problems. One of them had already destroyed his windows partition and said that he was going to stick with linux because it wouldn't allow him to break it like windows does. Linux, unless you're root, doesn't allow deleting files you need.

In short, this is one of those "the wiseman listens but the fool chatters" things. Learn what you're talking about before you talk

#

This should start a bunch of new threads...

#

Yeah, I like linux' potential on the desktop a lot. Too bad the major distros are putting out half-baked disks with some applications that won't install without searching out a dependency on some obscure web-site. To wit, Audacity on Suse 8.1. They haven't even got a smell of what an integrated
multimedia workstation is.

      If it didn't have sharp edges, I'd use it for a frisbee at a rock concert.

#

Yeah, but $200 buys you a system that spys on you and forces you to give up ownership of your computer.

Read the new MS licence agreemet. It is nasty!! So if you value who owns your computer this is a big deal. If you don't value that, then you won't care. Something to think about anyway.

#

No kidding ! SusE-the-*itch has always sucked , even in comparison to my (fav) surprisingly robust WinME.

#

Back before I left the dark side, I used WinME and I hand nothing but troubles. The network would stop working and the system became unusalble. I installed it 4 times over a period of a year. So, it goes to show you. No OS is perfect. My Linux network, on the other hand, has proved to be solid for me. And I'm free of all the bull-crap license stuff MS attaches to you.

#

Actually, Bros., I'm using a Win '98, Suse dual boot with a bunch of pci generic cards, including the infamous isa winmodem. It ain't like I don't know my way around the linux 'hood. They just need to pay attention to their base constituency, the desktop end-user.

#

Don't we all wish. I keep a RedHat_x/P4 box ( yes, I do BUY *nix software ) just to see what's screwed_up THIS time with the *nixoids<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and occasionally crunch numbers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but I'd be living under a bridge without my slick WinME/XP2100+ production system. Touchy as it can be, for real world tasks ( no sysadmin crappola ) WinME still kicks Penguinista butt !!

#

Look at all these posts. Some say Linux is ready, some say it's not.

If this issue is black-n-white, how come there is so much gray matter here?

Conclusion: It is READY for some folks and NOT ready for others.

End of story!

#

the first requirement for success is that the user of the linux desktop be able to produce documents that can be used by cow-orkers and others who are using That Other OS. conversely, the office user of openoffice must be able to use documents produced on That Other OS.

i'm a consultant. i write reports after every engagement. the required format is Word. i write my reports in text, import them into open office via a template i have created. then i move them to a windows machine, open them in Word and fix the formatting errors.

i do all that because i hate using Word and prefer my linux desktop. to expect millions of office workers to go through that process all day long is utterly stupid. i'm sorry to say that the real fact demonstrated by this article is that the author has no conception of daily life in a corporate office. while that may be good for him, personally, his argument is shorn of any credibility by that fact.

there is a reason why, when you save a document in "Word" format in openoffice, a dialog box pops up with the message, "This document may contain attributes and information that cannot be saved under Microsoft Word 97/2000/XP. Do you want to save your changes using the OpenOffice 1.0 Text Document format?" The author should acquaint himself with that reason.

if you need a second test, create a "read-only" password-protected document in Excel. now, try to open that document in openoffice. you can't. openoffice cannot detect the fact that the password-protection applies only to making changes and not to viewing the document. these sorts of documents are widely used in our organization, for maintaining documents like product status updates or group schedules, that should be world readable but not world writable.

openoffice is good for simple, general document production. it is not production quality for any office that produces complex documents that must be used by Word users. these facts are well-known to those who regularly use it. i hope and expect that openoffice will continue to be improved and will someday provide the kind of interoperability needed on a non-windows desktop. until that happens, the author's pronouncements have no relevance to people doing real work in the real world.

mp

"happily using a desktop on linux since 1997"

#

On a slightly off-topic note, the most common complaint I hear for Linux not being ready is the office-suite incompatibility. I have personally been using OpenOffice for a while now, and while I certainly agree that it has a long way to go ( oh man, the load times are horrible ) it has at least made an effort to be compatible with M$ Office.

All I hear is, if I create a document in OO, that other guy using M$ Office should be able to read it, and OO's "Save As MSOffice Document" sucks!! Here's an idea. Phone that "friendly, helpful" company you regularly fork money out to for software, and ask them to make their office-suite compatible with OpenOffice document formats. After all, you pay them for their software, while the OO developers give you their hard work for free.

The next time you feel like complaining about an incompatibility, complain to people that have resources (because you pay for their software) to do something about it.

On a side note, I have to agree that 95% of linux distro's out there are not ready for the corporate desktop. Especially the main stream ones like Redhat and Mandrake. One distro exists that has converted me into a Linux believer, and that is Gentoo (http://www.gentoo.org). This distro certainly needs a lot of technical knowledge to get it installed, but once it is installed, it runs beautifully, and has the best package management system in the world... (BTW, prove me wrong on that last statement). This distro also comes with an IRC channel about 500 users strong, that rarely if ever snarls at newbies. In fact, whenever I join there are usually at least 3 people helping a newbie out with some or other problem. Give it a try before putting it down, you might like it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

Hunter Seeker
Securenet
huntrckr@softhome.net

#

All I hear is, if I create a document in OO, that other guy using M$ Office should be able to read it, and OO's "Save As MSOffice Document" sucks!! Here's an idea. Phone that "friendly, helpful" company you regularly fork money out to for software, and ask them to make their office-suite compatible with OpenOffice document formats. After all, you pay them for their software, while the OO developers give you their hard work for free.

because it's a competitive situation and we (linux users) are trying to take user space away from the Other Company. that Other Company is not going to do anything to make that process easier. nor should we expect them to do so. it is up to us to produce software that will persuade users to leave that Other Company's products behind.

mp

#

The claim that "openoffice is good for simple, general document production" simply isn't so.

I've written two books and a PhD thesis in Star/OpenOffice and it handles complex documents well.

What it doesn't do it transfer those document with Word users well, although that is improving all the time. Whether this matters to you depends on your task. It might not matter if you are doing a company-wide transition to Star/OpenOffice.

What OpenOffice *isn't* suited to is *simple* word processing documents. The MS Word and OpenOffice design teams have made differing choices. MS tend to make things easier for the first-time user whereas OO tends to make things easier for the intense user. This is best seen in the way paragraph numbering is applied.

#

I don't know what you're talking about. I use these exact things you're talking about and have no problems. I make my document in OpenOffice and then read it in Word or Excel, or Vice Versa. I've set read only attributes and, well, it becomes read only. I've set it so it can't be viewed, and low and behold it can't be viewed.

The only problems I've actually had have been when you use Macros, and quite frankly, using Macros isn't exactly that bright of an idea. Too many chances to cause major document damage if not loss. You may joke, but I've seen it happen on many occasions.

The object is, in the corperate world, to prevent as many "issues" from happening as possible. With Linux, the user doesn't have near us much of a chance of doing damaged (or for that matter downloading something from the internet, intentionally or not, to do damage) than with a Windows machine. You don't give a user 100% control over his machine do you? It's one thing for a home user to have the control to do anything they want to their machine, it's another for a corperate user.

#

If you do a learndirect course (http://www.learndirect.co.uk), you will be OBLIGED to use MSIE - Netscape will not support the environment and neither will Opera (even with the User-Agent set to MSIE).

I believe there are quiet misgivings about this lock-in which the less-than-technically-oriented MPs have gotten themselves into, but they're not acting quickly to change it.

At the end of the day of course, 95% of people use MSIE and the other 5% are just relegated - a quick call to the learndirect support line gives a response much like a typical computer harware vendor gave a few years ago when you asked about Linux support.

Perhaps I should suggest a learndirect course on Linux<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... ?

#

"Perhaps I should suggest a learndirect course on Linux<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... ?"

#

http://www.learndirect.co.uk/personal/freestuff/t<nobr>a<wbr></nobr> sters/#

teh one I tried worked for me with Opera 6.12 on SuSE 7.2 with the ID set to Opera.

It might just be one, but it suggests there is nothing fundamental there supporting lockin...

#

"It's simply a matter of corporate and user inertia that's keeping Linux marginalized."

No really, I think it is because the community bickers over whether or not it is ready by constantly writing more pointless articles about it.

#

It doesn't matter how good Linux is because computers come with an operating system that meets the needs of the vast majority of home and office users. There is right now an alternative OS (Mac) for those who "demand more". That alternative OS is always on the verge of Chapter 11 despite it's products being featured in just about every movie and TV show. End of story. Nobody's going to switch except for us ( 300 posts so far? )so give up this idea of conquering the desktop. Linux works best behind the sceens, and for those of us who like to tinker with alternative OSes.

#

The fact is that MS is making more and more propietary software. You love Word, Excel and all the junk MS throws at you? Of course! It there is nothing wrong with MS as long you use MS to work with MS. That is the point! There is no standard except for MS standard. Is like Apple PCs Mac talks to Mac that is why MS kicked their asses. Linux works good, it just too many MS desktops out there and MS is forced to to read Linux. At least you can make an effort and read MS with Linux. But as soon it gets easy, MS changes and Linux goes back to square 1.


    All it takes is a group to say no more!

#

i am at work at I picked up the phone an lost my train of thought! My appologies for that.

#

Right-on, pad're. No emotocent Euro_blathering collectivism here! Your rap defines good 'ol Am'rcan capitalism at its productive best. You crush-in my head or I bash yours to possum-guts. Like H. Ford said, ya can't make billion$$$ without breaking some weenier_dude eggs, eh<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...?

#

The only way to get Linux out there and take over is to give it to the younger generation and the only way to do this is to either make Linux run Windows games properly or the big game companies must start porting their games to Linux.

This is the main reason why I don't run Linux.

#

Linux has been a desktop os from the start and became a server.
The question isn't is Linux ready for "THE" desktop but is it ready for MOST desktops and the answer is yes. Is it ready for ALL desktop no.
Linux has some road to trale but your avrage user can handle it.
If your finding Windows to be easy you can use Linux if your fibding itvertually impossable then switching to Linux is a bad move.

#

Linux is ready for real men, windows for woman and managers (i don't wont to click too much, i will take the crashes for granted!@#)

#

For 8 agonizing years I was just another windows drone. If there were a security flaw (no matter how large or how small) I had to wait for Microsoft to analyze the problem, think of a solution, inform the users of the problem, then finally deploy the solution so that I may obtain it and apply it to my systems which were already breeched. We are not talking about a mattr of hours or days here; we are talking about weeks in most cases. Microsoft is the biggest distributor of proprietary software, and in my honest opinion, maintaining and writing proprietary software dramatically hurts a company in the long run; especially companies that hold an operating system as their flagship product. Linux (and other Unix variants) have one major advantage...open source. When most people hear open source, they think "That is the most insecure software you could use". This is simply not true. How many Linux/Unix systems have you heard of that were broken into? I have only heard of one and it was a system that I was in charge of. The only reason our security was breeched on this system is because someone didn't do their job correctly when setting up permissions and had made<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/sbin globally writable--hardly the fault of an open source operating system. For years *nix has been reliable and secure. Windows has many known security flaws, and many unknown ones. Personally, I don't want others outside of my company to see other customers credit card numbers, billing information, or other sensitive data. This is the reason I use open source in my company, and the reason I recommend open source solutions to my customers. With the source code all over the internet, thousands upon thousands of developers can team together and patch security holes within hours (and sometimes within minutes). A simple 'apt-get upgrade' will fix any flaws in the software I currently have. Open source is the way of the future--get it before it gets you.

#

The bottom line with Linux is that people stupid, don't like change, and don't possess the ability to think. The majority can only do what they are told to do. Society was rasied on windows. Society won't advance until we move away from from windows. Our only hope for society is that people start learning Linux and other open systems at a young age instead of the proprietary, closed thought systems.

And yes, I am saying that Windows is responsible for the downfall of society; or more specifically the thinking that windows is founded on. There needs to be a massive paradigm shift to save society. People who can't think can't see that, and will call this post crazy. So be it. The smart are out numbered. Therefore they can't control the world, they just live in it.

#

i certainly don't know if linux is ready or not for the desktop, but the fact is why should it be?
linux (as well as unix) was designed to be stable, secure and fast, not to be 'nice to new users'. if you want that, stay with windows, since it was specially designed for that. linux philosophy is different, and many posters are really missing the point here. what's happening with linux? i'll tell you: those tired of windows (because of lots of things) switch to linux (following the trends) and start directly with some gui (gnome, kde, etc) missing all the beauty contained in linux and it's consoles. that way they don't learn, they just use, as if it were windows. so, why switch? if you don't feel a tickle every time when, in the console, you see at the prompt: connected to ???.???.???.??? on port ??, or if you hated MS-DOS, then keep windows; linux is not for you, linux is something different, and was made originally with another view...now, i don't know where it is heading.

#

you are short sighted then. why can't linux win on the desktop ? because it's not "designed" to be "nice to users" ? come on. what is this, 1996 ?

we WANT people to start using Linux on the desktop. it'll allow the OS to get new users, and that means more development, and testing.

#

of course, you're right. i was just pointing out that many posters were missing the point here. i would like everybody to use linux, but not changing its philosophy. the new users must get used to linux (and i admit it's not an easy task), but not the other way round, which is what's happening now.

#

I *liked* DOS, hated Windows when it was first thrust upon me (3.1), and still hate it - albeit for more reasons today than just the GUI. Back then, many of us "If we wanted Windows, we'd have bought Macs" types thought we could just continue happily along with DOS.

We all know how that went.

There's nothing wrong with having several major platforms - it would be great if you could please the geeks (Linux), the graphical types (Mac), and the somewhere in betweens (Windows). Where the problem arises is getting all these people to be able to exchange information, and without jumping through hoops to do it. But as long as Redmond owns the world, it ain't gonna happen.

For Linux to survive, and break the lock MS has, it must offer something for the mainstream as well as the geeks. And Linux is in a far better position than Windows *or* Mac to do so: compile-it-yourself kits for the hard-core propeller-heads, full-featured, supported distros from Debian, SuSe, Mandrake, Red Hat, et al for business (albeit they could all use a bit of polishing), and simple, "I just want the damn thing to work" offerings from the likes of Xandros, Lycoris and Lindows.

But what they ALL need is some degree of standardization; to some degree, Linux must equal Linux, if it's ever going to go up against that Other Leading Brand. Until enough people use Linux so that the OLB can no longer call the shots, using Linux will always be like trying to use Opera in an Internet Explorer world.

Just because something's "better" doesn't mean it's going to win. Ask Sony about Beta.

#

i agree with you, but how to standarize? i would like some distros to come in two flavours, say advanced and basic (automatic configuring, dependency problem solved, etc.). that's a way to please all. and then try to compete with windows with the basic flavour, leaving the advanced for us.

#

A number of posts have said that users don't want to change. They say that users are more comfortable with something that is familiar.

If that's true, then Windows 95, 98, and NT users should be upgrading to Linux, instead of Windows XP.

The Windows XP user interface is quite different from earlier versions of Windows.

The Linux GUI, on the other hand, can be made very similar to the Windows 95/98/NT interface. For example, until recently I was using Windows NT at work, and Linux with IceWM (Ice Window Manager) at home. The way I had it configured, the appearance and behaviour of Linux+IceWM was so similar to Windows NT that I kept forgetting which one I was using!

The changes in the Windows XP user-interface may be one reason why so many people seem to be avoiding it. Of the dozen or so people I know who have tried Windows XP, all but two have gone back to their earlier versions of Windows. In fact, a couple of them are now experimenting with Linux.

My sister provides another example. For two years I have tried to convince her to try Linux, but she always said she was happy with Windows 95. Recently, however, she bought a new PC that came with Windows XP. Now, after two months, she tells me that she hates Windows XP, and she wants to try Linux. She said something about having to get all of her software re-authorized every time something goes wrong, but I didn't press her for details, because I no longer provide Windows support for my family.

Anyway, the point is that users who are afraid of change should stick with what they have now, because a switch to Windows XP can be just as big a change as a switch to Linux.

But for those who are ready to take a chance, Linux is a good alternative. And in terms of applications, switching from IE to Mozilla is a snap, and switching from MS Office to OpenOffice isn't bad either. In fact, I had more trouble switching from Word 6 to Word 97, with its single-window interface and strange default settings, than I had switching to OpenOffice.

So if you or your company are thinking about a switch to Windows XP, don't be hasty. Before you spend that money, you should at least give Linux a try to see if it will satisfy your needs.

#

Hi!

I have been doing Linux since around 1994. It has been good to me and been bad to me, but we got along and solved the few problems.

I think we should concentrate more on Linux and less on MS Windows. Linux isn't about snatching users from MS Windows. Linux is a open source development that offer everything everyone want in it.

To this matter now.

Linux ready for the desktop? Worth mentioning is that Linux is much more than just a desktop OS. In fact I do not think Linux=Desktop. Linux is Linux and X is X. Imho X is just the desktop management running under Linux. Linux itself been more than ready for a long time now and work flawless efter the orders I given it.

---

If we should do a test. Put up a room with boxes and Linux install material. Bring in the common users and let them have it.

Then. Put up another room with same boxes and Windows install material. Bring in the common users and let them have it.

The result would probably be that both groups will state that on the desktop matter neither of the desktops was ready.

The Linux users would probably say that Linux did everything that they told it to do and worked after that. And that they had control and flexibility at hand that gave them the possibility to design it after their personal needs. Since no person is like the other that is great. Their time installing and configuring took some time though. But they learned a lot of their boxes and how things actually work and that made them skilled in solving problems and the future problems they might have after the needs they will have. They also was capable of helping each other since they learned something from the power beneath the hood and the core of Linux.
Sure they had problems with the network card, configuring X and so on, but they had a lot of documentation and a lot of drivers going way back in history and one actually worked. They also had access to a lot of different programs and utilities and after installing linux they had a stable OS with a desktop option ready to run with applications that worked for them, untill they downloaded what they individually needed for free from the Internet.

The windows users would probably say that MS windows installed very flawless. In fact they klicked the buttons and so on and then had a coofee or two together as a whole group. They didn't learn anything from installing at all. They also found themselves with a OS and a desktop with no applications other than solitaire. However someone ventured into the admin tools and found a huge list of something telling them error and they suspected (Just suspected) that could this be a indication why noone of them had access to Internet. Someone mentioned the help files and they read them, but all the advices was useless. They did as it adviced them to do, and it didn't work. Since noone of them learned more than how to klick their mouse on a button they were all clueless and decided to have more coofee. Someone suggested calling a friend skilled in computers come and fix the problem (While they had some more coffee). There was more problems as well. The screen resolution was too small. What is screen resolution they wondered and relied that the guy they called would fix that too. Also, some cases Windows didn't do as they wanted no matter how hard they klicked the mouse, or how often they pressed the reset button. Some wize guy called Microsoft support and soon came to the wize conclusion that it was the most expensive and useless call he made in his life.

---

A little rough story. But since I work as a IT specialist, with sub groups as NT specialist with Linux speciality, this is the situation I encounter each day more or less. The windows users have abosolutely no clue, while the Linux users have a clue and just need either permission or some expertise hint and they fix it themselves as I watch (that is if I know them and trust that they will fix it, even if it is my job sometimes to fix it. But since they cannot work or likely while I fix it I gladly give them the chance to fix it instead and learn some more from it and I can attend to other problems. All happy).

So rather say is Linux ready for the desktop, I say:

Linux is ready for desktop. Windows is ready for desktop. But if the users are, is another thing. I tend to always say: People who develope and gain experience from stuff they do are the happiest people. And when comparing users among Windows and Linux; Linux users are way more happy.

They got more cash over and they learn, while they have all the freedom in the world. Not to mention that they can go to any forum and get help from people that really want just to help for free, just to make people happy and thus the community of Linux happier.

Linux is so much more than just an OS. It is teamwork and a social thing as well.

Is Linux and X ready for business? I say yes. Why do I say that? Because we are currently switching 400 MS Windows clients to Linux and X. Why do we do that? To save money. Why should we pay these expensive MS licenses when the users only use about 30 percent of Windows features and MS Office? Less administration and error managing. Lets face it. A configured Linux system work and keep working. No user will find their Linux crash like windows does when they boot up in the morning. The list of errors we encounter with MS Windows is long each day and it cost a lot of money and downtime. Not to mention that a lot of the errors are there just because the user don't have knowledge and crash it.

And I do bring up the business situation we have, since an OS has most purpose in a business in order to then develop into each home.

So looking at Linux and how long it been around and that it has purpose in business and at home as well, it is amazingly how far it has come. I am excited about the development the years to come. Linux will be amazing if development keep going as it has.

#

I liked most of your post, though I didn't agree with this part:

> [Regarding Linux] Sure they had problems with the network card, configuring X and so on,...

> The windows users would probably say that MS windows installed very flawless. In fact they klicked the buttons and so on and then had a coofee or two together as a whole group.

While some people experience things as you describe, I find that these days the experience is often the opposite.

The last few times I installed Red Hat or Mandrake Linux, the install went perfectly, including the network support, X-Windows configuration, and the automatic installation of dozens of applications.

On the other hand, the last two times I installed Windows for someone, it took two days. Not only did I encounter hardware problems and have to find drivers over the Net, but going through all those configuration menus, to check the security settings and so on, takes forever.

If you had stated your points as being true for some people, instead of suggesting that they were the norm, then I would have agreed.

#

Until the dependency problem is fixed, Linux, or Gnu/Linux, will never be ready for the desktop.

Windows has dependency problems? If they own 95% of the desktop, they can have all the dependency problems they want.

Linux isn't ready for the desktop. The dependency problem must be taken care of before Linux is ready for the desktop.

#

Just tried to install mplayer. Failed. Dependency problem.

Tried a few months ago to install Quanta Plus. Failed. Dependency problem.

Tried a few months ago to install Amaya. Failed Dependency problem.

Tried a few months ago to install Scribus. Failed Dependency problem.

Linux is ready for the desktop?

I've taken a Linux class. I've taken a Unix class. I've taken a programming class. I've been using Linux for two years as my primary desktop. I haven't booted into windows in over a half year or more.

I can install any program under windows, of all those I've tried, they have all worked. On occasion, I have to install a dll. Or another file. Big deal. It just works.

I have to wait for the next distro release to upgrade applications I need now because of this dependency bullshit?

If you tell me to rtfm, then Linux is not ready for the desktop. You don't have to rtfm for windows to install an application. In most circumstances, you click on "install", and it just works. And if it doesn't, it isn't a problem to fix it so it does work. And the non-techies can ask the person in the next booth, and get the help they need without calling the help desk. Especially when there is no help desk.

I detest ms. I stopped supporting relatives' computers at w98. And I haven't taken a day of training for any windows product, yet I can help out friends and business associates with 3.1/95/98/ME, and while I haven't worked with XP and 2000, I can still guess my way through it.

Until and unless the linux distros fix the dependency problem, linux will never be ready for the desktop. Windows may have dependency problems, but they are easy to overcome from my experience, and windows doesn't have any market share to gain. It only has market share to lose. If you can't understand the difference, you'll never understand why Linux just couldn't make it unless/until they decided to fix the dependency problem.

And don't tell me about debian/apt-get. When I want to start a fire, I use a lighter and flammable fluid. You want to rub two sticks together to prove you can make a fire? Do it yourself. You'll be the only one applauding yourself.

#

You never mentioned which distro you were using, but from reading the last line, I can make an educated guess that it wasn't Debian. The fact of the matter is that even Windows-based programs have dependecies (why else have all the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.dll files?) It's just that 99% of the programs for Windows is distributed on CDs while 99% of the programs for Linux are downloaded from websites. Simply put, unless you have broadbanc and lots of time on your hands, you're not going to want to download massively huge files, especially if the files are 1) duplicates to ones already installed and/or 2) older, buggier versions the ones already installed.

Yes, depecencies are a royal pain in the tuckus, but at least I know what's being installed and why I need it with Linux. There is a project underway to adapt the APT package for RPMs. That would be a big boon to the distros that use RPMs. As for now, I'll just want for my Debian distro to arrive.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

#

Your words could have come straight out of my fingers, right down to the "detest MS." But as tired as I am of the Redmond Beast, I am more tired of the Linux community's deafness - no, downright hostility - to criticism.

I currently run Linux (except when forced to run Windows, which is still more often than I'd like), but more in protest than pleasure. I want to run Linux more for what it is than for what it isn't. But until this thick-headed bunch of Penguinheads can open their minds, the Beast will have nothing to worry about. And that's a damn shame.

#

Want Linux on the Desktop to win? Make an installable cd that can cluster together some of the $200 Walmart boxes and have that process Gimp files.

Cheap Linux clustering? Make it simple, so that files processed by graphics artists and cad users can be split up and processed by multiple Walmart boxes. Make this possible, and more people will help develop Gimp and cad apps faster when they start realizing what cheap Linux clustering can do for their applications.

It has to be a simple CD install for the nodes and main workstation, with as little or no configuration, and the Gimp and the cad apps need to be able to split the work load to take advantage of the parallel processing automatically, without programming.

Do this and development on Gimp will reach an astronomical rate, and you will have Mac users migrating in droves in less than 12 months.

cad? Get the cheap linux clustering, and you will have dual diploma dudes working on architect plans by day, and hacking away at the gnu cad programs by night. They will be salivating at the thought of linux clustered cad applications.

#

For more than a decade now, a criminal monopolist corporation has used propaganda to convince the world that their product is the only solution. They have been the cause of all the insecurities imaginable that one can presently find on the WWW and in business and personal computing. They have had a decade to get their security straight, and they have failed. Use of their products require the purchase of other products that try, mostly unsuccessfully, to correct the inherent virus problems associated with their products. The criminal corporation is responsible for the loss of billions of dollars worldwide, not only because of their overpricing, but because of the inherent insecurity of their topheavy and poorly coded systems, weaknesses which leave them prey to every script kiddy and cyber criminal in the world.

So NO, Windows is NOT ready for the desktop yet.

#

One word: GAMES! And I'm not talking solitare here. Check the number and quality of the games available for the Windows vs. Linux. Oh, sure, some big name titles have been ported (Quake, Unreal), but not enough in numbers or diversity. Since the Linux kernel can be optimized to perform on the individual's computer, among other reasons, games like Unreal or Neverwinter Nights should flat out spank the Windows versions on *gasp* older/cheaper hardware. (Okay, maybe not too old, but certainly won't require the latest generation of Nvidia graphics card, either.) And since computer games is about the only tech segment showing any real grow, Linux should prove to be a rich, untapped resource of future revenue.

Oh, and the truth of the matter is, if the teenage son is fragging his buddies on a Linux box, sooner or later the parents are going to learn Linux, if, for no other reason, than to try and limit juinor's online escapades. (Yeah, like that'll work.) LOL

#

I think your forgetting a group of people that Linux distros should be targetting...the people who just don't know any better.

For the average user, learning a new OS is like learning a new language. It simply takes them so much longer to do something productive with Linux than with Windows because they are used to Windows. What about the people out there who've never really had a computer or have barely used one. They have no frame of reference, I mean, for all they know, it should take them 2 hours and 19 websites to get their printer working perfectly.

All jokes aside though, businesses with tons of machines than run a few basic apps would benefit from Linux. A customer service center, for example. Where people are taking calls, login calls, maybe some email, etc. Point of sale systems, etc. Linux does it well because it does not require a broad range of software.

I think that Linux is very close to being ready for the desktop but in the meantime, your better off bying macs. You get the stability of unix with good apps.

#

Dear All,
our company is planning to shift from windows to linux, but we are kinda stranded as to how to go about the shift. Any ideas on where to start and how to go about this. We want to run windows and linux parallel and want s/w applns that are compatible with both the OS.

#

hi all...i just can't undestand why many of you really need linux. if you are planning to listen to music, write a letter, surf the web, view some photos, even compile one or another program, and the like, why do you need linux? i know that for a number of you (those who run a company) it's a matter of cost, but that's not the case for the majority of you (or that's what i get from reading your posts). windows can do all that fairly well (and i'm talking about w98 -the others versions are pretty less stable). personally, i use linux for other things -not music, games, etc.- the things unix was made for.
my point is, why switch if you don't intend to learn real computing, if you want the easy way?
the keyword here is functionality. linux is stable, secure, fast and provides functionality. but to get all this you have to pay a price: learn a lot. most people don't want that, but a computer that runs linux and is not properly configured has more security holes than a computer running windows. most people switch to linux seeking security, but end up leaving their machines with LOTS of holes. others, seek free programs, but there are thousands of freeware for windows. others, want to follow the trend, and install Mandrake. others, want to learn, and those end up understanding linux and loving it. so, before switching to linux, make sure you know why you are switching, or you'll probably get dissapointed.

#

hi the basic idea behind switching to linux esp for those who run a company is not only cost cutting, but also to avoid all the licensing issues. Too much of licensing is being involved with the windows OS and the MS products. Heard they are goin to make such issues more stringent. Hence i guess the shift. But, can any of you pls suggest where a company can start when it wants to shift to linux or atleast do a crossover.

#

even Deb made miracles for us both server side and desktop side. we merely had 1 windows workstation on the 10 or 12 plus servers. I succesfuly run Deb unstable without too much problems with brand new Gnome 2.2 and kde 3.x simply installed with apt, it coudnt get more simpler! i mean anyone who made 4 lines of DOS could figure it out, especially with tools like dselect to leech all updates violently<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)

openoffice is usable, abiword is getting better, kivio and dia are quite good, gnumeric does the job, and there's enough software in those 12000 packages to build you any business<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;) from vox boxes to office file and print servers, and stuff like that. anyway our business relies on 90% free software, for multimedia, office editing, printing, ledger (sql-ledger), crm (hacked up opencrm), request-tracker, and we built several useful tools using lamp applications.

i think people that complains that linux isnt fit for desktop use are rather gamers and browsers that want to run the latest windows executable on the web. i thrive for more safety.

but i manage to do everything i need from viewing divx movies through xine and mplayer, listen to mp3z/oggs (mp3s will surely dissapear as soon as the format gets enforced), you can play dvds, vcds, anything.

one could easily customize a kind of "set-top" box Debian based distro especially made to be compiled on recent machines with framebuffers and all the stuff. even if the project chooses to build on very restricted type hardware, in order to play games with winex and stuff, that would kick. of course we would have to recompile and repackage some drivers to tune them to the use but it may be worth it. freevo is a friggin good start (and nice looking) why not use it as a base interface, add mozilla firebird and thunderbird for web and mail, and an application menu to put on apps like openoffice, xine player or others. could even customize the whole thing so it's user transparent a bit like Lycoris or other cute linux distros.

this type of setup could revolutionnize the actual market. instead of buying game consoles, people could buy a 199$ walmart box and turn it into something that isnt a PS2, but for hardcore game amateurs that absoluuutely needs windoes, why not make a ez-wizard to allow the installation on a preprepared 1 gig partition and install apps on an automounted samba share or even this setup could store all media on a fat32 partition or somethin. this could lead to a progressive path to linux for this special field of computing that is gaming. for the rest i think linux is quite impressive when you look at it and that it cannot do better than evolve more in the future.

c ya

#

The biggest problem that I have with linux is the library hell that you have to go through to install some simple apps. One program depends on XYZ lib-devel, XYZ lib-devel depends on XYZ lib, XZ lib depends on XXX lib... etc. After about 5 levels of dependency, I normally give up and try to find another app to do the job.

Linux is NOT ready for grandmothers and (non IT) managers to use. It probably will be soon, but it is not right now.

Fact the facts.

#

I have spent a lot of time working on a couple of helpdesks for end users, and now am a computer teacher.

One of the reasons "besides the evil empire" why a free Linux is not sweeping thru the corporate and home desktop worlds is because it has too many choices and options in the start menu, yes it can be configured to look like a much cleaner XP or Mac desktop but by default it is not. We all know the 95% of the users out there know little to nothing about computers and the shear overwhelming number of choices for included programs actually scares people away. You only need one good text editor, one calculator, one web browser, etc….

The second reason is the obviously familiarity with Windows is a huge factor. There is a huge comfort factor with the name Microsoft. Many people even refer to Windows or Office as Microsoft, and when these people will go to buy a computer they will want to see those names in advertisement.

The third reason is Windows and Office is what most people use at work, and when they go home and have to buy a computer they will want to see it there as well. So why are companies not switching to Linux and OpenOffice as fast as we would like since they are “free”?

Answer : familiarity with Microsoft products on all corporate levels from the CIO , analyst , techs , helpdesk , and finally the end user.

#

Your post argues taht most people are not going to want to use Linux. Fine. But that says nothing about whether Linux "is ready for the desktop."

Just as an aside, to say that Linux is not popular "because it has too many choices and options in the start menu" is to criticise some particular desktop design, Red Hat's or SuSE's, I imagine. It is not a criticism of Linux. Unlike Windows, Linux does not have a desktop welded on top of it. Moreover, if you don't like the default start menu on, say, KDE 3.1, you are perfectly free to change it.

#

Linux IS ready for the corporate desktop. There is a huge set of supported devices. There is a wide selection of fully capable standard office productivity software, notably StarOffice 6.0. Essentially all programming and scripting languages are accessible. There is a vast wealth of compilers, editors, and development platforms. A wide rage of specialized business tools, for example, the vastly powerful SAS statistical software system (see www.sas.com), are available in versions that run on Linux. Networking Linux machines is a breeze. Linux does not enslave your business to a relentless upgrade schedule. And Linux comes dirt cheap.

The frequently mentioned point that Linux apps are not so easy to install washes away with a little knowledge of how the system works, which corporate IT personnel may be expected to have.

Sheesh, what more does Linux need to have? The only thing in the corporate world working against desktop Linux is the relucance of IT managers, and their personnel, to go with something new.

#