Linux.com

Every time I read such articles a question from Windows user always comes up.

The question was pretty innocent: "Windows has Windows Network, but what's Linux network?"

Come to think about it, even Mac OS has its own network environment where bunch of Macs can integrate smoothly and use each' others shared resources.

But Linux is different. Every damm zealot screams about Windows integration, while nobody really tries to make Linux own network where different Linuxes can play nicely with each other, making end-user experience 1st class. And as long as Linux would be dependent on reverse engineering of Windows protocols (which are bogus and incomplete to begin with) integrating Linux into any environment would remain a hurdle.

You Windows plug into network - and here you have (sometimes) your environment and shared resources. You plug Mac OS into network and it would find AppleTalk shares as well as ZeroConf (Rendez-vous/Bonjour) resources. You plug Linux into network ... right and now the integration has to start... as usually manually.

#

> The question was pretty innocent: "Windows has Windows Network, but what's Linux network?"

It's only three letters : NFS

With some shared login/userid database (with pam_mysql, for example), you get the uid consitency across client boxes needed for NFS to be happy, and you're done.

#

That's just a load of BS. I use Ubuntu 7.10 with Windows and Macs on the same network and they all talk to one another without problems. All of my computers print to my Ubuntu 7.10 server without problems.

The people who are bitching clearly don't read and understand what they need to do to make things work. Grow up!

PS - I've be doing things this way for years.

#

Ummm...the issue being discussed here is that of a multi-tiered, multi-user environment...not your home LAN. Ubuntu (and the Linux kernel) are beautifully designed as OPEN SOURCE software. When the Ubuntu support team makes !BILLIONS! of dollars a day, expect more personalized, distributable solutions. Yes, any Linux distro requires a certain level of "self support", but for that distro to be accepted by the masses, there needs to be some baseline compatibility. Right now, the focus for Ubuntu, or any other Linux based OS is to promote the value of open source software. I applaud the programmers and software designers, but for Linux to be taken seriously, and to compete with the "big boys", more people and more money need to be involved. Support open-source software. The very core of Ubuntu mandates it. =)

#

The people who are bitching clearly don't read and understand what they need to do to make things work.

My point was that under Windows and Mac OS you just start system and it all works somehow.

Under Linux they always have to "understand what they need to do." And that's the hurdle (it becomes one) you have to overcome every time you install new system. And it becomes hurdle because you always need to do something. Always. Gosh, most distros can't even ship a default secure ftpd config!!! (e.g. SUSE and Ubuntu ship ftpd configs leaving your system open for any anonymous idiot on net to see your hard drive - yet they forbid legit user to login) Needless to say that samba config always requires tinkering - in worst case Windows clients also require registry hacks for samba to be able to do anything at all.

P.S. To load of B.S. about NFS I'm saying nothing because people saying that NFS is Linux networks apparently never tried to setup and use NFS. On any kind of scale. That damm thing requires full time administrator + two psychologists to keep him sane.

#

"P.S. To load of B.S. about NFS I'm saying nothing because people saying that NFS is Linux networks apparently never tried to setup and use NFS. On any kind of scale. That damm thing requires full time administrator + two psychologists to keep him sane. "



I think you've slipped past sane...



To set up a NFS server takes about 1 minute using the YAST tools (GUI tools at that) included in OpenSuse, and even less time to add a client.



STOP SPEAKING OF THINGS YOU HAVE NOT RESEARCHED!!



KV

#

I think THIS COMMENT is a bunch of BS. First of all, your statement about all your computers printing to your Ubuntu 7.10 server proves that YOU clearly don't read. Here's a direct quite from the article:

"This poses a problem for my organization: the only way to make a migration really work would be to switch the servers first to eliminate compatibility issues"

Now, before anyone else gets in a huff that such is not the case - hold your horses! I didn't say I necessarily agree with the author's statement, I'm just pointing out that the logic used in the comment above is completely bass-ackwards! Furthermore, the incessant cries of so many FOSS defenders against any criticism is really starting to pee me off. What's so difficult in taking some honest criticism from someone who WANTS to use alternative systems/applications but gets frustrated with unexpected hurdles that never even had to be considered while using the "mainstream" offerings? The repeated wailing such as: "_people who are bitching clearly don't read and understand what they need to do to make things work_" may be true, but the point is, should they have to? If someone isn't technologically inclined, doesn't understand how the underlying foundation that is running the system operates, doesn't think in technical terms, and doesn't want to spend the time to learn because they have better things to do, should they HAVE to stick with using Windows? A senior manager in a small business isn't going to read the instructions - it should *just work*! When my mother comes home after a full day of teaching at school and goes across the street to play with her grandchildren, she shouldn't HAVE to understand ANYTHING about computers to be able to send me some pictures of them playing later that evening. And I know that the job of the IT guy is to make it work and not a concern of the average user, but if the IT guy has to sit and rotate on his thumb while reading about what hoops need to be jumped through to make things work, then that means he's not using his time for more important issues! Criticism about Linux is not a bad thing - it means people WANT to use it, but it's not ready for everyone yet. It's a sign that things are going in the right direction, but may need work on specific areas, which is a GOOD thing!!!

PPS - Yes, YOU'VE been doing things that way for years! I guess anyone's hopes that YOU would have grown up by now are becoming quite faint!

#

"Windows has Windows Network, but what's Linux network?" - the best question I've read last days ;-)

#

Link to your website is unfortunately not very useful, except that the whole world now knows that your apache server works. An email address for contact might have been more efficient :-) Anyway. I have done a whole office migration, but obviously we were not using the same tools. I don't really have space here to tell the whole story, but in a nutshell:
1) Are you sure Unbuntu is the best solution ? I am not a distro zealot, and I understand it is very popular, but I also know that different distribution have different publics, and different "best use". While Unbuntu is certainly perfect for home use, you might find RedHat or SuSE better suited to office use.
2) You won't need that long once your basic config is done. Just make sure you note every step you take, also to be able to backtrack, and then make a script. I did the migration in 3 phase:
a) one pilot station, config each app at the time. Took about a week of daily checks to fine tune the config.
a2: create a script that will replicate the changes to the initial config on any machine. Alternately, some distro let you make a "pre-seed" install config file but I was familiar with scripting and did not think it was worth learning.
b) test the config on a larger group, modify script as needed. My own script started from basic install and added everything that was needed, removing what was useless. This phase is usually way faster since it is only a matter of polishing. But it is worth waiting a week or two to see if anything pops up.
c) migrate everybody. In my case, I left some with a dual boot for a transitionnal period when it was justified.
All in all, it took a couple of months to get everybody migrated, ie to the same level of service than with NT (back then).
One additionnal hint: don't think wine. Unless you have something really very specific, chances are that whatever you are using has a decent linux equivalent. In my (admittedly very limited) experience (*), and without bashing the wine developpers who do a fantastic job, wine is just a crutch. the sooner you get rid of it, the better.

(*: I've never used windows for anything serious. I've been working on mainframes, unix stations, and OS/2; so I never developped a need or addiction for any specific windows program)

Good luck and keep on trying, you'll see it is worth it. I don't think the cost of adjusting/training is really justified. Basically, a word processor is a word processor and a spreadsheet a spreadsheet, unless you are a real power user :-)
And that cost will more than certainly be offset by the decrease in hardware costs (not to mention licences).
Cheers

Thunus F.

#

--- probably the most useful comment as far as actually providing constructive answers/solutions.

#

To the first two commentators, do you know what LDAP is? I'm guessing no, because Linux and Unix pretty much started LDAP systems and creating an LDAP server in Linux is not only free and easy to do, but can then be used on MAC and Windows networks.

Well some of the complaints in this article actually have nothing to do with Linux or Ubuntu, examples:
[QUOTE]

You can then log in with your network username and password -- easy. In Ubuntu you have to follow this guide, which is far from easy, and I've struggled to make it work consistently.

This is more of a problem with using Windows AD. M$ is a monopoly so it's not in their interest to make a system that plays nicely with other OS'. And why do you want to authenticate to AD at login anyways? What would be the point? You should still be able to access all the same resources with a valid UID and password. Then for administration you can just remote into other boxes. Which is what I do anyways with my Windows box at work. I certainly never administer AD from my work system.

[QUOTE]
Unfortunately I can't view or modify the file security settings, so I have to open a remote connection to the server using GNOME's rdesktop client to change permissions!

Again, this should be done from remoting into the server and never directly from a box.

[QUOTE]
I miss some functionality, such as the "keep text formatting" option when you paste text into a document or spreadsheet.

This is not the fault of OpenOffice, but user error. What you want to do is use is "Paste Special" every Office Suite has this capability.

The problem with your email is again M$ ability to play nicely with others, which is no ability at all. And this is also the driver problem people experience with printers and other devices. Manufactures are unwilling to work with Linux.

#

You talk about PhoneManager not working with Wine. Have you considered some alternatives? Many linux users (myself included) use vmware or kvm to run applications that don't work in wine, or don't work well in wine for which there are no alternatives available. I would recommend the first step here is to evaluate whether some over VoIP client for your phone system exists that will run in linux, if that won't work, check out using vmware to run it. you could also set up a 2x application server (www.2x.com) and share out that app.

#

Full interoperability is clearly an important goal and efforts to bridge the gap between network environments with smoothly operating tools would be great. But a different network environment for each operating system seems less desirable than a standardized network environment. Some may benefit from keeping their user-base isolated through non-cooperativity in design/standards though. It's more difficult for a pack member to stay with a "leader", than it is for the "leader" to stay with him/herself. So separate networks will require continuing effort toward solutions. Much of the well-written article cites Linux interfacing with Windows network/servers/software as incomplete - which it is - but it's worth noting that Windows interfacing with Linux network/servers/software is almost non-existent. I realize the issue is movement from Win to Lin, but the disparity in this 2-party interaction warrants consideration of which better supports end users.

Different points/experiences:
1) How would a migration from a Linux environment to a Windows environment compare with respect to interoperability? Are many features you cited specific to the Windows environment/implementation such that similar difficulties (or more) would arise from the alternate perspective? How well does Win Office handle documents from other office packages? Most of the time, not at all.
2) I often have issues with MS PPT not maintaining text formatting when pasting, and MS PPT on Win vs Mac is a perpetual headache, even though a single company provides both PPT versions.
3) Graphics in Calc appear considerably better than Excel to me, but as someone who always uses specialized graphics programs for work, my standards appear to be higher than most. Calc is closer to satisfying than Excel though.
4) Which is more sophisticated: A system that works with itself but not others, or a system that works with itself and others imperfectly?

Just a perspective...

#

The weakness of Linux is in the apps. Try setting up a Linux environment that has the same features as a Windows environment, and it will fall short. I also think you're right when you say that Linux should integrate easily into a Windows environment, since, even though we may not like it, it is a major part of our lives. I wish more people would work on developing the software that really matters, such as Openoffice.org. At the current rate of development, it will never reach the level of MS Office. We get lots of different distributions with fluffy features, but it seems to me that the things that really matter to most businesses, like software for office, education, accounting, etc., often seem to be sidelined.

#

In terms of layout capability, OpenOffice Writer has exceeded MS Word. Word can't even handle captions right. I won't argue on Excel though. It's the only thing Microsoft ever did right.

#

Did you try running the installer program for Avaya PhoneManager under Wine?

On the Wine AppDB database you link to, the shell command you issued (wine /media/disk/Program Files/...) suggests you tried to run your executable directly from the installation found on the Windows partition. This won't work (except for very simple self-contained programs), for the same reason merely copying the entire application folder over to a new Windows machine and trying to run the same executable won't work - all the registry entries written by the installer, all the COM objects installed at c:\windows\system32, etcetera, are missing on the new system. You should try running the installer on Wine (which *is* a self-contained program, or should be), and then running the executable from the newly installed directory on the Linux drive. On GNOME and KDE, wine even adds a launcher to the application menu under the entry "Wine".

Now, if the installer actually fails, or the program won't run even after the installer apparently finished successfully, you should file a bug report at http://bugs.winehq.org

#

Are you a real professional doing this for some company rather than yourself? If so then I really don't
get the whining about the howto's. I've had to seek out and apply howto's to deal with brain damaged
things that Outlook likes to do. If you are an IT person, you are basically paid to be willing to read the
manuals.

Admittedly, Unix doesn't proceed from an intruder friendly "lets bare our knickers to the world" sort
of security model. So "browsing" NFS shares might not make as much sense as doing the same
with CIFS.

#

The whole point of the fundamental architecture of Windows and Microsoft servers and applications is make this sort of interoperability impossible. You locked yourself into a customer-hostile, closed computing environment, and you're blaming Ubuntu? Dude. Get a grip. Your problem is not Linux, but Microsoft, which has invested literally billions of dollars into breaking standards, foiling interoperability, and pressuring hardware vendors (like your printers) to not support any platform but Windows. You haven't been paying attention for those six years of FOSS advocacy if you thought Ubuntu was going to plug into your Windows network so easily a monkey could do it.

Now. There are ways out, and the first is no Ubuntu. It simply doesn't have Windows integration tools all prefab and shiny and ready to rock. You want Xandros, which is the easiest Linux to plug into a Windows network. File and printer sharing, authentication, AD integration- it's all there out of the box.

Next, you should be replacing your servers first, not your desktops. Windows servers are crap on wheels, they do not support real standards, and by design are very difficult to use with other platforms.

If you're serious about breaking the grip of the bully, you can do it.

#

Logging into windows 2003 Login Server:

You say: "In Ubuntu you have to follow this guide, which is far from easy"

The same guide says "The SADMS package allows for automated joining to Active Directory through a GUI interface. http://sadms.sourceforge.net/" What was wrong with that?

Avaya PhoneManager:

Avaya PhoneManager not working with Wine really is not an Ubuntu problem at all. If Avaya doesn't see a market for it in Linux world, they have no motivation to make it work in any Linux distribution at all and it would be prudent to look for an alternative phone manager.

Setting up VPN:

Setting up VPN has always been a pain irrespective of operating system. Have you considered using Hamachi https://secure.logmein.com/products/hamachi/download.asp? If the terminal semantics are too much or undesirable, there is a GUI front end available at http://www.penguinbyte.com/software/ghamachi/ . Both work for me.

Summary:

You say: "But it would probably take me the best part of an afternoon to set up a new PC for a colleague to use Ubuntu, whilst it takes me about 30 minutes with a computer that has Windows XP pre-installed."

Isn't that just a tad skewed comparison? Setting up Ubuntu from a scratch to a clean machine versus tinkering with pre-installed Windows? Come on!

#

Bullsh*t. Grow up and learn!

#

Wow, did you learn that all on your own? Thanks for enlightening us all.

#

Tom Chance,

I appreciate your article. It is a pity that Ubuntu is so hard to integrate into a windows network. The truth is I don't think the Ubuntu community or Canonical really thinks it is that important to integrate into the windows network on the client. There is work to get Ubuntu servers to connect to windows networks for Hardy and there has been some talk about getting the client to work in a windows network but it's mainly been all talk and no action. The problems with other distributions is either you're going to pay a fair bit (in which case there is no cost advantage over windows) or you get a distribution that is obsolete in a year and has no security updates after that (ie fedora). I suspect your best bet is to stick with windows but try and use opensource applications as much as you can. Eventually Ubuntu may have good windows integration support or one of the other free distributions may offer longer support for security updates. By the way I use Ubuntu at home and enjoy it. However, I don't know why it has taken them so long to support naming services without having to do a series of steps. I suspect it's because the average user doesn't need to do this.

#

WTF, VPN hard?

Install network-manager-pptp ("apt-get install network-manager-pptp" or use Synaptic).
Click NetworkManager->VPN Connections->Configure VPN...
Click Add.
Click Forward.
Choose Connect To: PPTP Tunnel.
Click Forward.
Enter connection name and gateway IP.
Click Forward.
Click Apply.
Click NetworkManager->VPN Connections->NewConnectionName.
Enjoy.

Note: If you don't want to use the VPN connection for everything, during configuration, also browse to "routing" tab, and limit the IP's the VPN is used for.

#

Apparently Fedora Core lets you login using a Windows Domain Login. It has been suggested as a feature in Ubuntu but not offered yet.

#

Ok I'll bite. First off you explain that licensing is only a small percentage of the cost of the software. The main issue is support right ? then you say initially Linux support costs will rise but after that it's hoped that it will decrease ? So if licensing costs aren't an issue and suse will integrate well. ...why not spend the cash ? I don't understand. You've already experienced the problems of being locked into a solution by Microsoft but your then saying your unwilling to spend any money to get out of this lock in , and instead ..you would rather continue to pay ( because you have support costs hence the reason you said you wanted to switch) money to keep being locked in.

Wha? I don't understand your logic. Surely if anything, you want to get out of being locked into a single vendor as soon as possible. if it's a choice between spending a small amount of money now, or a larger amount of money down the track (continually large support costs) , why would you not bite the bullet and pay what you need to now, so you can get away from the vendor lock in ?

#

Simple - because the sums required aren't small in the context of our (charity) IT budget, and small charities can't invest in the same way that a business can. You need to guarantee specific funding for the current financial year and it's very, very difficult to persuade anyone to specifically fund IT infrastructure costs, or to increase unrestricted funding that we can spend on anything, such as IT.

#

Yes, thats exactly right. Continuing to pay more money to be locked in, makes no sense to me either. I'd switch as soon as I could.

#

Reading the article is like reading a compendium of my own woes!!! I am a FLOSS enthusiast for the past 10 years & "use" FLOSS for most of my stuff these days. But am not much of a coder. I evangelize FLOSS, I have my volunteer group that sets up computer labs at schools for free & does only FLOSS. I am one of the official developers of a test management system. Etc., etc.

But am deeply grieved to see the responses. People just don't understand that in the huge organizations that we work, especially in a position that cannot influence the IT infrastructure (and thus throw out M$), we few zealots have to put up with lots of grueling stuff. Having to go through pretty arduous steps to configure authentication to AD server is too much & I haven't yet done it, for lack of sufficient time.

We are the guys who are trying to infiltrate the M$ bastions & show to the powers that be in our orgs that there are far better options than M$, but if all we get are brickbats for trying to show what needs to be improved further, its a shame.

Lets just have one aspect burnt in our minds ... if we want to have world dominance ... we need to see to it that we provide what the end users want, not what the geeks & nerds want ...which means that it is not about having the freedom to control the OS thats going to matter in the fight (though it is needed for us) ... but its the luxury of getting things done automagically thats going to win the battle finally.

aDOTpremkumarATgmailDOTcom

http://scorpfromhell.blogspot.com

#

Change your servers....

#

The approach you are using can never work. Microsoft will make sure that nothing will ever integrate with Windows seamlessly. What you are asking the Linux community to do is to forever play catch-up with the latest obfuscated, proprietary protocol to come out of Redmond. Not only is it impossible to achieve 100% integration if you're always playing catch-up to a moving target, but also, trying to do so would mean we'd have no time to innovate.

There are some pieces of advice that might help you.

First: printers should be connected to a Linux or Unix server. Run Samba so that Windows machines can use them seamlessly. Print serving is much more advanced on Linux and Unix than on Windows - it's never necessary for every machine on the network to install a special printer driver for every different model of printer being used (though you can let them do that if they want).

Then, you have some major misconceptions:

One of my most common tasks is working with Microsoft Office documents.

If you want to "work with" Microsoft Office documents then use Microsoft Office on Microsoft Windows. Microsoft's file formats are designed, and regularly changed, so that nothing else will ever work 100%. The import facilities in OpenOffice are good enough if you want to convert a document once, and thereafter maintain it in the standardized, well-specified, OpenOffice format.

Another irritation with Evolution is that it doesn't understand links to files in a Windows format (bug report)

The fact that Evolution does not track every proprietary incompatibility with standards devised by Microsoft does not constitute a bug. There may be some way to get Exchange/Outlook to use standard URLs; investigate that; if there isn't, accept the fact that Microsoft spends a huge amount of money and effort designing incompatibility into its products. It really does take two to tango.

#

"The approach you are using can never work. Microsoft will make sure that nothing will ever integrate with Windows seamlessly. What you are asking the Linux community to do is to forever play catch-up with the latest obfuscated, proprietary protocol to come out of Redmond. Not only is it impossible to achieve 100% integration if you're always playing catch-up to a moving target, but also, trying to do so would mean we'd have no time to innovate."

AMEN!

"First: printers should be connected to a Linux or Unix server. Run Samba so that Windows machines can use them seamlessly. Print serving is much more advanced on Linux and Unix than on Windows - it's never necessary for every machine on the network to install a special printer driver for every different model of printer being used (though you can let them do that if they want)."

Alternatively, if you have the power to do so, you can make it mandatory that the Windows clients have the Bonjour client installed. Easy cheesy, can connect to Cups, and also works with any modern networked printer.

'If you want to "work with" Microsoft Office documents then use Microsoft Office on Microsoft Windows. Microsoft's file formats are designed, and regularly changed, so that nothing else will ever work 100%. The import facilities in OpenOffice are good enough if you want to convert a document once, and thereafter maintain it in the standardized, well-specified, OpenOffice format.'

Again, amen. Plus, I don't buy that argument that people NEED 100% compatibility with Office. Do some minor conversion on your end, save it as ODF once, and if you need to do document interchange, 99.9% of the time you'll be better off sending a PDF anyway. PDF is an interchange format. A .DOC is not. And the final reason I don't buy that argument about needing 100% compatibility is that, back when WordPerfect was king, MS obviously didn't need 100% perfect WPD support to steal the market, and ditto for Lotus 1-2-3.

"The fact that Evolution does not track every proprietary incompatibility with standards devised by Microsoft does not constitute a bug. There may be some way to get Exchange/Outlook to use standard URLs; investigate that; if there isn't, accept the fact that Microsoft spends a huge amount of money and effort designing incompatibility into its products. It really does take two to tango."

The thing I find astounding is that a KDE PR person isn't pressuring the powers-that-be to switch from proprietary Exchange to something free like Kolab ( http://www.kolab.org/ ), or isn't looking at installing Kubuntu and using the Kontact Exchange plugin, which will support Exchange 2000. Kubuntu is my distro of choice, and for KDE users, it's as wonderful as Ubuntu is for GNOME users.

And I agree with several others and add that this seemed like far too shallow an analysis and more of a bitchfest about how GNOME isn't chasing Microsoft's tail fast enough. We get enough of those from ZDNet; let's hear some real analysis.

#

Spectacular point missing.

Go right back to square 1. Watch Revolution OS. Consider WHY proprietary systems are difficult to integrate with. It's supposed to be easier for you to buy the solution.

You represent a charity, but choose to use proprietary formats which cost you money.

How on Earth are you justifying using anything but free and open systems and formats to begin with ?

#

Thanks for all the helpful tips. Quickly to respond to some comments...

Investing in migrating the servers, better support, etc. I completely agree, in theory. The problem that I face is a charity IT budget - it's extremely tight so it will take a lot of work to justify any short term increase, even if it _might_ offer long term savings. I need to prove the benefits and then find some funding. An additional issue is that there are lots of companies in south London who offer support for a Windows network, but very few for Linux/BSD/etc. so I have to find them all to convince management that we're not getting ourself into an uncompetitive market.

I'm too thick, missed this step, etc. - if a free software advocate and user of 6 or so years struggles, what hope does the average IT staff in a small business or charity have? Not every organisation has a team of qualified UNIX engineers on hand!

Microsoft lock in - Again, all true, my article isn't intended to say "Linux is hopeless" but simply a detailed account of the problems and joys that *Ubuntu* presents when trying to interoperate with various Windows technologies. I hope it is useful both to developers and others in my position!

#

there are lots of companies in south London who offer support for a Windows network, but very few for Linux/BSD/etc

That's strange, I got 4000 hits when I searched Google. There are even 6 London support companies specializing in Ubuntu listed
<a href="http://www.ubuntu.com/support/commercial/marketplace/europe">here</a>

.

#

Why do so many comments assume that other people are complete idiots? Frankly if you've ever worked in IT, or indeed any position of responsibility, you'd know that a Google search tally is completely meaningless. I'm looking for something quite specific to match our budget and support needs. I've gone through various directories and used the excellent Open Source Consortium and so far I have a list of three companies who might fit the bill.

#

Some of the people saying its so easy should come to your office for NO COST and help you out for a day . Showing you how to do it. If anyone wants to take over anything there must be unity. It sounds like your charity would like to convert, but currently do not know how. I hope you continue researching and post another follow up article when you are successful.

#

An earlier post nicely explained things - 'Seriously wrong approach' - December 14, 2007 09:10 AM.

99.9% of issues that other Operating Systems and products have with integration is entirely due to Microsoft deliberate policy of non co-operation, obfuscation, and breaking de facto standard compliance through proprietary extensions. If you use Microsoft you are tying yourself to an organisation which will make damn sure you never leave.

Truly open standards and product is the answer. However be wary, in the past many customers have been fooled by Microsoft deliberate policy of embrace, extend and extinguish. As a consequence, customers have ended up tied to a proprietary and closed solution which only Microsoft can fully support and was too prohibitively expensive to move away from.

#

While I echo some of the comments about MS is set up to prevent interoperability, and it has been demonstrated in court, I think the crux of the matter is the statement of trying to integrate an Ubuntu machine into a Windows network.

First, Ubuntu is not the only or necessarily best Linux distro out there. many distros are "geared" to fill certain niches, so trying out different istros may help you find some ready-made tools not in other distros.

More importantly, you refer to your network as a windows network..

Coming from an old LAN tech POV, NO network should ever be described a s solely relying on one vendors protocols, etc for operability. This limits the extendability of the network and closes off future integration based on tech development which is ALWAYS in flux.

One of the best things to come with the advancement of GNU/Linux is the idea of open standards.

By basing your network and operations on open standards, rather than proprietary, single source vendor standards, you open your network to growth and easier interoperability. For example, instead of saving documents as MS .doc, you save them as pdf or open document format, allowing for a variety of wordprocessors to use the same documents.

NFS is not really that hard but is really only beneficial in Linux/Unix only environments. SMB (SAMBA in Unix/Linux) is much more "open" and flexible for using across a network with a variety of hosts using different OS's. Not necessarily "easier" to set up, but it allows for a broader spectrum of users.

I come from a background trained as a Novell tech, back when MS was still in DOS and early 3.1 stages. In every shop I worked in, those with the most experienced Admins insisted on keeping networks as "open" as was possible and allowable. They knew back then that while proprietary systems come and go and OS systems change as the seasons, networks need to stand their ground and stay as flexible as possible to weather those changes.

It is ALWAYS bad practice to "close" a network.

Big Bear

#

Hey, Microsoft *always* listens to the customer, I'm sure if you let them know you need an AD client for Ubuntu they'd be happy to whip you up a deb. They'd probably release it GPL too.


Seriously, though; if you want to integrate a linux desktop with AD, you need to took at Novell's offerings or maybe Redhat. Those guys actually care about catering to Microsoft networks. I say this as a confirmed Ubuntu/MEPIS/Debian user.

Also, if you want to start bringing Linux into the network, it's not going to be drop-in. You might try starting on the server end first, as some have suggested. Linux servers can mimic Microsoft protocols for your WinXP clients, while offering you better integration choices for your Linux boxes.

#

This aspect of the article has not been raised before...

"If we were to migrate to free software, support costs would initially rise and training costs would be introduced"

What training costs? You mean training people to use OpenOffice instead of MS Office, Evolution instead of Outlook, Nautilus instead of Windows Explorer, Firefox instead of IE? If you really need to train your staff for migrating to these apps, perhaps you've hired the wrong people...

In my experience, people who are minimally proficient with Windows at most need a few minutes to start working with Gnome; and if they are not minimally proficient with computers, they really should not be working in an office in the first place.

Or am I misunderstanding something?

#

Interesting and honest article Tom. Certainly more interesting than the unhelpful and superfluous comments from the superior-than-thou, know-it-all- brigade above.

Guys, we all know that there are answers, or at least workarounds, to most problems. We all know very well that MS is a monopoly and has a piss-poor attitude to interoperability, etc., etc., etc., Instead of wasting your energies (and other readers' time) on condescending scorn and reiterating well-understood facts, why not put your superior Linux knowledge to a constructive end and offer Tom some help and advice with the issues he has experienced? He and other readers get the benefit of your bountiful knowledge, you cease coming across as intemperate bores with superiority complexes, and the world is a happier place.

Cheers Tom, hope Ubuntu and FOSS in general proves useful to your organization and current setup. From a fellow South London Linux user.

#

I sympathize with you. I too am a long time Linux user in a Windows world. I have been in IT for over 10 years and have administered all the Microsoft stuff on the network side. As IT Manager, I too was faced with the desire to let go of MS, but I was afraid of cutting the chord, especially the AD cord. However, I now see that it can be done. Listen to the advice of those telling you to start by removing MS servers. Yes, that means eliminating AD convenience. For example, a user account will have to be created for each user on each server and changing the user password is a lot less convenient to do since it has to be done on each server independently. However, unless you have a real large number of users, this little inconvenience is worth it. There are directory service packages from FOSS friendly companies like Red Hat that you may want to look at as an alternative. They may even give you a deal if you contact them and explain your situation and the nature of your work. I would be surprised if they don't. You can keep a MS server or two for specific tasks, like the Avaya service, but file serving, print serving, web serving, email serving, should not be done from Windows.

#

I've had it work perfectly with Codeweavers Crossover Office www.codeweavers.com

#

You don't need Samba for Windows clients to print from a Lniux server. Windows can print to a CUPS server just fine. See here:

http://www.owlfish.com/thoughts/winipp-cups-2003-07-20.html

#

Integrating a Linux installation into a Windows network is often not a trivial task. While those with certain character deficiencies may hurl contradictory insults in a thinly disguised attempt at self-aggrandizement, the fact remains.

An issue not addressed in this discussion is one of ethics. Most eleemosynary organizations have as a mandate the service of humankind and human society. It has been amply demonstrated that free, open, published standards advance such service. Is it, then, ethical to give money to an organization which openly abrogates such principles? Isn't the adoption of open systems a moral imperative, in this instance?

#

I like the way I can right-click and share a folder, then set the permissions I want on the individual folder and know Windows-users won't be able to access my files by default. If I go into the advanced configuration mode, I know I can set up access for a Windows network, but that's more of a Windows-user issue, and I'm not worried about that. Yes, I tend to use the default "SMB Sharing" that Windows users love so much, but I also like the way I can just point my file browser to "ssh://mybox/myfiles" and it works for me, securely.

Microsoft makes your life easy, if all you do is work with Microsoft products. Venture away from their desired norm and you're toast. Hell, you'll be toast anyway if you don't have a good antivirus and anitmalware product running as a safeguard. But don't worry, you can fix that with their newest product, which is now 150% more secure!

#

ALOT of work has been put in to making Linux "user friendly". Linux is the new player on the street compared to Microsoft however, and Ubuntu, newer still. To the old Windows user, these are just excuses. They want their stuff to "just work", and really could care less about what makes it work, or how. They dont want to think, they dont care about something called an Operating System; These are just irrelevant details to them. What they DO care about is productivity and the ability to get the work done that they need to, in the manner they are accustomed/trained to do them. In this area specifically, Linux fails, and probably always will, because its nigh impossible to make the paradigm shift that would be required. These people were brought up in a Microsoft world, and have been fed a daily diet of Microsoft products since birth, or shortly thereafter. Its like asking them to stop eating! Ask them to try a new Operating System which will give them true software freedom and some rights, and they look at you like your asking them to commit suicide! And usually treat you likewise thereafter too.

The only answer here is to break the chains Microsoft has created by forcing schools to introduce Open Source software alternatives at every opportunity, and to teach them as well. This really is the same thing as Religious freedom, and Freedom of Expression, and should be handled thusly. Anyway, to the OP issues above, yes, there will always be "issues" and a learning curve involved whenever you introduce Linux into a Microsoft dominant environment, and this is to be expected. Microsoft has no desire to allow Linux to interoperate with Windows, unless you pay them. Try SuSe or Linspire or Xandros, as they have paid their racketeering fee, and so those distros should have much less of a problem integrating. RHES should also have fewer issues, as Red Hat has put alot of work to make it so, without violating the principles of Free Software, as the former dupes have. You can also get support for Canonical for your Gutsy install, if your willing to pay for it. Other than that, there ARE free solutions for all your issues on Ubuntu Documentation and on the Forums.

#

The article shows what one user encountered when attempting to use Ubuntu in a Windows network. The user obviously tried many different things and had some success but is running with reduced functionality. This is typical when using a mixed environment. OSX server with Windows clients is not very printer friendly, unless you have good postcript drivers, you'll have to jump through some hoops to make Windows clients print. Windows clients have a difficult time when connecting to NFS, basically not even worth the effort, since stability of XP degrades when connected to NFS (my experience). The smoothest mixed environments are Linux servers with Linux/Mac and Win clients.
15 years of IT speaking : (

#

YOU LINUX MORONS ARE CLUELESS

The author of this article makes some good points about his real-world office environment. Then the Linux morons (who cannot write a complete sentence or spell common words) begin their clueless rants.

They start their "forum talk" and denial of just how bad the Linux desktop is in 2007. They defend their lack of documentation (Docuwenshon? Wot dat?) and really bad, broken applications, installers, etc.

I'm a computer science student and have been using Linux for years, thinking it will improve. But it's not getting any better, and in fact it's getting worse. Linux is nothing more than a Third World junk OS.

#

I find it sad and funny that everyone is willing to blame a single company for all their troubles. Especially when you act like you know everything about them, yet know NOTHING. Example: Microsoft....most of you hate Microsoft because you actually have to pay money for the OS, or because they are a large corporation. Big deal, they are a company out to make money, but we ALL are guilty of wanting that. Others hate the whole Linux thing because they love Microsoft fanatically, or they didn't like one particular version of Linux, or whatever. In that case, so you didn't like just one thing and weren't willing to try another to see if there's a difference? The simple reality is you ALL are wrong in doing that, and the companies and groups that work on the OSes and applications are wrong also. They all want their own products to control the market exclusively, and as a result refuse to make products that actually work together seamlessly. That's all there is to it.

#

Oh dear. The teenagers from digg have arrived. </sensibleDiscussion>

#

You can download Infotec drivers from here: http://openprinting.org/show_printer.cgi?recnum=Infotec-ISC_2525

Installing driver is easy: Press "Install driver" button when asked for a driver and then choose a ppd file.

If you have a Linux server, you can install this driver on it and share it. All other Linux machines will automatically see and recognize it. This feature acutally works much better than Windows printer sharing.

There is no custom driver for Okidata printer in the database, sorry.

#

The title of your article left off two words, which I've added to the modified subject line above.

Your entire premise is that, boo hoo, Ubuntu is hard for non-techs to integrate into MS-Windows networks.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe it *should* be difficult for end-users to monkey around with computer networks?

Duh!

It is this mindset that you've put on display in this article that has made the propagation of poorly written "applications" so widespread. The "Gee-I-don't-need-to-hire-real-programmers-because-I-can-write-what-I-need-in-Visual-Basic-myself" crowd is fast learning that they can't really do it very well, or as cheaply, as they could if they spent the up-front money on experienced developers.

It is this same mindset ("Gee-I-don't-need-real-network-admins-because-I-know-the-system-password-to-the-server-myself") that is gonna keep you locked into the expensive and low-quality network that is Microsoft Server.

When you get *experienced* and *trained* sysadmins (not some "writer cum sysop") you don't have the problems you've outlined here. Those are the guys who are smart enough to know that you start integrating Linux into any network through the Server side - not the client side.

#

The effort appears to be one-sided.
This discussion has moved off topic, of course, but targets the basis for the issues Tom cited when digressing into assigning fault. Most wouldn't decry an honest company for requesting reasonable payment for a good product that is provided without restrictions or coercion. It's when a company aggressively manipulates the market to eliminate competition toward their benefit at the expense of all other parties, including the customer, that many cry foul. Commercial interests exist in the Linux world without major objection and users can always make Free choices if they want to work independently.
The statement about a "Third World OS" is more poignant than the speaker intended. What OS will the exploding population of users in the economically less-endowed portion of the planet (majority) choose?? A restrictive, expensive, uncooperative closed-source OS, or a Free open-source, no-cost, standards-compliant OS?? It's MS that should start worrying about integration issues and cooperativity, or they won't last long.

#

Big surprise that you have problems integrating something that is free (as in speech and beer) into an eco-system designed by one corporation exclusively NOT to play nice with anything except their own products. I'm so stunned by this insightful revelation.

#

http://blog.isecore.net/2007/12/14/newsflash-microsoft-does-not-play-nice/

#

Same old, same old.

Budget problems? Have you heard of time-phased incremental migration? Your charity is not going anywhere (presumably unless the funding is cut off completely.) Take five years if you have to to migrate. So what?

Either hire an IT consultant who has a clue or get a clue yourself about how to design an IT operation so that it does what's needed without using Windows. It can be done. In some extreme cases, it might even require having some local apps custom redesigned or ported to Linux. This, too, can be done on a time phased basis as funds are available.

I have a client stuck with Windows because they do digital media conversion and he requires Adobe products for which he cannot (allegedly) find a replacement in Linux. I suspect he's wrong because they really don't use every feature the Adobe products provide, and I suspect some recently developed Linux apps could replace it. Unfortunately, I'm not an expert in those apps, so I can't be sure.

But this sort of thing can be worked around either with limited copies of Windows (used for only the missionj-critical Windows apps), or serving the apps up via an app server (which does cost money because they require Windows licenses), or as I said, simply having the apps redesigned by someone who can on a time development basis. Or simply figure out a way to use the less capable Linux apps in such a manner that the problems are overcome (again, not something you have to do this week.)

One advantage of OSS is that the apps and tools are usually capable of being glued together more easily than proprietary apps via scripting languages or simply by using standard data formats. This makes it possible to create systems that work around the limitations of given apps. It takes a little time and smarts initially to do this, but once done, the scripting can make the result almost automatic and even more effective than a commercial app because it solves the precise problem needed to be solved.

Everybody wants to migrate in thirty days or ninety days or six months or even a year. Why? Take your time, do it right, and you will solve your problems.

By the way, I agree with those who realize that Ubuntu is 1) not really for first time users despite the claims; there are too many bugs and things that fell through the cracks, and Canonical has a rep for releasing system utilities and tools that are not ready for prime time end users; their QA simply isn't as good as, say, Novell; 2) is not necessarily as well developed for deployment in enterprise environments as the larger corporate distros such as Red Hat and SUSE which are designed for that environment. If you can't afford Novell Desktop, just get openSUSE which is free, comes loaded with everything, and can be integrated just as well as Novell's other products.

#