“More than five years ago the launch of Microsoft Windows XP – and its considerably improved features and reliability compared with Windows 98 and 2000 – made a comprehensive desktop rollout a no-brainer for companies. The other options were all far from desirable. Now, as the world gears up for the launch of Windows Vista, the conclusion may not be so cut and dry. Certainly, Vista is set to be feature-packed and reliable, and many companies will move to the new platform as a matter of course. However, Linux has come a long way in five years, with the concerted effort of hobbyists around the world supplemented by the resources of tech heavyweights to push its desktop features to near-parity with Windows XP.”
More than five years ago the launch of Microsoft Windows XP
According to Wikipedia, Windows XP was released on October 25, 2001. So how do you get more than five years ago out of that?
According to Wikipedia, Windows XP was released on October 25, 2001. So how do you get more than five years ago out of that?
You don’t. The fact-checker must have been asleep.
2006-2001=5
I’m guessing that most people don’t know the actual date XP came out, hence they would only look at the years. Since we’re now into 2006, the average person would probably assume “more than 5 years” is a valid statement.
Just a guess.
Adoption in the business is not about the technology — we all know that. Linux may have come a long way in 5 years, but there are too many battling factions on the front, and the entire system too splintered. Do companies really have an option when it comes to a stable, popular, and well-supported desktop distribution, that will be supported for the next 5-10 years by the company that created it? RHEL doesn’t count, as that’s for servers, and a single license costs 10x what a single XP license costs (note the word “desktop”).
If not, Windows it is. Seriously. That’s what it comes to.
what about redhat, and novell’s suse? I would think they will be around in 5-10 years, and they will still support their products
They will not be supporting all products for 10 years. RHEL has a fairly lengthy lifecycle listed as seven years. Suse’s support is listed at:
http://support.novell.com/lifecycle/lcSearchResults.jsp?st=suse&x=0…
and has nowhere near the life-span of RHEL, unless you count “self-support” which nobody in their right mind would.
RHEL, or more specifically ‘Enterprise’ products, are not “for server”. You can read more here at OSNews if you’re interested:
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=4521
It’s also a mistake to say that Red Hat sells licenses, as they don’t.
And you’re kidding when you say companies don’t have options when it comes to *Linux, right?
Sorry, I meant support contracts. How much is a single RHEL support contract? Thought so.
Thought what? RHEL targets a specific market, and it’s priced very competitively in that market.
Yeah, and obviously that’s not the market I was talking about. I was talking about the market of “We have 2,000 workstations to set up. We need an OS that will be supported for 5+ years, and we need it at a decent cost.”
In that case it shouldn’t be a problem hiring a real system administrator. One who actually knows how to code.
Instead of the dumbed down sys-admins from the Windows world, incapable of solving problems harder than “click OK”
I’ve met some very smart and talented Windows sys-admins, and I’ve met some very stupid and unknowledgeable UNIX “sys-admins”. Generalizing is just not going to work for you. 😉
Anyway, you kind of missed the point, but I’m not going to drive it any further.
Just because you know how to code doesn’t make you a good sysadmin, and just because you are a *nix admin doesn’t either. It’s all about knowing best practises, following those practises, and knowing how to do research. Taking the time to do things right. This is what makes a good sysadmin, not the system you administer. The real world is a complex place, not like the one you seem to live in.
Well, you don’t seem to read what I write, but rather read what you want to read.
What about Mac? It has a bona-fide version of MS Office and it talks to Windows systems. Bulk purchases could make it comparable to buying Windows boxes and I would expect Apple to be around for the next decade. Plus there’s the whole argument about lack of malware and less maintenance required because it “just works”. Corporations give user training in Windows so teaching OS X isn’t any more difficult.
That’s exactly why I got a Mac. I’ve watched Apple go from insignificance, to an important market force that has its tentacles in many homes in many forms now. I figured if I picked up a Mac and learned the system, I would be ahead when companies finally start treating it like a viable alternative to Windows.
When you throw OS X into the mix, Linux stands almost no chance on the business desktop.
Except, Linux has a quite larger market share than OS X. At least at the moment.
I wonder what will happen when the switch to x86 is reality. I wouldn’t mind a major OS X take off. It does have the best desktop implementation atm. Though with some flaws
> Except, Linux has a quite larger market share than OS X. At least at the moment.
Can I see the numbers for that for the desktop?
Do you ever read the articles
Yeah, you mean the ones written by a pro-Linux journalist for a pro-Linux site? Yeah, I read them. I also read Microsoft TCO studies.
Did you know that Windows Server 2003 has a lower TCO than Linux??!
Seriously though, if there are no numbers, there is no argument. I’ve seen many, many, many more OS X desktops abroad than I have Linux desktops. I think it’s in the number of 20:1 in my experience. 🙂
When you throw OS X into the mix, Linux stands almost no chance on the business desktop.
Yeah, because we all know how easy it is to install OSX on all those Windows 2000 (or heck, 2005) era computers many corporations have.
Plus we all know how corporations would love to rely on a company best known for selling music players to teens.
I won’t argue that Linux is a perfect solution (except maybe with REALLY old stuff- dumb terminals) but it and OSX have about the same chance to take over the business desktop over the next five years.
And by that, I mean almost no chance at all.
Even if Windows Vista sucks, its far better than OSX or Linux to many companies simply because it can run most Windows applications.
If CPUs have taught us anything its that real progress isn’t made in the tech industry until its backwards compatible with what came before it. Many good CPUs have died at the hands of the x86 just because they could not run x86 code.
OSes are the same way. No OS will ever really dent the MS monopoly until they can use Windows drivers to install Windows hardware while running Windows applications. The business world demands at least that.
It might be nice to pretend that the superior OSes like OSX might can make huge headway just because of how much better they are than Windows…but in the end it does not matter. OSX and Linux, just like the the Alpha CPUs, are doomed to staying on the margins.
The only OS that has a chance to go against Windows in the next ten years is ReactOS….
You’re absolutely right, but I think you’re overlooking a small fact …
OS X is making inroads with the home user market. Ever since products like the iPod and Mac Mini, there have been more and more people adding a Mac to their repertoire of systems, or completely switching to one. The dent will start with the home market, and when that is big enough (if ever), that’s when I think current Windows-only businesses will start to take notice.
SuSe and Mandriva have both been around for quite some time. They’re not going anywhere.
Ubuntu is a newcomer but it’s safe to say it’ll be around for awhile as well.
All 3 are very stable, will work with those little beige boxes you see in buisness enviroments, and are well-supported.
So the answer to your question (I’ll pretend it’s not rhetorical) is yes. They have a few good options.
Who do I call if I want professional, certified SuSE/Mandriva/Ubuntu support if I’m the IT manager for a company of 1,000 enterprise desktops and servers?
One of my friends, who works for Business Objects, said it best:
“I saw some article by HP recently about how with non-open source software companies are tied to the one company who made the software for support, whereas with open source, theoretically anyone could support it. But that is just the thing — theoretically we could make a fusion reactor, but in reality it doesn’t work that way. I thought the article was kind of funny, becuase I see support being one of the last major things non-open source software has going for it. Not having an official support team for a product will cause *many* companies to not want to use it. Having a 5,000-user critical system go down, and then no one to call to get help to fix it does not sit well with any company.”
“Who do I call if I want professional, certified SuSE/Mandriva/Ubuntu support if I’m the IT manager for a company of 1,000 enterprise desktops and servers? ”
Uh… you call who you’re paying to receive your calls? There are plenty companies to call if your company goes with free software, as long as you bother to pay them first. If you were actually an IT manager in one of them you’d know that.
There are tons of commercial, officially supported GNU/Linux based systems. If you want to argue they are more or less expensive than solution A, B or C from Microsoft, Apple or whatever, then fine (off topic here though). The only difference with free software is that there are more choices for all different kinds of business.
If you want to download the OS from the internet and expect professional, enterprise-level support also for free, you’re dreaming. And if you want to deny that there ARE professional enterprise-level support for these free systems, you’re in denial.
Well then what are some of these companies?
Just about every distributor out there offers their own support contracts, the prices can be very competitive as long as you go with one for one that sells to the market you fit in. If you don’t want those you can always find some others, Google can help with that.
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=linux+support+contracts&btnG=Go…
A quick glance at the results looking for an example yileded theese pages, and there’s a lot more of you go through all the search results.
http://www.linuxbox.com/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Support+Contracts
http://www.linuxvoodoo.com/support/non-commercial-support.php
http://www.linuxnovice.org/main_support.php3
The really interesting thing is that with some distributions you can get very good levels of technical support for free just out of the community forums.
Sorry about the bad spelling, I was in a hurry and didn’t have time to proof read.
It’s good to see that there are some companies who provide support contracts. Unfortunately, I don’t consider community forums to be equivalent to that of a support contract.
My friend who works for Business Objects is one of the telephone support operators for the entire Business Objects SDK. He talks to developers from other companies who have trouble implementing some thing or other with the SDK. Most of these companies have an unlimited-support contract they buy yearly, and he says that the average cost of one of those is high tens of thousands of dollars. This is big money, and big support that we’re talking about.
Microsoft has these kind of support contracts. So does Sun. So does IBM. I’m looking for an equivalent for Linux.
You want a proramming toolkit that comes with support and don’t care if it costs tens of thousands of dollars? Have you considered Trolltech’s Qt?
By the way, it’s becomming apparent that you’re prodding around for some part of Linux that you think we can’t defend. Your questions and claims are floating from one part of the OS to the next with striking similarity to a process of elimination. When you find that weakness don’t expect us to give a damn, we all know Linux isn’t perfect ,just like any OS, and we happily use it anyway.
No, I was pointing out that enterprise-level support that a big-name business can rely on doesn’t exist in the Linux world.
Actually, many people indicated that it does exist. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge it (as usual) doesn’t make it less true.
Actually, I specifically asked about that kind of support, and all I got was answers related to small business support.
Are you that dense?
For the second or maybe third or fourth time in this thread, Red Hat doesn’t just do servers.
And for the fourth or fifth time in this thread probably there are other options besides Red Hat. I mean for one thing, you’ve never heard of IBM? There’s also Novell, Mandriva, Ubuntu, and the list goes on.
Also, just because a support outfit isn’t as big time as Red Hat doesn’t mean they won’t be able to support a large group of Linux desktops. You might end up getting better support as it’s more personalized.
Support for large businesses isn’t really any different than for small businesses. The volume is bigger, and the problems more complex, but essentially the service contracts are the same.
So, yeah, your arguments have been countered, even if you won’t admit it.
Selling support is the main business model for most Linux venders. So usually, you can buy support from your Linux vender just like you buy support from Microsoft if you use Microsoft software.
Other than that, I would suggest contacting IBM. They offer 24/7 enterprise level support for various OSes including Linux. If you don’t need worldwide support, just use the yellow pages. In my home town I found at least 10 companies that could offer support for Linux.
In that case you’ll be calling Novell or be using RHEL
Or have you own minimal staff and running a custombased Linux distribution
“Who do I call if I want professional, certified SuSE/Mandriva/Ubuntu support if I’m the IT manager for a company of 1,000 enterprise desktops and servers? ”
You can call Redhat for example (if you purchased RHEL or RHLD from them) or you can hire RHCE (Redhat Certified Engineer) and keep him if your enterprise demands constant support. There is also another solution Call Redhat Certified Counsling Agencies and I am sure they will solve all the problems you may encounter.
So as you can see its the same support luxury as in windows except that you will call them less than if you have windows due to the amount of problems it enjoys.
The article says : “to push its desktop features to near-parity with Windows XP.”
Disclaimer : I happen to be a KDE user, but I’m sure that most of the good things I’m saying below about KDE, could also be said about Gnome.
Before 2003, KDE was simply too heavy, buggy and instable to be really usable. Those were the times of KDE 2 and 3.0.x, and both were very depressing.
In 2003, the KDE 3.1.x series were released, largely improving stability and speed, and I remember that Slackware 9.1 with KDE 3.1.4 was already a quite decent desktop.
In my opinion, as far as the desktop features are concerned, near-parity with XP has been achieved by the KDE 3.2.x versions, released in Spring 2004. This versions brought a lot more stability, speed and responsiveness, while refreshing the look and adding many new features and programs. Read here :
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/kde-3-2.ars
Together with the new 2.6 linux kernel, this was a huge leap for the free desktop. At last it was completely usable.
KDE 3.3, released at the end of the summer of 2004, noticeably improved the speed and the rendering (much less redraws and flicker). This is when KDE begun to get ‘sexy’ and it was truly amazing to see the developers being able to further improve the speed after all what had already be done in 3.1 and 3.2.
KDE 3.4, released at the beginning of 2005, shipped with the new Plastik theme, and for the first time my windows-using friends begun to say that “linux looks very good”. It also was the first KDE release to include experimental features to demonstrate the new X extensions like Composite. At the same time, Amarok and Komposé (a copy of Apple’s Exposé) were maturing, largely contributing to the desktop experience. The new media:/ KIO-slaves and the optional use of DBUS and HAL allowed to use USB keys very easily.
At that point, IMHO, the linux/BSD desktop was already noticeably better than XP.
KDE 3.5 considerably improves on KDE 3.4. With it, I think XP is simply left behind. See :
http://www.kde.org/announcements/visualguide-3.5.php
Good for MS that Vista is coming soon, because, on a technical point of view, XP can’t compete with KDE anymore.
I don’t know much about KDE4, other than it will run even faster and use even less memory, thanks to the migration to the excellent Qt4 libraries.
Edited 2006-01-10 01:28
Mabye true but if your company is used to work with windows a switch is not that easily made.
1. People have te learn a new interface, while with vista you can put it on the w2k interface. (No source for that, read it somewhere). Loss in productivity for a while.
And also the admins have to learn a new platform. Administration Linux or BSD is something different…
2. Your company software has to be working on the new platform. While this counts for both OSes. A migration from windows to a newer windows is probably easier then port the app to a new platform.
3. While there are good alternatives for MS Word docs and apps to read them. There are still some layout problems. At least the last time i used them.
4. Software availability. I use from time to time multimedia apps. (Adobe CS for example)
And mabye you like how KDE looks, I dont. A lot of windows take a lot more space then needed. But that is just an opinion.
Plug and play functionality is still beter in windows. But that is probably not that much needed in an office.
but he, i like Linux and the BSDs, but not on my desktop. Maybe i should try it again.
He said “on a technical point of view”.
I think it’s very interesting that the major new features in Vista for the home desktop user – advanced search and graphics acceleartion – are already available in free software desktops. That’s a big step forward from when Windows XP was released (GNOME was at 1.4 for example).
And before someone says Beagle/XComposite/EXA/Xgl are still beta, well, so is Windows Vista.
I think it’s very interesting that the major new features in Vista for the home desktop user – advanced search and graphics acceleartion – are already available in free software desktops. That’s a big step forward from when Windows XP was released (GNOME was at 1.4 for example).
And before someone says Beagle/XComposite/EXA/Xgl are still beta, well, so is Windows Vista.
Vista is still in beta, Beagle/XComposite/EXA/Xgl are still in beta, your conclusion Linux got those features first….
That aside XComposite/EXA/Xgl aren’t really the same as what Vista is doing
The Windows Graphics Foundation (WGF) is a next-generation presentation subsystem of Microsoft that unifies a whole range of output services: user interface, 2-D and 3-D drawing and imaging, document-based printing and rendering, speech, and audio and video services. In addition, the Windows Presentation Foundation introduces new and enhanced services such as animation, while retaining interoperability with existing code written for GDI/GDI+. — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Graphics_Foundation
Anyone who has followed what WPF is doing will know that in some ways (e.g. driver model) it is catching up with Linux, while in other ways it is well ahead of the next-gen Linux offerings.
Oh and advanced search & WPF are not the only major features coming to Vista:
– Rewritten networking stack (About time).
– Castle which will offer a p2p domain setup
.
– Tools to much better assist with network diagnosis.
– Rewritten audio stack (cannot really say how it compares to what Linux systems offer yet).
– WCF (aka. Indigo).
– A fully transactional file system (that is fully atomic writes).
– A new application deployment engine known as ClickOnce (This brings it into line with Linux sort of, still no centralised application repository).
– Symbolic links (we all know Linux has this already).
– Windows Defender (Linux currently has absoloutely no need for anything like this).
– Parental controls (Linux has no well known tool for doing this).
– Improved speech recognition including support for voice commands. (Hard to compare with Linux’s voice recognition engine, although Linux has no well known tool for voice commands)
– Tools for better system monitoring and management – Including tools to monitorr CPU, Memory, .etc. over time and identify which processes have been using the resources and how much they have been using them
. Also WinSAT which will benchmark the system allowing comparison with other benchmarks to identify problematic areas and possible optimisations (Linux has no well known tool to do this).
– Inbuilt support for infared devices (Linux does this although I don’t know if it is harder or easier than the current Windows system).
– Windows firewall now supports IPv6 and outgoing packets (This might actually make it a reasonably useful firewall!)
– Windows updates no longer work through a webinterface (Thankgod).
– Instillation now uses disk imaging making it significantly faster than the current windows method of copying each file
(This is distro dependant in Linux so it is kind of hard to compare).
– Much better printer management (This is where Linux really needs to improve IMO). Also the introduction of XPS which for personal printing purposes will be a big step up from PDF because it is included in the OS
rather than having to buy Adobe (Linux of course shouldn’t have this problem).
– File virtualisation which allows applications not written with security in mind to be run under stronger restrictions (Linux doesn’t have this, but nor does it need it
).
– XML based event handling.
– New media player version (Personally I already find media player & MPC nicer than Xine and mplayer (which also runs on Windows)).
– IE7, Microsoft makes this out as a major feature, I don’t, Firefox does all this already (So this is a non-feature for both Windows and Linux).
– Much improved backup tools + much better movie and photo management tools and I do believe they are finally going to replace paint with an application appropriate for those who simply want to play with photos (GIMP does this), and draw pictures easily (GIMP does not do this).
– Built in support for dvd-writing + applications to support DVD authoring.
– Various security improvements.
– Misc. improvements in fonts, image support (Now supports various raw formats), and the shell.
Then of course there is trusted computing and DRM. Personally I’m interested in the benign applications of trusted computing (i.e. cheat prevention & improved security) but there is also the possibility of more malicous applications.
These points are my condensed rewrite of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista#Technologies & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista#Features, which IMO is an important read if you want to seriously compare Linux and Vista)
Then of course there is Monad which is being developed seperatly which based merely on the reports of my friends, is much nicer than any Linux shell.
Anyway there is alot of interesting stuff coming in Vista, some of it is catchup, some of it puts it well ahead of Linux.
” and draw pictures easily (GIMP does not do this).”
Then don’t use GIMP. Depending on the type of drawing you want to do …
use Krita: http://www.koffice.org/krita/
or Inkscape: http://www.inkscape.org/
or OpenOffice draw: http://www.openoffice.org/product/draw.html
or Karbon14: http://www.koffice.org/karbon/
or Kivio: http://www.koffice.org/kivio/
http://www.koffice.org/kivio/screenshots.php
I think you are seriously out of date regarding the applications which ARE available for Linux.
Out of those the only one which seems to combine bitmap and vector graphics is Krita a part of koffice, since I sit firmly within the openoffice camp it hardly seems worthwhile to touch koffice to get access to Krita.
I think you are seriously out of date regarding the applications which ARE available for Linux.
I was unaware of one application, hardly seems seriously out of date
.
And the application combining bitmap and vector graphics on Windows is…which one, exactly?
If you mean “vector paths”, like in Photoshop, then Gimp has had this for a while. Otherwise, AFAIK Photoshop does bitmap graphics, and Illustrator vector graphics.
And the application combining bitmap and vector graphics on Windows is…which one, exactly?
Go back read my original post, Microsoft purchased an relatively obscure third party app doing exactly that and are replacing paint with a modified/improved version of it in Vista, it was on all the tech news sites some time last year.
If you want to combine bitmap and vector graphics in one graphic and you do indeed “sit firmly within the openoffice camp” then I think you seriously need to look again at the capabilities of OpenOffice draw. If (for some inexplicable reason) you don’t want to get Krita to manipulate the bitmap graphic parts, then pair OpenOffice draw with GIMP or (if your needs are more basic) then use KolourPaint.
Let’s face it. The world would be a great place if switching cost nothing. If Company A could conclusively say that Linux would be 10% more cost efficient tomorrow and therefore they move to it immiedately, that would be amazing.
But it doesn’t work that way. First, it isn’t clear if Linux is more cost efficient in and of itself. I don’t really care what you think because what you think isn’t fact. We don’t have fact. We have FUD from both sides and I don’t want to listen to that.
But let’s assume that Linux is 10% more cost efficient. Then Company A has to calculate how much it will cost to retrain workers to use Linux. I’m not saying that Linux is hard to use, but there are a lot of incompetant computer users out there – a school I know of had to retrain a good number of their staff when they moved from Windows 98 to Windows 2000 – and Linux is a bigger jump. There will be retraining needed and that costs money.
Then they have to look at applications they already use. Sure there is crossover office, but it’s not the best solution and almost no company would want to roll out what is a reverse engineering of an API. It’s just hard to support.
There are tons of costs like this which prevent switching. So Linux not only has to be more cost effective than Windows, but it has to be more cost effective than Windows and the cost of switching for businesses to respond. The same is true of Mac OS X or any switch.
Right now, Linux is in a good position. It’s competitive with Windows in most ways (some ways it’s better, others worse). I use Ubuntu as my primary operating system. I know first-hand what Linux can do. It’s great, but. . . if I get a movie file, the chances of playing it aren’t exactly great. Heck, even audio files don’t have a great chance. Now, on my personal computer I can install the stuff to listen, but I can’t do that as a business. As a business, that’s a legal liability I can’t afford. OpenOffice.org is great. I write all my docs in it, but it isn’t totally compatible with MS formats and while it’s unlikely to happen, if I send a malformed document to a customer, that’s a big problem.
There are problems – some are just problems of lock-in and how the market’s gone (problems of Microsoft’s – and other’s – dominance that have nothing to do with the quality of Linux). But they’re problems none the less. Linux has come a long way. Linux is a great system, but then again Windows hasn’t (really) been updated since 2001. If Vista leapfrogs what Linux can do (which I have no clue on), Linux will be back in catch-up land. If Vista is crap, Linux will have a big jump on Windows.
In the mean time, it’s hard to say that Linux is much more cost effective considering that most businesses already own Windows and Office (if you’ve already paid MS $700 and you switch to a free alternative, you don’t get said $700 back). When the next product cycle comes around, maybe that will change, but probably not if Windows continues to come bundled with computers (which I don’t see ending anytime soon).
Good points, and I don’t disagree. Where I work, only Apple has gained a foothold, and that’s because it has proven itself not only reliable, but an excellent way to work in Unix. We use Linux ( and FreeBSD) in a number of servers, but on the desktop, it just hasn’t worked out. It’s hard to make people give up something they’re comfortable with, even though they may be increasingly frustrated with Windows.
You are right the cost of switching is probably why people don’t upgrade to Linux. The problem for Microsoft is that similar costs also exists when upgrading to Vista.
Since the release of NT4 each new upgrade of windows have offered less and less additiona business value for each new upgrade of windows. From what I understand Vista will be no different in this respect.
The most common OS for business use is still win2k, and a Gartner study predicts that it will take two years after the release of Vista until it get over 10% market share.
By then Vista will have to compete with far more advanced and usable Linux solutions than whats available today. KDE4 will most likely be out, and Gnome will have evolved several versions.
Even at the first release date of Vista Gnome will be at 2.14 or perhaps even 2.16. This is a golden opportunity for Linux.
In the mean time, it’s hard to say that Linux is much more cost effective considering that most businesses already own Windows and Office (if you’ve already paid MS $700 and you switch to a free alternative, you don’t get said $700 back).
Right except you’re forgetting that in todays networked and virusspyware ridden enviroment a Windows and Office license with no support behind it is more or less useless.
Look at the recent WMF vulnerability, true there were patches available and Microsoft caved in and released their fix earlier than they wanted– but the fact remains that this bug alone was the result of something functioning the way it was supposed to and in every revision of Windows since version 3.0! Ask yourself what other holes in the operating system where the system is behaving exactly as it was written to do there are we don’t know about?
Once support for Windows 2000 and XP Pro fades I expect we’ll be seeing a huge pick up in corporations switching to other vendors. The only reason Linux seems to be on the forefront is due to its protectionist culture under the GPL which ensures that everyone has to share their toys or go play alone. IMHO this is working as well as anyone could hope for and each day there are fewer and fewer excuses not to switch to a non-monoculture Opertaing System.
You wanna play all film/music files without hazzle in Ubuntu?
See:http://placelibre.ath.cx/keyes/index.php/2005/10/27/65-easy-ubuntu-…
Supose that’ll help you get it working!
./nalle.
“…had to retrain a good number of their staff when they moved from Windows 98 to Windows 2000 – and Linux is a bigger jump.”
Many people don’t seem to know how to access a file or program if there isn’t an icon for it right on the desktop. Some of those people are able to find applications within a program menu, and some can find files within a “documents” folder. Unfortunately, that is about the limit of competency a lot of people have with computers. I’d be willing to wager that regardless of the training involved in migrating users from Windows 98 to 2000, most of them only learned just enough to get their icons on the desktop, and after they did that they promptly forgot everything else.
How is Linux a bigger jump for these people? Linux can handle “shortcuts” on the desktop just like Windows (arguably better). Linux has a program menu that actually seems more logical than what Windows has, and with KDE 3.5 there is even a search bar in the program menu to help people find applications more easily. The “home” directory structure also seems much more logical for file storage than what Windows has with the “My Documents” folder.
In actuality, retraining for the average user should be minimal when using any modern system (with the possible exception of Mac OS X because of the different menu design). For most people the operating system is just a point-and-click mechanism to use their applications (even for many professional users). Most people depend on IT staff or a geeky friend to make sure their computer is set up in a way that makes it easy to use.
There are significant differences between Windows and Linux from an IT perspective, but most of that is transparent to the end user. Retraining for an IT staff is really a much bigger issue than whether someone can tell the difference between a Windows menu and a Linux one.
if I get a movie file, the chances of playing it aren’t exactly great. Heck, even audio files don’t have a great chance. Now, on my personal computer I can install the stuff to listen, but I can’t do that as a business.
How don’t understand how relevant this is…if the work requires the ability to watch movies, then it’s trivial for the IT dept. to install the necessary codecs (I can personally watch all movie and audio file types on my Kubuntu laptop, including Windows Media, Quicktime and .m4a files).
On the other hand, if the work doesn’t require it, what’s the problem? If the company judges that employees shouldn’t be able to watch or listen to non-work-related media, then that’s their right (and with Linux, it’s technically feasible).
I also don’t understand why you claim that Crossover Office is not a viable option. In my experience, it is a VERY viable option, and support is not a serious issue (especially since Codeweavers offer a lot of customized support solutions). We’ve all heard of how Disney used Photoshop with Crossover Office for their 2D animation studios…
Installing necessary codecs is a complete non-issue.
It’s easier than installing all the missing codecs in Windows.
While I agree it’s very easy to install codecs in linux, it is no harder in windows, I use both, and depending on the distro and the codec, Linux can be harder, or easier. Things are not absolute, and most Windows users are comfrotable with doubleclicking an installer to install something, even a codec.
Unfortunately, too often doubleclicking on an icon isn’t enough. After clicking “forward” multiple times they often have to configure the application to actually use this codec.
Getting WMP or Winamp to use a newly installed codec can occasionally be a PITA (unless you know how to do it and are aware of the need for this configuration). So can it be with some linux distributions.
This issue there is that it’s ILLEGAL to just install the non-free w32 codecs. MS pay a lisence fee to the owners of mp3 and such. At home it’s a non-issue, but in the business place, you’re a much more lucrative prospect for a lawsuit.
“it’s ILLEGAL to just install the non-free w32 codecs”
How can it be illegal for one person to download and install codecs but not for another person?
I’d LOVE to see any politician try to write a law that made such a thing illegal. That is like: “It is legal for Ford owners to buy petrol but not legal for Honda owners”.
Won’t fly. Never in a zillion years.
> Who do I call if I want professional, certified
> SuSE/Mandriva/Ubuntu support if I’m the IT manager for a
> company of 1,000 enterprise desktops and servers?
If you’re a big company, presumably you’d call the distributor? If you’re smaller and/or you have special requirements you might like to contact a consultant with experience of your distro…
I do agree with the point that you don’t hear much about large companies being dedicated to supporting other peoples’ distros. I don’t see a huge reason why it wouldn’t be possible, but if I had the budget I’d probably pick RedHat to support RHEL, SuSE to support SLES, etc, rather than going for a 3rd party…
I am not at all sure I want to spend whatever it is that Microsoft will want for Vista, especially when the Ubuntu GNU/Linux distro does almost everything I need it to do for free. I most likely will stick with XP, and use it less & less as it ages.
Installing necessary codecs is a complete non-issue.
It’s easier than installing all the missing codecs in Windows.
Yes, that’s exactly what I said. Of course, in an Office environment this may not be possible (i.e. you don’t have the necessary rights to install them).
Actually, this makes me wonder: is there a way to install binary packages (i.e. rpms or debs) locally, instead of system-wide? I know it’s possible with tar.gz packages, as long as you have the build chain tools…this would allow ordinary users to install whatever they wanted locally (which IT departments might not like, but would be a plus for employees who want to listen to mp3s… 🙂
There is klik for debian. I have heard about zero install but not sure. Check this link. You can just down load and run the programs from a single file. But only for a couple of distros !
http://klik.atekon.de/
Well then what are some of these companies?
For mandrivalinux, that would be Mandriva.
For Ubuntu/Kubuntu, that would be Canonical.
Of course, a large company would likely have in-house support, as that would prove more cost-effective.
draw pictures easily (GIMP does not do this)
Err…why not? I recently tried GIMP with a pressure-sensitive Wacom graphic tablet and I was able to make some pretty nice pictures (well, considering my limited artistic skills).
To me it’s the mouse interface that prevents anyone from drawing pictures easily, not GIMP (which is equivalent to Photoshop in this regard).
One of the the many things that usually aren’t brought up in TCO studies is the malware factor. If a virus gets opened by some nitwit on your corporate network, all of the computers can be down for some time, until the IT guys can go around and clear it out. This of course is problematic at best when a lot of the viruses disable the ant-virus software and all the computers have to be cleaned by opening the registry and removing things. I know, I went down this road. Nothing like having to stop an entire call center so the two IT guys can go from system to system cleaning out everything.
I could have gotten linux on the desktops there if it weren’t for a few apps that did not work in Wine. But there are plenty of companies that can’t handle the down time due to viruses and other malware. Then of course I’m sure there are a lot of IT specialists out there that are tired of having to wake up at 3am just so that they can reboot the windows server after an upgrade. But of course that’s talking Windows on the server.
Some companies have in the past switched over to linux simply because then they don’t have to worry about being raided by the BSA. Even though most companies try their hardest to make sure they have licenses for all their software, there are always some that creep in that aren’t licensed.
Leech
Used and supported all three and often thought about this one.
1) OS X has three or four serious problems – buying all new hardware, the cost difference (don’t forget the OS upgrades), the negative reaction to the antics of the Mac evangelists (you see this quite often in the reactions when you suggest Apple). The limited, and expensive, software. Performance issues. But it has security and big company support.
I don’t believe it will be a real factor in the market until its split off from proprietary hardware.
2) XP comes close to just working, hardware and software, until and if you have security problems. At that point you are up the creek without a reinstall disk. Software is also expensive. But, you can get professional support on XP just about anywhere, easily. And the hardware is cheap.
3) Linux, if you install it for someone, which you have to, is very cost effective and very usable for someone who just wants to work. The Linux desktop, Gnome or KDE, as someone wrote above, is at least the equal of OS X or XP for these people. Just watch a naive user write, scan, print, look at photos, move files around. Its not an issue, and its secure. But, adding hardware and doing admin and installing software not in the distro pack is quite hard.
Bottom line
I seem to deal with people for whom throwing out their 9x hardware to buy either XP capable stuff or Apple, plus applications, means doing without holidays. Put in Mandriva or Suse – or in future, I suspect, PCLinux or Mepis, and if you do the familiarisation right, you only ever get calls about how to do things in OO, which would be calls about how to do things in Word if they had Word. You do need to cover how to address the printer, and how to change file permissions, but its no worse than explaining how to use Windows control panels.
All in all, I think Linux’ share will rise in this segment And while Apple may make some gains, its going to have to change radically to get share over 5%. Not the least of the changes: it, and its supporters, are actually going to have to want it to rise, instead of, as now, being delighted that they are a superior tiny minority!
“installing software not in the distro pack is quite hard”.
Sorry, but that is just not true. Not a bit of it.
One can install software that is not in the distro pack in Linux in just five clicks of the mouse by using Synaptic (for example).
PCLinuxOS comes with about 1080 packages installed from the distro, and an additional 3,600 packages available to install in just a few clicks.
A Debian-based distro has about 16,000 packages available to install with just a few clicks.
“One can install software that is not in the distro pack in Linux in just five clicks of the mouse by using Synaptic (for example).”
Yes and no. Try installing OO 2.0 into an off the shelf 2006 Mandriva. Or Wine for that matter. Or iScan for Epsons. Its not hard, but there are lots of people out there it will defeat.
Now, why have they not got Debian? It would make this a lot easier. Because experience shows the Mandrake or Suse control center is much easier for them to relate to.
I’m most enthusiastic about Linux on the right end user desktops, but, there are one or two issues. Not showstoppers, no worse than the issues with other OSs. but they are real, and we shouldn’t ignore them.
Edited to add: Yes, do agree with you about PCL by the way. Best of both worlds.
Edited 2006-01-10 14:48
I don’t really believe this would “default” that many people in the enterprise. My rationale being: users don’t (or shouldn’t) have install rights, and any sysadmin is going to be smart enough to type “urpmi wine” (for that Mandriva system you mentioned), or add the necessary urpmi source to an organization-wide list of sources. And OO 2.0 provides RPMs, so who exactly is going to be defeated by an rpm?
Yes and no. Try installing OO 2.0 into an off the shelf 2006 Mandriva. Or Wine for that matter
Huh ? Mandriva 2006 provides Mandriva OOo 2.0 packages for their members (which you are for a limited time if you bought the distro like a novice end users should do). And OOo provides RPMs that work out of the box (though they download some packages on a download edition). Wine is included in Mandriva too. So all of these points are moot.
Or iScan for Epsons. Its not hard, but there are lots of people out there it will defeat
BS again. Mandriva provides standard Linux tools to do that already (through SANE and KDE standard apps), and Epson provides Mandriva rpms for the printers that need iScan. Perhaps Mandriva even provides its own RPM for this driver in the 2006 release. but I can’t check, because you go out of your way to find things hard to install on Linux, and I don’t have the hardware that needs these driver.
I’m most enthusiastic about Linux on the right end user desktops, but, there are one or two issues. Not showstoppers, no worse than the issues with other OSs. but they are real, and we shouldn’t ignore them
No we don’t ignore them. But people like you always try to imply we ignore them. These issues are being worked on thanks. I use Linux exclusively since 2001 (well, not too exclusively lately, as I try to at least finish these games I bought for Windows years ago, like BG2, which works on Wine BTW), and I know what the rough edges are. I can do anything on Linux, but as soon as I have to tweak source code or patch things or sth is not streamlined or there are lots of crashes, I say “an end user can’t do this”, and I check the “rough edge” point. I try to contribute too, when necessary.
Right now, one of the biggest rough edges I have, is that some apps that my wife use (like digikam) have their doc not translated in my language.
Well, at the risk of infuriating people even more, think about this case, slightly disguised. You are one of the better known novelists of the established generation in Holland. You have been using Linux, installed for you by someone else, for several years. You moved from System 7 on a Quadra.
In all that time, you have written books, sent emails, done collaborative writing on book reviews and collections of critical essays, exchanged drafts, generated pdf files and sent them, and you have never heard of rpm. And don’t want to. You have no idea about file formats, except that your installer wrote down for you that if you have trouble reading files, everyone can always read rtf, and that if you send pdf, they will have a lot more trouble changing it. You had a bit of trouble with permissions at one point, with files people sent you, but he told you to just save as, and then work on the new copy, and it works fine now. Sometimes the printer stops. You find it very strange to talk to the printer through the browser to restart it, when its not on the net but on your desk, but it works.
There are people like this, lots of them, and I respect them for what they are good at, and think it very worthwhile to help them. But I have to admit that some things are harder for them on Linux than they would be on other systems. Some things are a lot easier too.
Its swings and roundabouts. Don’t get furious with me, or them, its just speaking from experience. Wisdom is not asking them to do things they can’t or don’t want to.
Well you cannot legally use win32 codecs on linux, it does not matter if it is possible. Also I’m not aware of any drm codec available for linux (maybe there is one from real). For example T-Mobile launched a video renting site, which only works with *tada* windows. I’m sure Google video store will work with IE too. I couldn’t care less about drm right now, it is just not that great with linux & multimedia right now.
…but I believe a proportion of people will switch to Linux at Vista time.
Many clients and other business people visit me in my studio, the only desktops they currently see are Ubuntu/Gnome. When we converted to Linux in 1999 they used to stare at the desktops in bafflement and fear, and would run home to use the internet or any other computer activity – but attitudes are changing.
Most visitors are now happy to ask “mind if I borrow a computer for five minutes” to use Firefox, do webmail, type short documents, look at pictures etc (or sometimes merely out of interested curiosity). They have no problems, once I tell them the names of the programs to use.
It is noticeable that since Christmas, when a few local business people were hit by the .wmf exploit, I am beginning to get the question “What are the advantages of Linux?” – “What would I lose in functionality if I change the office to Linux” – in other words real-life relevant questions are replacing F, U, D.
The attitude change is real and noticeable.
The files (dll,ocx) are part of a *product* WindowsXP. To use them you *have to* accept a license (which obviously cost money:)) without that I’m pretty sure it is illegal.
MS released *open-source* licenses which specifically DISALLOW using the source code on any other platform than windows. This does not cover the codecs but it is a example of what a license can enforce.
It is not like MS has these codecs on their site with a big banner free download, they are copied (stolen in RIAA jargon) from someones (probably even cracked) windows version.
Edited 2006-01-10 13:19
“without that I’m pretty sure it is illegal.”
It can’t be illegal.
The terms in EULAs might want you to believe that it is, and they might want to place all sorts of restricitions on people … does not mean that they actually have the right to try to impose such restrictions.
If I use a codec (for example for .mov or .rm) that is an exact binary copy of a codec offered by Apple or RealMedia for free to Windows users, then they have no legal grounds whatsoever for not offering those exact same files for use by people running Linux.
If, for example, I download such a codec with Windows and for my Windows system, then what imaginable rule could possibly stop me from pointing to that exact same disk location instructing my Linux media player (on a dual-boot machine) to look there for codecs?
I’m not going to comment on how ridiculous it is for the article to lump Windows 2000 and Windows 98 together for the sake of indicating inferiority to Windows XP. More to the point, I was not aware of many (if any) IT professionals that considered the “upgrade” from 2000 to XP a no-brainer. Any new OS rollout is a huge, expensive undertaking. When XP first came out, benchmarks and features indicated little advantage over 2000 at all. I don’t believe XP became a “duh” decision until SP2 came out (and widespread troubleshooting was available for the changes it brought upon the system).
Like any bleeding edge technology, I wouldn’t consider any system-wide rollout a “no-brainer.”
What on earth have Codecs got to do with a business environment? – (specialised fields excepted).
No business in its right mind wants its employees playing media files (OK – MP3s or CDs the staff bring in with them, but there’s no problem with those in Linux) with the attendant time wasting, risk of being audited with illegal downloads on the hard drives etc etc etc etc.
I don’t see a lot of office computers running Windows XP Media Centre Edition.
I simply get tired of people trying to compare Linux desktop environments to that of Windows XP. It’s years behind where Windows is and always has been.
If it was such a viable option, then we wouldn’t see the balance of percentages far in favour of Windows in the business environment alone. You can’t say it’s Microsoft propoganda or mind washing. Give the business minds of the world more credit.
Windows is quite simply, far easier than any Linux desktop.
Give it a rest.
Have you even used Linux on a desktop? A distro like Suse for example is most certainly not years behind. In fact, aside from problems dealing with some of the more exotic hardware devices, I can’t really think of anything that would differentiate Linux all that much.
But then if you switch over to an admin point of view, in certain situations, a computer lab for example, Linux desktops are far easier to set up and maintain. You simply automate the install process, automate patch deployment, and basically forget about things. On the rare occasions you do need to mess with your machines you can do it in parallel, so it’s almost as simple as maintaining one machine. Windows, I only wish it was that easy.
Heck, with Linux you could even do like a friend of mine from the CS dept. does with his Linux desktops. You automatically reinstall the OS every time some little thing changes and every time the machine isn’t shut down properly. Try that with windows.
As for businesses switching over to Linux. It’s certainly not unheard of. But I don’t look for mass migrations to happen any time soon. But it’s not about Windows being better by my reckoning. Windows has the inertia at this point. No business wants to rewrite all their internal applications over from scratch. That and the amount of commercial applications available for Linux is still rather lacking, which may or may not change over time.
At any rate, given the strides Linux has made since I started using it, and being that it will only get better, I certainly wouldn’t count it out just yet.
Years of experience in both the admin role in ths shell and the desktop. It has gotten “better” but it’s nowhere near close.
Lets not confuse issues here. We’re talking about the desktop. Patching is a seperate entity here.
I’ve said it in other posts. The average user has mass confusion using Linux desktop environments, in my experience.
As far as hardware goes, please don’t try and pretend that Linux is anywhere near on par with Windows in terms of easily connecting and utilising hardware. It’s simply not. Try to put your “average user” cap on here and ask yourself if Linux is really that easy for installing hardware, software and patches. It’s not and that’s the bottom line at this point in time.
The average user has mass confusion using Linux desktop environments, in my experience.
In my experience, it’s quite the opposite, especially with newer friendly distros such as Ubuntu, Mandriva or Linspire.
The poeple that have the hardest time adapting are Power Users.
As far as hardware goes, please don’t try and pretend that Linux is anywhere near on par with Windows in terms of easily connecting and utilising hardware.
Depends. For some hardware it’s easier (no need to download drivers or fish out install disks). For some hardware it’s the same, and for some it’s harder. However, that’s irrelevant for the business desktop.
It’s simply not. Try to put your “average user” cap on here and ask yourself if Linux is really that easy for installing hardware, software and patches. It’s not and that’s the bottom line at this point in time.
The bottom line, as you put it, is that business desktop users do NOT install hardware, software or patches. They are simply not allowed to. That’s the job of the IT department. I think you just betrayed your lack of knowledge on how the Business IT world operates.
Nice try, but no cigar. Please take your anti-Linux agenda elsewhere, thanks.
Luckily I don’t smoke.
Depends on the business environment. Don’t try to convince yourself that all businesses operate the same and rely soley on the “IT department”. Not all do. MANY don’t have “IT departments”.
I’ve worked in environments where prior to my arrival they emailed the patches and anti-virus updates to every user and asked them to run them. No control, no auditing, very poor way of running your business.
Bad policy? You bet, but that’s a reality of many businesses in the SOHO and SME market. You can’t argue it, I have and continue witness it.
And to be clear, I actually adore Linux. I’ve been the sole “owner” of administering and “babying” a Linux only infrastructure environment and know how far Linux has come.
There’s a big difference between being “anti-Linux” and facing a reality. Linux is great in many respects, just not on the desktop.
And to be fair, I think a better definition of what people mean when they say “Linux” is required. If we’re talking about the desktop, are we really talking about Linux, or KDE/GNOME? Typically this is something a lot of folk are guilty of confusing.
The same goes for Windows.
Don’t try to convince yourself that all businesses operate the same and rely soley on the “IT department”. Not all do. MANY don’t have “IT departments”.
Most medium and large businesses do nowadays. I make the distinction because this is the topic of the article – when journalists talk about the “Business Desktop”, they really mean the desktops of large corporations, most of which have an IT dept.
Doesn’t matter, however. Applying security patches and updates in Linux is trivial, certainly as easy as it is for Windows. Some, like Mandriva and Linspire, do it better than others, but all things considered any user can easily learn to apply security updates.
Linux is great in many respects, just not on the desktop.
That is your opinion and you’re entitled to it, but I respectfully disagree. I think the Linux desktop is quite advanced, and very usable.
And to be fair, I think a better definition of what people mean when they say “Linux” is required. If we’re talking about the desktop, are we really talking about Linux, or KDE/GNOME? Typically this is something a lot of folk are guilty of confusing.
I’m forced to agree with you here. In fact, I argued on this very web site that we should compare Windows to KDE or GNOME, not Windows to Linux.
So, that said, I do believe that KDE desktop is as usable (and more powerful) than the Windows XP desktop in a business environment.
Most medium and large businesses do nowadays. I make the distinction because this is the topic of the article – when journalists talk about the “Business Desktop”, they really mean the desktops of large corporations, most of which have an IT dept.
It’s a rather narrow minded view in my opinion. Considor the percentage of the economies that are “large business” and the percentage that are “small business”. If these articles are to be even close to relevant, they should either cover both, or make a clear distinction in their direction rather than assuming people know what they mean.
Doesn’t matter, however. Applying security patches and updates in Linux is trivial, certainly as easy as it is for Windows. Some, like Mandriva and Linspire, do it better than others, but all things considered any user can easily learn to apply security updates.
That is simply not true. Google the TCO of this from independant organisations and you will see.
I’m forced to agree with you here. In fact, I argued on this very web site that we should compare Windows to KDE or GNOME, not Windows to Linux.
Generally speaking, this should be the case for any comparison.
Edited 2006-01-10 23:42
“<Doesn’t matter, however. Applying security patches and updates in Linux is trivial, certainly as easy as it is for Windows. Some, like Mandriva and Linspire, do it better than others, but all things considered any user can easily learn to apply security updates.>
That is simply not true.”
Yes, it is true.
Applying security patches, upgrades and updates, and installing new applications or new hardware is a great deal easier in Linux.
At least – it is in the distributions that I use. Mandriva, PCLinuxOS, SuSe, some flavours of Debian such as MEPIS, Knoppix, KANOTIX or Ubuntu.
Perhaps you are getting confused thinking that RedHat is Linux or something?
If you want to find out how easy Linux really is for a desktop, you should really get a Linux distribution that is meant to be an easy-to-use desktop distribution, and talk about that.
It’s a rather narrow minded view in my opinion.
Perhaps, but that’s the IT Press’ fault, not mine.
That is simply not true. Google the TCO of this from independant organisations and you will see.
No. Provide a link, please. In my experience, applying security updates is as easy as firing up synaptic and doing an “upgrade all”.
Generally speaking, this should be the case for any comparison.
When talking about Desktop ease-of-use and applications, yes. When talking about system administration and hardware support, you generally have to be more specific as to the platform KDE/Gnome happens to be running on.
And to be clear, I actually adore Linux. I’ve been the sole “owner” of administering and “babying” a Linux only infrastructure environment and know how far Linux has come
This does not mean that you know the current state of Linux (and of Linux distros, which are often 6-12 months behind), and obviously you don’t.
There’s a big difference between being “anti-Linux” and facing a reality. Linux is great in many respects, just not on the desktop
See ? You don’t use it on the desktop and then come talking about things you don’t know.
And to be fair, I think a better definition of what people mean when they say “Linux” is required. If we’re talking about the desktop, are we really talking about Linux, or KDE/GNOME? Typically this is something a lot of folk are guilty of confusing
We’re talking about Linux+GNU+KDE/Gnome, and that’s even more true with all the latest kernels (yes, 2.6.15 too).
Your comment below just shows you are years behind on Linux state on the desktop.
As far as hardware goes, please don’t try and pretend that Linux is anywhere near on par with Windows in terms of easily connecting and utilising hardware. It’s simply not
Well, I agree, Linux is way ahead. On Windows, EVERY appliance (even some USB tools) I have comes with a warning, sometimes in big red letters, saying to install the driver and reboot before plugging your hardware (that’s the less complicated case). Which means even USB is not plug and play on Windows. Even vendors were telling me that people always come to them saying it does not work, and they blame the user for not knowing how to install (!!!!). On Linux, you just plug your device and you’re ready to go. If the driver is not already installed, the OS will tell you what to do to install it (put your CD in most of the time, or it will automagically download it).
There are worst cases of course, but most of the time, it will work, and if it is not supported, it won’t.
Try to put your “average user” cap on here and ask yourself if Linux is really that easy for installing hardware, software and patches. It’s not and that’s the bottom line at this point in time
It is (at least with Mandriva 2006), and all my users can attest to that. So your bottom line is wrong.
I’d argue that Linux is quite on par with Windows in terms of how it works from a user point of view. You have a “start menu”, you click on that to run your programs. You maximize your programs, minimize them, what have you, it’s the same basic setup. Heck, distros like Xandros mimic Windows almost completely, right down to even running windows applications.
As for patching. I’m not confusing issues here. I’m merely examining the Linux desktop from an admin point of view as opposed to a user. This isn’t a valid thing to do?
As for users being confused, I don’t see it. Heck, my 65 year old mother gets by just fine on a Linux machine. She browses the web, checks her email, and runs Quicken just as well as she ever did under Windows. I mean, sure Linux users may not be able to do much aside from run their applications, but that’s entirely acceptable in a corporate setting isn’t it?
And anyway it seems to me your “average user” has trouble installing hardware, software, and patches on Windows. But heck, in a corporate setting, you don’t even want your users installing hardware and software. Which is another reason I love my Linux desktops so much, due to their nature users have a much harder time messing them up.
But having said all that I’m sure you’re still not convinced. Perhaps we’ll just need to agree to disagree.
Edited 2006-01-10 23:04
Yes, I can see the irony in your assumtions and comparisons. Sigh.
Thank you.
And for the record if you read my other posts, you’d see that I do actually use it on the desktop. So typical.
Edited 2006-01-11 10:43