“I consider myself part of the open-source community. The (Linux) community has to recognize that it can’t have it both ways. Linux cannot be a hobbyist’s toy and be the leading operating platform in the industry at the same time. Those two things are incongruent. For Linux to become a credible part of the enterprise, it has to go through the standard evolution and maturing process” and “Linux on the desktop is definitely an area where hype is ahead of reality by orders of magnitude. There’s a sexiness around the idea of taking on Microsoft“, vice president in charge of Hewlett-Packard’s Linux strategy, Martin Fink says to News.com in a very interesting and seemingly honest interview.
HP: Linux is No Toy
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Ok, i think it is good if corps are interested in linux, but only as long as they support the community with money.
Suddenly they all start to expect to have something back, the greedy b-stards…
What do you consider the man hours spent contributing code and money spent on marketing? What about the $$ being spent by IBM, etc to defend Linux from SCO?
If a company invests time and money to something, they are doing it as an investment so that they can be successful – what is wrong with that? It is a win-win situation.
I think it’s time to cut Gnu/Linux Loose and start heading onto something like Gnu/Hurd.
As great as the concept of Linux is, it was still only slapped together, just like most Commercial OS’s. The Kernel may have loadable Modules, but it’s still Monolithic.
Let the Corporations Have Linux and take it through the “Standard Evolution and Maturing Process”, while the Hobbists move on to a more Promising Project.
Actually, this is the very first time, I ever heard Sun to be for the low end — I have always and foremost associated Sun with super high-end prices and the term “big-tin”, which are both for the big guys out there… and now I hear they would be low end, low end only?! Do I smell some decent bashing here? And I deny any HP guy the capacity to talk about “lack of focus”. If there has ever been a company without focus it is HP! Their Unix decisions are clueless and a mess (killing OpenVMS and fucking up the other Unixes for good), they want to cover just everything imaginable: Periperals, servers + desktops with the bought up Compaq (which does even earn them a dime) — now that is what I call lack of focus….
Beware of big business. That’s all I can say. If possible home users should just avoid commercial Linux. Let corporations deal with their bull crap.
It is clear these bandits want to rip off of open source.
In a Capitalist Society the purpose of a Corporation is to make money, they provide a service for their customers, thus they provide pay for their employees who work for them. It is time the Corporation took a hold of Linux and placed some standards if that is the direction they want to go. I think it is a good thing, it builds a good relationship with the Corporation and software vendors, and thus it trickles down to the consumer. In the end the Corporation is publicly traded on the stock exchange and the investors want a return on their money they invested. If Linux is going to survive in the atmosphere it has to shape up or ship out.
Nobody is asking these corps to adopt Linux. They are deciding to adopt Linux because they think it will help them be more competitive. And it does. So I don’t see any problems here.
If they lose money they made a bad decision. But Linux will always be a hobby OS, because the source is open and available for everyone to tinker with.
I’m sorry most corps can’t figure out how to make money off of someone’s personal hobby. The Linux community doesn’t seem to have this same problem. Perhaps those corps are hyperinflated and need to lose a few billion from our, and more importantly their, overall perception of their value.
——-
And the Hurd sounds great, but after recent events I highly recommend a GPL competitor to XFree86. We need a decent GUI environment to build on, X is an excellent protocol but XFree doesn’t cut it, IMO.
I want a GUI and windowmanager that work well together. I want to be able to click a menu on my title bar and have my application moved to some other X windows system, reguardless of what features the app is using, like OpenGL, etc. I’d also like to be able to move that app over to another user’s desktop, running in another X session on a different VT.
Dude. This isn’t the 1980’s anymore. Did you not get the memo? Microkernels aren’t coming back. At least, not until big-hair rock bands do…
Some where along your discussion there appeared a statement, “If Linux is going to survive…”. Need I remind that Linux has survived well before Corporations where involved with it, and will well survive if all Corporations went bankrupt and died today. Except of course Linux became illegal tomorrow.
I’ve always said this and I’ll say it again. Linux is a community first and foremost before it’s a profit venture. Linux will die without the community. Linux won’t die if HP, SUN, IBM, etc gave up the ghost.
Their Unix decisions are clueless and a mess (killing OpenVMS and fucking up the other Unixes for good)
VMS isn’t unix, in fact, vms is microsoft nt’s ancestor.
Linux has been successful so far because of the involvement of those people Martin Fink considers “hobbyists”. These people are the key ingredient for why Linux has even had a chance to take share away from Microsoft and UNIX.
Martin Fink is actually saying “we should kill Linux because IBM makes a lot of money off of it and we don’t”.
HP’s super pro-Microsoft corporate strategy has everything to lose if Linux gets popular. IBM (and now Sun) have everything to gain.
No wonder Martin Fink of HP wants to pull Linux into the anti-innovation death grip of the corporate world.
We can have both. There’s nothing wrong with having two flavors of Linux, home and Enterprise.
If Microsoft can do it, anyone can. They have Windows XP for home users and Windows Server for the corporations. It’s the exact same thing with Linux, except it’s cheaper.
I think the people commenting on this post understand the issues perfectly! What a pleasant phenomenon for OSNews.
This HP fellow may be interesting and honest, but he’s also typical and corporate. He’s a member of the HP community more than anything else.
And that isn’t a criticism or a “business is bad” opinion — just a statement of facts. As long as GNU/Linux is not in the hands of a private vested interest like HP, Mr. Fink can say whatever he likes. But it won’t change the fact that Linux is more than he believes or understands.
===
In the end the Corporation is publicly traded on the stock exchange and the investors want a return on their money they invested.
===
Actually, it doesn’t work that way anymore. When was the last time you saw a publicly traded company paying meaningful dividends to investors? In the new capitalism, you don’t have to make profits for investors to get their returns. As long as you can jack your stock price up -by hype, hook or crook- your investors will be happy.
>>>
It is time the Corporation took a hold of Linux and placed some standards if that is the direction they want to go.
>>>
And what exactly would that mean? Corporations are always welcome, but to make any impact, they would have to work with the open source community. That’s the way it has always been done, and I believe that’s what IBM and HP have done over the years.
The idea that any corporation can just come in and say: “Thank you guys for creating this baby .. we will now take over ..” is premature. With all the questions surrounding even mutual fund companies, I wouldn’t trust anything to a corporation.
That’s the difference between Linux and other operating systems. Almost every Linux geek, runs a server on their laptop or home computer. There’s no differenciation between Home Linux and Server Linux. It’s all the same thing.
Our commercial cousins want to force you into believing they are different and that there’s something special about a Server edition of Linux. I’m all about Corporations refining Linux and earning revenue via services.
What pisses me of is when Corporations try to sell Linux as a product. Yeah, I’m talking about SUN, Red Hat and company. Charging licensing fees and all what not that contradict the very the GPL license.
“Linux cannot be a hobbyist’s toy and be the leading operating platform in the industry at the same time.”
Nonsense, of course it can. Thats why we have stable distros like Debian and cutting edge distros like Gentoo. Thats why RedHat can sell “Enterprise” Linux and still support the Fedora project. Thats the beauty of Linux, as well as the BSD distros. You build the kind of system you want. If you need a stable system for production you can do that. If you want a box to play with all the latest and greatest “toys”, you can do that too.
Paul
That’s what I’m saying.
Cut Linux Loose. Let the the Big Corporations Squabble over how best to implement their corporate policys.
Meanwhile the “Hobbists” (which the Corporations despise) move onto another project (doesn’t have to be Hurd). And see who has the usable product first.
and WRT Microkernals not coming back, since when has the Geek Community ever cared about “What is in” and “What is out”. Only Shallow-minded Consumer Whores care about that sort of thing.
There is no difference between Windows home and corporate either: There is only one NT 4, one W2K and one XP — only because MS cripples the ability for SMP, cripples maximum simultanious server connections **even amongst the various server editions**, etc.. there is still only one code. This is merely a selling decision. Need proof..? Google for directions on how to turn your W2K Pro into W2K server… I got them, so they are out there.
GNU/Linux is a kernel and tools & applications, users can make it whatever they want it to be, either a server, workstation, personal/multimedia desktop, custom OS…
Giving away such an intricate system as Linux for free is extremely anti-competitive. I think Linux should cost money, a lot of money… otherwise, Microsoft will lose Windows sales and move even more developers to India, imagine what that will do to the economy.
I don’t understand why Windows XP can be both hobby and professional, but Linux cannot. Please explain Mr. Fink.
The (Linux) community has to recognize that it can’t have it both ways. Linux cannot be a hobbyist’s toy and be the leading operating platform in the industry at the same time. Those two things are incongruent. For Linux to become a credible part of the enterprise, it has to go through the standard evolution and maturing process.
Well, I guess you corporate guys will have to jump off the Linux train then, because most hobbyists sure as hell won’t.
He was certainly right about being able to use Linux as a desktop operating system. It’s difficult enough to keep well-known operating systems together day after day in a corporate environment. Trying to support the bizzare and arcane is nearly impossible.
“No, you can’t run that application under Gnome.”
“What the !@#$ is Gnome?”
“Anyway, you’ll have to start KDE to run that one.”
“KDE? What’s that?”
“Just go to the command line and…”
This will work really well when the same people have trouble finding the F3 key and type F 3 instead.
Give Linux about 5 years–if someone defines one GUI interface–and maybe it will be a desktop power.
What sad and facile sophistry!
Since when is the stock market a reflection on the real value of anything?
What “charts and stats” are you referring to? The ones Microsoft and it’s preferred analyists create?
Who said running a GNU/Linux environment in a business was ‘free’? Do you even work with technology Mr. Parker?
If you don’t like Linux that’s fine — you’re allowed to have an opinion (you will anyway!). But companies like HP are selling Linux for money, and have shares traded on the exchange, and only have an indirect relationship to the operating system at best.
Care to comment on the actual article?
If you think that merely looking at the stock price, you can tell how a company is doing, then you obviously don’t know anything about stocks.
If you think that Linux isn’t saving companies like IBM, HP, etc., then you don’t know anything about corporations, either.
What do you know about?
“It is the facts, but whoever thinks it is ‘free’ in the Corporation does NOT work in the Enterprise but rather at a computer store like bestbuy or the like.”
Maybe you are missing the point? Even *if* Linux costs same as Windows: I just convinced a friend’s office to get hold of a Linux backup system — for licensing/money, true enough. But this wasn’t really the point, since pretty much all of the office is running on warez — if the get’s busted, one non-MS system isn’t going to save his ass and he couldn’t care less. So, the reason is that I want a *working* solution. I am not one of the people propagating that W2K/XP would crash on a daily basis, not at all, but I do know that if I put a Linux server together for him and pop back into the office in a couple month it will still be running. Yees, a Windows server can do so as well, but then there is virus-vulnerability, etc… so you are going astray if you reduce Linux to being “free” — “free” is not the fear of MS either, since you will never make a deal with IBM, HP, etc.. and end up being free as in beer — it’s the other qualities Linux has (in some areas at least) MS fears and people begin to appreciate these qualities.
He has to say that Linux isn’t a hobby OS. . .how else can the sales force be successful? Before you know it, the internet “newservices” will pick up the headline: “HP says Linux not hobby OS”
“No, you can’t run that application under Gnome.”
“What the !@#$ is Gnome?”
“Anyway, you’ll have to start KDE to run that one.”
“KDE? What’s that?”
“Just go to the command line and…”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Your situation is non-sensical, since KDE apps can run in GNOME and vice-versa.
Good interview. He’s right about consolidation in the corporate side of Linux. What’s happening there parallels what happened with PC vendors in the early days of the market (Anyone out there still using their Victor, Commodore, Zenith, TI, Leading Edge, Rainbow, Heath, KayPro, or Osborne PC’s?) The same thing happened in the radio industry, the TV industry and the auto industry. In all cases, technology spawned hundreds of new vendors, but most of them lacked the financing, the market, the smarts, the luck, or all four, needed for success. The successful business grew bigger, ate the small businesses, and consolidation resulted.
Although a few posts have predicted the end of “hobbyist” Linux and lapsed into sophomoric cliches about Evil Capitilistic Corporations treading on the backs of workers, that won’t happen as long as the GPL applies. The opportunity to tinker will always be there as long as the source is available.
He’s also right about the desktop. That’s an area in which choice and alternatives cause confusion. Umpteen ways of doing the same thing are great for some folks, but not for everyone. They often mean umpteen ways for something to break. Many (most?) people think the tinkering opportunities presented by all the current Linux desktop flavors to be a waste of time and money. Most people want a default desktop that makes sense, looks professional, and works. They don’t want to play with themes, skins, wallpaper, etc, etc.
“Linux cannot be a hobbyist’s toy and be the leading operating platform in the industry at the same time.”
Linux hasn’t been merely a “hobbyist’s toy” for many years. Neither does the lack of some large scale scalability a “hobbyist’s toy” make– Windows NT didn’t scale at all, I guess it was only a “hobbyist OS” too. This merely a story about a posturing executive looking to make himself sound knowledgable on a matter. He sounds like he’s been reading Slashtrolls too much.
The uses of the Linux operating system, disparate as they are, do not define its quality but rather its capabilities. For some it is a hobbyist tool, for others it is a business mission critical solution. These uses are not mutually exclusive.
“Linux is one of the biggest mistakes as far as thinking of money savings, if you look at the charts and stats, it cost more or the same as Windows. It is the facts, but whoever thinks it is ‘free’ in the Corporation does NOT work in the Enterprise but rather at a computer store like bestbuy or the like. ”
1. Linux IS cheaper than windows. In every way. It has been shown numerious times. What you might be referring to is the notion that the total cost of using linux is more expensive. But that idea involves untestable concepts, ere go, it cannot be trusted.
2. I am a developer for a corporation that makes quite a bit of money. All of our servers are linux. Why? Because it is sooooo cheap to use linux. And, as an added side bonus, it is easy to administer as well. Who woulda thunk it?
3. Your definition of “free” is probably quite different than mine. Free linux means that I can use it by not paying a dime to anyone. Let me check..yup…linux is free. Free also means that I can change the source to suite my needs (provided I make those known). Let me check..yup..linux is free. Now, you might define free as “free to make money off of someone elses stuff by selling it cuz I am a freeloading idiot”. Is that what you mean? Just checking.
Sometimes I wish OSNews had an IP filter (or even domain) so I could filter out people on certain domains that have nothing to add to a discussion…..
Just because you say it is cheaper, I do not believe that at all. Where is the information to back up the claim? Nothing in life is free, well anything worthwhile that is.
> a lot of money… otherwise, Microsoft will lose Windows
> sales and move even more developers to India, imagine what
> that will do to the economy.
Microsoft’s tactics are bad for U.S. jobs in the long run… their monopoly nonsense has pissed off so much of the world that now we’re seeing revolt at the government-level, with all of Asia and good bits of the rest of the world willing to directly fund Microsoft’s competition. And you can be sure those won’t be American jobs.
Was the operating system market going to be “globalized” eventually, anyway? Sure, it looks like everything and everyone is going that way, bit by bit, whether we think it’s a good idea or not. But Microsoft’s actions have vastly accelerated that process, which will end up being bad not just for Microsoft but for the U.S. economy.
Most people want a default desktop that makes sense, looks professional, and works. They don’t want to play with themes, skins, wallpaper, etc, etc.
Actually, that’s completely untrue – one of the first thing new users do on a computer is customize their Wallpaper and the color of the UI. Icon themes are also quite popular, as are application skins (for those apps that support it). Look at one of the most popular mp3 apps, Winamp – there must be more than 500 skins for it!
There are two myths that are commonly repeated about UI these days: one is that people are not interested in customization (when in fact they are); the other is that a consistent UI between apps is essential – lots of Windows apps do not have consistent UIs and widget sets, and that hasn’t prevented those apps (and Windows in general) from succeeding.
Choice is good – it promotes competition.
“Just because you say it is cheaper, I do not believe that at all. Where is the information to back up the claim? Nothing in life is free, well anything worthwhile that is.”
Are you serious? Do you mean you cannot honestly see how free is cheaper than any amount of money over $1?
That is exaclty how it is cheaper.
If you want to get into how GNU/Linux is cheaper than windows based upon total cost of operating, then we can talk about something. But first we are going to have to setup some test paramaters. What is the system used for? Who is using it? What software is needed? What will the system be doing on a daily basis? Things like that.
(btw, that is also why those studies mean absolutely nothing as you can make a study like that say anything you want. So..instead of relying on studies such as that, one should instead actually think about the problem at hand. Novel idea, huh? )
JasonW wrote:
>>>
Free also means that I can change the source to suite my needs (provided I make those known).
<<<
Actually, you’re free to change the source code to your heart’s content, and keep all your changes to yourself, quietly profiting and rubbing your hands together in glee.
Nothing in the GPL obligates you to release the source that you modify for internal use — it’s just that if you distribute your modified program, in any form, to a third party, you have to make your source code available to them also.
Isn’t that great?
This guy is not part of the O.S. Movement. He doesn’t understand. He and HP are just in it for what they can get. I was glad he pointed out the differences between IBM and HP because it further says to me that IBM is a better friend to Linux.
I think your not quite listening. There’s no denying that, to the hobbyist, Linux is cheap. Indeed, depending upon the distro you get it is free. Free as in beer, and free as in speech.
HOWEVER, to a corporation, it is not free. Yes, they can download Debian, or Fedora, or some piss in the wind distribution that the CIO finds on a Friday night before he hits the town. Yea, thats free. However, the time to retrain the support staff, the time to fix all the complications that Linux still brings up, whether server or desktop. The price of support contracts if you go for them. THOSE are not free. Actually, most of them are hardly cheap either.
Linux can save money, it could save you a bundle. It can also cost you a hell of alot more than if you just stuck with the enviroment you have. As Wally said, NOTHING in life is free. Neither is Linux. Time and productivity lost are just as expensive (if not more so) than a licensing agreement.
If I was to donate a hundred copies af XP to a random company they’d be worth nothing cause they are *free* for the company..? BeOS once costed money and at that time still had potential — then that very product got free as in beer once in a sudden — did it turn to be useless in that very second for the fact it was free from then on..? Jesus, I wishes your parents would install some kind of surf-patrol on your system so you can’t post foolish comments — free has nothing to do with quality. Windows 95, 98, ME did cost, still they were rubbish — so what is it exactly you are trying to tell me..?
Actually, I knew exactly what you meant. But since you never clearly defined it, I had to show you how lame the argument was.
Now that you defined what you meant, I argue it point by point:
1. However, the time to retrain the support staff
This is not an argument or a corporation would NEVER upgrade a system, never get the latest version of windows, never get a new office suite etc etc.
What you are really saying is that a corporation doesn’t have the staff to implement a solution. Well, get the staff then. If you are going to spend a bundle to get the staff to support a MS system, you can get the staff to support a Linux system as well.
As for retraining…if someone doesn’t continually improve their skills, they will not last long in this business.
2.The price of support contracts if you go for them. THOSE are not free. Actually, most of them are hardly cheap either.
So, are you arguing that these are still more expensive than an MS solution? What is the point of this argument?
3. It can also cost you a hell of alot more than if you just stuck with the enviroment you have.
Like I said, so no one will ever upgrade? What about deploying a couple of hundred edge servers or something? Which solution do you think is cheaper (re: think google..do you think google would be making the type of money they do if they had to pay liscening fees for all those boxes? That is rhetorical, just in case you were wondering)
4. NOTHING in life is free. Neither is Linux. Time and productivity lost are just as expensive (if not more so) than a licensing agreement.
Ok, let me say it again. Linux is free. It costs nothing to imlement. What you are trying to say is that Linux may not be cost effective. There is a difference.
Now, you actually haven’t shown that linux is less cost effective than any other solution..you only argued in the hypothetic. That doesn’t really fly. You kind of need to show what you are arguing to be taken seriously.
Off-topic:
“”This is not an argument or a corporation would NEVER upgrade a system, never get the latest version of windows, never get a new office suite etc etc. “”
Companies that use a lot of IT but aren’t actually in the IT industry DON’T upgrade very often. Unless there is some compelling reason to upgrade they’re happy to stick with the software they have, and more importantly that their employees know how to use fluently.
For example, I did a little work at a bank recently and their primary application was for DOS (A database client if you were wondering). The IT department had the source code lying around in case they needed to bug fix, the bank had been using it for a number of years without any problems and all their employees were well trained on this little DOS client. Outside of an IT fetish there was, and probably still is, no incentive whatsoever for the bank to “upgrade” their systems, bring in a new client and retrain their staff.
Contrary to popular belief the corporate desktop doesn’t need a 4ghz P4, Radeon 9800 XT, scsi RAID array system running the latest OS.
The battleground here isn’t for a grocery store, it’s for companies that have vast IT requirements running into 100s of computers. The hardware is not cutting edge (Because it’s too damn expensive to replace en masse), the applications are old (Because they work and have been bug-tested to hell and back) and they have their own IT department (So all this talk of service contracts is a moot point, they already have in-house expertise). Expecting such a company to go to the huge expense of retraining hundreds of staff on a new system is ridiculous unless there is a much bigger incentive than:
“It’s Free…no, we mean Free as in speech…What, you’re a CEO and you aren’t attracted by Free as in speech?”
***
<Insert my usual rant about over-computing and the “keeping up with the Jones'” effect here>
Nothing in life is free, well anything worthwhile that is.
Air is free. Try living without air.
Sunlight is free. Try living without sunlight.
Love is free. Try living without love.
Water is free (in most places, anyway). Try living without water.
There are plenty of worthwhile things that are free.
Jason W needs a clue.
Cost is cost, whether you are dealing with cost effectiveness or with writing a check. Linux can be “free as free beer” but there will be costs incured for a business. Time = money. Time to learn Linux is time spent not doing your work. In the financial industry, learning a new OS and learning how to use a new Office Suite would take time and training. Otherwise, you lose out competitively. No, for someone at home, Linux is free, for someone at work, it is not.
Windows can be Freeer than Linux if you steal it and no one rats to the BSA. But, on a purchase basis, LINUX will have a lower cost to buy than Windows. Administration of Linux will be lower as well. It still will cost money/time, but it will not be free as in free beer.
CIOs do not look at Linux becuase it is free. People cost money. Time worked and time spent in training (BA anyone?)is expressed as money. Hobbyists spend time they could spend making money working on Linux. The cost is bourne by someone – but always by the maker. The choice to not make money off of one’s time and effort investment is one’s own and is just as admirable.
Heck, even free beer isn’t free when you think about it – it still costs someone time to get the material and make it. No, the best offering that Linux has is Freedom. I can see why it does what it does and how it performs with other components. Linux beats Windows when it comes to leveling the OS playing field for more people to play.
As for the article, of course they want to remove the hobbyist from Linux – you can’t pour money into something that is freely put together and expect a serious return on investment from it. Personally, I’m hoping IBM wins out with regards to the corporate side. As for hobbyists: Linux will always be Linux.
..to others what their ”target” is for the ”target” will decide wether they like the software, or not. If you think something is missing, you can add it. How nice!
Here we have someone who doesn’t like te grassroots system. Then stick to something else, DIY.. but don’t dictate ”how it should be done”. You (anyone) do not have rights to demand _anything_, only the license(s) count(s).
As Wally said, NOTHING in life is free.
Water is free. When you add stuff to it like carbonation and sugar, does it make the water better for you? Or does it just cost more?
Life is free.
Love is free.
Information is free.
Happiness is free.
The Truth.. will set you free.
Be free. Use Linux!
Giving away such an intricate system as Linux for free is extremely anti-competitive. I think Linux should cost money, a lot of money… otherwise, Microsoft will lose Windows sales and move even more developers to India, imagine what that will do to the economy.
That’s what free market capitalism is all about.
“Cost is cost, whether you are dealing with cost effectiveness or with writing a check. Linux can be “free as free beer” but there will be costs incured for a business. Time = money. Time to learn Linux is time spent not doing your work. In the financial industry, learning a new OS and learning how to use a new Office Suite would take time and training. Otherwise, you lose out competitively. No, for someone at home, Linux is free, for someone at work, it is not. ”
I think you may need to look up the term ‘equivocation’. You just did it.
The point is that linux IS free. There may be a cost to properly implementing it, but that in no way makes Linux itself cost more…it will always be free.
The point is you need to get your terms correct. If you cannot, we cannot discuss anything.
“Windows can be Freeer than Linux if you steal it and no one rats to the BSA. But, on a purchase basis, LINUX will have a lower cost to buy than Windows. Administration of Linux will be lower as well. It still will cost money/time, but it will not be free as in free beer. ”
Technically, no, windows can never be freer than free. This is, of course, since we are only talking about physical dollars. When you get your terms correct, we can discuss anything else you wish.
Contrary to popular belief the corporate desktop doesn’t need a 4ghz P4, Radeon 9800 XT, scsi RAID array system running the latest OS.
Who (that matters) actually holds this “popular belief” ? The only ones I’ve met are the employees who also think they need company-provided italian leather chairs, BMWs and a free three-course meal for lunch every day.
Most people I’ve known that are actually responsible for purchasing and maintaining systems tend to buy the cheapest machines they can find (except for the odd employee here and there that actually does need a more powerful computer to do their job).
First you say this:
“Ok, let me say it again. Linux is free. It costs nothing to imlement.”
Then you say this:
“The point is that linux IS free. There may be a cost to properly implementing it,…”
I think I want to implement my software solutions properly. So I guess Linux does cost something unless I want to leave it on CD and look at it.
I don’t understand the idea that cost of an IT staff learning to run Linux is a reason not to adopt it. The same staff has to learn Windows, or did at some point. Obviously that costed this same amount of investment.
People aren’t born with knowledge of how to run Microsoft servers and clients, so saying Linux is more expensive in this way makes absolutely no sense. Training is required for both Linux and Microsoft operating systems.
Saying that 6 years ago your IT staff was trained in Windows 95, which makes them capable of administering a Windows Server 2003 network with Windows XP Professional clients is beyond silly. Constant retraining and recertification is required for Microsoft operating systems.
Even ignoring all that, as more college graduates enter the industry with experience in both Microsoft and Linux operating systems, the argument that “Linux training makes it cost more!” will quickly become a non-issue. If it isn’t already.
well retraining is important. a couple of days ago i installed XP for my father. and he is using win2k at work.
at work he is only using outlook word and excel.
he dont understands winxp everytime he sits down with the computer he asks alot of questions. in winxp there is alot of guides to do things easier but those just confuses my dad.
sure a linux desktop would probobly confuse him more.
but if(when) they change the computers at his work to wXP
they are going to retrain almost the whole staff that dont change. of course there are a few that know how to use a computer in his workplace but that is still less than 10%.
so retraing costs do exist for windows asswell
Reasonably intelligent computer users want to know whats on their system, and when it’s active. Being trapped into using Win-32 without an alternative amounts to being trapped forever in a Las Vegas casino, with the blinking lights, and the garish decor, and the man in the sky watching your every move.
I question your assertion that people typically set about tweaking their desktop as soon as they start using a machine. In every corporate and institutional environment that I’ve worked in, very few users ever modified the default desktop. In some cases, desktops were locked down and could only be altered for users with accessibility concerns. Typcially, users spent their day working in one or two applications that they opened in the morning and closed at night. Futzing around with themesm skins, mp3s and what-not was seen as something their kids did at home, not what adults do in the office.
I will agree with you that choice is good for competition, but you can only compete if you offer a meaningful choice. Window dressing isn’t meaningful.
The hierarchies of (GNU/)Linux distributions are very much alike like *BSD’s and commercial Unices. It is in fact Microsoft’s MSDOS and Windows which are so “different” than the standards, which are raped by them using “embrace & extend”. However that results in chaos when Microsoft software is the standard; which is where the admi^H^H^H^Hroot of the problems lies.
I wish idiots like this would stfu. If they want a mature system, they can co the sources and enhance it themselves. Linux is as much an escape from the “needs” of life as an OS. I want my “toy”, my no-limits plaything that, as a matter of coincidence, can be used productively. It seems that the likes of corporates understand the value of the free developer time but want to retain the kind of fubar control they have over their own paid developers. IE like most of the insane morons on this planet, they want their cake and they want to eat it. Jawellnofine .. just fo.
Anyone who says Linux is free and costs nothing to implement in a Corporation has not read the reports and analysis online. Most of these are free and are unbiased in opinion; for starters the re-training costs would be very substantial. Because most of you Leadership/Executives have already evaluated such a solution and deemed it to radical and would cause Associate satisfaction to plummet. No one thinks of the fact that most management positions are not very technical as programmers they are people pushers. Leadership/Management is already under the strain of tight budgets and pressure to get a project done and on time.
So basically, what the people are saying is that the software has no learning curve, would be free and all problems are over. What happens with all the custom ‘in house’ written software? Are you going to try to run some emulation garbage, good luck? Second, they will need some kind of support from a software vendor; this is not going to be free. Plus, they will need licensing from the software vendor because the supported versions of Linux will NOT be free. Also, what about an Office Suite, how do you integrate and then spend more money and TIME re-training again….
In the end, you will have a big mess and a quagmire of Open Source software paying more money trying to get the mess to work. Not to mention, after the Corporation has spent countless hundreds of thousands of dollars on re-training, there goes any gains sharing year end. If anyone thought about the logistics of this and the money that would have to be spent and the time to install Linux on all the workstations. Plus, the fact that many associates have laptops and trying to get Linux to work with a laptop modem is a miracle at best. Lastly, how could this be free, you would have to hire a consulting firm to begin with. If you did not it would be a financial disaster. ALL Corporations hire outside Consulting firms to come in and audit it just makes good business sense. Right now with the Economy trying to recover, most companies are just holding on to what they got. If the software is in the budget and it is working then don’t mess with it…..
I question your assertion that people typically set about tweaking their desktop as soon as they start using a machine.
I guess we haven’t worked at the same kind of companies. Of course there are companies that enforce strict regulations on desktop customization – I don’t know if they represent the majority, though – especially not if you count SMBs.
Personally, in companies I’ve worked for I’ve noticed that a lot of people put their kid’s photo as a wallpaper, or nature photos, or images from movies (the Lord of the Rings is a favorite these days). You do get the occasional default background, but the changing of wallpapers and Windows colors has been widespread for most companies I’ve worked for.
Futzing around with themesm skins, mp3s and what-not was seen as something their kids did at home, not what adults do in the office.
I’ll grant you that MP3s are not as welcome as they once were, given that some companies are nervous about audits. But – as strange as it sounds – setting your wallpaper is actually quite an important of “taking ownwership” of your workspace, of feeling a little bit like it’s distinctively yours. We live in an individualistic society and people feel the need differentiate themselves, sometimes in very minute ways, such as customizing your work environment. Again, some companies seek to minimize this, as if it was somehow incompatible with “team spirit”, but from my experience this is becoming less common.
Window dressing isn’t meaningful.
Don’t underestimate the power of eye candy. Microsoft certainly doesn’t.
However, I find the comments about SUN rather humorous. Wasn’t it just rececently that HP-UX became 64bit?
Regarding this persons comments about SUN, this guy has no business sense what so ever. The days of slamming a server in the back room with little or no interaction between the desktop applications and the server have long gone. People want their applications to integrate with the server; Microsoft and SUN are providing it. What is HP going to do? their desktop side of the business is losing money, the server side is eventually going to suffer from the “Dell effect”, so now what?
Where is HP’s long term version? where is their middleware? where is their plan to integrat Linux server into Linux applications on the desktop? SUN already has one, where is HPs?
So eventually in 2-3 years time, we’ll have HP, a small’ish service and printer selling company, assuming that Dell hasn’t butchered them in that area too. They’ll be relegated to being another UNISYS, 0 innovation and 100% fan boy of some passing technology fad.
If nothing else then the article left me with the impression that Linux now is part of the establishment. It’s no longer an inferior side show. I think it’s the first time I hear someone big that does not otherwise have an axe to grind talk about Linux as just one of the boys.
So now it is time to get all them config files that Linux has all over the place each in its own format into a common repository in a common format – similar to the Windows register. But a little less cryptic than in Windows and with an associated human readable description for each item.
HP will be able to overcome the wall of doubt of they work on the model that was successful to them on the front end. Where some Corporations go wrong they try to re-invent the wheel. Instead focus on the areas that need improvement and stregthen the ones that can hold their own.
The point is that linux IS free.
Only if someone else gives you a copy. Acquiring it yourself will cost you money somewhere along the line, although generally not as much as alternatives.
However, Acquire != use.
There may be a cost to properly implementing it, but that in no way makes Linux itself cost more…it will always be free.
Just having an empty box sitting on a shelf or a bunch of downloaded ISOs is not useful – you actually have to implement it. It is at this point Linux becomes non-free and possibly more expensive than alternatives.
Or, as the quote goes, “linux is free if your time has no valule”.
The point is you need to get your terms correct. If you cannot, we cannot discuss anything.
So do you. You need to stop equating and interchanging “acquisition” and “implementation” – they are *very* different things.
The amount of money it would cost to implement this to lets say a Corporation of 5,000 workstations and laptops would be extremely high. Not only that, the cost of re-training, software fees for support, license fees because the version of linux for the Corporate desktop is NOT free. I am amazed that people think it would be cheaper to implement, very strange indeed.
Our Enterprise is always evaluating new software implementation on test servers/workstations. When we are though our test period with the software vendor we analyze the metrics then we can meet and discuss if the solution would fit our business case. Presently, within our environment it would be detrimental to implement untested software, it would require several months of testing to integrate it into the present framework. More than likely an outside Consultant would be hired to help evaluate the whole scenario to establish a timeline. Then the user re-training process would have to begin, this is the hard part. What outside company do you hire to come in and re-train your current workforce? How will you decide what time is appropriate, if they are already pressed for time on their current schedule? It is just not feasible in today’s hectic pace, most people want projects completed early and under budget.
The amount of money required for such an undertaking would make the upper level management cringe. Not only that you would be unemployed looking for a new job.
I am amazed that people think it would be cheaper to implement, very strange indeed.
Savings are medium- to long-term. You’ve got to remember that MS upgrades aren’t free either!
Larry, did you realize that you share the first three IP numbers with CJ Reynolds? (And “Timmy” from a recent Gentoo thread.) What a coincidence!
(Only the OSNews webmaster knows for sure…)
Larry, did you realize that you share the first three IP numbers with CJ Reynolds? (And “Timmy” from a recent Gentoo thread.) What a coincidence!
(Only the OSNews webmaster knows for sure…)
I was going to say something before, however, I thought I’d leave it. Larry is a troll, he has around 15 different handles. I’ve searched newsgroups and unfortunately for the vast majority of internet users, we have a luser like “larry” clogging the net with his garbage.
The point to the story is that we have to calculate our budgets to work with out Enterprise.
I find it amusing that everybody who brings up the “retraining is expensive” argument apparently assumes that Windows is somehow magically “known” to everybody at birth.
What if I have a Unix shop? Moving to Linux would require far less “retraining” than moving to Windows.
Also, each upgrade of Windows comes with many changes and certainly requires retraining. Stuff I learned about *nix over 10 years ago are still valid today. Stuff I learned about Windows 10 years ago (that would be Windows 3, by the way) is utterly useless now. MS even seems to do this on purpose: simple things like keybindings can have huge changes between application updates, the look & feel is vastly different, etc.
This is also why I despise the notion of “computer courses” in school which are in reality “application courses”. If you are my age and you had some “computer courses” in school, it would probably have been WP 5.1 on DOS. Now, is the “knowledge” gained there still of any use today? I think not. And I bet there are readers who are thinking right now “That’s why it’s a good thing that kids are learning “Word” today, because that is useful”. Sigh.
“They have a fundamentally broken business model. Sun is trying to play its cards in too many places. They’re defocused. They’re making irrational, emotional decisions. With the desktop, that’s an emotional thing–trying to take on Bill Gates and stick it in his eye. It is not grounded on any business reality.”
This guys is exactly right! to all the nay sayers watch what happens in the near future with SUN. Of course you will blame it on microsoft when SUN will be responsible for its own demise.
Jeez you two are the last one’s that should be jumping some one for posting under different handles.
This whole training issue is exactly why Linux needs a standard DE and needs to make larger in roads onto poeples home PC’s.
Most employee’s are already familiar with Windows from home use. This makes employee training much easier and productivity much higher.
“This is also why I despise the notion of “computer courses” in school which are in reality “application courses”. If you are my age and you had some “computer courses” in school, it would probably have been WP 5.1 on DOS. Now, is the “knowledge” gained there still of any use today? I think not. And I bet there are readers who are thinking right now “That’s why it’s a good thing that kids are learning “Word” today, because that is useful”. Sigh.”
My wife refuses to move on beyond DOS and is using WP 5.1 on DR-DOS 7 running under DOSEMU on my Mandrake Linux box. I guess in 10 years there will still be a few people running MS Word XP on Wine/CrossoverOffice, because it’s the word processor they learnt on, on the then predominant Linux desktop environment.
Jeez you two are the last one’s that should be jumping some one for posting under different handles.
The difference, of course, is that we don’t try to hide the fact that we’re posting under two handles, and that we changed handles after they were being misused by anti-Linux posters in a puerile effort to discredit us.
So, I take it that you do agree with us that Larry has a bunch of handles he uses to troll these boards?
Jeez you two are the last one’s that should be jumping some one for posting under different handles.
I’ve never SAID anything else. Infact on a previous reply on an older news article I stated that I was CooCooCaChoo until some half-witt started spamming my email box and using my handle on osnews.com with ELQ failing to moderate down the person.
This whole training issue is exactly why Linux needs a standard DE and needs to make larger in roads onto poeples home PC’s.
JDS standises on GNOME and they’ve specifically dropped the name “Linux” to remove any association with the chaos. JDS gives the PHBS of the world that this is some sort of “new” desktop solution when in actual fact it is just a Linux distro with GNOME majorly tweaked and modified for the enterprise.
Most employee’s are already familiar with Windows from home use. This makes employee training much easier and productivity much higher.
And if the company uses JDS at work, SUN might say to businesses, ‘you can let your employees run it at home at no extra cost”, that would then result in a larger user base. Whether or not the end user knows they’re using Linux is besides the point, heck, the average user thinks that their operating system is Microsoft Office!
As I said previously, what happens in the enterprise will eventually ripple into the home user market. The fact is, the IBM-Compatible PC was more complicated than the Amiga, Atari or Apple, yet, the IBM-Compatible PC was able to get into the home market due to the need by the end user to feel comfortable knowing that they’re running the same as at work.
“So, I take it that you do agree with us that Larry has a bunch of handles he uses to troll these boards?”
Why bother worring about it. There is so much trolling going on here it looks like one of those pay to fish trout farms sometimes.
> As I said previously, what happens in the enterprise will eventually ripple into the home user market.
I don’t think this is true anymore.
> The fact is, the IBM-Compatible PC was more complicated than the Amiga, Atari or Apple, yet, the IBM-Compatible PC was able to get into the home market due to the need by the end user to feel comfortable knowing that they’re running the same as at work.
That was true when the work was the users first experience with a computer. This is no longer the case. People already have experience with computers before they start working. How many people today dont have computer experience at all? Almost none. The computer world is very different today then when IBM PC’s became the most popular.
Linux is not here to make them money. The OS community only needs to keep doing what it has been, making the best OS/software it can. Marketshare and profits should be irrelevant to its development. What a shame it is that some people, companies think Linux is merely a weapon to use against MS.
Why bother worring about it. There is so much trolling going on here it looks like one of those pay to fish trout farms sometimes.
Well, I don’t lose any sleep over it if that’s what you mean. But I do try to have an honest (if somewhat spirited) debate here, and I find such behavior despicable (and immature).
TCO = total cost of ownership
hardware + software + training + support = X
Although I like linux, I have difficulty believing at this time that supporting (I am thinking of imaging workstations, for example) hundreds or thousands of desktops on linux that vary in age and model would be cheaper than running Windows.
I don’t know who said it in the news recently, but it seems that Linux is going to become just another operating system.
That’s a good thing for you linux folk. Don’t despair in the face of success.
“I consider myself part of the open-source community.”
Hmmm….I’m glad you consider yourself part of the community. I’ve contributed a few patches too….should I go out amd make a public spectacle of myself now?
“The (Linux) community [as opposed to the Open Source Community, I guess…] has to recognize that it can’t have it both ways.”
I guess neither can people in the Western U.S., or other places where there are still forests. Either we chop them all down and make lumber, or we picnic and frolic around amongst the trees, go hunting and fishing, etc….one er ‘tother…
“Linux cannot be a hobbyist’s toy and be the leading operating platform in the industry at the same time.”
Who died and made you boss?
“Those two things are incongruent.”
You mean, like Flight Simulator on Windows is incongruent to Access or Peoplesoft on Windows?
“For Linux to become a credible part of the enterprise, it has to go through the standard evolution and maturing process”…
Don’t we all? Or doesn’t that apply to rich corporation members and stockholders? They can have hissy-fits when things aren’t going their way, but *we* must mature and be evaluated. Sounds normal to me…that’s the way I’ve been seeing it, as a *common worker* all my life….
“Linux on the desktop is definitely an area where hype is ahead of reality by orders of magnitude. There’s a sexiness around the idea of taking on Microsoft”, bla bla bla……
Geez—I hope HP doesn’t run into too many bad quarters…if their leaders get too much more pompous, we may have another patent/copyright fight on our hands….
Incredibly amusing it is that Microsoft, creator of world’s most expensive software to support, paint Linux with brush of “support cost”.
Industry of “support cost” for Microsoft, in billions of dollars, measured it is.
Devious are the Microsith indeed.
I support thousands of Linux desktops and I know it would be cheaper. Besides, your TCO doesn’t factor in downtime, data loss and damages caused by viruses, among other minor annoyances you get for working with Microsoft products.
You will get a different perspective of TCO from each and every person you ask.
For example, how much does it cost you to upgrade Microsoft products? How much time do you spend rolling out updates? All of this can be automated for free on a Linux network if you know what you are doing.
If you don’t know how to implement a cost effective Linux solution perhaps you need to hire some people who do or stop keeping up with the Joneses.
“For Linux to become a credible part of the enterprise, it has to go through the standard evolution and maturing process”…”
What would be a “non-standard evolution process?” I know what a “non-standard maturing process” is, since most people (notably business executives,) go through non-standard processes that are supposed to result in maturity…..
“Blah blah blah…” Is this guy serious? Hobbyists are whom makes Linux! He needs to go back to college and earn himself some critical thinking, is my opinion. If he wants an enterprise-only OS, then he needs to design one, not go out and trash the true reason for Linux, saying he’ll do a better job. I’m entirely insulted.
What if I have a Unix shop? Moving to Linux would require far less “retraining” than moving to Windows.
I would have thought context would make this obvious.
Also, each upgrade of Windows comes with many changes and certainly requires retraining. Stuff I learned about *nix over 10 years ago are still valid today. Stuff I learned about Windows 10 years ago (that would be Windows 3, by the way) is utterly useless now.
Rubbish. The basic principles of using Windows haven’t changed since then. The only *major* interface change was with Windows 95 moving to the Start menu for launching applications and taskbar for switching between them (and adding a single close button to the window title bar).
MS even seems to do this on purpose: simple things like keybindings can have huge changes between application updates, the look & feel is vastly different, etc.
Vastly different ?
The look and feel difference between, say, KDE and twm is “vastly different”. The look and feel difference between, say, Windows 95 and Windows XP is *marginally* different.
There’s greater differences between most X window managers than there are between Windows 3.1 and Windows 95. Or MacOS Classic and OS X. Both Windows 95 and OS X are clearly based on their predecessors and act in similar ways.
Important keybindings – copy & paste, task switching, don’t change much (if at all). Ctrl+XCV has been cut, copy and paste in Windows for the last ten years.
This is also why I despise the notion of “computer courses” in school which are in reality “application courses”. If you are my age and you had some “computer courses” in school, it would probably have been WP 5.1 on DOS. Now, is the “knowledge” gained there still of any use today? I think not. And I bet there are readers who are thinking right now “That’s why it’s a good thing that kids are learning “Word” today, because that is useful”. Sigh.
If, on the other hand, they’d learnt Windows 3.x, that knowledge would have formed a solid base for later versions of Windows.