Improvements to the desktop will require a greater Internet focus that enhances communication and collaboration; the ability for users to access their data anywhere; and the option of software as a service, Havoc Pennington, the technical lead for desktop engineering at Red Hat, said at OSCon Wednesday. You can find the OOo slides from the talk here: Creating a Desktop OS and D-BUS.
Red Hat Exec: Linux Desktops Must Stand Out to Thrive
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
/me curses PowerPoint for not understanding OpenOffice files.
One of the things that I think makes it very difficult for Linux to have a single true “killer app” is that due to everything being nice and open-sourced, any amazing Linux app can be ported straight to Windows, and will be if it’s that good. This is not a complaint about open source – only an observation of the situation Linux is facing in gaining desktop acceptance.
IMHO, I think the GNOME project is moving in the right direction with stuff like Dashboard and Storage. These technologies leverage integration, something that can’t be replicated with a Windows port, but can be added fairly easily to existing open source programs on the platform. This is not to imply KDE isn’t doing great work – only that the GNOME team seems to, at the very least, be moving ahead with more “visionary-style” technologies, for better or for worse.
What I’ve always found curious is that no one’s come up with a new and better paradigm for graphical environments. I mean, essentially, we’ve been using the same thing since the Mac came out 20 years ago. I can only wonder whether this means the current paradigm is the best one (I mean, the “car” paradigm has remained mostly unchanged for the past hundred years), or whether the total saturation of computers into our society from the day we’re born renders us _unable_ to think of a new paradigm. (apologies for using paradigm so damn much – I just think it fits for the topic)
My personal guess is that the “next big thing” will leverage network connectivity to an amazing extent in a transparent fashion. But big help that is, eh?
-Erwos
IMHO Sun and Novell have the right idea. The slimmed down distro is where it’s at. It is necessary to have a good browser(mozilla), multimedia capability integrated in(Real), java integreated in and word processing. The rest is just confusing clutter that causes support problems.
Both Sun JDS and Novell’s new slimmed down SUSE meet the requirement. A core OS that works and a method to add what you need from there. For the corporate desktop, remote management is a must. Sun has some work still to do, but they are well on their way. Novell has a good base to work from. RH charges too much for what you get.
Until the Linux software install and dependency problem is fixed, Linux will be a hobbyist platform. No one wants to deal with a distro specific package, they want a single package that installs and runs on any distro, ala windows three clicks and installed.
When you get done, the desktop Linux looks a lot like windows, as far as capability goes.
What I’ve always found curious is that no one’s come up with a new and better paradigm for graphical environments. I mean, essentially, we’ve been using the same thing since the Mac came out 20 years ago. I can only wonder whether this means the current paradigm is the best one (I mean, the “car” paradigm has remained mostly unchanged for the past hundred years), or whether the total saturation of computers into our society from the day we’re born renders us _unable_ to think of a new paradigm. (apologies for using paradigm so damn much – I just think it fits for the topic)
There is an open source project called Project Looking Glass which aims to challenge the current paradigm for graphical environments. Apart from the projects on freedesktop.org, it seems to be one of those projects to keep an eye on.
http://wwws.sun.com/software/looking_glass/
P.S. You do know you can download and install for free Openoffice.org for Windows, right?
Havoc hits the nail squarely:
If the Linux desktop were exactly the same as Windows, there would be no reason for users to incur the time, cost and effort required to switch over, he said.
Bingo! It’s about time developers woke up and realised that users aren’t going to switch in droves even if free operating systems ever meet the magical “it’s just like Windows!” goal that some people seem to think is the “Holy Grail”.
It takes a unique offering of something that can benefit the common user to get users to switch, I personally think Apple is a good example of this in action.
Free operating systems must offer a compelling development environment that makes it a dream for developers to develop, debug, create, port, and work with software. They must also keep their users in focus while maintaining their uniqueness. The balancing act will be hard, but it will be a huge benefit to their longevity.
One of the things that I think makes it very difficult for Linux to have a single true “killer app” is that due to everything being nice and open-sourced, any amazing Linux app can be ported straight to Windows, and will be if it’s that good. This is not a complaint about open source – only an observation of the situation Linux is facing in gaining desktop acceptance.
The fact that good opensource application easily can be ported to windows is no disadvantage to Linux desktop acceptance. It rather the other way round.
When most organizations migrate to a new OS they just don’t switch perhaps thousands of users to new users without testing. They will start with some small department. That department will need to coexist and function well with existing systems while it is tested. Having cross platform applications is essential. Just look at how much OpenOffice.org have done to make Linux migrations possible.
Frankly, i do not get the usefullness of looking glass. Not in the least.
Nobody got the usefulness of Linux ten years ago.
There are billions of potential new computer users. And they don’t have lots of money. Marketshare matters.
I’ve said this for a while now. I don’t mind having cross-platform applications and integration with windows, as long as open source can also discover its own path. There must be a reason to switch. Of course, malware could be that reason considering the current state of affairs.
Of course, malware could be that reason considering the current state of affairs.
-0–
no. it just adds an incentive. there must be better gains. at the practical level there must be potentially huge advantages. windows to unix or vice versa isnt a easy migration to make. throwing away apps isnt what people are going to do lightly.
the presentations from HP are very good and to the point. if you got openoffice you definitely should read it. dbus is basically bringing what dcop was to kde to the whole of linux. a common ipc mechanism which needs to throughly intergrated and built upon. robert love is doing a lot of useful work there.
at the platform level freedesktop has been a success. now it would be a good time to gain more uniformity in the UI level for minimising platform training costs esp from the enterprise viewpoint and add consistency to the desktop as a whole
Linux, Config utilities, Mozilla/Firefox, Openoffice and Gnome or KDE, that would be the ideal desktop distribution..
Hows this.
Rendered 3d screen . Just like in a video game console.
With 3d widgets.
Some of you may like it , some may not.
Techy people love the command line but the public may love it.
No troll, but lets have an open mind for a sec….
Take for example… Almost every PC ship with Windows XP, many PC maker will have a ghost or rescue CD with XP, service pack and all the software they give. They almost allways include an Anti-Virus and many give Firewall software. XP SP2 will give even more security. It’s included in the price of the PC. So, we got XP, and it’s fast,«secure» and stable enough for what…98% of the world?? (correct me on this..!)
StarOffice or OpenOffice can be downloaded for Windows XP. Many other open source projet can work with XP. No need to learn anything new, no need to learn about distro, KDE or Gnome or Kernel or anything that makes Linux run.
So tell me… Why switch? For cost? Most of the time XP is included and you can’t remove it. And remember that it’s a minority of people that build their own computers…. Lets not forget that TIME IS MONEY. Installing Linux and learning how to use it well takes time.
So, if money is no object… In the end, what does Linux has to offer that Windows 2000/XP/Longhorn can’t offer? What will be the turning point for Linux? Hell, Apple has a very nice OS and iLife software and even that does not give them more users….
“The fact that good opensource application easily can be ported to windows is no disadvantage to Linux desktop acceptance. It rather the other way round. ”
This is true, but it has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about. Business requirements are rather different than user requirements. I’d never need NetWare here at home, but I use it at work all the time.
For things to be accepted by the public (ie, change the public’s computing habits in a radical way), you’ve got have a killer app – something people just can’t do without.
Examples of killer apps: WWW (Internet). Myst (CD-ROMs). Spreadsheets (personal computers in general). Perhaps DOOM (486). All of these were applications that made users dramatically shift their computer usage habits.
For Linux to succeed on the desktop in the general public, it needs to have a killer app that people just can’t live without – something that shifts the momentum towards Linux rather than Windows.
As for Project Looking Glass, it’s a nice idea, but it still ultimately relies on the “managed windows” paradigm.
-Erwos
Because freedom once tasted cannot be given up.
The fact that you ask the question makes me realize that you have no idea what’s possible or the audacity to dream yourself a freer man in control of every aspect of your computing experience, part of a larger computing community that works together for the common good.
And you must live in a funny world where money is not an issue. For most educational institutions, companies and users, a few hundred bucks matter a great deal.
I dual boot because some apps just will not work with Wine/CrossOver, and I need them. Linux might be a “hobby system” to most people, but so was light bulbs, cars, rockets, radio, etc. I think you get the drift. It always takes someone with an idea to start something big. With the monopoly that some big companys have, and the way they are “household” names, it will take some time before the general public starts even wanting to look at something else. When they do, the big hardware and software companys will have to take notice. The interface question is moot at this point,IMHO, because eye-candy does NOT make a strong system that runs 24/7/365,and even tho 2000/XP are “house hold” names, and OS X looks better than anything out there, OS X and Linux have the most stable CORE. And THAT makes them the future. People are starting to wake up to this simple truth, and I am one of them. Since Mac’s are out of reach in price, I use, and follow closely, the Linux world. Using Mepis is a joy, and waiting for the new Lycoris 1.4 is a pain. But myself and a few people I know will keep waiting, beta testing, etc. because we believe that this is the future of OS’s…stable, secure, and security updates, when needed, in HOURS, not DAYS…..Thank you for reading my rant.
You see, the difference is that Linux is like the millenary old sage. To get people to move, Linux only needs to match what Windows offers with better security at a better price point. That is plenty.
Additionally, Linux will live on no matter what happens to Red Hat, Novell or Mandrake, which I by the way think all have a brilliant future ahead of them.
Microsoft on the other hand has to beat investors expectations or eventually it’s market share will erode enough that the floodgates will just open.
Just ask yourselves the following: where was Linux five years ago and will Linux be in five years? How about in 10?
Hint: KDE came together for a first release in late 1998.
Hey, I have WinXP and Mandrake 10 on 2 PC. I don’t have a problem with Linux. I Love to be in control. But you have to think about OTHER people (not YOU), the ones that goes to HP, Compaq, Gateway, DELL, Toshiba to buy their PC….
If money was such a big problem, if PC vendor where having problem selling their PC because of Windows, they would offer something else.
I’m talking about home desktop PC here. DELL is stating to offer Linux on «some» of it’s PC. You have Wallmart that sell noname PC with Linux on it. Mabe little PC shop will install Linux but then again, not so sure about that because of the support cost….
NOW, with this in mind, read back my post and tell me, what will Linux give to THESE people that Windows can’t give? What will make 98% of the world slowly think that mabe Linux is better than Microsoft….?
Knowledge.
And if they need to see other people running before they can buy into it, that will also beging to happy, albeit slowly.
Read my comments to erwors as well. How long before people decide to go with the secure OS that does what they need?
How long till advances in processor and embedded graphics make it possible to offer good performance for 95% of the people for less than $300?
And you are deluding yourself if you think that you are not paying for that shiny copy of WinXP.
You say :
«To get people to move, Linux only needs to match what Windows offers with better security at a better price point. That is plenty. »
I’m not sure about that. We are takling about normal people right? Not Geeks or PC savy guys like us…. Will people want to learn something new? Will people want to leave the comfort of Windows/MS Office? What about all the games that runs only on Windows? What about this, what about that….
I think that it will take much more than just better security. Everybody knows (I hope) that Linux is Free, that did not change the situation much….
I think people still like Microsoft and Windows, thrust them even with the security problems, malware, virus and everything else.
Oh, I know that we are paying for the copy of WinXP with a new PC, when I say included in the price of the PC, I was not saying «for free». I know that.
But since you are paying for it… Why install Linux?
In a way, I admire you. You have faith in people. Mabe i’m seeing too many leemings, following a path….
You and I must have very different friends. Most people I know do not hesitate to save money. Most people I know have had no problem with OpenOffice and for the few that are hung up on Microsoft Office, codeweaver’s crossover office did the trick.
You have not addressed my main point, which is that time is on the side of Linux. Linux is a historical inevitability.
Finally, I am humble enough that I do not think of myself as the member of an elitist tribe because of the operating system I use. Any person that wants to learn how to use Linux can do so now and any person that doesn’t want to, doesn’t have to. As a desktop OS, there is very little that needs to be learned.
Thanks for keeping this so civil. It is such a refreshing difference from the level of vitriol that one usually experiences on this site.
I guess one of the things that I haven’t articulated yet is that I think that eventually you will not be replacing Linux after a purchase of your desktop or laptop, but will rather be given an option at purchase time about which OS to use.
Sure it will take education and it will be a slow process, but then again things very, very different in early 1998 when I began using Linux.
I’m not sure about that. We are takling about normal people right? Not Geeks or PC savy guys like us…. Will people want to learn something new? Will people want to leave the comfort of Windows/MS Office? What about all the games that runs only on Windows? What about this, what about that….
—————
whats the point. that windows will be the only operating system forever?. that nothing will ever change or should change?. everyone was running netscape a few years. a few months before it was IE. today firefox is gaining significant market share. just natural competence at work. things will change and are bound to change. just accept that.
I still have my CD of RedHat Linux 5.1 !!!
This is a trip back in memory lane…. Things where hard to get done. It’s getting there, very much easyer today.
I just hope that Linux can keep up with Windows. With Longhorn having many new candy stuff in it, cool desktop and everything else…. We will see in 2006….
But since you are paying for it… Why install Linux?
———–
because people see advantages to it and many pcs come with linux or NO os installed like thousands of webservers in every data center. home users arent everything. not every pc comes with windows and its slowly decreasing. there is a refund option available in windows. you can choose to NOT install it. i did
i do know people who switched over to linux simply…because they got tired of updating their anti-virus software. You see, the innovation part has nothing to do with gaining market share. Someone mentioned earlier that the browser market went from netscape (the first real pioneer of making a nice browser) to I.E. and now firefox is gaining a lot of ground.
Why do you ask?
Because I.E. has security holes…and a lot of it. Of course people don’t want to use a browser that automatically downloads spyware onto their computers.
Like I said, innovation means nothing…it’s security. People want security, not computing advancement. My 2 cents, also I’m talking more about consumers…not you nerds.
I KNOW that things are going to change. But they will change very slowly. Right now, their is nothing to trigger a massive switch to Linux because their is nothing WOW about it.
Netscape was a good browser. IE came for free and won. Again, slowly people will get feedup about problems with IE and they will go to Mozilla/Firefox or Netscape. They are all free now…. But still you will find that many of them will stay with IE, for no good reason.
It does take time to change habits. Linux is a good OS now, today and mostly Free. People are not running to it….
The day that Linux will be installed on most desktop PC/Servers will be the day that we will start to see Virus, malware and security holes in it.
Linux is good right now because nobody cares to write virus/malware for it. It’s the same thing for OS X. They target the mass…
Once Linux will be the major OS…. You will need to install Norton Anti-Virus for Linux. I bet on it.
Soon, apps will be on Internet servers and we will access to them by WWW.
With that hardware won’t be important cause everything will be running remotly in a powerful hardware. ala Terminal server.
http://www.abisource.com/~dom/gnumeric-luna.PNG
The day that Linux will be installed on most desktop PC/Servers will be the day that we will start to see Virus, malware and security holes in it.
—–
the popularity argument yet again. tell me why Apache which has around 70% of the market has far less problems with security than IIS then. how about BIND?. how about bsd ftp clients?
That was the dream of the NC (Network Computer). SUN and Oracle where big supporter of this a couple of years back. Since then, almost nothing. The dream of having no apps on your computer, everything would have come from the Web (or Network, via Terminal Server or Citrix like…). One easy configuration, all the NC would be the same. Support cost would be less… Ahhh the dream….
You have to figure that for NC to work, you have to get powerfull servers that will do the work in background. Finaly it came down to cost. Replacing desktop PC with NC did cost less (a bit less, NC where not cheap) but buying the servers to power the NC cost lot more (at the time)….
So now where are still with Desktop PC, with apps running on it…
You have to figure that not all servers are Web Servers. Apache has 70% of the market share for Web SERVERS.
Now, in the WORLD, what is the ratio between PC and Servers? My personal guess it that their is MANY MORE PC than Servers….
Now, put Linux on all those PC… And you still think that NO Virus/malware will be written for it? That their will be no greater amount of security hole found in it?
NOTHING is that rock solid. It will break like everything else.
@Mystillbeef
Oh I love it. When Looking Glass was a sun project, all I hear is how evil Sun is, how Sun is gonna die, how useless Looking Glass is, how Looking Glass should be open source.
Now that Looking Glass is open source, what do I hear?
“Oh, there is this great open source project called Looking Glass…”
No mention that it is a Sun project. No, it’s some wonderfull ‘open source’ project, as if the open source community created it using the open source process.
So what can I conclude from this? I guess proprietary software is cool after all, because Looking Glass was proprietary until not too long ago, and it hasn’t changed much since becoming open source.
Why are so many people so hypocritical??
tell me why Apache which has around 70% of the market has far less problems with security than IIS then. how about BIND?. how about bsd ftp clients?
Apache has had a worm, granted it’s pretty good software. BIND has had many many many flaws. So many that a significant number of people are now recommending DJBDNS even though BIND has been the defacto standard for so many years. FTP clients? Are you serious? I haven’t seen ANY major FTP client flaws proprietary or otherwise for a very long time.
Please, your examples are by no means evidence of your point. I can give examples of proprietary software that is equally as secure as apache. How about QNX? Solaris? AIX? Oracle? DB2? Sun’s webserver? Zeus web server?
We can play this game all day. It doesn’t prove anything.
When I saw the Project Looking Glass demos, I was unimpressed. What I saw in the demo was someone turning the window around a central axis and writing notes on the back. Even though it might be good by offering people more desktop-space usability (I need it- I have a 15″ monitor @ 800×600!), it does not have a new paradigm.
There are two paradigms that you are probably familiar with the command line (Type the name of a program to run it, the shell, on unix/linux/bsd, pipes and redirection) That is one way of thinking about your interaction with the computer- Tell it what to do, you- run this and that and then do that. The desktop ‘paradigm’ makes your computer screen analogous to a desktop. An icon (which does not really correspond with anything) can be used to open a file or folder. Opening a file will display it on the screen and you will be able to maniplulate it like you would on a desktop. Clicking a folder icon will open a folder which opens in a new window (the spatial thing corresponds better to a desktop) And everything that is opened is stacked like it would be on a real desktop- whose surface is 2D like the computer desktop. The two don’t correspond very well- Where does a program fit in (A wordprocessor -> a pen?) but it seems to be good enough for some people Project looking glass does not offer much more- Yes, it might be more “Desktopy” (Yes- I know it’s not a real word) You can write on the back on a page like on a document on a real desktop, but the programs and folders are still there (Or whatever filesystem traversing program they use). But it does introduce some inconsistencies (how would the pages ‘float’ in a real desktop?). Anyways I have not deen any revolutionary ideas from Project Looking Glass.
Maybe I have not been looking (ha ha) hard enough into the project to know what it offers. Please correct me if I’m wrong I would like to know what Project Looking Glass offers
(I guess the parentheses (spelled correctly?) have made this harder to read, sorry!)
what would a project like looking glass offer? Well, I only know of it from headlines but my first guess would be that it might turn out to be the “wow” factor… the killer app that may make the public go “ooh, look at that. Gimme!” I didn’t think Apple’s foray into digi music was all that “revolutionary” but it did become a killer app for certain demographics.
Whoever said linux needs an ultra killer app to gain market share, I believe, is right. Then who else said that linux is a historical inevitability… well, that sounds like bullocks, but deep down I like to believe that will happen. The dominance of the DC electric system should have been a historical inevitability, so should have betamax tapes and bunch of other things… nothing’s inevitable. Likely, but not inevitable.
Now I’m off to read the actual article… 🙂
>P.S. You do know you can download and install for free >Openoffice.org for Windows, right?
Not on every office, school or public (library..) pc you’re not admin at. I can’t read it too
Well, so I just don’t read it. PDF files would have been nice.
Sure, Windows is preinstalled on most computers. The price is moot because you can’t avoid it, and it’s bundled in whether you want it or not. And XP is mostly good enough.
So why would a user switch away from Windows? Most wouldn’t. Those who value control will, but most are happy to let someone else make the decisions. It’s been that way for recorded history and isn’t likely to change.
But users aren’t Microsoft’s customers. OEMs are. Everything that you pointed out about Windows applies to whatever the OEM installs. If Dell switched to Linux, the price wouldn’t matter to users, installation and hardware support wouldn’t matter because the OEM would deal with it, and it’s mostly good enough. Users who already use Windows would notice, but few others. And those Windows users will have to learn a new system anyway when Longhorn comes out.
Switching to Linux has some serious advantages for OEMs. The price does matter for them. Hardware has gotten cheaper and cheaper, and now Windows + Office is a major portion of the materials cost for a low end desktop. That has to hurt. And no one likes dealing with sole source suppliers. It is natural that any company that thoroughly dominates a market will abuse its customers. It’s human nature. It happened with the railroads in the 1880s, with IBM in the 1960s and 1970s, and with AT&T up until the breakup. True competition is the only force that serves customers.
If Linux would be such a good deal for OEMs, why haven’t they all switched? Because supporting multiple options costs more. It’s true for hardware, and it’s true for software. You and I can build computers with two DVD burners, for example, but Dell won’t sell that configuration because it’s an odd configuration that they would have to answer support questions about. So while the OEMs might be better if they supported only Linux, supporting only Windows looks better than supporting both. It will take some short term pain to get long term relief. Wall Street is focused on quarterly results. No current leader in the PC business can afford to take the risk of switching to Linux. Except IBM, where PCs are only one small piece of the larger business.
And let’s not forget that Microsoft can make it painful for any OEM who breaks ranks and switches to Linux. Read the testimony in the antitrust trial for details. That’s illegal, but this administration has shown that they’re not going to do anything about it.
Ironically, IBM is a big supporter of Linux because Microsoft punished them for breaking ranks on OS/2. They’ve already paid the price, so they might as well reap the rewards. What more can Microsoft do to them if they preinstall Linux?
IBM abused its market position in the past. They beat the antitrust case, but fell just the same. Any company that uses its size to muscle aside competitors will fail to satisify customer needs. It’s like damming the Mississippi; it works for a while, but that built up pressure will find an outlet. The taller you make the dam, the more radical the change in the course of the river when it comes. The railroads stopped competing with each other for long distance passenger travel and divided the business into regional monopolies. That fueled the growth of the airlines. Abuse of market control is the surest way to make it worth finding new and different solutions to the problem.
IBM controlled the mainframe market. They sold to centralized corporate data processing departments that charged captive customers high fees. Digital created the minicomputer market by doing an end run around the corporate bureauracies by selling cheaper computers directly to departments. IBM could stifle the competition that could have led to cheaper mainframes; because they did, it made it worthwhile to invent an alternative to mainframes, instead. The same thing happened with the PC. Microsoft marketed PCs as an alternative to departmental minicomputers.
It will happen again. Microsoft has too large a share of the desktop market for competition to drive innovation efficiently. There will be another end run. My bet is on Free and Open Source to break the logjam. The Windows OEMs are like the corporate mainframe empires; they didn’t create the monopoly, but they have too much invested in it to let go of it. Expect an outsider or startup to shake things up. I expect the cable and phone companies to play a role here, as well as consumer electronics companies. Your next desktop might not be a desktop at all; it might be a TV settop box or a game console. Chances are it will be running Linux, and that you won’t know or care.
Mainframes are still sold, and are doing better than ever. Minicomputers are still sold, if you define them as departmental level purchases. PCs will continue to be sold. But many of the players will be gone. DEC failed to adjust. IBM lost huge amounts of net worth, but managed to reinvent itself, and is doing better than ever. I see Microsoft, Dell, and HP as following in DEC’s footsteps. Intel has stumbled badly, but like IBM, should recover. Apple, AMD, and Sun (if they get new leadership) could profit nicely from the disruptive changes that always follow a monopoly.
Let me repeat that last item. Monopolies always, without exception, lead to disruptive change. An efficient market embraces incremental change. A monopoly suppresses change until overthrown by major, disruptive change. Prepare for it and enjoy it, or be caught with your pants down. It’s your choice.
1) If you ftp a binary for UNIX, you first have to chmod it and then it runs – what a freaking pain – opening a window, then typing chmod +x full-path-name and god forbid if you forget where you downloaded it. If you download a binary, your shell should automatically provide the right permissions to execute an ELF programs (depending on where you download it – if it’s in home – you get your rwxrwx—, if its in /tmp – then rwxrwxrwx and if it’s in a /bin or /usr/bin then it automatically gets rwx——
Bash and FTP need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
2) Cut/paste/drag/drop should work uniformly across ALL apps. Right now xterm will not support Ctl-c/Ctl-v – you need to drag your mouse across and then by good luck and alignment of the stars you manage to press both mouse buttons and voila you cut/paste – the middle button emulation is horrendous….ok so gnome-terminal and konsole seem to have cut/paste.
3) Easier package installers – something like InstallShield would be great (I know you have install shield for Linux but it needs Java – yuk!). RPM is a joke, pkgadd is a joke.
Try to remove a package and you can’t remove it because of cyclic dependancies. Who in gods name creates packages?. A package should only depend in libc and X libs – everything else must be checked not against other installed packages but against individually installed files. Like Mozilla should check for libgtk.so rather than the gtk+-2.10.rpm
4) .so hell (aka DLL hell) – damn it try installing a kde app from SuSE on Mandrake and you just get a bunch of cyclic dependancies
5) uniform menuing – try getting a SuSE app into Mandrake and your app ends up in different menu items
6) uniform startup scripts and config files. BSDs and Solaris/MacOS/AIX are safe but Linux is a mess – try taking an init script from SuSE into Redhat and you’re really in for a trip to the asylum
All of the above can only be solved if there was ONE linux distro (hopefully all the others die or just copy the leader – I don’t care if it’s Redhat or Novell or Debian) Currently the above would work nicely for *BSD, Solaris, AIX and MacOSX are safe because there’s only one source. God help Linux.
I find it offensive that you call me a hypocrite, especially given the fact, that you are ignorant of the projects beginnings. Looking Glass was never a SUN project.
It was an individual project developed by a SUN employee in his spare time on Linux, as many other open source project began. According to the developer of Project Looking Glass, he always intended the project to be open source.
Sun supporting Looking Glass in no different from Novell supporting Mono, or Red Hat working on GCJ, or IBM supporting Linux. SUN supports Looking Glass, big deal! There weren’t its inventors. They found the project innovative enough so they supported it. If they didn’t someone else would have. Why are you getting all orgasmic over the fact that SUN supports the project?
Now how does any of this make me a hypocrite? Because I didn’t mention that SUN is primary supporter of the project? If so, I don’t mention that IBM, Novell, RedHat are primary supporters of many open source project I have mentioned here on osnews. Is this a new rule that non-hypocrites adhere to that I’m not aware of?
Watch your language!
but here’s the link to OpenOffice.org
http://download.openoffice.org/index.html
and yes you gotta DL the whole 65 megs because there is no free viewers like Microsoft does with Office2003.
“If the Linux desktop were exactly the same as Windows, there would be no reason for users to incur the time, cost and effort required to switch over, he said.”
True. Even more so as the Linux desktop is not going to be as good as a commercial desktop anytime soon. MS will move the target as long as it is moveable.
But he is focusing on the wrong audience. He is focusing on the ones that already have made the investment.
There is another and much bigger audience. Those that do not yet have a computer. And for some of them the Linux Desktop won’t need to be as good as a commercial desktop. For some good enough is good enough. I drive a small and cheap car and that’s good enough for me. I wouldn’t want to invest more in a metal box on 4 rubber wheels. I don’t care about powered windows, engine sizes and spinning hubcabs. All I want is reliability in getting from A to B at low cost day in and day out. Same with the desktop and OS.
Which is shame really, since the entire package is free…
Of course, since sort of thing is exactly why the F/OSS community keeps harping on about open standards.
Yes, they may be finally realizing that people still want to do mundane, boring things like install a greeting card program or perhaps trade pictures with their usb keychain drives without having to jump through firey holes of death to do them. Leave the exciting stuff like getting HAL, D-BUS, and IVMAN working to us geeks. Trust me, its better that way.
well i seen the powerpoint presentation made by havoc…
the perception is that every 1 or 2 years we want reinvent
most of the work we haved done in past.
whats wrong in CORBA or bonobo ? the DBUS library is very
similar at bonobo architecture. so why reinvent te wheel ?
this is my point of view “GNOME need mono platform to compete with microsoft not other c libraries without documentation”
well i seen the powerpoint presentation made by havoc…
why the hell do you call that a powerpoint presentation? why not call it a OpenOffice.org Impress Persentation, or simply a slide presentation?
You can only install the Impress (Presentation software) part of OpenOffice. It’s about 7 megs IIRC.
So tell me… Why switch? For cost? Most of the time XP is included and you can’t remove it. And remember that it’s a minority of people that build their own computers…. Lets not forget that TIME IS MONEY. Installing Linux and learning how to use it well takes time.
You are right time is money. This is the main reason to switch.
First of all installing Linux doesn’t take all that long to install if you do it right. At our office it installs automatically on any machine with a non registered bootable network card inserted into the network (well, you actuall have to press OK twice whitin a minute or so) That install includes all software the employee needs to use.
The procedure is probably faster than whatever paperwork needed to keep track of windows licences. If this isn’t fast enough for you, use net booted thin clients. The setup of the Linux installation or boot server is a lot faster than setting up one single win2k box including all service packs needed.
As for the time to learn, it is there, but its not harder to learn Linux than to learn the changes from one Windows or MS-Office version to another.
Sysadmins would need more training though but this could be solved by requiring Linux when you employ new sysadmins, and make sure that knowledge is needed to get promoted and your old sysadmins will learn on their own or seek other positions.
Once up and running there is less viruses to kill, this leaves time for the sysadmin to improve the working condition for the people using the system and make them more productive. E.g. scripting common repetitive tasks.
Your users can be devoted to productive work and let the sysadmin take care of the system. In windows environments the user often takes part in administrating their own machine giving you a hidden sysadmin cost.
In a more centrally managed environment users can easily be prevented from adding software of their own onto their workstations. This means less job for the support department, that doesn’t have to clean up after some user that failed to install some game or some sexy laidies screansaver that was all but a screensaver.
There is an open source project called Project Looking Glass which aims to challenge the current paradigm for graphical environments. Apart from the projects on freedesktop.org, it seems to be one of those projects to keep an eye on.
Looking Glass? Plea-uh-aaase!
Looking Glass was a toy hobby project by a SUN employee, trying to get a hardware accelerated Java 3D desktop on his box. Perhaps, he was bored.
They showed it in a conferance and retarted GUI-lusters caught on, so SUN (who didn’t have any plans, and sure as hell doesn’t know what to do with it) promoted it to a “project”, which basically means cleaning up the source code and putting it up on their website. Moreover, they presented it (something which was initially one of their employees idea, and that they scorned) as their contribution to the research for future GUIs.
There is absolutely nothing Looking Glass does that is innovative, that wasn’t done before, or that has anything to do with the future of desktop usage. Worst, there is nothing Looking Glass does that is even REMOTELY USEFULL.
Their CD-picker showcase is a disgrace, their Window handling is a joke (windows that rotate in 3D space, in 45 or more degrees when not in use, so you can still see (albeit, VERY DIFFICULTY) some of their content. Please! Expose walks all other this “innovation”) Oh, and you can turn a Window around to scribble notes. How great!.
It’s not even a Project proper. It’s just a Java library for the 3D manip. of Windows, and some silly example code. Project Looking Glass? A silly novelty, the hula-hup equaivalent for GUI lusters.
Want to see really usefull HCI stuff?
– Spotlight (or the Longhorn equivalent). Really basic stuff, but NOBODY HAS BROUGHT IT to our desktops (BeOS excluded, and it also didn’t have that nice a UI or mail integration, etc).
– Expose, another basic idea, but what a difference does it make!
– Virtual Folders (think iTunes smart playlists for the filesystem).
– Rendevous (zeroconf configuration, networking et al).
– Standardized text,video & sound IM (ONE bloody format, as HTML is, mail is, IRC is, USENET is!).
etc…
Oh, and the desktop remains basically as it is for the same reason cars remain basically as they are. THAT’ IS. Noone invented a better spoon or fork, and that’s because *there is no reason*. If you have studied Computer Science you would also see that the algorithms we use are also as old and even older that the desktop. But those just are. Remember, Linux is POSIX, i.e holds most of the philosophy and attributes of standard Unices. Unix. A 30 year old OS. Why? Because IT WORKS, and that is that.
Think evolution.
Let’s try to make the desktop parading we already have BETTER first (a LOT remains to be done), before investing in silly pipe dreams like Looking Glass.
“why the hell do you call that a powerpoint presentation? why not call it a OpenOffice.org Impress Persentation, or simply a slide presentation?”
ouch sorry guy you’ve right
This is true, but it has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about. Business requirements are rather different than user requirements. I’d never need NetWare here at home, but I use it at work all the time.
If we should rely on home users for Linux to make it on the desktop, it will never happen. Linux have very little to offer for this kind of user (unless he thinks its fun to tinker with). It is a Unix flavor and as such it is designed to easily handle thousands of users with very little effort from the sysadmin. However that little effort can turn out to feel like quite a lot if you only have one or two users.
The reason people use windows NT/2k/NT at home is that they use it at work. For home use win98 would be a much better fit than Linux or any of the high end Windows version.
However, if they used Linux at work they are most likely to switch at home as well, if for no other rason that it would no longer be possible to use pirate copied software brought home from work.
I’m a noob when is about viruses.I didn’t had any of them even when I run my XP gaming rig.
Please explain this to me: I know that in Windows anybody can launch an exe,cmd,bat whatever.Wether they are admins or users.
What would one write for a Linux writer since he/she doesn’t know what for browser you are using,what for user you are using,whatever other apps ,email client.And what happens if you , as a user not root, have acces only to some very specific partitions?
Could someone enlight me?
The day that Linux will be installed on most desktop PC/Servers will be the day that we will start to see Virus, malware and security holes in it.
You are probably right that more black hats would find it more worth while to create Linux viruses if Linux was more common. The question is would they succeed.
It is extremly hard to write viruses for modern security enabled Linuxes that have much chanse of being spread. This is because of the mandatory access control system built into the standard Linux 2.6.x kernel. In such systems you specify what capabilities a program should have and what files it is allowed to see, read, write or execute
E.g. you could say that files downloaded by mozilla may not be executed by processes orginating from mozilla, or that mozilla is not allowed to read system files regardless of what user running mozilla. You could specify that only your update client that downloads fixes from your vendor is the only program that is allowed to add executable code.
This means that if you find a buffer overflow in some application and manages to use that to escalate both the rights given by the SELinux policy and ordinary unix permissions. Speaking of buffer overflows, the feature in win XP sp2 that is supposed to stop buffer overflows is already included in kernel of many Linux distros and according to Linus it will be part of the standard Linux kernel.
Today there are Linux distros that have better common criteria rating than Trusted Solaris. If Linux is being attacked more frequently more distros will turn on the security features available in standar Linux bkernel in their distros. You may wonder why they not allready do this. The simple answer is that security at this level is a PITA to use and admin regardless of OS or OS vender. This could possybly be why Microsoft doesn’t do much to enhance their OS to become more secure.
Finally we have the open source factor. In the closed source world the only thing your can do to get a reputation is to break existing code. That way you become a hero to a very limited group of people. In the open source world there are two ways, you can break good code or you can create good code. If you do the latter you will be a hero to a lot more people.
Linux is good right now because nobody cares to write virus/malware for it. It’s the same thing for OS X. They target the mass…
If you don’t turn on the SELinux stuff, you are right. Technically, there is no more protection in such system than you have in Windows NT/2k/XP
But there is one difference that might save the Linux user.
This is the command line. In windows you have to log in as Administrator to do tasks like install new programs. In Linux the admin usually install programs from a command shell. This means that they are less likely to run web browsers, e-mail clients etc as root, meaning that ordinary file permissions will prevent viruses from spreading in most cases.
1) If you ftp a binary for UNIX, you first have to chmod it and then it runs – what a freaking pain – opening a window, then typing chmod +x full-path-name and god forbid if you forget where you downloaded it. If you download a binary, your shell should automatically provide the right permissions to execute an ELF programs (depending on where you download it – if it’s in home – you get your rwxrwx—, if its in /tmp – then rwxrwxrwx and if it’s in a /bin or /usr/bin then it automatically gets rwx——
Bash and FTP need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
You are joking right!? While you are at it why not complain that Mozilla doesn’t execute binaries automagically for you as they arrive in your mail.
2) Cut/paste/drag/drop should work uniformly across ALL apps. Right now xterm will not support Ctl-c/Ctl-v – you need to drag your mouse across and then by good luck and alignment of the stars you manage to press both mouse buttons and voila you cut/paste – the middle button emulation is horrendous….ok so gnome-terminal and konsole seem to have cut/paste.
My guess is that you could find some windows applications from 1984 may not comply with all features in the latest version of windows. In modern applications, not being able to support cut & paste or drag & drop is considered a bug. Please report it. By the way the Ctl-v option in xterm, konsole and gnome-terminal can’t be used for “cut” as it is used for other purposes in some shells. This is probably why not even windows command shell supports this.
3) Easier package installers – something like InstallShield would be great (I know you have install shield for Linux but it needs Java – yuk!). RPM is a joke, pkgadd is a joke.
Try to remove a package and you can’t remove it because of cyclic dependancies. Who in gods name creates packages?. A package should only depend in libc and X libs – everything else must be checked not against other installed packages but against individually installed files. Like Mozilla should check for libgtk.so rather than the gtk+-2.10.rpm
It is quite possible to check for individual files in a rpm based distro. The problem is that such system would be very hard to maintain. Thats why the installer tells you to upgrade by package. As for cyclic dependensies just add or remove the packages at the same time and you will be out of trouble. (E.g rpm -e package1 package2,…) Most new rpm based distros use something on top of rpm to manage dependencies. It could be yum, apt-get, urpmi…
4) .so hell (aka DLL hell) – damn it try installing a kde app from SuSE on Mandrake and you just get a bunch of cyclic dependancies
Report the bug. This is supposed to be fixed by urpmi.
As a work around try rpm -U kdebase.rpm, kdethis.rpm, kdethat.rpm,..
5) uniform menuing – try getting a SuSE app into Mandrake and your app ends up in different menu items
Yes please. But I guess we will not have to wait long for this as freedesktop org is already looking into this matter.
Now just a few more desktops will have to follow their recomendations.
6) uniform startup scripts and config files. BSDs and Solaris/MacOS/AIX are safe but Linux is a mess – try taking an init script from SuSE into Redhat and you’re really in for a trip to the asylum
I doubt very much that you could take a Solaris startup script and run it succesfully on MacOS X. Each vender have their own system. So does Sun, so does Apple, so does Red Hat and Suse.
All of the above can only be solved if there was ONE linux distro (hopefully all the others die or just copy the leader – I don’t care if it’s Redhat or Novell or Debian) Currently the above would work nicely for *BSD, Solaris, AIX and MacOSX are safe because there’s only one source. God help Linux.
If there was only one Linux distro the speed of innovation would decrease. Now various techniques are tried out in different distros, and if they are any good they eventually show up in all of them sooner or later.
You said :
«But there is one difference that might save the Linux user.
This is the command line. In windows you have to log in as Administrator to do tasks like install new programs. In Linux the admin usually install programs from a command shell. This means that they are less likely to run web browsers, e-mail clients etc as root, meaning that ordinary file permissions will prevent viruses from spreading in most cases. »
Will normal desktop home user want to do stuff in command line? This is something dead since Windows 95 for most people. You’ve got the Web, Add/Remove programs, AutoRun… Who will want to return to the command line? Linux & Unix users will, but the rest…?
…don’t be stooopid, people…
You can easily (more easily than windows, actually) locate, download, install and keep up to date your programs via GUI with Synaptic. You just click System Settings ->Synaptic, a GUI prompts you for the root password, and off you go.
Same goes for permission change: right click on a file, properties, and you can change permission bits and file ownership.
No cli.
But it’s good that it’s still there (I for one use it all the time ^__^)
It has been over 20 years since the public introduction to a GUI took place. At that time MS DOS was the major OS. After the Macintosh was introduced (let’s just arbitrarily choose a date like 1986) a long forgotten study showed that the average Macintosh owners used 6 applications regularly while the DOS owners used two.
This does not mean that DOS users were more stupid than GUI users. The study suggested (correctly IMHO) that the transfer of commands from one application to another was more consistent. The same key strokes for cut, copy, and paste were the same as the OS.
In the DOS world each application provider used their own special commands so one had to learn a new set of different commands for the same function.
Now, let’s extrapolate that to the CLI, and in particular, LINUX. As long as the general public (not us geeks) cannot see good consistancy (no, Windows and OS X are not 100% consistent) in the applications used in LINUX they will not rush out and switch. They are not stupid. They just do not feel that their time is best spent learning a bunch of arcane commands. This holds true in all of the OSs. I know very few users who would even try to alter their system with the neatest thing since sliced butter if it involved complex clicking or really meaningless (to them) code typed in on a command line.
It has been said repeatedly that the general public is not as enamored with such mundane things. They just want to use them without having to invest copius quantities of time figuring out how to get the job done.
So, *NIX OSs will not become household items unless this consistent user interface is developed. The easier (read: less complicated) an OS or app is the faster it will be adopted. I agree that maybe a new paradigm in LINUX might be the way to get started. The next phase is getting the OEMs to offer it and the software houses to adopt the ‘standards’ of that interface in their application.
For the hobbyists nothing is simpler than what they thoroughly enjoy doing. There are many ‘fun things’ one can devote time to learning and OSs are just one. We are not all specialists or hobbyists in all areas of human endeavors. So, forget the, ‘but this is so easy to do’, and face the realities of life. I love working with computers (all OSs) and I have my preferred OS. That does not make me suerior and that does not mean that everyone should do as I do.
If you want to make a new user paradigm more popular the last step is the most important. Good marketing and business savvie of how to position your product.
Most of the readers/participators of this forum have clearly stated that Apple has a reasonably good OS, etc. but the cost is too high. That may be a deterrent to some but many users simply decide what they want to spend their money on (it is called priorities) and simply save to get what they want. No, I will not try to save up for a 80 foot yacht. It is way out of my ability to produce and save that much money. However, that $120 for a tennis shoe that has others selling for $40 I can handle. I can even wait up to seven years before I replace my computer while saving for the new one at the high end of pricing. With slightly more income I could even save up enough money to buy that special car that does not sell for under $15,000.
I wish the *NIX community could reach their goal of making it more palpable to the general computer user. MS needs serious competition that overcomes their monopolistic hold on the OS world.
Will normal desktop home user want to do stuff in command line? This is something dead since Windows 95 for most people. You’ve got the Web, Add/Remove programs, AutoRun… Who will want to return to the command line? Linux & Unix users will, but the rest…?
Yes, if you are lucky your distro will supply you with some nice GUI admin tool. In most cases they will ask for the root password before anything happens. The general idea still applies. You do not need to be logged in as root to do sysadmin tasks. This minimizes the risk of viruses spreading through an account with high permissions.
Take for example… Almost every PC ship with Windows XP, many PC maker will have a ghost or rescue CD with XP, service pack and all the software they give. They almost allways include an Anti-Virus and many give Firewall software. XP SP2 will give even more security. It’s included in the price of the PC. So, we got XP, and it’s fast,«secure» and stable enough for what…98% of the world?? (correct me on this..!)
Linux in 18 months will be fabulous. Linux can already deliver on all the things you mentioned above better than XP. The problem is making a centralized way to configure everything. Once some of the freedesktop.org projects are more mature and some of the new developments set to come out over the next year are ready, a well-designed distro willl be incredible. IMO.
In windows you can install programms/administrate system using “run as” – so, if people are too lazy to do that and just use Administrator account just means that they’ll do the same on linux – log-in and work as root. Security is not much about OS, it’s more about people who use it!
I find it offensive that you call me a hypocrite, especially given the fact, that you are ignorant of the projects beginnings. Looking Glass was never a SUN project.
A search on google for “Looking Glass” brings up the very first hit as “Project Looking Glass by Sun …”. Searching for Looking Glass desktop brings up lots of things such as “Sun open source’s Looking Glass”. No where did I see that Looking Glass is not a Sun product.
You may very well be right of course, but the above certainly doesn’t imply the beginnings you mentioned. Obviously Sun actually ‘owned’ Looking Glass, otherwise it would have read “Sun Developer open sources …” Also, by your reasoning no company ever does anything, since it’s always some individuals in the company that do it?
As for Mono, people don’t let us forget it was made by Microsoft. I was just suprised by your comments because Looking Glass and Sun seem to have been promenently linked in all previoius stories up until it was realeased as open source.
You are right though, I shouldn’t have called you a hypocrit since you personally might always have thought Looking Glass was cool regardless of it’s source status. Sorry for that.
You said :
«Security is not much about OS, it’s more about people who use it!»
YES!! Thank you! You can build the BEST, SECURE ROBUST OS in the World… If people do not learn how to use it correctly, you will allways have problems. Running Linux as Root is so much easyer, no password asked all the time, no restriction… blah blah blah… Next thing you know, we will have lots of PC running Linux with the same problem that WinXP has right now…
Their will be a learning curve. It’s easy do to everything you want with Windows, users will have to understand why sometime Linux stop them from doing things.
Many users still have a hard time figuring what’s a read only file…. Imagine telling them about rights management, root/user accounts, HOME directory, Mount/fstab/samba, ….
I don’t think that home users will learn all that stuff, and Linux won’t help – there’s already Lindows
(I guess U know what I’m talking about)
And in corporate environment – I manage security in our network and users are forced to use only allowed stuff through GPO’s, so, honestly, I don’t see too much of advantage in using Linux instead of Windows. And the most important thing is lack of enterprise integration software for Linux. I believe that most enterprises need messaging/collaboration e.t.c. stuff, wich is available for Windows, and much less people run server farms with clustered Oracle databases with terabytes of info.
So I guess you know that even Oracle does not recommend using clustered servers hey? Up until 10G, cluster with Oracle was NOT easy to install and to manage. It’s just getting better.
So server farms for Oracle with terabytes of info, yes, but clustered, nope….
So server farms for Oracle with terabytes of info, yes, but clustered, nope….
————-
what about messaging solutions?. are they ubiquitous or easy to use. same as ever. nope
To be honest, I don’t care much about Oracle or clustered Oracle servers, it’s in any case too expensive and definately way too powerful for our humble needs
Actually, I just wanted to say that for most people M$ is THE way, just because there are well integrated and reasonaby priced solutions for their business needs, and, unfortunately there’s no Linux-based and free, in both senses solutions.
And closer to the topic – I don’t think that Linux on desktop has any chances to become more or less mainstream in near future.
If the Linux desktop were exactly the same as Windows, there would be no reason for users to incur the time, cost and effort required to switch over, he said.
Bingo! It’s about time developers woke up and realised that users aren’t going to switch in droves even if free operating systems ever meet the magical “it’s just like Windows!” goal that some people seem to think is the “Holy Grail”.
Define “the same”. There are various other factors which would be still different: the kernel used by the two OSes, is different. The APIs are different. The code is different. The license is different. The people behind it are different. The development model is different. There are many, many factors which would be still different when i assume “the same” means “functions exactly like Windows on the outside“.
The question is rather wether these differences would make it attractive to switch over. Also, even when it would cost time, money on the short timespawn would that be the same on the long run? What about the learning curve?
It is not as simple as Havoc Pennington puts it, although i do agree with him: other projects like XPde, QVWM, ReactOS are more suitable for those who want a more exact copy, and it is not as if Windows its UI is the Holy Grail. If that would be true, why doesn’t MS agree with Longhorn using the very same interface?
It is not as simple as Havoc Pennington puts it, although i do agree with him
————-
HP agrees in the presentation itself that copying windows/ building their own thing will both happen but he personally favours unique stuff over competing with huge amount of stuff that can be potentially copied over.
Oh I love it. When Looking Glass was a sun project, all I hear is how evil Sun is, how Sun is gonna die, how useless Looking Glass is, how Looking Glass should be open source.
Now that Looking Glass is open source, what do I hear?
“Oh, there is this great open source project called Looking Glass…”
No mention that it is a Sun project. No, it’s some wonderfull ‘open source’ project, as if the open source community created it using the open source process.
So what can I conclude from this? I guess proprietary software is cool after all, because Looking Glass was proprietary until not too long ago, and it hasn’t changed much since becoming open source.
Why are so many people so hypocritical??
It is still a Sun project for one, just an open sourced one. Moreover, i’m looking forward to you proving your point: proving that poeple’s opinions changed after it was open sourced in an individual basis. Good luck! As troll, you don’t do that, so i guess we’ll better end the discussion right here, huh?
You started out providing some reasonable comments and have just trolled this whole thread. It’s a day later and you are still trolling. You are either paid to do this or have a lot of time in your hands.
To all the idiots that say that there is no groupware server,try:
E-groupware
Moregroupware
Ogo
Or if you want to go the proprietary route, try:
Oracle’s offerings…
Groupwise
OpenExchange
LotusNotes
Above all, stop spreading hate. You should be happy that there is an alternative, which is usable NOW. How do I know?
I was hired to transition a whole company to Linux and we have had zero downtime and very few transition problems. Even the die-hard windows users are glad to be relieved of some of the ongoing problems. Initially, a few resisted. Three months later, they are thrilled.
I was reading some of the stuff that was written after I posted last night. There is so much misnformed and hateful drivel, it makes me sick.
You people have the ethical backbone of an amoeba. Why do you feel the need to lie and in the process show your complete lack of technical competence?
I am going to go wash. I am sickened by how much you people are willing to twist the facts to make Linux look bad.
Thanx for the kind words
Well, maybe am a moron, I don’t know, probably you know better, but we had a pilot project, trying to switch to Linux/OSS stuff and results were below our expectations – to much hassle setting up and maintaining and poor or non-existing documentation – so we ended up with Windows, although I would agree that Samba works great. But all this stuff takes too much time and effort, so it turns out too be more expensive than proprietary solution – well, maybe it’s just because I’m a moron as you said 