Linux Rant

[LocoCoyote]

Ok Boys & Girls I apologize in advance but its….RANT TIME!!!!!!!
Linux. You hear about it all the time. Many tout it’s stability, its power, that it can do anything Windows can do but better. Bull Doo Doo! I have just spent the last week installing Red Hat 7.2 on a Frankenstein of a PC I built. (Some specs [Hey these were all spare parts that someone chucked in the old garbage bin] Cyrix MII CPU, 96MB RAM 20GB HD, 50x CDROM, Voodoo 3D card and so on). You know what? It sucked! Now this wasn’t the first time I have installed Linux. I have played with RedHat from 6.2 through 8 and several versions of Slackware. You know what they all had in common? They were a pain in the Keester to get installed and running. Once you have it up and running, then what. Truthfully name one thing the average user can do that Windows doesn’t do easier (therefore better)? Office apps. Cheap, feature limited copies of a Microsoft product. X windows strives to BE Windows. Hook up to the net for some surfing….Ack! Set aside a few days and hope there isn’t any special thing your ISP requires! Install new Software……pain. Install new Hardware…….please make the bad man stop!
Micosoft, for all their many faults, has done more to advance PCs and personal computing than any other single enity out there. This my friends is truth. Now understand I have my problems with MS and Windoze and I have ranted about them before, but compared to all the malarkey I hear about Linux..I don’t know.

OK Rant Over
Thank you for your time!

[crow]

After downloading,burning & installing Mandrake, Red Hat, ELX, Knoppix, Gentoo & Caldera I've given up and I'm back to
Win 98fe. Installing these various Linux'es went fairly well but the config & hardware installation was an exercise in futility. The instructions for installing my Actel USB modem went to 13 full pages of script. Too much for me.... Just my 2 cents worth....
-
Len:
-

[LocoCoyote]

see...Crow that is exactly what I am talking about.
Much promise.....more pain...no gain

[Computer Hobbyist]

I have been using Linux as the OS on my personal computer for about 2 years now. First as an experiment and then because I liked it.

For a lot of reasons I run Microsoft at the office. We have 6 workstations and an NT server. Because we are a small office day to day administration falls to me.

Recently, I had occasion to be involved in the set up of a couple of Win2K computers. I set up one and my computer consultant set up the second. Both of us had trouble installing some of our network software, so we had to call in the network guy. When he was done I had to go back to the machines and reconfigure things he had changed just to make the users happy.

I hadn't used Win2K before (Win98 up to then) and I think it is a marked improvement over Win98. I am also told that Windows XP pro is even better and our next office machines will use Window XP.

All that said, I still prefer my Linux box to either the Windows 98 or Windows 2K. The only things that I miss at home are Quicken and Turbo Tax (esp. Turbo Tax.) My last install, Mandrake 8.1, went so smooth I haven't bothered to upgrade since. I am toying with the notion of buying Redhat 8.0 just to see what it is like, but am reluctant because things are going so well.

Historically, I have had much more difficulty installing Windows than Linux, maybe it is because I plan my Linux installs and tend to simply put the disk into the floppy or CD-Rom and push start when I install Windows.

My latest adventure involved reinstalling Windows 98 on an old machine my associate is taking home to cruise the net. To make sure everything was cleaned off the old machine, I reformated the harddrive. Because we had upgraded the machine to Windows 98se, I had to hunt down the old Windows 3.1 disks to complete the clean install. I then had to jump through hoops reinstalling the video card, and the modem. All in all it wasn't hard, but is was a pain.

End of my rant. I still think Linux is the best OS you don't have to pay for.

CH

[TMAN]

Linux will NEVER EVER NEVER be as easy to use as windows for many many reasons:

1.) No real standard besides kernel API (and maybe X). I mean if you want to get ONE packge working in GNOME that was built for KDE you have to download 50(?)MB of software. The open source "revolution" has dug itself a deep hole by encouraging an infinite number of standards. I mean what the hell is the definitive linux equivalent to VFW or WDM? Even different distros cant agree on kernel interfaces! Of course this is changing with LSB....

2.) no good installer/sofware mangement aka RPM hell. It may check for dependencies and tell you you're missing something. Okay, so you find the missing components and install them- or try to because they have missing dependencies too and so on and so on until you realize you're installing plib v0.0.1b while forgetting that you originially wanted to install the drivers for your modem! And source isn't much of a leap either because the code is picky about the versions of libraries! And why is it that I can compile and install the RAR module for x-zip yet x-zip still fails to see it?

3.) Fundamental design it is simply not designed to be guidiots OS. I mean, look at that code of X; half of it is an obvious (and admitted) hack attempt to get anything on the screen.

4.) lacking extensive help/tooltip like features and even more cryptic error messages (compared to windows). Man and info pages are fun and the most informative creations on the planet but the average user becomes absolutely illiterate if they have to read anything displayed on console or in a verbose manner or in an error box. How does it help anything to call dialogs transients when most fluent english speakers wouldn't know where to look to find the meaning of the word? And how could it help to say something like "KDE's transient spawned from app id 0x429a has caused a signal 11". Great for developers but the average user will want an exorcism 10seconds after the message.

5.) The balance between developers and system admins is there. But the balance between that group and those other users just doesn't exist- I think that disconnect is and will be the thing holding it back the most. The success of windows is that it had real users giving feedback. Linux has advanced these 11years without hardly any of that and now has to untangle to even begin to get started if it is to get to a smilar place as that of windows.

I love the stability and speed and security and flexibilty and price and choice. I could live a century with just a console and the handy man/info pages and I could live a millenia given just the console and MidnightCommander. But knowing that I could boast the standards of windows under the power belt of linux without spending (wasting) time to set it up and update it and learn its horrendous interface would be amazing especially because I could have the confidence to slip the same thing under the noses of friends and family with them thinking it was just a hell of a fancy update with a penguin instead of a window or butterffly.

[bigpuma]

I gotta say I decided to pick up SUSE 8.1 Personal edition just to check out linux. I have never used Linux before and I am a computer Newb. SUSE installed very quickly and easily and it has a lot of nice programs on it and a nice desktop environment. Maybe it will never be on the same level as Windows but so far I have been able to do just about everything with SUSE that I would with Windows including opening MS office applications with star office. The only thing I can't do is run some games.

[jglen490]

I don't get it.

I have Mandrake 8.2 running on my IBM TP365XD laptop (P120/72MB/2.1GB) and it's smooth as silk. I run X window with IceWM as my window manager. I use Mozilla as my view of the 'net. The install was easy as could be, even when I later bought a NIC to run on my new DSL connection. Plugged it in, it came up, and now I just turn on the power and EVERYTHING works. I can play music from CDs or CD-Rs or CD/RWs, while I'm writing letters and going from forum to forum.

It all just works.

I don't get it, and I don't get the rant.

[Dswissmiss]

I have also had many frustrating moments trying to install linux on my system. I just recently I visited the redhat and mandrake sites to check for harware compatibility, and found out that almost nothing I have is supported by linux. I installed redhat 8.0 this week (mandrake a few months ago), but had no internet connection (Asus P4S533 with onboard Lan), no sound (Turtle Beach Santa Cruz), and I couldn't go above a 800x600 screen resolution (Chaintech GeForce 4200).
I would very much like to just sit down and really learn how to use linux, but with all these hardware conflicts I don't even know if I should continue.

[Computer Hobbyist]

I understand your complaints. Right now the Linux community has a problem. I can not find a current centralized hardware/driver database. For years if you had issues like yours you could go to the Linux Hardware Database and find drivers. For reasons which I have not yet discovered the Linux Hardware Database has gone missing.

One advantage of Microsoft is that it gives you a central focus for solving problems. All vendors are forced to compy with the dictates of the central authority or go broke.

All that said I am very surprised by your specific problems. Redhat has without doubt confronted an Asus P4S33 board and has information about dealing with its on board lan. Turtle Beach is a major player in the sound business and dealing with a Turtle Beach card is something RedHat should have previously confronted. Finally, I don't use the NVidia drivers that came with my video card. Instead I use the Linux driver provided by NVidea. It does a much better job than the store bought driver. To get NVidea certification your supplier had to demonstrate the card would work properly with NVidea's drivers.

Not many months ago, confronted with the same kinds of driver issues you confront, I would have gone to LHD and found solutions. Without that central source of data, installing Linux can be a challenge.

CH

[Confused]

I downloaded and installed Mandrake 9.0 with a minimum of problems with the help of this forum. I have since quit tinkering with Linux. I would like to use it and have a alternative to MS but in truth MS has spoiled me.

I'm used to poping in a CD and loading up and running programs. Maybe it's my level of expertise but I just never got to where I could run things very easily. Plus as stated earlier, I'm a big user of Quicken and in the pass Turbo Tax although from what i've been reading I will probably switch to Tax Cut.

On a scale of 1 to 10 I would rate my computer skills around a 6, possible 7. If I'm having these problems, Linux is a long way from being ready for Prime Time use by the masses. My poor wife would not have access to a PC if Windows was suddenly taken away and Linux in it's present forum was the only thing available.

I do hope that someday in the near future that a meeting of minds will come together and some standards emerge. Then maybe we can have a viable alternative to Windows. I wouldn't even mind paying for a OS that could compete with Windows for ease of use.

If there is a alternative, we will all benifit with a more secure OS at a cheaper price. One of the big reasons that PC's are as fast, realiable and cheap today is the competition between Intel and AMD, various motherboard makers and HD manufactures.
Chas

[MaXimum SMOKE]

The one thing that people CAN actually do, that they usually don't, is to complain to the hardware manufacturer directly for their lack of Linux support. Many folks take the view that if there are no complaints in their mailbox, "all is right with the world". I have actually told vendors that the reason I am buying a competitiors product, is because theirs will not do whatever . Yes, it does make a difference in the long run. I have received returns from some, saying that as yet they have no one on their staff that understands Linux. No one is implying that 1 letter hires a team of 10 linux programmers, but a few letters may inspire the vendor to at least make available the 'proprietary interfacing' information to linux programmers.

[vulcan]

Well Mr. LocoCoyote

You ask "Why Linux?" I can answer your question in one sentence...

< sarcasm >Yes, we're upgrading our servers to windows NT this weekend, now won't that be fun?< /sarcasm >

What I mean is, you're looking at this the wrong way. What you have to remember is Linux is based on UNIX. UNIX, and linux are both strictly speaking server OS's. The majority of businesses are running UNIX/linux servers.

You strike me as the kind of person who likes a GUI, and yes I ran from linux the first time I installed it.

But you really can't complain that linux is crap, when you know nothing about it. It is a system made for programers, servers, and anyone who's priority is security.

Of course we are now seeing distrobutions like Mandrake, which come with large GUI packages, to make it more 'user friendly'. However if its user friendlyness you want, then i suggest you get a copy of Win2000, becuase thats waht the windows OS is made for.

It is impossible to say which is better. but if you want to browse the web, type docs and spreadsheets, and chat to friends, go for Windows. If its server security you want, choose *nix.

[LocoCoyote]

Well Mr. Vulcan
I have been using the command line (yes first in DOS and now in Win2K/XP) for many years. So much for your GUI idea. OK. How many Joe users (which is who I am talking about) are running servers?
NT had issues, I agree. 2K was better, XP better yet. Not perfect, not as secure perhaps. On that last point I am not 100% convinced anyway. I firmly belive that there are so many Win exploits due to the market share of the systems running Win.
Saying I know nothing about Linux is going a bit far. I have been (and continue to) playing with it for a while now. Knowleadge is power and all that. (yes I did that on purpose). I say "Playing" because in order to get real work done, I have to go back to windows.
On a last note....*nix installations have issues too. Just pick up any good network security book or browse some black hat sites and you will see what I mean.

Linux can't beat windows until it becomes eaiser to use.

Rant over.

[LocoCoyote]

As for jglen490 post...

Try doing installs on differnt systems. Try it with differnt setups.

Then you will get the Rant

[Computer Hobbyist]

LocoCoyote

Good points, but I think I can name one thing I can do using Linux I can't do running Windows. I can keep $143 in my pocket (I think that is the price for an OEM version of MSXP.) I can do another thing. I can keep another $300 in my pocket that I would have spent on an office suite. I can keep hundreds or thousands in my pocket I would have spent on Microsoft server software (charged by the seat). Now if I can do that, think about the guy making business purchasing decisions.

In my community a local county, already strapped for cash, recently had to pay $205,000 to M$ it hadn't budgeted because of the fine print in their M$ licensing agreement. They thought they were saving money by keeping some old machines on line while they added some new machines from Dell. The Operating Systems had been paid for, but the county was required to pay a fee based on the number of machines in inventory--$205,000 more than they thought because they had tried to save money by keeping the old machines another year. The mistake made all the papers because some local services had to be cut to pay the bill. Next time the license comes up for renewal, you think the county isn't going to think a little about going to Linux.

The VA is looking long and hard at Linux to replace M$. Lots of businesses, governments and government agencies are doing the same. In short, in these times of slow sales, non-existent growth and declining tax revenue, Linux doesn't have to be better than Microsoft to compete in the business and government worlds. It just has to be good enough. It is, and Microsoft correctly calls Linux the biggest challenge it faces.

If Linux didn't exist FreeBDS or something like it would be spearheading the same challenge to Microsoft.

CH

[LocoCoyote]

Computer Hobbyist what you are saying is of course true. I can see that, but there is another side of the coin that you may be missing...
Support costs, training costs. No way you are going to convince me that folks used to MS Windows are going to just jump up on a Linux system and handle business. Who do you go too when one the one flavor of Linux you setted upon has issues? Wade through the swamp of online help? This Forum? No, for large organization level support, you will most likely have to purchase a commercial version of Linux and pay for support that way.
MS does keep an eye on the Linux folks,no doubt!!! But that is only caution, not fear. Let's face it, if Microsoft thought Linux a true contender, they would buy (or use other MS Storm trooper tactics) them out of the picture. MS has proved time and again that no one can stand up to thier market muscle. And that my friend is the main thing I don't like about MS.

[Computer Hobbyist]

I have said this before, nobody believes me, but I have said this before. I don't dislike Microsoft. In fact, a big part of my income is derived from an investment I made in a little software company that creates software applications for a rather large government located on the North American continent. That government is currently examining Linux as a replacement for Microsoft. Linux presents a challenge to the software company that pays me a lot of money. How that company responds to the Linux challenge could impact my retirement. The best thing for me personally would be for the government to stick with Microsoft.

That said, you have to keep in mind that most governments and medium to large businesses have IT departments with professionals on staff. Purchase managers figure the IT department can handle most of the support issues you discuss. If the in-house IT guys can't handle it, RedHat, for one, is set up to make money offering support. It does a pretty good job. I think it does it at a lower cost than Microsoft.

All in all, Microsoft had better do more than keep an eye on Linux or it risks serious damage. Whether that is a good or bad thing, is for the market to decide.

In the software business, what you did yesterday isn't important. What you do today and tomorrow is what counts.

CH

[Chrisk]

Why can't people use Wine to run their Windows aps? I just started using Linux and find it difficult but much easier than expected.

[JustinLerner]

I don't mean to rain on Vulcan's ignorance, but read on.

Originally posted by vulcan
< sarcasm >Yes, we're upgrading our servers to windows NT this weekend, now won't that be fun?< /sarcasm > . . .

Was Windows NT [some #] the last version of NT you used? Although NT 4.0 is very good, and has great features for a GUI (runs on 32 MB RAM and 486 CPU's) I must assume Vulcan has no knowledge of other modern operating systems, which is ok, but just don't presume that your current version of Linux can still run in GUI mode with 32MB RAM and a 486 and still have reasonable features and security. Windows NT 4.0 is still far better that most versions of Linux in that regard even though released back in 1996.

What I mean is, you're looking at this the wrong way. What you have to remember is Linux is based on UNIX. UNIX, and linux are both strictly speaking server OS's. The majority of businesses are running UNIX/linux servers. . .

I don't know where you have worked Vulcan, but there are over 1500 different, proprietary versions of Unix, including one I've worked with called Tenix (you'll probably never see it!). Applications are not easily portable across one version of *nix to another on such proprietary operating systems.
In addition, I've used VMS, MVS, OS/390, OS/2, NT.4/2000/XP, Solaris 2.7/7.0 in businesses, but never Redhat Linux (any version) or any version of Linux (Mandrake, TurboLinux, etc) or even FreeBSD 4.4/4.5 (which I have used personally).
As you can see and contrary to your claim, much of the business world still does not use 'some version of Linux', nor do the 'majority of buisnesses' run Unix/Linux servers.
Additionally, I find that programmers are the same everywhere . . . drum roll please --- they all make mistakes. This means that a simple line of poor code can bring a resilient mainframe (S/390 or ES/9000) or Solaris server to its kness just as easily as a program on Windows or Linux! The reason you don't see it in Linux much is because you don't tend to use your *nix box like a Windows PC. Most *nix users don't try running multiple office apps, fax programs, multiple browsers, graphics and multimedia apps all at the same time while sending and retrieving e-mail, but most Windows users do run multiple resource intensive and varied programs.

But you really can't complain that linux is crap, when you know nothing about it. It is a system made for programers, servers, and anyone who's priority is security.

I don't know where you're getting your info Vulcan, but Linux was made to be open first and an alternative secondmost (see URL/URI at the bottom for the real motive behind this movement).
BTW, every OS and software is made by programmers or 'software engineers' and the cause is never for programmers, but for other purposes.

I tend to believe any local Solaris version 7 or 8 and OS/390 or even Windows 2000/XP is far more secure than any version of Linux yet -- such is the nature of trade secrets and closely guarded information. Although you may think that Linux is more secure, I'm sure the Chinese and Koreans and many other intelligence gathering groups are working feverishly to perform the most disruption at the right time - and that would include *nix based systems.

t is impossible to say which is better. but if you want to browse the web, type docs and spreadsheets, and chat to friends, go for Windows. If its server security you want, choose *nix.

Actually, if you want real security, choose Windows 2000/XP, not Linux. Just because Linux has endeared itself to the open source world and those who don't want to pay for any software at any cost, that does not make it more secure. It just has less pranksters who openly assault this OS through various means. Linux is not inherently more secure than other business OS'es including Windows 2000/XP, just less assaulted by the hacker community.

Actually, I've found that some of the most insidious cracks (still without resolution) are against Linux versions, but rarely reported by the media -- primarily because so few businesses rely upon any version of Linux for business (websites and e-mail aside) and so few hackers get thrills from cracking Linux and creating pains for something that is free to whomever will.

----

For those who want to understand the real dangers of open source read this article.
http://www.sbsc.org/LatestNews_Actio...rColumn&ID=227

----

As for emulators like Wine . . .
Why would anyone want to run OS X in compatibility mode unless they had to?

Just the same, would any business really want to run any *nix version with a Windows emulator to run Photoshop, Illustrator, Pagemaker, Quark Express, Ventura, AutoCAD, Catia, MAYA, etc . . . ?

I still can't hear your answer . . . .

[LocoCoyote]

WINE (should be WHINE) has a, let us say.....limited (very limited) number of apps it works with. And those Apps..well don't get me started.

Then there is the issue of cost.......

Do I hear an echo?

[jglen490]

Originally posted by LocoCoyote WINE (should be WHINE) has a, let us say.....limited (very limited) number of apps it works with. And those Apps..well don't get me started. Then there is the issue of cost....... Do I hear an echo?

Cost? What cost?

Oh yeah, I remember. I bought my last copy of Mandrake 8.2 download edition for a grand total of like $10.00 including the inevitable shipping and handling.

Yeah, I did try other distros (in answer to your previous post), mostly older, mostly weaker.

The big difference is I did my homework. I started with the premise that Linux was NOT Windoze and was NOT DOS, both of with which I am intimately familiar. Why did I start with that premise? Two reasons: 1) It's different and 2) it's not Windows. But continuing with the homework part, I researched Linux to determine what it was, where it came from, and why it was being used. I understood from that research that it was an OS to be reckoned with in that it was powerful, flexible, reliable, extensible, lost cost, and extremely well supported. I also learned that one of the basic premises was freedom of choice.

I also learned that the kernel is Linux and everything else is a distro. There are as many distros as there are interests. You can pick and choose what you want and how you want to run your own system -- not what some rich stranger wants me to run. So I decided to find out what distro would be good for me, i settled on Mandrake, but if that one's not right for you, that's O.K., too.

The next thing I learned was that not all hardware manufacturers like to play with alternative OS support. That, however, is changing day by day. Whether you know it or not, it takes a piece of software to interact with a given piece of hardware. That piece of software is called a driver and it takes cooperation on both the parts of the hardware maker and the OS, or other software maker, to spec out that driver. Some hardware makers provide closed-source drivers for Linux (i.e., Nvidia), some cooperate by providing specs for others to write open source drivers.

Finally, I've learned that I am not limited by one person's or one company's view of how to get work done. Whether that work is writing a Christmas letter or the next great novel, or whether it's listening to music or writing music. That also means that there is not one monolithic source for all things Linux. Not only is the OS flexible, I must also be flexible and inventive ...

and most of all curious.

No rants are needed, just linux - it's beautiful thing .

[Computer Hobbyist]

JustinLerner,

I have read the link at the bottom of your last post. It sounds like last years PR line from Microsoft--the PR line Microsoft has now abandoned. Hidden within the propaganda are a couple of very important points. First, governments, including the United States Government's DOD and VA (two of its largest departments), rightly wanting to save the taxpayers some money, are actively exploring Linux as an open source alternative to Microsoft. Trust me, that is not a joke. Linux is being promoted by some very serious upper level people in both departments. Second, the language of the GPL has created real problems for the open source community particularly as regards application software. Those problems have singlehandly done more to harm Linux than Microsoft. I suspect those problems will be resolved sooner than later. The GPL is not the only kind of open source license. It is not the only way to do an open source license.

I do agree that in the business world most of the existing servers are running something other than Linux. Linux has made very serious inroads in the Webserver market, and is rapidly replacing the main variants of Unix in the markets traditionally served by Unix. Why not, it is cheap and it is being supported by folks like IBM and Sun (yes, Sun.)

I kinda resent being tagged as being someone who doesn't want "to pay for software at any cost." As indicated above I have a serious investment in a software company and on behalf of the investors I can safely say that my company's managers and employees better not give software away or they will be looking for new jobs.

Since I want my company to be paid for its software, I would be the worse sort of scum if I wasn't willing to pay other people for theirs.

On the other hand, I don't want to pay any more than is necessary either. In other parts of my life I have found that prices are lower if there is real competition. I suspect the same would be the case in PC OS software if Microsoft had any real competition. That is what those Government departmental secretaries and generals are looking to find in Linux. From a selfish standpoint, I hope Microsoft is able to respond effectively, because if they don't my little software company is going to be spending millions transitioning to Linux. Millions that I would rather have paid to me and my fellow investors as dividends.

Finally, I am one of the rare people who uses Linux at home the same way I use Windows at the office. Although I agree it isn't perfect, I haven't found any major flaws in Linux in the multi-tasking role. If I could only get Quicken and Turbo Tax on my home machine, I wouldn't have a Windows box in my house. Now, before you come back and ask why I don't use Linux at the office, the answer is legacy. I have a staff of people who are used to several Windows apps that they find irreplaceable.

I do agree with both you and Vulcan as far as Wine is concerned. It is silly to add the overhead of an emulator to run Windows apps. MSOffice just isn't that good, and any way all you need are Linux apps capable of handling MSOffice file formats.

CH

[Tuf]

From the sounds of it I'm not as familar with Linux as some of you but I am familar with business computers.

CH is right in saying tat Linux has it's share of the webserver market, even there I don't even know what the percentage is. When I check into web hosting services the most common package they offer is on a 2000 server.


ALmost all of the file servers I have been around are M$, the few that weren't M$ weren't Linux.

While Windows could be cheaper I have never found it to be a make it or break item for me or when I ran a large firm. In my opinion even the license cost for M$ Office isn't a killer.

Honestly those two apps are about the cheapest software I use to run my business. I haven't seen an Office suite that I think compares favorably to Office but that's just my opinion I certainly haven't used them all.

I like Linux and I think it's fun to play with, but it's getting to be as big a hog as any version of Windows. Do I think Linux is going to be powering the workstations I make my living with? I don't know, but I can't see it happening in the next ten years.

While I like the command line interface myself, I don't think the future of software is going to go back to it. The success of the home PC can be largely attributed to the GUI most of use.

Remember as Linux evolves so does M$. While you may be able to download the LInux distro you want for free, running and managing it is not free. In my experience that's where the real expense in OS software is. In my experience Windows is cheaper to run.

[Computer Hobbyist]

Tuf, I sure hope you are right. I have heard everything you say before. In addition to yours, I have listened to others whose opinions I truely respect make the same compelling arguments.

It all sounds a lot like "whistin past the grave yard" to me.

There is a recession on right now. We are about to go to war. Oregon has gone to 4 day school weeks. Lots of states are in serious financial trouble. The dot.com boom is over. Budgets are tight. Shareholders want results. Taxpayers are demanding tax cuts, and better services at the same time. Purchasing managers are really looking things over closely. Memo's are flying in big business and in government. Purchasing managers, not IT people, multiply M$ license fees times tens of thousands and come up with millions. They multiply 0 times tens of thousands and come up with 0. Where would they rather the millions go, to their bottom line or to M$'s bottom line. The number crunchers figure they got great IT guys on staff right now. They can make things work. Aren't they always complaining about M$ support or something like that? 0 times tens of thousands is still 0. Isn't IBM pushing Linux? What about Sun? There might be something to this Linux stuff after all. 0 times tens of thousands is still 0. If you buy support from the nice folks at RedHat or IBM or whatever, well that is still less that M$.

IT people, who have invested a lot of time and effort in M$ have to realize that they are not making the purchasing decisions in this environment. Others are, and they want to take money to the bottom line. What makes good sense to people who know about business computing doesn't make good sense to the other folk. They just want money at their bottom line to make their shareholders and taxpayers happy. They want it there this year. Paying M$ unnecessarily is counter productive to that desire.

Like I said, I hope you are right and I am wrong.

CH

[LocoCoyote]

Point one.....great discussion going on here :-).

Point two... as I mentioned before, running Linux is not free. It has a huge potential to run up the bucks in the training and support areas. How many of your average users are computer savy?
MS office (2000 and above) is the defacto standard for office suites. Period.
If that wasn't true, why does everyone mesure their office apps against MS Office? Hey..that echo again. Isn't that the same as with Windows?

Hmmmmmmm....

[Computer Hobbyist]

Originally posted by LocoCoyote Point one.....great discussion going on here :-). Point two... as I mentioned before, running Linux is not free. It has a huge potential to run up the bucks in the training and support areas. How many of your average users are computer savy?

You are absolutely right. Running Linux isn't free. Making money in support and training is exactly what RedHat and others are counting on.

I have seen business models based on training and support that are pretty compelling.

You are also right in implying that your average computer user isn't very savvy. I would go so far as to say your average corporate or government computer buyer isn't computer savvy. They do know how to crunch numbers.

As I said above, Linux doesn't have to be the best in this environment. It just has to be good enough.

Tuf, I did a little research on Linux webservers and believe that Apache (a Linux application) has about 67% of the installed webserver market. I did a little further research and discovered Linux had 1/8th of the new server sales in the 4th quarter of 2002. That 1/8 share represents a 90% increase from the 3rd quarter. IBM grabbed the lions share of that increase. HP and, I think, Dell also benefitted. Sun was the big loser. Apparently there is a sweet spot for Linux at the point where someone operating a server needs something Unix like, but wants to run Intel based hardware. In addition to webservers, that market includes email servers.

To date the Unix market has been more affected by Linux than the Windows market, which, like my NT network, is generally considered lower end. As you indicate LInux's installed base is still small, mostly because servers, like my NT server, last quite a while. It cannot be denied, however, that Linux's installed base is growing quickly, especially in today's tight economy.

If I was an IT professional, I wouldn't abandon M$ Server2000, but I would start learning Linux, and Linux apps, on some small network (either at home or on some small node at the office.) I have a hunch that IT types who know something about Linux are going to be in demand. I'd probably do the same with FreeBSD.

CH

[jglen490]

Originally posted by LocoCoyote Point one.....great discussion going on here :-). Point two... as I mentioned before, running Linux is not free. It has a huge potential to run up the bucks in the training and support areas. How many of your average users are computer savy? MS office (2000 and above) is the defacto standard for office suites. Period. If that wasn't true, why does everyone mesure their office apps against MS Office? Hey..that echo again. Isn't that the same as with Windows? Hmmmmmmm....

O.K., so we're changing the viewpoint of this poll and this discussion. You started out with a discussion of your personal machine, " ... a Frankenstein of a PC I built." is the way you put it. Now we're talking about the cost to business?

Come on let's be at least consistent !!

There is always some cost of doing business when doing something a new way. You can also say that when a Windows upgrade occurs. Change always has an impact. But if you want to be a M$ apologist, you need some more work on your approach.

The first time I used Kword, I just started typing -- it worked fine. The same goes for OpenOffice.org, it still works wonderfully and it looks no more different from Word than say WordPerfect is from Word. All that is in Linux on the desktop is very easily doable for the average user -- it certainly isn't rocket science, although there are rocket scientists who use it .

[Computer Hobbyist]

jglen490

In fairness to LocoCoyote, we (mostly me) have let the conversation wander into the issue of the relative cost of M$ and Linux to a business. It isn't his fault that we have wandered.

On the issue of the usablity of Linux by the average user. As indicated above I use KDE as my desktop, and run a lot of Linux apps that came with my copy of Mandrake on my home machine. Frankly, I think I would have to spend between $1,000 and $1,500 for comparable Windows software. I spent about $25 plus shipping for Mandrake (I ordered a basic set of disks from Mandrake.) Damn good value for the money. I don't find my Linux applications any harder to use than comparable Windows applications. If somebody wants to spend $300-$400 for a copy of MS Office for their home computer, that is their choice. I'd rather buy a table saw.

What I don't like are folks who steal copies of application software from work for their home machines and then complain about free Linux software. (To all in this conversation -- I am not talking about you personally, but I am talking about others I know.) For the average home user the comparison is not between MS Office and OpenOffice. It is between MS Works and OpenOffice. In that case there is just no comparison.

CH

[Blakhart]

Don't think it is ever going good on desktop? Try Lycoris.

[LocoCoyote]

Jglen, it is the nature of discussions to progress....I'm just going with the flow.