Discussion:
2004 - Year of Linux Desktop
(too old to reply)
Jeff Undercash
2004-01-15 21:26:11 UTC
Permalink
I predicted the exact same thing in this newsgroup not too long ago. Looks
like I'm not the only one with the same belief:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/15/1531237&mode=thread&tid=106&tid=126&tid=163&tid=185

Everyone else on the planet is promoting Linux while the focus here is on
.Net...
JQP
2004-01-15 22:36:36 UTC
Permalink
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1424342,00.asp
Jeff Undercash
2004-01-16 03:47:19 UTC
Permalink
Are you betting the farm on Microsoft?
JQP
2004-01-16 04:43:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Undercash
Are you betting the farm on Microsoft?
The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong ... but
that is the way to bet ... particularly as far as the desktop is concerned
for the next few years.
pNichols
2004-01-16 09:33:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Undercash
Are you betting the farm on Microsoft?
He would bet on nothing else <G>>
Ralph F
2004-01-18 16:59:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by JQP
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1424342,00.asp
guess you never read page 2.
--
Ralph

"If I could tell the story in words,
I wouldn't need to lug around a camera."
.. Lewis Hine
Pedro Pimentel
2004-01-21 18:57:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ralph F
Post by JQP
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1424342,00.asp
guess you never read page 2.
So what? It still says that 2004 WONT be.
Ralph F
2004-01-21 19:05:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pedro Pimentel
So what? It still says that 2004 WONT be.
yup.
--
Ralph

"It is often forgotten that (dictionaries) are artificial
repositories, put together well after the languages they
define. The roots of language are irrational and of a
magical nature."
.. Jorge Luis Borges
Hilton Evans
2004-01-15 23:11:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Undercash
I predicted the exact same thing in this newsgroup not too long ago. Looks
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/15/1531237&mode=thread&tid=106&tid=126&tid=163&tid=185
Everyone else on the planet is promoting Linux while the focus here is on
.Net...
When you go into an electronics or computer retailer, do you
see Linux PCs? I don't even see them at Walmart, and Walmart
sells $199 Lindows PCs. Aside from slashdot pontificaters, what's
the evidence?
--
Hilton Evans
-----------------------------------------------
ChemPen Chemical Structure Software
http://www.chempensoftware.com


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 1/13/04
Alessandro Federici
2004-01-16 00:01:10 UTC
Permalink
[..] Aside from slashdot pontificaters, what's the evidence?
eWeek? <VBG>
JQP
2004-01-16 00:02:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hilton Evans
When you go into an electronics or computer retailer, do you
see Linux PCs? I don't even see them at Walmart, and Walmart
sells $199 Lindows PCs. Aside from slashdot pontificaters, what's
the evidence?
Who needs evidence when you have trashdot from slashdot? Some people just
can't get enough of being proven wrong ... year after year after year.

Red Hat should know the Linux market better than most. They seem to be
pulling back from the consumer desktop.
Trane Francks
2004-01-16 00:55:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hilton Evans
When you go into an electronics or computer retailer, do you
see Linux PCs? I don't even see them at Walmart, and Walmart
sells $199 Lindows PCs. Aside from slashdot pontificaters, what's
the evidence?
To be honest, I was totally amazed to walk into a local computer
retailer here and see a single Lindows PC being offered with a
broadband connectivity bundle. It is the first honest-to-goodness
Linux PC I've ever seen for sale. It shares showroom space with
about 80 other PCs and Macs. ;^)

All this "Year of the Linux Desktop" is SO optimistic. Blindly
so. Go to IBM's site <http://www.ibm.com/> and you're greeted
with the headline "Linux is Everywhere." Oh? So then why can't I
buy a ThinkPad with Linux preinstalled? D'oh! I think it's great
that Linux is getting mindshare and there's no question that it
is BEGINNING to make inroads on the desktop, but any significant
computer retailer showroom presence is still, IMO, years in the
future. I suspect it'll be 2010 before Linux has equal
"preinstalled" representation in retail showrooms as do Macs.

Frankly, with Lindows offering the only legit commercial DVD
playback software, why would the average home user want to
install Linux? Until LinDVD or PowerDVD for Linux are released to
the general unwashed masses, Linux isn't going to get more than a
passing nod.

trane
--
//------------------------------------------------------------
// Trane Francks ***@gol.com Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.
R.F. Pels
2004-01-16 22:35:44 UTC
Permalink
Trane Francks wrote:

<snip>
Post by Trane Francks
install Linux? Until LinDVD or PowerDVD for Linux are released to
the general unwashed masses, Linux isn't going to get more than a
passing nod.
As if 'desktop market' is equivalent to 'home desktop market', which it is
not. How big is the percentage of corporate users that really need to watch
DVD's?
--
Ruurd
ken moffat
2004-01-17 01:18:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by R.F. Pels
<snip>
Post by Trane Francks
install Linux? Until LinDVD or PowerDVD for Linux are released to
the general unwashed masses, Linux isn't going to get more than a
passing nod.
As if 'desktop market' is equivalent to 'home desktop market', which it is
not. How big is the percentage of corporate users that really need to watch
DVD's?
For that matter, what's the % of home users who need to. I've had the
capability for quite some time and use it about twice, just to see if I
could.
R.F. Pels
2004-01-17 11:48:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by ken moffat
Post by R.F. Pels
As if 'desktop market' is equivalent to 'home desktop market', which it
is not. How big is the percentage of corporate users that really need to
watch DVD's?
For that matter, what's the % of home users who need to. I've had the
capability for quite some time and use it about twice, just to see if I
could.
Same here. Plus, if I would like to, I'd buy a set that I connect to my TV.
--
Ruurd
Trane Francks
2004-01-17 06:54:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by R.F. Pels
<snip>
Post by Trane Francks
install Linux? Until LinDVD or PowerDVD for Linux are released to
the general unwashed masses, Linux isn't going to get more than a
passing nod.
As if 'desktop market' is equivalent to 'home desktop market', which it is
not. How big is the percentage of corporate users that really need to watch
DVD's?
I'll grant that the home desktop is not business desktop, but
desktop IS desktop. Linux has been ready for the business desktop
for some time now. It's still off the mark for Aunt Edna. While I
cannot speak for the vast majority of corporate users, when I
travel on business (4-5 times/year for 2-3 weeks/trip), DVDs are
a welcome addition and having a DVD drive in the ThinkPad was
part of my purchasing criteria. Three weeks of CNN gets really old.

In the meantime, I can safely say that the company for which I
work won't be changing its 2000+ seats to Linux anytime this
decade. Maybe 2004 will be the year of the Linux corporate
desktop for some folks, but it sure won't happen for me. With a
strong installed base and a trickle of new systems having Windows
something-or-other preinstalled, just where is the motivation?
Changing a corporation over to a new OS and an entirely new suite
of applications requires that there be a monumental return on
investment. I just don't see that ROI at all. I suspect that many
companies will feel the same way.

trane
--
//------------------------------------------------------------
// Trane Francks ***@gol.com Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.
R.F. Pels
2004-01-17 11:53:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Trane Francks
Post by R.F. Pels
As if 'desktop market' is equivalent to 'home desktop market', which it
is not. How big is the percentage of corporate users that really need to
watch DVD's?
I'll grant that the home desktop is not business desktop, but
desktop IS desktop. Linux has been ready for the business desktop
for some time now. It's still off the mark for Aunt Edna. While I
cannot speak for the vast majority of corporate users, when I
travel on business (4-5 times/year for 2-3 weeks/trip), DVDs are
a welcome addition and having a DVD drive in the ThinkPad was
part of my purchasing criteria. Three weeks of CNN gets really old.
If I would play the devil's advocate, as your boss I could tell you you were
misappropriating company funds for your personal entertainment.
Post by Trane Francks
In the meantime, I can safely say that the company for which I
work won't be changing its 2000+ seats to Linux anytime this
decade. Maybe 2004 will be the year of the Linux corporate
desktop for some folks, but it sure won't happen for me. With a
strong installed base and a trickle of new systems having Windows
something-or-other preinstalled, just where is the motivation?
Cost. Stability. Ease of remote maintenance. Choice. A better bargaining
position when dealing with the commercial OS vendors.
Post by Trane Francks
Changing a corporation over to a new OS and an entirely new suite
of applications requires that there be a monumental return on
investment. I just don't see that ROI at all. I suspect that many
companies will feel the same way.
Then maybe you're not looking.
--
Ruurd
Trane Francks
2004-01-17 12:59:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by R.F. Pels
Post by Trane Francks
travel on business (4-5 times/year for 2-3 weeks/trip), DVDs are
a welcome addition and having a DVD drive in the ThinkPad was
part of my purchasing criteria. Three weeks of CNN gets really old.
If I would play the devil's advocate, as your boss I could tell you you were
misappropriating company funds for your personal entertainment.
Corporate question, corporate approval. I merely made the choice
that best suited my business arrangements, based on the choice of
systems offered by the IT folks.
Post by R.F. Pels
Post by Trane Francks
strong installed base and a trickle of new systems having Windows
something-or-other preinstalled, just where is the motivation?
Cost. Stability. Ease of remote maintenance. Choice. A better bargaining
position when dealing with the commercial OS vendors.
Those are the standard answers. Now, let's say I've just bought
20 systems for my new startup. They come preinstalled with, say,
XP and SmartSuite. My staff have been using Windows at home for
years. Tell me exactly how it's cheaper to toss the preinstalled
stuff, install Linux and OpenOffice and train everybody to use
them? As long as I don't let staffers install their own software,
those XP systems will be stable. I'll grant remote maintenance,
but that doesn't apply to small businesses. Finally, my 20-seat
startup won't have bargaining power with anybody.
Post by R.F. Pels
Post by Trane Francks
investment. I just don't see that ROI at all. I suspect that many
companies will feel the same way.
Then maybe you're not looking.
I've looked. Were I to start my own company, I'd most likely run
Linux on the desktop. That said, I have a harder time seeing the
ROI for the average 50-seat company making the switch. While I
could be mistaken, it seems to me to require a fairly large
economy of scale before the investment of switching is worthwhile.

trane
--
//------------------------------------------------------------
// Trane Francks ***@gol.com Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.
JQP
2004-01-17 13:31:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Trane Francks
I've looked. Were I to start my own company, I'd most likely run
Linux on the desktop. That said, I have a harder time seeing the
ROI for the average 50-seat company making the switch. While I
could be mistaken, it seems to me to require a fairly large
economy of scale before the investment of switching is worthwhile.
Technology generally moves forward, occasionally sideways and almost never
backwards.

The fundamental problem with a small company *moving* to Linux is that the
technology is not significantly "better" than Windows, in some ways it is
worse. In other words, this is a lateral move at best. Lateral moves are
always difficult to justify.
pNichols
2004-01-17 15:46:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by JQP
Post by Trane Francks
I've looked. Were I to start my own company, I'd most likely run
Linux on the desktop. That said, I have a harder time seeing the
ROI for the average 50-seat company making the switch. While I
could be mistaken, it seems to me to require a fairly large
economy of scale before the investment of switching is worthwhile.
Technology generally moves forward, occasionally sideways and almost never
backwards.
The fundamental problem with a small company *moving* to Linux is that the
technology is not significantly "better" than Windows, in some ways it is
worse. In other words, this is a lateral move at best. Lateral moves
are always difficult to justify.
That is plain BS. RF gave you a list of WHERE Linux is better,. Now you are
back to your "I do not have to use x, to know that y is better."

Try something before you offer an answer of expertize. I doubt that you have
have ever seriously tried Linux at all.

I have run both for years and I can honstly and completely tell you that in
90% of cases for businesses, Linux is a much better option. Why?

(1) Total control of the OS. If I do have a problem, I can upgrade or fix
myself any and all parts, without having to depend on some upgrade,
reinstall, or buy a new version. For instance, if I need a new kernel to
support x options, I can do this. If I need a new X that supports new
features of improves performance in certain areas, I can do this.. If I
need xpatch, but not patch my entire system, I can do this. If I need to
customize configuration parameters to allow on certain functionality for
users, I can do this. None of these are options on Windows. You install
what Windows gives you and usually this means an update to a newer version
of Windows, which means new rollouts to every desktop. Patches from MS are
all or none, in many cases and I can only customize what Windows allows. I
cannot do incremental upgrading at all.

(2) Security: Virus problems, firewalls: In the four years I have been
running Linux, I have NEVER had a virus, period!!! How many Windows users
can say this?

Windows firewalls are not customizable. Sure you can use the options you are
given from some interface, but that is not purely customizable. I can
control each and every port with Linux using IPChains or IPTables, Heck I
can even see the source code and create my own extensions. Why do you think
most routers are running Linux, like Cisco?

(3) Installation of new software: Never requires a reboot. On a single
machine this might not be a problem. Try rolling a new software out to
25-1000 machines and have to reboot them. Oh, wait a minute, with Linux I
can remotely control everything on a client desktop. Heck, We can use Linux
terminals and Terminal services with Linux and control practically
everything, and never have to touch the user's desktop. I know, that
doesn't save you any time at all does it?

You can BUY terminal services for Windows, and get maybe 75 users on a
single server. Largo, Florida is running over 400 clients and now police
cars on a dual Zeon server with 2 gig of Ram. Try that on Windows.

(4) Stability: Windows may try as they like but no version is as stable as
Linux, period. Windows 2000 was pretty stable until I installed security
patches from MS. That was why I made my final and complete decision to run
Linux full time on the desktop. Servers have been Linux for years.

(5) Cost. It is hard to beat free, verses 100s of dollars, both for initial
installations and upgrade cost for each and every machine.

(6) A plethora of free software and utilities. Nearly everything you need
for Windows cost you. Nearly eveything you need for Linux is free.

(7) More secure Internet experience. Viruses are almost never even heard of
on Linux. Trojans are there, but easily customizable firewalls are a
CD,download, or DVD away. And they are free.

Running a Windows machine on the internet is a gamble period. You may say
that you have never had x happen (which I would doubt), but how many
millions of Windows users are constantly plagued by security breeches and
viruses? Even one of MS' former VPs stated that Windows is a totally flawed
system in terms of security and will be until the entire Windows
infrastructure is totally rewritten.

Linux with Unix roots, was meant to be secure from the beginning. Sure,
there are some vunerabilities in Linux and badly written code as well. But
compared to Windows, it is like comparing the holes in a doughnut to Swiss
cheese. That would too, bring us back to root causes. Most security
problems in Linux are modular, while in Windows it is inherent. In other
words, I can modularly replace any part or the whole of a Linux system,
from the kernel to the Graphical engine, to any or all of my software. This
is not possible on Windows, it requires a new version of Windows.


(8) Better support of open standards. Linux is based much more on the open
standards like ECMA and W3C which the open source world work closely with.
Microsoft is a lesson in being propreitary, which = lock in.

Most companies do not want to be held hostage to a single entity. With MS,
that is a garantee, with Open source, is a garantee not to be locked in.

In closing:

The only downside to Linux, is that some software is only offered on
Windows. Dreamweaver is a good example, as is Adobe acrobat. You can
Lin4Win or VMWare these, but this is the only area where Windows may have
to be a consideration. For Word Processing, Spreadsheets, Presentations,
development, email, Web browsing and general overall business use, Linux is
a much better option, plus it can save you hundreds of dollars per client
desktop.

For the average Home user, Linux is not there yet. Not because it is
inherently more difficult to use than Windows, but because of gaming
software. Most Home PCs are used to pay games, in addition to internet use.
Internet wise, Windows has been and will be, a gamble. Game wise, Windows
wins, hands down. This is not Linux's fault, it is where the game
developers are and what they write for. This will change as Linux grows in
popularity, but for now, for games, it is Windows or nothing. Mac has more
gaming titles available, but it too, lags far behind Windows.

Another area where Windows wins, is what is referred to as "trained admins"
There are more Windows admins than Linux ones. The problem is how many good
Windows admins are there? The dependence upon GUI interfaces and point and
click, does not make a very good admin, IMHO. Many so called Windows admins
do not know how to write a batch file, run FTP from a command line, or
write installation and configuration scripts. MS has been very good in
making people believe they are experts, when indeed they are power uses.

Same goes for programmers. Many have never touched a command line, written a
make file, or done any incremental builds and links. If it isn't GUI and
drag and drop, they are lost. That to me, is an untrained programmer or
some of which might be better described as point and click, drag and drop
Gurus :)

Still that being said, Windows has traditionally been available for the
average user, which means that they will have more exprience with Windows
than Linux. However, this too, is changing, due to the increased use and
deployment of Linux and Open Source.

This is what you call an assesment JQP, not based on opinions read from some
sponsered site, but rather experience. When MS sent out a survey form,
asking how they could get us Linux users to switch from Linux, we told them
the same things.
Ender
2004-01-18 17:00:10 UTC
Permalink
p> (1) Total control of the OS. If I do have a problem, I can upgrade or
p> fix myself any and all parts, without having to depend on some
p> upgrade, reinstall, or buy a new version. For instance, if I need a
p> new kernel to support x options, I can do this. If I need a new X
p> that supports new features of improves performance in certain areas,
p> I can do this.. If I need xpatch, but not patch my entire system, I
p> can do this. If I need to customize configuration parameters to allow
p> on certain functionality for users, I can do this. None of these are
p> options on Windows. You install what Windows gives you and usually
p> this means an update to a newer version of Windows, which means new
p> rollouts to every desktop. Patches from MS are all or none, in many
p> cases and I can only customize what Windows allows. I cannot do
p> incremental upgrading at all.

However there is extremely rare occasions when user need total control of
the OS. There is no necessary to upgrade windows microkernel, upgrading
certain part of interface with hardware is upgrading/installing driver.
There is no necessary to do incremental upgrading because it often lead to
compatibility problems. The ability to replace parts of OS deffinitely is
not advantage. It is way to get advantages but it is way to get problems.
Guess why there is never questions/answer in Windows newsgroups: "It is not
working?" - "Yeah, install kernel version X.Y.Z on distro A or P.Q.R on
distro B".

p> (2) Security: Virus problems, firewalls: In the four years I have
p> been running Linux, I have NEVER had a virus, period!!! How many
p> Windows users can say this?


I Windows (and linux too) user. I never had virus since times of MS DOS.
Most viruses targetted on Windows because:
1. It is most poular.
2. There are most count of stupid users who able to run suspicious
executable just because it named "britney_spears_naked.txt.safe.exe".

Once Linux get more popular, once it's applications get more functions like
Word's VBA it will be same amount of viruses for Linux.

p> Windows firewalls are not customizable. Sure you can use the options
p> you are given from some interface, but that is not purely
p> customizable. I can control each and every port with Linux using
IPChains or IPTables,
p> Heck I can even see the source code and create my own extensions.
p> Why do
p> you think most routers are running Linux, like Cisco?

Thinking that good software is only Linux prerrogative? Just look on Agnitum
Outpost Firewall for example.

p> (3) Installation of new software: Never requires a reboot.

In fact reboot it is stupid behavior introduced by Microsoft, and many
stupidly follow it. 99% of Windows software actually not needed reboot. This
is question to put or not to put checkbox in the InstallShield or
WiseInstaller near words "require reboot".

p> On a single machine this might not be a problem. Try rolling a new
p> software out to 25-1000 machines and have to reboot them.

Oh. I have 200 machines that running certain software in Linux. Upgrading
all 200 not easy way. Or i need to force user stop working, roll on local
copy, then run again. On each for 200 machines. Another solution to run soft
over nfs. There is another problem, after changing executables on nfs we
need to close programs, unmount nfs mountpoints, upgrade software, mount
nfs, then run again. This option is not better that Windows'es.

p> Oh, wait a minute, with Linux I can remotely control everything on a
p> client desktop.

Windows RemoteDesktop. Windows terminal server. Same level of control. And
work significantly faster than Linux X over slow connections.

p> Heck, We can use Linux terminals and Terminal services
p> with Linux and control practically everything, and never have to touch
p> the user's desktop. I know, that doesn't save you any time at all does
p> it?

p> You can BUY terminal services for Windows, and get maybe 75 users on
p> a single server. Largo, Florida is running over 400 clients and now
p> police cars on a dual Zeon server with 2 gig of Ram. Try that on
p> Windows.


400 X-clients?

p> (4) Stability: Windows may try as they like but no version is as
p> stable as Linux, period.

BS. Linux on desktop failing with same rate as Windows on desktop. In some
hands less, in some hands more. Personally i'm sometimes able to kill or
hang entrie X-subsystem with Kylix debugger while debugging certain
programs. Few times it was total hang-up when even network connect was not
possible. Stability of Linux desktop - myth, not more.

p> Windows 2000 was pretty stable until I installed security patches from
p> MS. That was why I made my final and complete decision to run
p> Linux full time on the desktop. Servers have been Linux for years.

Windows servers have been running for years also. Until i switched to
company which work with Linux we have certain amount of W'NT 4.0 servers
which runtime was about year each. There was pair of interrupts when there
was power failure or company relocated into new office.

p> (5) Cost. It is hard to beat free, verses 100s of dollars, both for
p> initial installations and upgrade cost for each and every machine.

That 100$ will be spent on solving of various problems. What american
programmer salary per hour? Imagine $20/hr. When that programmer spend only
5 hours on doing something Linux specific (for example compiling Qt - 7
hours on C700, or guessing
how_to_run_that_program_in_that_conditions_and_how_to_configure_it_to_run_pr
operly) Linux advantage is wanish.

p> (6) A plethora of free software and utilities. Nearly everything you
p> need for Windows cost you. Nearly eveything you need for Linux is
p> free.

There are plethora of free software for Windows.

p> (7) More secure Internet experience. Viruses are almost never even
p> heard of on Linux. Trojans are there, but easily customizable
p> firewalls are a CD,download, or DVD away. And they are free.
p> Running a Windows machine on the internet is a gamble period. You may
p> say that you have never had x happen (which I would doubt), but how
p> many millions of Windows users are constantly plagued by security
p> breeches and viruses? Even one of MS' former VPs stated that Windows
p> is a totally flawed system in terms of security and will be until the
p> entire Windows infrastructure is totally rewritten.

Just use right firewall and not run suspicious content, okay? I'm browsing
internet regularly and securely. And about VP's... i don't trust to them if
they woriking on Bill or not working on Bill.

p> Linux with Unix roots, was meant to be secure from the beginning.
p> Sure, there are some vunerabilities in Linux and badly written code
p> as well. But compared to Windows, it is like comparing the holes in a
p> doughnut to Swiss cheese. That would too, bring us back to root
p> causes. Most security problems in Linux are modular, while in Windows
p> it is inherent.

Did you saw Windows code to deffinitely say that it is inherent?

p> In other words, I can modularly replace any part or the whole of a Linux
p> system, from the kernel to the Graphical engine, to any or all of my
p> software. This is not possible on Windows, it requires a new version of
p> Windows.

p> (8) Better support of open standards. Linux is based much more on the
p> open standards like ECMA and W3C which the open source world work
p> closely with.
p> Microsoft is a lesson in being propreitary, which = lock in.

Personally i'm don't see negative consequences that something inside windows
is not belong to open standards.

p> Most companies do not want to be held hostage to a single entity.
p> With MS, that is a garantee, with Open source, is a garantee not to
p> be locked in.

As long MS will be stable, they will be stable. And that why they will
remain with windows and both make millons while linux still crawling under
the dinning table and loudly scream.

p> In closing:

p> The only downside to Linux, is that some software is only offered on
p> Windows. Dreamweaver is a good example, as is Adobe acrobat. You can
p> Lin4Win or VMWare these, but this is the only area where Windows may
p> have to be a consideration. For Word Processing, Spreadsheets,
p> Presentations, development, email, Web browsing and general overall
p> business use, Linux is a much better option, plus it can save you
p> hundreds of dollars per client desktop.
p> Internet wise, Windows has been and will be, a gamble. Game wise,
p> Windows wins, hands down. This is not Linux's fault, it is where the
p> game developers are and what they write for. This will change as
p> Linux grows in popularity, but for now, for games, it is Windows or
p> nothing. Mac has more gaming titles available, but it too, lags far
p> behind Windows.

Guess why there is "some software"? Guess why it feature rich or why games
on windows? Because of development tools, IDE's etc.

p> Another area where Windows wins, is what is referred to as "trained
p> admins"
p> There are more Windows admins than Linux ones. The problem is how
p> many good
p> Windows admins are there? The dependence upon GUI interfaces and
p> point and click, does not make a very good admin, IMHO. Many so
p> called Windows admins do not know how to write a batch file, run FTP
p> from a command line, or write installation and configuration scripts.
p> MS has been very good in making people believe they are experts, when
p> indeed they are power uses.

Then they not admins.

p> Same goes for programmers. Many have never touched a command line,
p> written a make file, or done any incremental builds and links. If it
p> isn't GUI and drag and drop, they are lost. That to me, is an
p> untrained programmer or some of which might be better described as point
p> and click, drag and drop
p> Gurus :)

If machine can do something for programmer, it must do not to force him to
write makefiles. CBX fine example, programmer not need to write that
makefiles, he not need to lose time to learn how that files should be
written, he may use his time to solve real problems instead fight with
results of laziness of creators of development tools. The system that
required that human must do something when system can do it itself - flawed
system by deffinition.

p> Still that being said, Windows has traditionally been available for
p> the average user, which means that they will have more exprience with
p> Windows than Linux. However, this too, is changing, due to the
p> increased use and deployment of Linux and Open Source.

p> This is what you call an assesment JQP, not based on opinions read
p> from some sponsered site, but rather experience. When MS sent out a
p> survey form, asking how they could get us Linux users to switch from
p> Linux, we told them the same things.

Eventually MS learn from good sides of Linux (and we see attempts of it),
but seems linux community do not want to learn good sides of Windows. And
such blindness cannot remain unpunished.





---
Andrew V. Fionik, Papillon Systems, Unix Programmers Group
For reply use "ender" instead of "fionika" in e-mail.
R.F. Pels
2004-01-18 22:33:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ender
However there is extremely rare occasions when user need total control of
the OS. There is no necessary to upgrade windows microkernel, upgrading
certain part of interface with hardware is upgrading/installing driver.
Requiring a reboot.
Post by Ender
There is no necessary to do incremental upgrading because it often lead to
compatibility problems. The ability to replace parts of OS deffinitely is
not advantage. It is way to get advantages but it is way to get problems.
Guess why there is never questions/answer in Windows newsgroups: "It is
not working?" - "Yeah, install kernel version X.Y.Z on distro A or P.Q.R
on distro B".
That's not because it is possible in Linux, that is because it is impossible
in Windows.
Post by Ender
Once Linux get more popular, once it's applications get more functions
like Word's VBA it will be same amount of viruses for Linux.
Maybe, but the impact always is smaller than under Windows, for the simple
fact that the underlying security model is more robust.
Post by Ender
p> Windows firewalls are not customizable. Sure you can use the options
p> you are given from some interface, but that is not purely
p> customizable. I can control each and every port with Linux using
IPChains or IPTables,
p> Heck I can even see the source code and create my own extensions.
p> Why do
p> you think most routers are running Linux, like Cisco?
Thinking that good software is only Linux prerrogative? Just look on
Agnitum Outpost Firewall for example.
Payware, no doubt.
Post by Ender
p> (3) Installation of new software: Never requires a reboot.
In fact reboot it is stupid behavior introduced by Microsoft, and many
stupidly follow it. 99% of Windows software actually not needed reboot.
This is question to put or not to put checkbox in the InstallShield or
WiseInstaller near words "require reboot".
p> On a single machine this might not be a problem. Try rolling a new
p> software out to 25-1000 machines and have to reboot them.
Oh. I have 200 machines that running certain software in Linux. Upgrading
all 200 not easy way. Or i need to force user stop working, roll on local
copy, then run again. On each for 200 machines. Another solution to run
soft over nfs. There is another problem, after changing executables on nfs
we need to close programs, unmount nfs mountpoints, upgrade software,
mount nfs, then run again. This option is not better that Windows'es.
Get yourself a decent distro, create the scripts and run them overnight. Or
pay through your nose for Windows remote upgrade stuff. Pick your choice.
Post by Ender
p> Oh, wait a minute, with Linux I can remotely control everything on a
p> client desktop.
Windows RemoteDesktop. Windows terminal server. Same level of control. And
work significantly faster than Linux X over slow connections.
Insecure and insecure. I can pick ssh, vnc or spawn an extra X session to
that box.
Post by Ender
400 X-clients?
Yes Ender, quite easy. They all share their text segments, and the X server
runs on the desktop machine. If I would have to accomodate the same amount
of clients on a Windows Terminal Server, I would have to shell out major
bucks in hardware and software.
Post by Ender
p> (4) Stability: Windows may try as they like but no version is as
p> stable as Linux, period.
BS. Linux on desktop failing with same rate as Windows on desktop. In some
hands less, in some hands more. Personally i'm sometimes able to kill or
hang entrie X-subsystem with Kylix debugger while debugging certain
programs. Few times it was total hang-up when even network connect was not
possible. Stability of Linux desktop - myth, not more.
Plain stupidity on the programmer part this is. It's high time you study how
to set limits to the amount of memory and processor time a process can use.
If it runs away, kill the process before it gets out of hand. This kind of
behaviour is almost in all cases attributable to either runaway processes
or committing so much memory that the swap runs out.
Post by Ender
p> Windows 2000 was pretty stable until I installed security patches from
p> MS. That was why I made my final and complete decision to run
p> Linux full time on the desktop. Servers have been Linux for years.
Windows servers have been running for years also. Until i switched to
company which work with Linux we have certain amount of W'NT 4.0 servers
which runtime was about year each. There was pair of interrupts when there
was power failure or company relocated into new office.
Pff. I've seen outfits that had to reboot dayly because otherwise their
Windows boxen would fail pitifully.
Post by Ender
p> (5) Cost. It is hard to beat free, verses 100s of dollars, both for
p> initial installations and upgrade cost for each and every machine.
That 100$ will be spent on solving of various problems. What american
programmer salary per hour? Imagine $20/hr. When that programmer spend
only 5 hours on doing something Linux specific (for example compiling Qt -
7 hours on C700, or guessing how _ to _ run _ that _ program _ in _ that _
conditions _ and _ how _ to _ configure _ it _ to _ run _ properly) Linux
advantage is wanish.
You're forgetting the upfront cost. Plus he didn't say $100, he said
hundreds of dollars. Like EUR4000 for an Exchange license which comes
preinstalled as an open relay thank you very much. And you're equally
forgetting that setting up and securing Windows software is equally or more
difficult than Linux software. Not to mention the fact that if one process
poops on your registry, you're having a disaster. And failing to notice all
kinds of trouble with the totally dim filesystems available under Linux.
Post by Ender
p> (6) A plethora of free software and utilities. Nearly everything you
p> need for Windows cost you. Nearly eveything you need for Linux is
p> free.
There are plethora of free software for Windows.
All payware.
Post by Ender
p> (7) More secure Internet experience. Viruses are almost never even
p> heard of on Linux. Trojans are there, but easily customizable
p> firewalls are a CD,download, or DVD away. And they are free.
p> Running a Windows machine on the internet is a gamble period. You may
p> say that you have never had x happen (which I would doubt), but how
p> many millions of Windows users are constantly plagued by security
p> breeches and viruses? Even one of MS' former VPs stated that Windows
p> is a totally flawed system in terms of security and will be until the
p> entire Windows infrastructure is totally rewritten.
Just use right firewall and not run suspicious content, okay? I'm browsing
internet regularly and securely. And about VP's... i don't trust to them
if they woriking on Bill or not working on Bill.
And that is exactly the point where Linux shines. It won't even run
suspicious content in the first place.
Post by Ender
p> Linux with Unix roots, was meant to be secure from the beginning.
p> Sure, there are some vunerabilities in Linux and badly written code
p> as well. But compared to Windows, it is like comparing the holes in a
p> doughnut to Swiss cheese. That would too, bring us back to root
p> causes. Most security problems in Linux are modular, while in Windows
p> it is inherent.
Did you saw Windows code to deffinitely say that it is inherent?
Yes, inherent. And you don't need to look at the code to know that. Add a
driver? Windows requires a reboot, Linux does not. Add a server process?
Windows needs a reboot in most cases, Linux does not.
Post by Ender
Personally i'm don't see negative consequences that something inside
windows is not belong to open standards.
Just wait for the moment that Microsoft is charging you 10 cents for every
Word document you create. Just wait and see what happens if they only
support a Word document version that's not backward compatible and see how
much money your government has to shell out to make all the old shit
useable again.
Post by Ender
p> Most companies do not want to be held hostage to a single entity.
p> With MS, that is a garantee, with Open source, is a garantee not to
p> be locked in.
As long MS will be stable, they will be stable. And that why they will
remain with windows and both make millons while linux still crawling under
the dinning table and loudly scream.
Fact of the matter is that Windows is not stable. Period.

<snip>
Post by Ender
p> Same goes for programmers. Many have never touched a command line,
p> written a make file, or done any incremental builds and links. If it
p> isn't GUI and drag and drop, they are lost. That to me, is an
p> untrained programmer or some of which might be better described as
point p> and click, drag and drop
p> Gurus :)
If machine can do something for programmer, it must do not to force him to
write makefiles. CBX fine example, programmer not need to write that
makefiles, he not need to lose time to learn how that files should be
written, he may use his time to solve real problems instead fight with
results of laziness of creators of development tools. The system that
required that human must do something when system can do it itself -
flawed system by deffinition.
Only holds as long as you stay in a single environment. Plus a programmer
that's unable to specify how to build his stuff in a particular language
isn't worth diddly.
Post by Ender
p> Still that being said, Windows has traditionally been available for
p> the average user, which means that they will have more exprience with
p> Windows than Linux. However, this too, is changing, due to the
p> increased use and deployment of Linux and Open Source.
p> This is what you call an assesment JQP, not based on opinions read
p> from some sponsered site, but rather experience. When MS sent out a
p> survey form, asking how they could get us Linux users to switch from
p> Linux, we told them the same things.
Eventually MS learn from good sides of Linux (and we see attempts of it),
but seems linux community do not want to learn good sides of Windows. And
such blindness cannot remain unpunished.
As a matter of fact, Windows made a huge step backward with XP. And if you
think pilfering the property of others euqates learning, I'd say it's high
time you looked again.
--
Ruurd
Ender
2004-01-19 08:26:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ender
However there is extremely rare occasions when user need total
control of the OS. There is no necessary to upgrade windows
microkernel, upgrading certain part of interface with hardware is
upgrading/installing driver.
RP> Requiring a reboot.

On home desktop PC installing new driver for videocard with reboot is
normal. Nothing bad. On corporate server this usually happens only on
new/upgrade of hardware. Requires reboot anyway.
Post by Ender
There is no necessary to do incremental upgrading because it often
lead to compatibility problems. The ability to replace parts of OS
deffinitely is not advantage. It is way to get advantages but it is
way to get problems.
Guess why there is never questions/answer in Windows newsgroups: "It
is not working?" - "Yeah, install kernel version X.Y.Z on distro A or
P.Q.R on distro B".
RP> That's not because it is possible in Linux, that is because it is
RP> impossible in Windows.

But in Windows it is not necessary. There is no such problem as "need to
change windows microkernel". You guys create problems and then successfully
solve it. Not much pride in it.
Post by Ender
Once Linux get more popular, once it's applications get more
functions like Word's VBA it will be same amount of viruses for
Linux.
RP> Maybe, but the impact always is smaller than under Windows, for the
RP> simple fact that the underlying security model is more robust.

When Linux will have same popularity (if it happen someday) we can say
deffinitely.

p>>> Windows firewalls are not customizable. Sure you can use the
p>>> options you are given from some interface, but that is not purely
p>>> customizable. I can control each and every port with Linux using
Post by Ender
IPChains or IPTables,
p>>> Heck I can even see the source code and create my own extensions.
p>>> Why do you think most routers are running Linux, like Cisco?
Post by Ender
Thinking that good software is only Linux prerrogative? Just look on
Agnitum Outpost Firewall for example.
RP> Payware, no doubt.

It has payware version, it has freeware version. I'm happy with free.
Post by Ender
Oh. I have 200 machines that running certain software in Linux.
Upgrading all 200 not easy way. Or i need to force user stop working,
roll on local copy, then run again. On each for 200 machines. Another
solution to run soft over nfs. There is another problem, after
changing executables on nfs we need to close programs, unmount nfs
mountpoints, upgrade software, mount nfs, then run again. This option
is not better that Windows'es.
RP> Get yourself a decent distro, create the scripts and run them
RP> overnight.

My machines used in 24x7 rythm.

RP> Or pay through your nose for Windows remote upgrade stuff. Pick your
RP> choice.
p>>> Oh, wait a minute, with Linux I can remotely control everything on
p>>> a client desktop.
Post by Ender
Windows RemoteDesktop. Windows terminal server. Same level of
control. And work significantly faster than Linux X over slow
connections.
RP> Insecure and insecure. I can pick ssh, vnc or spawn an extra X
RP> session to that box.

Did you sure that Windows do not have ssh? Did you sure that RDP5 unable to
encrypt traffic? I'm not tried that things but think it is possible.
Post by Ender
400 X-clients?
RP> Yes Ender, quite easy. They all share their text segments, and the X
RP> server runs on the desktop machine. If I would have to accomodate
RP> the same amount of clients on a Windows Terminal Server, I would
RP> have to shell out major bucks in hardware and software.

Seems something specially prepared to run in such environment. 2Gb/400=
~5Mb. So it amount of private memory for one program. I don't think one able
to put into it something siginificant.

p>>> (4) Stability: Windows may try as they like but no version is as
p>>> stable as Linux, period.
Post by Ender
BS. Linux on desktop failing with same rate as Windows on desktop. In
some hands less, in some hands more. Personally i'm sometimes able to
kill or hang entrie X-subsystem with Kylix debugger while debugging
certain programs. Few times it was total hang-up when even network
connect was not possible. Stability of Linux desktop - myth, not
more.
RP> Plain stupidity on the programmer part this is. It's high time you
RP> study how to set limits to the amount of memory and processor time a
RP> process can use.

What if i need all memory? I'm working with graphics. The amount of graphics
sometimes get more than size of RAM. Windows behave perfectly, Linux has
total slowdown.

RP> If it runs away, kill the process before it gets out of hand.
RP> This kind of behaviour is almost in all cases attributable to either
RP> runaway processes or committing so much memory that the swap runs
RP> out.

Why it is not happening on Windows? Even if one of process consume all
available memory, then OS easily throw it into swap when OS itself needed
memory and give to me options to kill it without precautions or hurry. Of
course entrie PC getting somewhat slower. Anyway abovementioned behavior is
evidence of Linux myth.

p>>> Windows 2000 was pretty stable until I installed security patches
p>>> from
p>>> MS. That was why I made my final and complete decision to run
p>>> Linux full time on the desktop. Servers have been Linux for years.
Post by Ender
Windows servers have been running for years also. Until i switched to
company which work with Linux we have certain amount of W'NT 4.0
servers which runtime was about year each. There was pair of
interrupts when there was power failure or company relocated into new
office.
RP> Pff. I've seen outfits that had to reboot dayly because otherwise
RP> their Windows boxen would fail pitifully.

I saw that cases. Often it is hardware problem. One case i remember was SCSI
controller failure. Once drive which based on that controller actively
worked some time it overheated and cease PC to malfunction. Same thing was
on my home PC when video card fan failed and after some time (about three
hours and depending from activity) PC locked-up.


p>>> (5) Cost. It is hard to beat free, verses 100s of dollars, both for
p>>> initial installations and upgrade cost for each and every machine.
Post by Ender
That 100$ will be spent on solving of various problems. What american
programmer salary per hour? Imagine $20/hr. When that programmer
spend only 5 hours on doing something Linux specific (for example
compiling Qt -
7 hours on C700, or guessing how _ to _ run _ that _ program _ in _ that _
conditions _ and _ how _ to _ configure _ it _ to _ run _ properly)
Linux advantage is wanish.
RP> You're forgetting the upfront cost. Plus he didn't say $100, he said
RP> hundreds of dollars.

Desktop Windows OS cost about $150 (can't remember exactly how much). Anyway
once user lose few hours on solving some problems that initial cost
advantage is compensated.

RP> Like EUR4000 for an Exchange license which comes preinstalled as an
RP> open relay thank you very much. And you're equally forgetting that
RP> setting up and securing Windows software is equally or more difficult
RP> than Linux software.

You forgetting about the subject. Do i need to secure Delphi? Or
Microstation? Or Great Encyclopedia of Cyrill&Mephodius? Do i get machine
with such products preinstalled? Never.

RP> Not to mention the fact that if one process poops on your registry,
RP> you're having a disaster. And failing to notice all kinds of trouble
RP> with the totally dim filesystems available under Linux.

It is kinda difficult to damage system registry in Windows NT/2K/XP from
user process. It accessible only in read-only mode.

p>>> (6) A plethora of free software and utilities. Nearly everything
p>>> you need for Windows cost you. Nearly eveything you need for Linux
p>>> is free.
Post by Ender
There are plethora of free software for Windows.
RP> All payware.

Sorry but you saying complete BS. There are many examples of freeware,
shareware, payware for Windows.

RP> And that is exactly the point where Linux shines. It won't even run
RP> suspicious content in the first place.

There is another point. On Windows any application is easy to run. Just
point and click on exe. In Linux process of running of application is
somewhat difficult. It does not recognize what is suspicious, it is just
difficult to run downloaded app from Internet.

RP> Yes, inherent. And you don't need to look at the code to know that.
RP> Add a driver? Windows requires a reboot, Linux does not. Add a
RP> server process?
RP> Windows needs a reboot in most cases, Linux does not.

It is not Windows needs a reboot. It is stupidly written installation
program/script requires reboot.
Post by Ender
Personally i'm don't see negative consequences that something inside
windows is not belong to open standards.
RP> Just wait for the moment that Microsoft is charging you 10 cents for
RP> every Word document you create.

Why you can't imagine that Borland start charging 10 cents for every "new
application" click? Or VMWare start charging 10 cents for every VM's load?
Why you think that MS so bad?

RP> Just wait and see what happens if they only support a Word document
RP> version that's not backward compatible and see how much money your
RP> government has to shell out to make all the old shit useable again.

Then we deffinitely turn to another system. But current state of things
shows that using Windows as desktop is more productive than Linux.

p>>> Most companies do not want to be held hostage to a single entity.
p>>> With MS, that is a garantee, with Open source, is a garantee not to
p>>> be locked in.
Post by Ender
As long MS will be stable, they will be stable. And that why they
will remain with windows and both make millons while linux still
crawling under the dinning table and loudly scream.
RP> Fact of the matter is that Windows is not stable. Period.
RP> <snip>

:-)))) My Windows XP is stable, my friends Windows XP is stable, friend of
my friend Windows 2K is stable. What you talking about? I know guys that
work in Windows under administrative account, or guys that install
everything they found in internet, or guys that install every new version of
driver for their videocard and then they scream "Windows is not stable!"

p>>> Same goes for programmers. Many have never touched a command line,
p>>> written a make file, or done any incremental builds and links. If
p>>> it isn't GUI and drag and drop, they are lost. That to me, is an
p>>> untrained programmer or some of which might be better described as
Post by Ender
point p> and click, drag and drop
p>>> Gurus :)
Post by Ender
If machine can do something for programmer, it must do not to force
him to write makefiles. CBX fine example, programmer not need to
write that makefiles, he not need to lose time to learn how that
files should be written, he may use his time to solve real problems
instead fight with results of laziness of creators of development
tools. The system that required that human must do something when
system can do it itself -
flawed system by deffinition.
RP> Only holds as long as you stay in a single environment. Plus a
RP> programmer that's unable to specify how to build his stuff in a
RP> particular language isn't worth diddly.

For example in Delphi makefiles is not necessary. In Oracle PL/SQL same
thing. For certain microcontrollers there are compilers that do not require
makefiles. My colleague write programs for microcontrollers, he never used
any kind of makefiles. So he is not programmer? The makefiles is not center
of earth.

p>>> Still that being said, Windows has traditionally been available for
p>>> the average user, which means that they will have more exprience
p>>> with
p>>> Windows than Linux. However, this too, is changing, due to the
p>>> increased use and deployment of Linux and Open Source.

p>>> This is what you call an assesment JQP, not based on opinions read
p>>> from some sponsered site, but rather experience. When MS sent out a
p>>> survey form, asking how they could get us Linux users to switch
p>>> from Linux, we told them the same things.

The market is rules all. If Linux will be profitable (read better in terms
of money) it will be popular. Currently it is not.
Post by Ender
Eventually MS learn from good sides of Linux (and we see attempts of
it), but seems linux community do not want to learn good sides of
Windows. And such blindness cannot remain unpunished.
RP> As a matter of fact, Windows made a huge step backward with XP.

I'm intrigued. What huge step backward you talking about?

RP> And if you think pilfering the property of others euqates learning, I'd
RP> say it's high time you looked again.

What they pilfered?
R.F. Pels
2004-01-17 20:20:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by JQP
The fundamental problem with a small company *moving* to Linux is that the
technology is not significantly "better" than Windows, in some ways it is
worse.
The fact is that it is better in areas where it mostly matters at this day
and age: security is better and it is almost impervious to viruses.
Post by JQP
In other words, this is a lateral move at best.
It is not. It is a jump forward, both in economics in the short and long
term and in the technical sense.
--
Ruurd
JQP
2004-01-18 15:29:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by R.F. Pels
The fact is that it is better in areas where it mostly matters at this day
and age: security is better and it is almost impervious to viruses.
Does security override consistency and ease of use, compatibility, software
availability, trained labor pool, etc.? Windows security is easier to
address than some of the other concerns.

These are the judgments and tradeoffs that a small business owner will have
to make. For any area where Linux is better, there is another where it is
worse. Hence, my judgment that overall, it is a lateral move at best.
R.F. Pels
2004-01-18 22:03:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by JQP
Post by R.F. Pels
The fact is that it is better in areas where it mostly matters at this
day and age: security is better and it is almost impervious to viruses.
Does security override consistency and ease of use, compatibility,
software availability, trained labor pool, etc.? Windows security is
easier to address than some of the other concerns.
The primary concern for businesses is that they can perform their task and
do not get into a situation where they cannot do business because their
systems are malfunctioning. And in this day and age, that means that proper
security and proper defense against vulnerability is maybe more important
than the other factors. What use is a very useable system for which there
is enough personell available that grinds to a halt every other day? And
no, Windows security is not easier to address, for the simple fact that out
of the box, any Windows system is insecure as hell.
Post by JQP
These are the judgments and tradeoffs that a small business owner will
have to make. For any area where Linux is better, there is another where
it is worse. Hence, my judgment that overall, it is a lateral move at
best.
I'd be most happy to discuss this item by item. For now, from experience, I
say that a Linux solution is more stable, more secure, pretty compatible
and there is a huge load of software available to do your business with.
And in the case there really is a need to run Windows software, just add
one machine to the pack that runs it. FWIW, my outfit is mixed that way.
There is one user that really wants to stick to Windows because that is
what he knows and he's not exactly computer savvy, however, he often
complains. There is one (old) box that runs Windows to be able to do
private banking. For the rest, we all use OpenOffice, KDE and SuSE on the
desktop, the rest (ticketing, financials, administering hours, revision
control, inventory control) is all done mostly through web services and
otherwise with native Linux software. Complaints? None. Maintenance? Almost
zero. Uptime? We experienced zero unscheduled downtime in three years.
--
Ruurd
Mike Margerum
2004-01-24 03:51:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by JQP
The fundamental problem with a small company *moving* to Linux is that the
technology is not significantly "better" than Windows, in some ways it is
worse. In other words, this is a lateral move at best. Lateral moves are
always difficult to justify.
Tell that to my company who had 7 of their techs spend 2 weeks
cleaning up the last virus disaster 6 months ago. We are very
seriously considering getting rid of our desktops in the field
altogether and replacing them with PDA's. If palm would just come out
with a clamshell device with a decent keyboard and VGA screen......
pNichols
2004-01-24 04:41:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Margerum
Post by JQP
The fundamental problem with a small company *moving* to Linux is that the
technology is not significantly "better" than Windows, in some ways it is
worse. In other words, this is a lateral move at best. Lateral moves
are always difficult to justify.
Tell that to my company who had 7 of their techs spend 2 weeks
cleaning up the last virus disaster 6 months ago. We are very
seriously considering getting rid of our desktops in the field
altogether and replacing them with PDA's. If palm would just come out
with a clamshell device with a decent keyboard and VGA screen......
Mike,

If you are serious, check out Sharp Electronics. They have just released the
type of device you are asking about.

However, sadly the OS does not come from Redmond,WA. I understand, it
features a little artic animal with a cute tuxedo :)

Of course, this means you will not have access to these viruses you have
become so familiar with. Your poor admins may also have to succumb to the
lifestyle of the Maytag repairman.
Mike Margerum
2004-01-24 05:46:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by pNichols
Mike,
If you are serious, check out Sharp Electronics. They have just released the
type of device you are asking about.
Im drooling over the CL700 (Clamshell) but they dont sell it in the
U.S. Beautiful device. 400mhz strongarm, vga screen, decent sized
keyboard, 802.11. Almost the perfect form factor for me. You can run
GCC and python on it too :)
Post by pNichols
However, sadly the OS does not come from Redmond,WA. I understand, it
features a little artic animal with a cute tuxedo :)
Embedded linux has to imrpvoe a little on the usability side and
frankly the built in apps stink but they will improve over time. I
also don't like the QTopia stuff because it isnt royalty free. I have
no doubt embedded linux will overtake all of the other players but it
will take 5 years or so I think.

We are pretty commited to palm for now. I'll be going to palm source
and I am very interested to hear whats coming up in OS6. We have
1000's of palms deployed in the field and they work beautifully. They
are mostly tethered to a laptop/cradle but we have begun deploying
palm only solutions using both the Treo600 and Tungsten T3/Modems. If
these trials go well we may get rid of the laptops altogether. The
Docs to go apps are really good at importing/exporting word. The only
problem is the t3 is only 1/2 vga. I'd really like to see a full VGA
clamshell type solution come out of palmSG.
Post by pNichols
Of course, this means you will not have access to these viruses you have
become so familiar with. Your poor admins may also have to succumb to the
lifestyle of the Maytag repairman.
I feel for them. when we ditch windows, they can spend more time on
other things to help the company. They are all for it im sure.
Ender
2004-01-25 14:46:31 UTC
Permalink
MM> Tell that to my company who had 7 of their techs spend 2 weeks
MM> cleaning up the last virus disaster 6 months ago.

This mean that your company has lazy sysadmin that should be fired. Our
company has about 150 desktops, half Windows half Linuxes and certain amount
of servers with same proportion. A email virus plagued once our network,
however no harm was done and lession was taken. Now virus epidemies do not
hit us, however i know that sometimes virus emails come to our mailboxes
from outside. I know that our ONE sysadmin take appropriate precautions both
of technical and administrative character, and so we adequately protected.

From another side, two years later we accidentally exposed one of Linux
machines to internet which initially was internal purpose server (no special
security tuning was made). The hackers immediately breaked in, stealthy take
control over that server and begin exploring our network. With options that
standard Linux distro offer they was able to download sources and results of
our work. Guess what machines remain untouched? Windows workstations.

Linux is secure? Ha! Good myth.

So i think that any security problems are primarily failure of
administrative IT staff, not particular OS.
Mike Margerum
2004-01-26 00:50:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ender
This mean that your company has lazy sysadmin that should be fired. Our
company has about 150 desktops, half Windows half Linuxes and certain amount
of servers with same proportion. A email virus plagued once our network,
however no harm was done and lession was taken. Now virus epidemies do not
hit us, however i know that sometimes virus emails come to our mailboxes
from outside. I know that our ONE sysadmin take appropriate precautions both
of technical and administrative character, and so we adequately protected.
We have three of them and none of them are lazy. We run Norton Anti
Virus and do everything conceivable to protect their machines. These
people are not on our WAN, they are on laptops out in the field wtih
dialup/cable modem accounts. They dont use our corporate email
because they are not employees. So tell me again genius how we are
supposed to protect these machines anymore than we already are. We
cant force them to update their virus definitions. We cant force them
to install microsofts security patches. We cant force them to not
click on attachments. We can however cut out the source of the
problem. Microsofts swiss cheese OS. I cant wait.
Post by Ender
From another side, two years later we accidentally exposed one of Linux
machines to internet which initially was internal purpose server (no special
security tuning was made). The hackers immediately breaked in, stealthy take
control over that server and begin exploring our network. With options that
standard Linux distro offer they was able to download sources and results of
our work. Guess what machines remain untouched? Windows workstations.
You are either an m$ shill or completely ignorant on the matters of
security. Equally exposed to the net, linux is 10x more secure than
m$ out of the box. They dont expose little goodies like RPC, DCom,
netbios, IIS, and all the other crap Microsoft turns on by default.
Even if you do break into a linux box with a non root sign on, you
still need an exploit to get root access because you can only do so
much damage with a normal account. Sign in with any account on m$ and
see how much damage you can do.
Post by Ender
Linux is secure? Ha! Good myth.
So i think that any security problems are primarily failure of
administrative IT staff, not particular OS.
Ok ill be sure to forward them this insightful post. These guys have
our WAN completely locked down. They dont even allow VPN anymore. In
our 3 year existence, we have never had a internal virus or trojan.

They do port level security at the office so you can only use one cat5
jack in the office. We never get viruses or trojans on the wan or our
exchange servers. But they are at the people in the fields mercy to
follow some very basic procedures to keep their machines safe and they
dont follow them. Pure and simple.
Ender
2004-01-26 08:49:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Margerum
They do port level security at the office so you can only use one cat5
jack in the office. We never get viruses or trojans on the wan or our
exchange servers. But they are at the people in the fields mercy to
follow some very basic procedures to keep their machines safe and they
dont follow them. Pure and simple.
So you trying to compare safety of Linux protected by admin with safety of
not protected Widnows with ignorant owner? :-))) It is so childish. I'm
wonder why i never get windows virus on my home PC?
Mike Margerum
2004-01-26 14:08:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ender
So you trying to compare safety of Linux protected by admin with safety of
not protected Widnows with ignorant owner? :-))) It is so childish. I'm
wonder why i never get windows virus on my home PC?
No, I was refuting your claim that we should fire our admins because
they cant lock down laptops in the wild. They got a good chuckle out
of your post.
R.F. Pels
2004-01-17 14:24:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Trane Francks
Post by R.F. Pels
If I would play the devil's advocate, as your boss I could tell you you
were misappropriating company funds for your personal entertainment.
Corporate question, corporate approval.
Hello! Rattling your chain here only! Do I need to add the :-)?
Post by Trane Francks
Post by R.F. Pels
Post by Trane Francks
strong installed base and a trickle of new systems having Windows
something-or-other preinstalled, just where is the motivation?
Cost. Stability. Ease of remote maintenance. Choice. A better bargaining
position when dealing with the commercial OS vendors.
Those are the standard answers.
Ah. I forgot a couple. Better security, better resistance against viruses,
almost free support, more documentation than anyone can read.
Post by Trane Francks
Now, let's say I've just bought 20 systems for my new startup. They come
preinstalled with, say, XP and SmartSuite. My staff have been using
Windows at home for
Then you didn't shop properly in the first place. How much cheaper could you
have done with 20 barebones systems? I'd guess half price. If selected
carefully (and that may require some study, I agree) you could have picked
20 of them maybe not top notch but perfectly OK boxes. Second of all, you
would have to secure all the 20 boxes before handing them out to your
coworkers. Plus install any additional software necessary. And at least one
of the boxes would be a server. And the run-of-the-mill mail transfer agent
would set you back again a bunch of dollars plus you are required to have
it installed and maintained by a third party because it ain't simple
either...
Post by Trane Francks
years. Tell me exactly how it's cheaper to toss the preinstalled
stuff, install Linux and OpenOffice and train everybody to use
A comparative study of Windows and KDE has been done. The result is that
they were equally useable. Second of all, OpenOffice and Microsoft Office
might differ in details but really are very similar, as is almost all
desktop software nowadays. It might not look the same, but it almost
totally works the same. Anybody that has some Microsoft Word experience
doesn't need 5 minutes to figure out how to work with OpenOffice, and in
99% of all cases all that is used in wordprocessing is styles and tables.
Top it off with a good book on the subject and you're pretty much done. The
same goes for KDE. Almost all desktop metaphores are the same.
Post by Trane Francks
them? As long as I don't let staffers install their own software,
those XP systems will be stable.
Rapidly turning it into an almost weekly effort running around the firm
spending at least 10 minutes on each workstation to update software.
Post by Trane Francks
I'll grant remote maintenance, but that doesn't apply to small businesses.
Oh yes it does, because 1.) it enables you to immediately service people
requiring only an e-mail or a phonecall if you do that yourself or 2.) it
reduces the price if you buy such maintenance. If I need to travel to your
premises I use more time plus I need to invest in a car plus I need to buy
gas, so my price per hour is higher.
Post by Trane Francks
Finally, my 20-seat startup won't have bargaining power with anybody.
Post by R.F. Pels
Post by Trane Francks
investment. I just don't see that ROI at all. I suspect that many
companies will feel the same way.
Then maybe you're not looking.
I've looked. Were I to start my own company, I'd most likely run
Linux on the desktop. That said, I have a harder time seeing the
ROI for the average 50-seat company making the switch. While I
could be mistaken, it seems to me to require a fairly large
economy of scale before the investment of switching is worthwhile.
I'd say that the recurring amounts of money to be paid for license fees
because a software supplier forces you to upgrade will start that company
earning dollars in 12 to 18 months...
--
Ruurd
Trane Francks
2004-01-18 02:17:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by R.F. Pels
Post by Trane Francks
Corporate question, corporate approval.
Hello! Rattling your chain here only! Do I need to add the :-)?
<g> Well, it does help in this context-ignorant medium. :)
Post by R.F. Pels
Post by Trane Francks
Those are the standard answers.
Ah. I forgot a couple. Better security, better resistance against viruses,
almost free support, more documentation than anyone can read.
Security isn't a valid point, IMO. I've administered both Windows
and Linux systems and it's just a matter of what needs to be tied
down on a particular system. Once it's configured and patched
accordingly, it's safe (until the next vulnerability is found).
The viruses thing is true, but whether viruses are introduced
into the corporate network is a matter of how the network is
used. In the end, you're only as secure as the lock on the door.
If you use vulnerable software and a poorly configured (or no)
firewall, you'll have trouble no matter what. There are HEAPS of
cracked Linux and UNIX boxen out there.

Nobody actually reads documentation, they just like to bitch
about it.
Post by R.F. Pels
Post by Trane Francks
Now, let's say I've just bought 20 systems for my new startup. They come
preinstalled with, say, XP and SmartSuite. My staff have been using
Windows at home for
Then you didn't shop properly in the first place. How much cheaper could you
have done with 20 barebones systems? I'd guess half price. If selected
I think it's pretty safe to assume that the average "wee startup"
is going to go with mainstream players (Dell, Compaq, HP, IBM
...) and you're not going to get bare systems from them. I'm not
going to buy a noname because I want a 3-year warranty, which
fits in nicely with the 3-year refresh cycle I've decided upon
for my systems. When the warranty runs out, I replace it and get
updated software "for free" while I'm at it. That's a good deal
in the eyes of many.
Post by R.F. Pels
would have to secure all the 20 boxes before handing them out to your
coworkers. Plus install any additional software necessary. And at least one
Yep. That's a foregone conclusion, but the same whether it's
bare-bones or preinstall.
Post by R.F. Pels
of the boxes would be a server. And the run-of-the-mill mail transfer agent
would set you back again a bunch of dollars plus you are required to have
it installed and maintained by a third party because it ain't simple
The owner sets up Hotmail accounts for all the staff. An ADSL
modem with configurable NAT and IP filtering keeps the network
safe. ;^)
Post by R.F. Pels
A comparative study of Windows and KDE has been done. The result is that
they were equally useable. Second of all, OpenOffice and Microsoft Office
Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder. I like KDE and have been
using it since V1 showed up as a Slack install option. I would
not, however, say it is an equally usable interface when compared
to Windows. It's getting pretty good, but it still lags a bit
behind. That's a very, very subjective call, however, and
therefore I can't consider it compelling. I love emacs and vi
equally; there's no accounting for taste.
Post by R.F. Pels
totally works the same. Anybody that has some Microsoft Word experience
doesn't need 5 minutes to figure out how to work with OpenOffice, and in
99% of all cases all that is used in wordprocessing is styles and tables.
Basic word-processing might be one thing, but I have yet to see
any of the other spreadsheet candidates match Excel for ease of
use. Here, again, we have the question of "best tool for the
job." Gnumeric isn't bad, but KSpread has a way to go yet.
Post by R.F. Pels
Top it off with a good book on the subject and you're pretty much done. The
same goes for KDE. Almost all desktop metaphores are the same.
In a very real sense, you're preaching to the choir. The point
here is that in the scenario I spell out, it's not likely that
the guy in question knows Linux. It's still the case that most
people might have heard of Linux, but they've never seen it let
alone work with it. That 20-seat startup is most likely going to
be headed up by a guy who has Windows or Mac smarts. Wanna use
QuickBooks Online? Sorry, only Win+IE users need apply. Oh, well.
Post by R.F. Pels
Post by Trane Francks
them? As long as I don't let staffers install their own software,
those XP systems will be stable.
Rapidly turning it into an almost weekly effort running around the firm
spending at least 10 minutes on each workstation to update software.
This is the downside of the small shop. A 20-seat office with
Linux desktops is likely to face the same problem because there's
not likely to be any IT staff to handle remote maintenance. By
the time the shop is big enough to have a full-time IT staffer,
it's also big enough to have Windows-based login scripts handling
automated software updates.
Post by R.F. Pels
Post by Trane Francks
I'll grant remote maintenance, but that doesn't apply to small businesses.
Oh yes it does, because 1.) it enables you to immediately service people
requiring only an e-mail or a phonecall if you do that yourself or 2.) it
Ah, now I see. You're discussing remote as in out-of-office.
You've outsourced IT in your scenario. In my 20-seat scenario,
the owner was doing it himself. Both are likely and common
situations.
Post by R.F. Pels
reduces the price if you buy such maintenance. If I need to travel to your
premises I use more time plus I need to invest in a car plus I need to buy
gas, so my price per hour is higher.
Hmmm. It invokes an interesting question: At how many seats
should a shop have a full-time IT staffer?
Post by R.F. Pels
I'd say that the recurring amounts of money to be paid for license fees
because a software supplier forces you to upgrade will start that company
earning dollars in 12 to 18 months...
I dunno. I'm still using Office 97 in my company and there
doesn't seem to be any momentum to change that. This brings up an
interesting issue (Microsoft's latest licensing). It's certainly
going to be noticeably cheaper to avoid recurrent subscription
fees in the case of a startup these days. New startups have
compelling reasons to look outside the MS camp, for sure. My
aforementioned "economy of scale" could be seriously tipped in
favour of Linux for any company needing to update software.

Interesting times, these are.

trane
--
//------------------------------------------------------------
// Trane Francks ***@gol.com Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.
R.F. Pels
2004-01-18 21:48:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Trane Francks
Post by R.F. Pels
Ah. I forgot a couple. Better security, better resistance against
viruses, almost free support, more documentation than anyone can read.
Security isn't a valid point, IMO. I've administered both Windows
and Linux systems and it's just a matter of what needs to be tied
down on a particular system. Once it's configured and patched
accordingly, it's safe (until the next vulnerability is found).
That's a narrow view on security, isn't it? Buy a Windows XP box and every
user account has administrative rights. Buy an XP Home box and you can't
even change rights on directories and files. The point is that any Linux
box is pretty safe to begin with and it's quite easy to set it up so that a
user has minimal rights and remote systems have no access at all and you
start working from there. That's not a choice you have when starting with
XP. You install it, then you have to start tying things down to a degree
that is acceptible.
Post by Trane Francks
The viruses thing is true, but whether viruses are introduced
into the corporate network is a matter of how the network is
used. In the end, you're only as secure as the lock on the door.
If you use vulnerable software and a poorly configured (or no)
firewall, you'll have trouble no matter what. There are HEAPS of
cracked Linux and UNIX boxen out there.
True. Badly configured ones.
Post by Trane Francks
Nobody actually reads documentation, they just like to bitch
about it.
And when they're hit and you answer that they should have Read The Fine
Manual they're insulted.
Post by Trane Francks
Post by R.F. Pels
Post by Trane Francks
Now, let's say I've just bought 20 systems for my new startup. They come
preinstalled with, say, XP and SmartSuite. My staff have been using
Windows at home for
Then you didn't shop properly in the first place. How much cheaper could
you have done with 20 barebones systems? I'd guess half price. If
selected
I think it's pretty safe to assume that the average "wee startup"
is going to go with mainstream players (Dell, Compaq, HP, IBM
...) and you're not going to get bare systems from them. I'm not
going to buy a noname because I want a 3-year warranty, which
fits in nicely with the 3-year refresh cycle I've decided upon
for my systems. When the warranty runs out, I replace it and get
updated software "for free" while I'm at it. That's a good deal
in the eyes of many.
And in my eyes that's stupid and wastefull. I can't see the ration behind
this. If there is a way to detach the hardware and software upgrade cycle
you should do that. There's absolutely no reason to upgrade hardware if it
is still functioning. It's a waste of natural resources to phase out a
perfectly good machine for the simple fact you have a three year upgrade
cycle. Does a secretary work better on a P4 2.4 than a P4 1.2? No. Is her
machine too slow? Adding memory and faster harddisks often solves that
problem.

There is also no reason to wait three years to upgrade your software. In
fact, that's idiotic. You upgrade the stuff when it's necessary or when
your version has been declared End-Of-Life. Why break what's working?
Post by Trane Francks
Post by R.F. Pels
would have to secure all the 20 boxes before handing them out to your
coworkers. Plus install any additional software necessary. And at least one
Yep. That's a foregone conclusion, but the same whether it's
bare-bones or preinstall.
Post by R.F. Pels
of the boxes would be a server. And the run-of-the-mill mail transfer
agent would set you back again a bunch of dollars plus you are required
to have it installed and maintained by a third party because it ain't
simple
The owner sets up Hotmail accounts for all the staff. An ADSL
modem with configurable NAT and IP filtering keeps the network
safe. ;^)
Then the owner is an idiot. What moron would swap corporate e-mail and data
over hotmail accounts?
Post by Trane Francks
Post by R.F. Pels
A comparative study of Windows and KDE has been done. The result is that
they were equally useable. Second of all, OpenOffice and Microsoft Office
Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder. I like KDE and have been
using it since V1 showed up as a Slack install option. I would
not, however, say it is an equally usable interface when compared
to Windows. It's getting pretty good, but it still lags a bit
behind. That's a very, very subjective call, however, and
therefore I can't consider it compelling. I love emacs and vi
equally; there's no accounting for taste.
The point is: Is it useable and what is the cost? As a matter of fact, I
find the XP interface totally unuseable. Horrible, really.
Post by Trane Francks
Post by R.F. Pels
totally works the same. Anybody that has some Microsoft Word experience
doesn't need 5 minutes to figure out how to work with OpenOffice, and in
99% of all cases all that is used in wordprocessing is styles and tables.
Basic word-processing might be one thing, but I have yet to see
any of the other spreadsheet candidates match Excel for ease of
use. Here, again, we have the question of "best tool for the
job." Gnumeric isn't bad, but KSpread has a way to go yet.
OpenOffice does that job quite nicely. Downside is that it's slow on Linux.
Why? I don't know. Its performance on Windows is much better... Still, it's
better than koffice as a whole at the moment.
Post by Trane Francks
Post by R.F. Pels
Oh yes it does, because 1.) it enables you to immediately service people
requiring only an e-mail or a phonecall if you do that yourself or 2.) it
Ah, now I see. You're discussing remote as in out-of-office.
You've outsourced IT in your scenario. In my 20-seat scenario,
the owner was doing it himself. Both are likely and common
situations.
Not so. I usually remote maintain computers in house from my own box. No
need to stand up, walk over to the guy, have him sit on his hands while I'm
fiddling with his box. In most cases the user happily goes along with his
business while I'm fiddling with his machine. And yes, if necessary, I do
that from home or a clients site when I'm there and it is necesary at that
point.
Post by Trane Francks
Post by R.F. Pels
reduces the price if you buy such maintenance. If I need to travel to
your premises I use more time plus I need to invest in a car plus I need
to buy gas, so my price per hour is higher.
Hmmm. It invokes an interesting question: At how many seats
should a shop have a full-time IT staffer?
Well, I'm part of an IT outfit, and I'd say in that case you need 1 IT
staffer for 1 developer :-) No really, I'd think that if an outfit is
reasonably well installed and the installation is documented properly, it
would suffice to hire 1 person that is computer savvy and have him do IT
staff stuff parttime. I'd hire someone that meets the proper requirements
for the job and has a notable insight and willingness to tinker with
computer stuff and give him the job of IT responsible. Depending on the
technology set, I'd say that in a Windows shop the amount of time he spends
on IT staffing might be bigger than in a Linux shop. Really. Once set up
properly (which can be difficult in some cases) a Linux shop almost runs
itself.
Post by Trane Francks
Post by R.F. Pels
I'd say that the recurring amounts of money to be paid for license fees
because a software supplier forces you to upgrade will start that company
earning dollars in 12 to 18 months...
I dunno. I'm still using Office 97 in my company and there
doesn't seem to be any momentum to change that. This brings up an
interesting issue (Microsoft's latest licensing). It's certainly
going to be noticeably cheaper to avoid recurrent subscription
fees in the case of a startup these days. New startups have
compelling reasons to look outside the MS camp, for sure. My
aforementioned "economy of scale" could be seriously tipped in
favour of Linux for any company needing to update software.
AS I said, our outfit is 7 people, one is using Windows because nobody
bothered to convert his machine to Linux (mostly because he was scared he
could not hack it) and we have one for the things we use that really don't
run under Linux, in particular private banking. The rest uses Linux for day
to day work and use Windows to test client stuff and do networked shootout
games :-) For the hardcore Word users I additionally install
CrossoverOffice and Word if I have a license. Personal machines tend to
have a shorter upgrade cycle than server machines. Most of the time I only
upgrade server software at End-Of-Life of the distro version and patch them
regularly. Desktop stuff is moving much faster, especially KDE, but most of
the time the users themself patch and install their stuff, sometimes
leading to surprises a more savvy user (the undersigned) has to solve :-)
And that's most of the time nVidia problems after kernel upgrades.
Post by Trane Francks
Interesting times, these are.
Most certainly they are!
--
Ruurd
Trane Francks
2004-01-19 06:14:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by R.F. Pels
Post by Trane Francks
Security isn't a valid point, IMO. I've administered both Windows
and Linux systems and it's just a matter of what needs to be tied
down on a particular system. Once it's configured and patched
accordingly, it's safe (until the next vulnerability is found).
That's a narrow view on security, isn't it? Buy a Windows XP box and every
user account has administrative rights. Buy an XP Home box and you can't
even change rights on directories and files. The point is that any Linux
It's a narrow view, perhaps, but Windows and Linux do equally
well on a network, IME, when:

* The door is locked (good firewall)
* Anti-virus software is installed
* "Virus-resistent" apps are used (e.g., Netscape instead of Outlook)
* Users do not install their own software
* Security-related patches are applied

I freely admit that a default Windows Whatever installation isn't
all that safe, but neither, IMO, is a default Linux installation.
Keeping the network safe is the primary concern. Subsequently,
having "Critical updates" and anti-virus stuff installed takes
care of the rest of it. Once that's done, a responsible
administrator takes time to ensure that all boxes on the network
are updated as required.
Post by R.F. Pels
Post by Trane Francks
firewall, you'll have trouble no matter what. There are HEAPS of
cracked Linux and UNIX boxen out there.
True. Badly configured ones.
I consider an unsafe Windows box a badly configured one. In my
way of thinking, there is no such thing as "Windows security" and
"Linux security"; there's just "security." Either the responsible
admin knows the job or does not.
Post by R.F. Pels
Post by Trane Francks
fits in nicely with the 3-year refresh cycle I've decided upon
for my systems. When the warranty runs out, I replace it and get
updated software "for free" while I'm at it. That's a good deal
in the eyes of many.
And in my eyes that's stupid and wastefull. I can't see the ration behind
Stupid and wasteful, hmmmm. Well, it could be seen as such, but
there are issues of depreciation, asset handling and tax
write-offs to consider. Just because I happily squeak 5+ years
out of my systems (and had a 486 that I got a full 7 years out of
before it finally quit) doesn't make it the best business
decision. Corporate tax laws also vary from country to country,
so there's no hard/fast rule here. One handles assets in a
fashion that best suits the bottom line. That may be wasteful,
but it's also worth considering that "waste" is significant in
driving economies.
Post by R.F. Pels
is still functioning. It's a waste of natural resources to phase out a
perfectly good machine for the simple fact you have a three year upgrade
I agree, but what's good for nature and what business sees as
good are very often at odds.
Post by R.F. Pels
There is also no reason to wait three years to upgrade your software. In
It could be argued that there's no pressing reason not to wait.
Post by R.F. Pels
fact, that's idiotic. You upgrade the stuff when it's necessary or when
your version has been declared End-Of-Life. Why break what's working?
Agreed. On the other hand, when EDS is your IT provider, you do
what they say. When EDS says you replace your systems in 3 years,
you do it. (It sounds odd, but I've seen it with my own eyes. The
customer/supplier relationship seems to be confused in that
arrangement.)
Post by R.F. Pels
Post by Trane Francks
The owner sets up Hotmail accounts for all the staff. An ADSL
modem with configurable NAT and IP filtering keeps the network
safe. ;^)
Then the owner is an idiot. What moron would swap corporate e-mail and data
over hotmail accounts?
That's precisely the point. A lot of small businesses are run by
people who just don't know any better. Still, a more likely
small-office solution would come from Microsoft. It doesn't
scale, but it's a solution.
Post by R.F. Pels
OpenOffice does that job quite nicely. Downside is that it's slow on Linux.
StarOffice was the same. I have v5.2 here and it doesn't see much
use these days.
Post by R.F. Pels
technology set, I'd say that in a Windows shop the amount of time he spends
on IT staffing might be bigger than in a Linux shop. Really. Once set up
properly (which can be difficult in some cases) a Linux shop almost runs
itself.
"Might be" is accurate. I think it largely depends on how many
boxes on the network get "special" software. The further away
from a common standard installation you get, the more work it
takes to keep things running. At least, that's been my experience.

trane
--
//------------------------------------------------------------
// Trane Francks ***@gol.com Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.
Ender
2004-01-19 08:55:15 UTC
Permalink
RP> That's a narrow view on security, isn't it? Buy a Windows XP box and
RP> every user account has administrative rights.

Don't make all users as administrators. Enter only one user at installation
then use Computer Management to add users and give to them appropriate
rights.

RP> Buy an XP Home box and you can't even change rights on directories and
RP> files.

Buy XP Professional.

RP> The point is that any Linux box is pretty safe to begin with and it's
RP> quite easy to set it up so that a user has minimal rights and remote
RP> systems have no access at all and you start working from there. That's
RP> not a choice you have when starting with
RP> XP. You install it, then you have to start tying things down to a
RP> degree that is acceptible.

See above.
The viruses thing is true, but whether viruses are introduced into
the corporate network is a matter of how the network is used. In the
end, you're only as secure as the lock on the door.
If you use vulnerable software and a poorly configured (or no)
firewall, you'll have trouble no matter what. There are HEAPS of
cracked Linux and UNIX boxen out there.
RP> True. Badly configured ones.

Same as badly configured and protected Windowses.
Nobody actually reads documentation, they just like to bitch about
it.
RP> And when they're hit and you answer that they should have Read The
RP> Fine Manual they're insulted.

Usually they just not have time to read FM. From that point of view, product
that required reading such kind of documents is bad. That is most of Linux
apps.

RP> The point is: Is it useable and what is the cost? As a matter of
RP> fact, I find the XP interface totally unuseable. Horrible, really.

This is your opinion, not more (seems you prefer another type of desktop).
It at least not less functional than KDE and working faster. Only on P4
2.6GHz i do not see difference, on my old C700 KDE noticeably slower.
Ender
2004-01-18 17:04:04 UTC
Permalink
RP> Ah. I forgot a couple. Better security, better resistance against
RP> viruses,

This is temporary...

RP> almost free support,

... or not existent ...

RP> more documentation than anyone can read.

... scattered over Internet or horribly prepared.
R.F. Pels
2004-01-18 21:02:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ender
RP> Ah. I forgot a couple. Better security, better resistance against
RP> viruses,
This is temporary...
But for how long?
Post by Ender
RP> almost free support,
... or not existent ...
Inform yourself before using stuff.
Post by Ender
RP> more documentation than anyone can read.
... scattered over Internet or horribly prepared.
Then why keep bitching instead of helping out. It's so easy for the
complainers to keep standing by the side hollering it's bad and scattered
and horribly prepared etcetera etcetera, but generally they're not prepared
to contribute.
--
Ruurd
Ender
2004-01-19 06:47:02 UTC
Permalink
RP>>> Ah. I forgot a couple. Better security, better resistance against
RP>>> viruses,
Post by Ender
This is temporary...
RP> But for how long?

As long as Linux is not popular in wide masses. As long Linux become more
popular there will me more viruses targetted at Linux or Linux apps, there
will be more developers that write apps (no one is perfect) and these apps
will have vuinerabilities.

RP>>> almost free support,
Post by Ender
... or not existent ...
RP> Inform yourself before using stuff.

RP>>> more documentation than anyone can read.
Post by Ender
... scattered over Internet or horribly prepared.
RP> Then why keep bitching instead of helping out. It's so easy for the
RP> complainers to keep standing by the side hollering it's bad and
RP> scattered and horribly prepared etcetera etcetera, but generally
RP> they're not prepared to contribute.

Because there is no money in it.

That's why one prefer windows solution. Buying something one spend money but
get solution and support immediately (not in future when Linux will be more
popular and widespread). No need to spend time and forces to contribute
something to community, wait while community accept it and integrate it into
common results and share with others. Businness usually based on exchange of
common easily convertable resource in the form of money, you actually offer
barter where measure of resources is time/work/product.

Once i was needed to introduce some enhancements into open-sourced app (i
will not name it). I wrote letter to maintainer and explained what i'm want.
The answer was roughly following: "It is my app and i'm do not want to
change it because it pretty good for me, if you want do it youself." Funny.
From now there is two alternatves: deal with existing app and spend time and
forces or just buy something commercially available for $20..30 and get
required functionality in matter of weeks. Of course i selected second.
Andreas Prucha
2004-01-20 23:16:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Trane Francks
Those are the standard answers. Now, let's say I've just bought
20 systems for my new startup. They come preinstalled with, say,
XP and SmartSuite.
Why would anybody who does not want to use Windows buy systems with
Windows preinstalled?
Post by Trane Francks
My staff have been using Windows at home for
years. Tell me exactly how it's cheaper to toss the preinstalled
stuff,
Of course it's cheaper not to buy systems with preinstalled Windows.
Post by Trane Francks
install Linux and OpenOffice and train everybody to use
them?
This costs some time and money at the beginning, but the lower costs of
the software and the higher quality will IMO bring the money back soon.
Post by Trane Francks
As long as I don't let staffers install their own software,
those XP systems will be stable.
May be. Under Linux it's probably way easier to block such nonsense.
Post by Trane Francks
I've looked. Were I to start my own company, I'd most likely run
Linux on the desktop. That said, I have a harder time seeing the
ROI for the average 50-seat company making the switch.
Don't forget MS's license policies.
Trane Francks
2004-01-21 01:55:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andreas Prucha
Post by Trane Francks
Those are the standard answers. Now, let's say I've just bought
20 systems for my new startup. They come preinstalled with, say,
XP and SmartSuite.
Why would anybody who does not want to use Windows buy systems with
Windows preinstalled?
From an established manufacturer, it's easier to find
Windows-preinstalled systems than it is to find bare bones
systems. That trend has been changing, yes, but not quickly.
Post by Andreas Prucha
Post by Trane Francks
My staff have been using Windows at home for
years. Tell me exactly how it's cheaper to toss the preinstalled
stuff,
Of course it's cheaper not to buy systems with preinstalled Windows.
Can I buy bare- or Linux-preinstalled ThinkPads? Not that I can
see. When I can see Linux offered on most/all of the ThinkPad
line, then I'll happily concede the YotLD.
Post by Andreas Prucha
Post by Trane Francks
install Linux and OpenOffice and train everybody to use
them?
This costs some time and money at the beginning, but the lower costs of
the software and the higher quality will IMO bring the money back soon.
Higher quality? Hmmmm. I'll have to reserve judgment until I try
OpenOffice. None of the office suites under Linux has come close,
IMO, to the MS offerings. It could be that OpenOffice becomes
Linux's "killer app." I don't know.
Post by Andreas Prucha
Post by Trane Francks
Linux on the desktop. That said, I have a harder time seeing the
ROI for the average 50-seat company making the switch.
Don't forget MS's license policies.
There's no question that a company facing the latest iteration of
MS licensing has seriously good reasons for looking elsewhere.

trane
--
//------------------------------------------------------------
// Trane Francks ***@gol.com Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.
Pedro Pimentel
2004-01-21 19:15:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by R.F. Pels
Post by Trane Francks
investment. I just don't see that ROI at all. I suspect that many
companies will feel the same way.
Then maybe you're not looking.
I've looked. Were I to start my own company, I'd most likely run Linux
on the desktop. That said, I have a harder time seeing the ROI for the
average 50-seat company making the switch. While I could be mistaken, it
seems to me to require a fairly large economy of scale before the
investment of switching is worthwhile.
trane
There, you see? You're right and wrong. It isn't about replacing, not
even windows XP can replace windows 98, or Windows 2003 replace Windows
NT. But for starting, with no windows xp preinstalled pcs, or linux
pre-installed, installing linux is the choice.
Trane Francks
2004-01-22 01:47:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pedro Pimentel
But for starting, with no windows xp preinstalled pcs, or linux
pre-installed, installing linux is the choice.
Not in all situations. Most corporations do not love operating
systems. They care about applications and what it takes to make
those applications run well. For some, that may be proprietary
combustion analysis software running on an SGI box. For others,
it might be QuickBooks on Windows. An operating systems is a
platform upon which to run applications. It is not the end-game
itself.

Linux won't cure the common cold and it is definitely not the
answer to every company's/person's computing needs.

trane
--
//------------------------------------------------------------
// Trane Francks ***@gol.com Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.
Ender
2004-01-18 15:56:49 UTC
Permalink
RP> Cost. Stability. Ease of remote maintenance. Choice. A better
RP> bargaining position when dealing with the commercial OS vendors.

I'm curious, if Linux so cool and deffinitely better than Windows why it is
still not on desktop?
R.F. Pels
2004-01-18 20:58:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ender
RP> Cost. Stability. Ease of remote maintenance. Choice. A better
RP> bargaining position when dealing with the commercial OS vendors.
I'm curious, if Linux so cool and deffinitely better than Windows why it
is still not on desktop?
Because of laziness, stupidity and the lack of audacity. 99% of businesses
and consumers buy computers like cars. If it's shiny and nifty, they
swallow it.
--
Ruurd
Hilton Evans
2004-01-18 21:56:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by R.F. Pels
Post by Ender
RP> Cost. Stability. Ease of remote maintenance. Choice. A better
RP> bargaining position when dealing with the commercial OS vendors.
I'm curious, if Linux so cool and deffinitely better than Windows why it
is still not on desktop?
Because of laziness, stupidity and the lack of audacity. 99% of businesses
and consumers buy computers like cars. If it's shiny and nifty, they
swallow it.
If that was true there would only be one or two types of car.
--
Hilton Evans
-----------------------------------------------
ChemPen Chemical Structure Software
http://www.chempensoftware.com


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 1/13/04
Andreas Prucha
2004-01-20 23:19:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ender
I'm curious, if Linux so cool and deffinitely better than Windows why
it is still not on desktop?
IMO because some people shy away from the risks and costs at the beginning.
They know that the money will be back in within a few years, but it's still
a lot of money and work at the beginning.

So the question seems to be "Shall I allow MS continue to rape me, or
should I fight and take a risk".
Hilton Evans
2004-01-21 04:44:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andreas Prucha
Post by Ender
I'm curious, if Linux so cool and deffinitely better than Windows why
it is still not on desktop?
IMO because some people shy away from the risks and costs at the beginning.
They know that the money will be back in within a few years, but it's still
a lot of money and work at the beginning.
So the question seems to be "Shall I allow MS continue to rape me, or
should I fight and take a risk".
Or it could be that when consumers buy a 2GHz desktop
computer for $800 with 256MB, DVD, flat screen monitor,
30 Gig HD, modem, ethernet, WinXP they don't fret
over how much M$ gets out of the deal.

Hilton Evans
-----------------------------------------------
ChemPen Chemical Structure Software
http://www.chempensoftware.com


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 1/13/04
R.F. Pels
2004-01-21 06:12:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hilton Evans
Post by Andreas Prucha
Post by Ender
I'm curious, if Linux so cool and deffinitely better than Windows why
it is still not on desktop?
IMO because some people shy away from the risks and costs at the
beginning. They know that the money will be back in within a few years,
but it's still a lot of money and work at the beginning.
So the question seems to be "Shall I allow MS continue to rape me, or
should I fight and take a risk".
Or it could be that when consumers buy a 2GHz desktop
computer for $800 with 256MB, DVD, flat screen monitor,
30 Gig HD, modem, ethernet, WinXP they don't fret
over how much M$ gets out of the deal.
Or is it that they don't know they can send the software back and get a
refund?
--
Ruurd
Hilton Evans
2004-01-21 11:41:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by R.F. Pels
Post by Hilton Evans
Post by Andreas Prucha
Post by Ender
I'm curious, if Linux so cool and deffinitely better than Windows why
it is still not on desktop?
IMO because some people shy away from the risks and costs at the
beginning. They know that the money will be back in within a few years,
but it's still a lot of money and work at the beginning.
So the question seems to be "Shall I allow MS continue to rape me, or
should I fight and take a risk".
Or it could be that when consumers buy a 2GHz desktop
computer for $800 with 256MB, DVD, flat screen monitor,
30 Gig HD, modem, ethernet, WinXP they don't fret
over how much M$ gets out of the deal.
Or is it that they don't know they can send the software back and get a
refund?
And go through the hassle of unistalling and then installing
a Linux distro that they might have bought at the same store?

Maybe they don't care. Or maybe they have a *life*. Most
consumers are not cultist geeks in some hissy fit over Bill
Gates' money. They buy a PC for the same reason they might
buy a Mac. They have a need and the computer fills it.

They don't go to the computer store asking for a custom
configuration the way of some geek or game playing
mommy's boy. They look over a variety of configurations
and buy one that fits the need well enough.

No one is preventing stores from selling PCs with Linux
pre installed. Walmart offers them; I have yet to see one in
a Walmart. There are six my area. I suspect if they were a
compelling consumer item, Walmart would dedicate shell
space just as it dedicates space to it $29.95 microwave ovens.
--
Hilton Evans
-----------------------------------------------
ChemPen Chemical Structure Software
http://www.chempensoftware.com


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 1/13/04
Mike Mormando
2004-01-21 18:23:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hilton Evans
No one is preventing stores from selling PCs with Linux
pre installed. Walmart offers them; I have yet to see one in
a Walmart. There are six my area. I suspect if they were a
compelling consumer item, Walmart would dedicate shell
space just as it dedicates space to it $29.95 microwave ovens.
Hm, one of the original antitrust complaints against M$ was exactly that,
not Linux per se, but jacking up prices
if they put any other os on the pc's they sold.
M$ is still offering bounties to the smaller PC shops in this area, at
least, for names and addresses of anyone who buys
a PC with no os.
Mike
JQP
2004-01-21 21:11:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Mormando
Hm, one of the original antitrust complaints against M$ was exactly that,
not Linux per se, but jacking up prices
if they put any other os on the pc's they sold.
No, it had to do with the fact that MS licensed Windows to volume
manufacturers based upon the number of PCs they sold. When they were no
longer allowed to do this, they started the mandatory registration thing ---
as a way of keeping manufacturers somewhat honest as much as anything else.
Post by Mike Mormando
M$ is still offering bounties to the smaller PC shops in this area, at
least, for names and addresses of anyone who buys a PC with no os.
Personally, I don't believe this for a number of reasons:

1) The smaller shops in my area don't care who you are or what you want to
buy if you pay cash.

2) The smaller shops in my area are the ones selling pirated software.
Several have been caught, convicted and gone out of business.

3) If MS paid for just names and addresses, some would sell names out of the
phone book. And they'd have to employ an army of people just to track them
all down.

4) Ok, assume they have a name and address that they paid for. Then what?
They'll need a lot more to get a search warrant to look at someone's PC.
Hilton Evans
2004-01-21 22:01:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by JQP
Post by Mike Mormando
Hm, one of the original antitrust complaints against M$ was exactly that,
not Linux per se, but jacking up prices
if they put any other os on the pc's they sold.
No, it had to do with the fact that MS licensed Windows to volume
manufacturers based upon the number of PCs they sold. When they were no
longer allowed to do this, they started the mandatory registration thing ---
as a way of keeping manufacturers somewhat honest as much as anything else.
Post by Mike Mormando
M$ is still offering bounties to the smaller PC shops in this area, at
least, for names and addresses of anyone who buys a PC with no os.
1) The smaller shops in my area don't care who you are or what you want to
buy if you pay cash.
2) The smaller shops in my area are the ones selling pirated software.
Several have been caught, convicted and gone out of business.
3) If MS paid for just names and addresses, some would sell names out of the
phone book. And they'd have to employ an army of people just to track them
all down.
4) Ok, assume they have a name and address that they paid for. Then what?
They'll need a lot more to get a search warrant to look at someone's PC.
Why spoil a good conspiracy theory with
logic. I hope you never visit Roswell,NM. Spoilers
like you will put all the Area 57 space alien
souvenir shops out of business.
--
Hilton Evans
-----------------------------------------------
ChemPen Chemical Structure Software
http://www.chempensoftware.com


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 1/13/04
Hilton Evans
2004-01-21 21:47:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Mormando
Post by Hilton Evans
No one is preventing stores from selling PCs with Linux
pre installed. Walmart offers them; I have yet to see one in
a Walmart. There are six my area. I suspect if they were a
compelling consumer item, Walmart would dedicate shell
space just as it dedicates space to it $29.95 microwave ovens.
Hm, one of the original antitrust complaints against M$ was exactly that,
not Linux per se, but jacking up prices if they put any other os on the pc's
they sold.
Where did I say anything about that?
Post by Mike Mormando
M$ is still offering bounties to the smaller PC shops in this area, at
least, for names and addresses of anyone who buys
a PC with no os.
Source of your allegation? or is this just skuttlebutt?
--
Hilton Evans
-----------------------------------------------
ChemPen Chemical Structure Software
http://www.chempensoftware.com


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 1/13/04
Mike Mormando
2004-01-21 22:39:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hilton Evans
Source of your allegation? or is this just skuttlebutt?
The source was a letter and poster from M$ and the Business Software
Alliance(?) offering points if the stores would turn in names of customers
buying PC's without an OS installed. If they got so many points they could
trade them in for various prizes, grills, toys, etc.
I saw it in several of the shops around here.
Mike
Hilton Evans
2004-01-21 23:23:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Mormando
Post by Hilton Evans
Source of your allegation? or is this just skuttlebutt?
The source was a letter and poster from M$ and the Business Software
Alliance(?) offering points if the stores would turn in names of customers
buying PC's without an OS installed. If they got so many points they could
trade them in for various prizes, grills, toys, etc.
I saw it in several of the shops around here.
Hmm,
Seems like one of those land mines an enterprising
consumer reporter would want to run with. Trading
in customer names? Not good.
--
Hilton Evans
-----------------------------------------------
ChemPen Chemical Structure Software
http://www.chempensoftware.com


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 1/13/04
pNichols
2004-01-16 14:30:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hilton Evans
Post by Jeff Undercash
I predicted the exact same thing in this newsgroup not too long ago.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/15/1531237&mode=thread&tid=106&tid=126&tid=163&tid=185
Post by Hilton Evans
Post by Jeff Undercash
Everyone else on the planet is promoting Linux while the focus here is on
.Net...
When you go into an electronics or computer retailer, do you
see Linux PCs? I don't even see them at Walmart, and Walmart
sells $199 Lindows PCs. Aside from slashdot pontificaters, what's
the evidence?
No one expects Linux to take over the home desktop market any time soon. The
corporate market is the Desktop market Linux is shooting for right now, not
the home market.

If you want corporate desktop PCs shipped with Linux, IBM or HP will
accomodate you quite nicely <G>.
Hilton Evans
2004-01-16 23:20:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Undercash
Post by Hilton Evans
Post by Jeff Undercash
I predicted the exact same thing in this newsgroup not too long ago.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/15/1531237&mode=thread&tid=106&tid=126&tid=163&tid=185
Post by Hilton Evans
Post by Jeff Undercash
Everyone else on the planet is promoting Linux while the focus here is on
.Net...
When you go into an electronics or computer retailer, do you
see Linux PCs? I don't even see them at Walmart, and Walmart
sells $199 Lindows PCs. Aside from slashdot pontificaters, what's
the evidence?
No one expects Linux to take over the home desktop market any time soon. The
corporate market is the Desktop market Linux is shooting for right now, not
the home market.
And, that market is probably overblown. Here in the U.S. most businesses
are small businesses. Big corporations with 10,000 desktops and 100 geek
staffs to babysit them are willing to go through the hassle to convert from
Windows to Linux; and they will get significant savings from their economies
of change.

Even in big corporations some are sufficiently compartmentalized so that
a move to a single platform makes no sense. When I was working in as
a research spectroscopist our analytical and physical chemistry departments
mostly used PCs while our synthetic chemistry department favored Macs.
And, the choice of platform on a scientific instrument was determined by
the supplier.

A small business with a couple of dozen PCs won't gain much in dollar
savings moving to Linux and stands to lose and savings on procurement
to service and training.
--
Hilton Evans
-----------------------------------------------
ChemPen Chemical Structure Software
http://www.chempensoftware.com


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 1/13/04
JQP
2004-01-16 23:59:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hilton Evans
And, that market is probably overblown. Here in the U.S. most businesses
are small businesses. Big corporations with 10,000 desktops and 100
geekstaffs to babysit them are willing to go through the hassle to
convert
Post by Hilton Evans
from Windows to Linux; and they will get significant savings from
their
Post by Hilton Evans
economies of change.
Companies with fewer than 100 employees make up make than 90% of the
businesses in the US.

Companies with fewer than 500 employees make up more than 99% of the
businesses in the US.
pNichols
2004-01-23 01:23:48 UTC
Permalink
xx
R.F. Pels
2004-01-17 11:56:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hilton Evans
And, that market is probably overblown. Here in the U.S. most
businesses are small businesses. Big corporations with 10,000 desktops
and 100 geek staffs to babysit them are willing to go through the
hassle to convert from Windows to Linux; and they will get significant
savings from their economies of change.
Even in big corporations some are sufficiently compartmentalized so
that a move to a single platform makes no sense. When I was working in
as a research spectroscopist our analytical and physical chemistry
departments mostly used PCs while our synthetic chemistry department
favored Macs. And, the choice of platform on a scientific instrument
was determined by the supplier.
Niche market.
Post by Hilton Evans
A small business with a couple of dozen PCs won't gain much in dollar
savings moving to Linux and stands to lose and savings on procurement
to service and training.
However, they /can/ save money on commmercial licenses and such businesses
aren't able to support their information infrastructure in the first place,
so they have to buy that anyway.
--
Ruurd
Hilton Evans
2004-01-17 14:08:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by R.F. Pels
Post by Hilton Evans
And, that market is probably overblown. Here in the U.S. most
businesses are small businesses. Big corporations with 10,000 desktops
and 100 geek staffs to babysit them are willing to go through the
hassle to convert from Windows to Linux; and they will get significant
savings from their economies of change.
Even in big corporations some are sufficiently compartmentalized so
that a move to a single platform makes no sense. When I was working in
as a research spectroscopist our analytical and physical chemistry
departments mostly used PCs while our synthetic chemistry department
favored Macs. And, the choice of platform on a scientific instrument
was determined by the supplier.
Niche market.
Irrelevant to my bigger point compartmentization point.
Post by R.F. Pels
Post by Hilton Evans
A small business with a couple of dozen PCs won't gain much in dollar
savings moving to Linux and stands to lose and savings on procurement
to service and training.
However, they /can/ save money on commmercial licenses and such businesses
aren't able to support their information infrastructure in the first place,
so they have to buy that anyway.
And the biggest part that they pay for is people, service and specialty
applications and not OS licenses. A small business is not going to sweat
over the price of an OS license embedded in the cost of a workstation.
--
Hilton Evans
-----------------------------------------------
ChemPen Chemical Structure Software
http://www.chempensoftware.com


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 1/13/04
juliusz
2004-01-17 12:36:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hilton Evans
A small business with a couple of dozen PCs won't gain much in dollar
savings moving to Linux and stands to lose and savings on procurement
to service and training.
It is really worth to consider switching from Windows to Linux because
the potential savings from it can be considerable.

- The immediate savings in Licensing cost can be considerable; it
includes the cost of the operating system and licensing, cost of many
peripheral applications, like Data base, WebServer, Mail servers,
Print servers, News servers, file sharing servers and many more
programs, utilities and applications which you would need to buy if
your system is Windows based. So it is not only the cost of the
operating system.

- Saving in future upgrades and modernization.
- Savings on potential cost of auditing and license tracking.

- Data protection – open standards (how you measure this in money)
- Security and reliability (how to measure these with money)
- Flexibility (how you measure it with money)
- Expandability (how you measure it with money)
- Scalability ( how you measure it with money)

- Savings in system maintenance cost (it is true that Linux
professional charges more but you need only one or two Linux engineers
for your organization since one can maintain and administer multiple
Linux systems. (sort of Maytag repairman)

The retraining cost is negligible, and is comparable to switching from
one to another version of Windows. Anyway, staff must be trained, no
matter what is the system in use. Training and retraining is a normal
cost of doing business. Most businesses in fact are using one
custom made application for example client-server type and the
employees usually interacts only with a subset of this application
therefore they must be trained to interact with this application. This
employee does not need to know Linux system administration or even to
know on what operating system the application is running. The setup
and maintenance of the system is done by a specialist, one retrained
employee or an outside contractor. Furthermore, the flexibility of
Linux permits to mimic the familiar environment the staff was trained
on, if it is needed.

But any such transition must be base in reality, because a very small
business which does not deal with any important or otherwise sensitive
information and has already modern equipment and is running expensive
Windows application and with great dependence on them, then it may not
be cost effective to do this transition.

But if there is a need to modernize old system then in most
circumstances choosing Linux and open standards makes sense from the
economical point of view as well from gained flexibility and potential
savings in the future. Also, if the business does not yet utilize
computers or wants to expand its use then it is almost an obligation
to consider Linux as an alternative.

Additionally, for many businesses it makes perfect sense to utilize
heterogeneous computing environments that consists from Windows and
Linux, to preserve current investment and to take advantage form the
best of both.

Each, business situation is unique and each business solution must be
carefully considered. However, there is no doubt that Linux is making
constant progress; The Linux situation is changing from year to year
from month to month the big computer industry are investing in Linux,
the Linux user base is increasing and what is probably the most
important Linux is improving in a rapid manner. The choice is yours.

juliusz
--
InstallMade - Kylix-specific installer/builder
http://www.superobject.com/installmade/
http://www.superobject.com/imoe/download.html
Hilton Evans
2004-01-17 20:32:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by juliusz
Post by Hilton Evans
A small business with a couple of dozen PCs won't gain much in dollar
savings moving to Linux and stands to lose and savings on procurement
to service and training.
It is really worth to consider switching from Windows to Linux because
the potential savings from it can be considerable.
- The immediate savings in Licensing cost can be considerable; it
<snip -- many per server savings>

Those are all good reasons for considering a switch to Linux as a
back end server. They're not good reasons for switching to Linux
clients.
--
Hilton Evans
-----------------------------------------------
ChemPen Chemical Structure Software
http://www.chempensoftware.com


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 1/13/04
R.F. Pels
2004-01-17 20:34:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hilton Evans
Post by juliusz
Post by Hilton Evans
A small business with a couple of dozen PCs won't gain much in dollar
savings moving to Linux and stands to lose and savings on
procurement to service and training.
It is really worth to consider switching from Windows to Linux because
the potential savings from it can be considerable.
- The immediate savings in Licensing cost can be considerable; it
<snip -- many per server savings>
Those are all good reasons for considering a switch to Linux as a
back end server. They're not good reasons for switching to Linux
clients.
Says you. Oh, and BTW, go into the whole article.
--
Ruurd
Hilton Evans
2004-01-17 21:08:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by R.F. Pels
Post by Hilton Evans
Post by juliusz
Post by Hilton Evans
A small business with a couple of dozen PCs won't gain much in dollar
savings moving to Linux and stands to lose and savings on
procurement to service and training.
It is really worth to consider switching from Windows to Linux because
the potential savings from it can be considerable.
- The immediate savings in Licensing cost can be considerable; it
<snip -- many per server savings>
Those are all good reasons for considering a switch to Linux as a
back end server. They're not good reasons for switching to Linux
clients.
Says you. Oh, and BTW, go into the whole article.
???
--
Hilton Evans
-----------------------------------------------
ChemPen Chemical Structure Software
http://www.chempensoftware.com


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.561 / Virus Database: 353 - Release Date: 1/13/04
Michael Schnell
2004-01-19 12:46:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by pNichols
No one expects Linux to take over the home desktop market any time soon.
because they are sealing the software anyway <g>
Andreas Prucha
2004-01-16 22:46:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hilton Evans
When you go into an electronics or computer retailer, do you
see Linux PCs?
I see such systems here from time to time. Not many, but they exist.
Ralph F
2004-01-18 10:08:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andreas Prucha
I see such systems here from time to time. Not many, but they exist.
They are also beginning to show up regularly on ebay. Not a lot, but a steady
flow.
--
Ralph

"Everyone has a photographic memory, but not everyone has film."
.. Author Unknown
Andreas Prucha
2004-01-20 15:37:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ralph F
They are also beginning to show up regularly on ebay. Not a lot, but a
steady flow.
I also think that there is not much money in the Linux desktop-software-
market, but I am quite sure that this will change.

If only half of the IT managers I know do what they are planning to do
(switch over almost completely to Linux within the next years), the Linux
market will grow quite heavy within the next years.

It seems that many people want to switch over, but have not completely
figured out what the best way to do it is.
JQP
2004-01-20 17:25:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andreas Prucha
It seems that many people want to switch over, but have not completely
figured out what the best way to do it is.
I want to be rich, but I have not completely figured out what the best way
to do it is<g>. But I am on the verge of ruling out Linux desktop software
as a possible scenario<g>.
Andreas Prucha
2004-01-20 23:11:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by JQP
I want to be rich, but I have not completely figured out what the best
way to do it is<g>. But I am on the verge of ruling out Linux desktop
software as a possible scenario<g>.
Well, most IT managers I know are unhappy with the M$-dictate and they
try to escape. There are a few circumstances which make a move a little
bit difficult at the moment.

I spoke with one yesterday, and their plan is about this:

- Migration of some servers. Desktops stay Windows for now.
- Change from MS Office to OpenOffice or StarOffice on the desktop.
- Applications which are available for Windows only will not be bought
any more.
- Rewrite of some desktop-applications to intranet-application
- Other desktop-applications are rewritten with development tools which
allow X-platform development.
- And then the slow change of the desktop.
pNichols
2004-01-22 18:35:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andreas Prucha
Post by JQP
I want to be rich, but I have not completely figured out what the best
way to do it is<g>. But I am on the verge of ruling out Linux desktop
software as a possible scenario<g>.
Well, most IT managers I know are unhappy with the M$-dictate and they
try to escape. There are a few circumstances which make a move a little
bit difficult at the moment.
- Migration of some servers. Desktops stay Windows for now.
- Change from MS Office to OpenOffice or StarOffice on the desktop.
- Applications which are available for Windows only will not be bought
any more.
- Rewrite of some desktop-applications to intranet-application
- Other desktop-applications are rewritten with development tools which
allow X-platform development.
- And then the slow change of the desktop.
I have been saying for years, anyone who writes their new software in a
platform specific manner is not very wise. You are purposefully, limiting
your market share.
Ender
2004-01-22 21:13:58 UTC
Permalink
However, many people happy writing apps for single platform. Yes it may be
not wise, but it seems take less amount of time and money. Creating apps
only with Delphi far more efficient than creating of apps with
cross-platform Qt.
pNichols
2004-01-23 01:16:06 UTC
Permalink
p> I have been saying for years, anyone who writes their new software in
p> a platform specific manner is not very wise. You are purposefully,
p> limiting your market share.
However, many people happy writing apps for single platform. Yes it may be
not wise, but it seems take less amount of time and money. Creating apps
only with Delphi far more efficient than creating of apps with
cross-platform Qt.
That would be totally subjective to your skills.

I can easily create a Java app as easily as I can a Delphi one. Those versed
in QT, Athena, wxwindows, GTK+, etc. can likewise do the same. If they know
these other platforms and do not know Delphi, then you think it would any
quicker for them to do it in Delphi? I think not.

My point is and has been that we are not living in 1998, 1999, or even 2000.
Writing new applications that only run on Windows or only on Mac/Linux is a
not a good proposition. Linux is becoming far too entrenched to bet your
future only on Windows. I am not suggesting either, that you bet your
future totally on Linux either. You should write application (except in
very few cases) that run on both and can even support more, if possible. In
the recent past, this was more difficult to do. Today there is no excuse,
except that you have (a) Limited skills or learning capabilities (b) You
become a language/tool zealot. Neither make for smart business decisions.

You should read this recent Forbes article for more proof

http://www.forbes.com/infoimaging/free_forbes/2004/0202/092.html
Ender
2004-01-23 05:53:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by pNichols
I can easily create a Java app as easily as I can a Delphi one. Those
versed in QT, Athena, wxwindows, GTK+, etc. can likewise do the same. If
they know these other platforms and do not know Delphi, then you think it
would any quicker for them to do it in Delphi? I think not.
Yes quicker. Obviously you don't use Qt and wxWindows.
Post by pNichols
My point is and has been that we are not living in 1998, 1999, or even
2000. Writing new applications that only run on Windows or only on
Mac/Linux is a not a good proposition.
It is very vary from market niche.
pNichols
2004-01-23 08:22:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ender
Post by pNichols
I can easily create a Java app as easily as I can a Delphi one. Those
versed in QT, Athena, wxwindows, GTK+, etc. can likewise do the same. If
they know these other platforms and do not know Delphi, then you think it
would any quicker for them to do it in Delphi? I think not.
Yes quicker. Obviously you don't use Qt and wxWindows.
I have used QT, and have looked at wxWindows. With a GUI Builder wxWindows
is very good. But I use Java for 80% of all we do. Even with the rest
(which I have no problems with), Java is the best at xplatform, hands down.
With the advent of 1.4.2, the speed has vastly been improved.
Post by Ender
Post by pNichols
My point is and has been that we are not living in 1998, 1999, or even
2000. Writing new applications that only run on Windows or only on
Mac/Linux is a not a good proposition.
It is very vary from market niche.
OK, lets see if I can make even more plain.

Linux has more server market share than Windows and is gaining more
everyday. OK, so I am going to code only for Windows, so that I can
increase my business. Does this make any sense at all?

Linux is growing on the desktop as well. It is also growing in the
semi-computer market, like telecommunications, PDAs, Smart TV type
computers, Tivo, etc. faster in all of these areas, than anyone else,
including Windows. So, therefore I am going to code only for Windows. This
way I can ensure my future viability and marketability. Does that make any
sense at all?

Now I will give the reverse (yes I know you are an avid Redmond fan, so we
will turn it around. It is, after all, REALITY).

Windows has approx. 30% server market share. So I am going to code only for
Linux and/or Solaris, and skip Windows. Sure, this may cover 50-60% of the
server marketshare, but I am going to purposefully leave out, by my
stubborn, ill-informed fanaticism. coupled with an uneducated mindset, 30%
of the market. Does it make sense for me to avoid 30% of the market,
because I like Linux better than Windows?

On the Desktop, Windows has approx. 90% of the Desktop market as of last
reports. But I use and like Linux better and see it really growing (one of
my largest customers' customer is starting this month, switching out 15,000
desktops to Linux). So because I like Linux better, I am going to ignore
that 90% (even though it is on the decline), and code for the 10% of Linux
and Mac. Does that makes sense? Of course not.

None of the above scenarios make any sense. Now if my company was focused
only on special utilities for one OS and not the other (say I work for a
Virus software company, where sales for Linux would be nil, since viruses
are so rare, no one even worries about very much on Unix), I might not need
to put in the special effort. But that would be the exception, not the
norm. For most every consumer type or customized business application, you
had better worry about xplatform, or see your competiton beat you into the
ground in a very short period of time. It is this simple.

You may not do it, but you can bet your competition will. And they will be
expanding their business while you watch your marketshare, shrink.
JQP
2004-01-23 12:58:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by pNichols
Linux has more server market share than Windows and is gaining more
everyday.
Reference?

The latest numbers I've seen (IDC, World Wide Server Tracker) for retail
server sales show Windows to be more than 4 times that of Linux in terms of
dollars.

Here's one reference to this report:
http://siliconvalley.internet.com/news/article.php/3114301

Yes, Linux is growing. Yes, Unix is shrinking. Windows seems to be doing
well on the server.

Do you have any *real* numbers that show a different picture?
Phil Shrimpton
2004-01-23 13:57:37 UTC
Permalink
In article <401119ef$***@newsgroups.borland.com>, ***@888.nu says...
Hi,
Post by JQP
The latest numbers I've seen (IDC, World Wide Server Tracker) for retail
server sales show Windows to be more than 4 times that of Linux in terms of
dollars.
Which means little in the real world, Windows will always win in terms
of dollars.

We have 10 'development' servers, all running Linux that I installed
from a CD a burnt from a download. 5 of these servers came preinstalled
with Windows (the rest did not come with an OS), so from a 'sales'
perspective this looks like Windows = 5, Linux = 0, when in fact it is
Linux=10, Windows=0 (although we do have 5 Windows licenses hanging
about).

The only real way to find out usage figures is to ask people what they
are using

Phil
JQP
2004-01-23 17:18:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil Shrimpton
Which means little in the real world, Windows will always win in terms
of dollars.
Why?

If people are buying new servers to install Linux instead of Windows, I'd
expect the sales figures to show this in some way --- a decrease in Windows
sales if nothing else. And we are seeing just that --- but in terms of Unix
sales which are down, but not Windows.
Post by Phil Shrimpton
We have 10 'development' servers, all running Linux that I installed
from a CD a burnt from a download. 5 of these servers came preinstalled
with Windows (the rest did not come with an OS), so from a 'sales'
perspective this looks like Windows = 5, Linux = 0, when in fact it is
Linux=10, Windows=0 (although we do have 5 Windows licenses hanging
about).
Obviously, the data was for *new* server sales only. It never pretended to
measure conversions of old hardware.
Post by Phil Shrimpton
The only real way to find out usage figures is to ask people what they
are using
Ok, let's assume you're right. If someone can state emphatically that Linux
has more marketshare than Windows, I would just like to see their survey
results.
Phil Shrimpton
2004-01-26 16:27:44 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by JQP
Post by Phil Shrimpton
Which means little in the real world, Windows will always win in terms
of dollars.
Why?
Because Windows is much more expensive than Linux in terms of Licences,
and in a lot of cases, people are not paying anything for Linux, so one
Windows server sale is going to be a lot bigger, in terms of OS dollar
value, than 100 Linux server sales.
Post by JQP
If people are buying new servers to install Linux instead of Windows, I'd
expect the sales figures to show this in some way --- a decrease in Windows
sales if nothing else.
That assumes that the people buying the Linux servers would previous
have purchased Windows, or that people buying the Linux servers are not
also buying the same amount of Windows servers as they normally do.
Because Linux is not licensed the same way as Windows, it is near
impossible to compare the 2. If we had to purchase a copy of Linux for
each machine we install it on, and CAL's etc., we could directly compare
the two.
Post by JQP
And we are seeing just that --- but in terms of Unix
sales which are down, but not Windows.
As above, UNIX is licensed similar to Windows, so sales figures are easy
to compare. UNIX sales maybe losing out to Linux, maybe Windows, but
nobody can know for sure unless they ask they people who are not buying
UNIX what they are buying.
Post by JQP
Post by Phil Shrimpton
We have 10 'development' servers, all running Linux that I installed
from a CD a burnt from a download. 5 of these servers came preinstalled
with Windows (the rest did not come with an OS), so from a 'sales'
perspective this looks like Windows = 5, Linux = 0, when in fact it is
Linux=10, Windows=0 (although we do have 5 Windows licenses hanging
about).
Obviously, the data was for *new* server sales only. It never pretended to
measure conversions of old hardware.
All these 10 servers were purchased *new* to run Linux on.

Phil
JQP
2004-01-26 17:26:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phil Shrimpton
Because Windows is much more expensive than Linux in terms of Licences,
and in a lot of cases, people are not paying anything for Linux, so one
Windows server sale is going to be a lot bigger, in terms of OS dollar
value, than 100 Linux server sales.
A lot bigger?!? How much do you think a Windows license costs?

It is a very small part of the cost of a server.
Bob { Goddard }
2004-01-26 18:36:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by JQP
Post by Phil Shrimpton
Because Windows is much more expensive than Linux in terms of Licences,
and in a lot of cases, people are not paying anything for Linux, so one
Windows server sale is going to be a lot bigger, in terms of OS dollar
value, than 100 Linux server sales.
A lot bigger?!? How much do you think a Windows license costs?
It is a very small part of the cost of a server.
No, it's not. A basic 5-user license version of windows 2003
Server costs around 700ukp here in the UK, about the same
price as a basic server. Want to go Enterprise with 100 users?,
try 10,000ukp, with a suitable server costing 20,000ukp.

Either way, the cost of loading Linux on both of these
can be zero.


B
--
http://www.mailtrap.org.uk/
JQP
2004-01-26 19:34:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob { Goddard }
No, it's not. A basic 5-user license version of windows 2003
Server costs around 700ukp here in the UK, about the same
price as a basic server.
Don't know about your side of the pond but very few businesses here pay "off
the shelf" prices for MS software. Package deals and subscriptions are
available. I pay $299 per year and get virtually everything that MS
produces with up to 10 desktop licenses for Office and XP.
Bob { Goddard }
2004-01-26 20:05:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by JQP
Post by Bob { Goddard }
No, it's not. A basic 5-user license version of windows 2003
Server costs around 700ukp here in the UK, about the same
price as a basic server.
Don't know about your side of the pond but very few businesses here pay "off
the shelf" prices for MS software. Package deals and subscriptions are
available. I pay $299 per year and get virtually everything that MS
produces with up to 10 desktop licenses for Office and XP.
$300 for everything? As in MSDN? As in not to be used
for production?


B
--
http://www.mailtrap.org.uk/
JQP
2004-01-26 23:06:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob { Goddard }
$300 for everything? As in MSDN? As in not to be used
for production?
As in Microsoft Action Pack Subscription. As in "internal business use" is
allowed. Here's the UK page.

http://www.microsoft.com/uk/partner/sales_and_marketing/actionpack/.
Bob { Goddard }
2004-01-26 23:55:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by JQP
Post by Bob { Goddard }
$300 for everything? As in MSDN? As in not to be used
for production?
As in Microsoft Action Pack Subscription. As in "internal business use" is
allowed. Here's the UK page.
http://www.microsoft.com/uk/partner/sales_and_marketing/actionpack/.
Interesting.... Never seen it before.

However, this is not for end users, is it? The vast majority
of companies and individuals cannot use it. Your argument
is therefore entirely null and void.


B
--
http://www.mailtrap.org.uk/
Trane Francks
2004-01-27 02:18:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob { Goddard }
Post by JQP
Post by Bob { Goddard }
$300 for everything? As in MSDN? As in not to be used
for production?
As in Microsoft Action Pack Subscription. As in "internal business use" is
allowed. Here's the UK page.
http://www.microsoft.com/uk/partner/sales_and_marketing/actionpack/.
Interesting.... Never seen it before.
However, this is not for end users, is it? The vast majority
of companies and individuals cannot use it. Your argument
is therefore entirely null and void.
Agreed:

"Restriction
You acknowledge that the Subscription is restricted to resellers,
consultants, VARs, value-added providers, system integrators,
developers, system builders, hosts, service providers or IT
professionals who sell Microsoft products or provide solutions
based on Microsoft products and technologies to third-party
customers, and whose Subscription applications have been
submitted to Microsoft as specified in this Agreement and
accepted by Microsoft. By submitting your application and
accepting the Subscription you warrant that you meet the criteria
to receive the Subscription."

In other words, the average company will spend heaps to get this
software.

trane
--
//------------------------------------------------------------
// Trane Francks ***@gol.com Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.
JQP
2004-01-27 03:03:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob { Goddard }
Interesting.... Never seen it before.
However, this is not for end users, is it? The vast majority
of companies and individuals cannot use it. Your argument
is therefore entirely null and void.
Bundled packages and discounts are available to just about every business
with multiple computers to outfit. "Enterprise" level customers generally
get custom, individual deals at huge discounts. Smaller businesses have
bundles like Small Business Server.
Bob { Goddard }
2004-01-27 08:09:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by JQP
Post by Bob { Goddard }
Interesting.... Never seen it before.
However, this is not for end users, is it? The vast majority
of companies and individuals cannot use it. Your argument
is therefore entirely null and void.
Bundled packages and discounts are available to just about every business
with multiple computers to outfit. "Enterprise" level customers generally
get custom, individual deals at huge discounts. Smaller businesses have
bundles like Small Business Server.
You're changing the rules again.

I accept that enterprise level customers can cut special deals,
but SME's cannot, and remember that SME'e make up the vast bulk of
businesses. They also cannot get access to the Action Pack.
So the only thing open to them is SBS, this costs around 400ukp
here in the UK for 5 users. That is WELL over half the cost
of a small server.

Your argument that MS server software represents only a small
part of the cost of a server still does not stand up to
scrutiny.


B
--
http://www.mailtrap.org.uk/
JQP
2004-01-27 14:33:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob { Goddard }
I accept that enterprise level customers can cut special deals,
but SME's cannot, and remember that SME'e make up the vast bulk of
businesses. They also cannot get access to the Action Pack.
So the only thing open to them is SBS, this costs around 400ukp
here in the UK for 5 users. That is WELL over half the cost
of a small server.
You're paying way too much<g>. SBS is available for less than $450US. And
remember this is a bundle, not just the OS.

http://www.newegg.com/app/viewProductDesc.asp?description=32-102-242&depa=0
Post by Bob { Goddard }
Your argument that MS server software represents only a small
part of the cost of a server still does not stand up to
scrutiny.
Neither does the original statement that Linux has more marketshare than
Windows on the server.

Mike Margerum
2004-01-27 00:45:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by JQP
Don't know about your side of the pond but very few businesses here pay "off
the shelf" prices for MS software. Package deals and subscriptions are
available. I pay $299 per year and get virtually everything that MS
produces with up to 10 desktop licenses for Office and XP.
m$ server software becomes really prohibitive when you resell software
that needs a dedicated server like I do. Basically to run my software
you would need server 2003 small business along with SQL server for
5-10 people. That's at least $2,000 per server. Figure at last
another $1,000 for a low end server. If I only charge 10k for the
server, that's a huge percentage of my revenue pie. This turnkey
system I install is never touched by anyone at the site because they
wouldn't know what to do anyway. I manage it all through SSH which is
another reason to go with Linux. Everything is configurable from the
command line. So instead of having to tack on $2,000 (at least) for
software, I'm using Mandrake 9.2 server which comes with support and
is $200. My gui app is still a windows app but the back end is
postgres/python with some custom middleware i've built.

The best part is I can offer them file sharing, pop access, ftp, print
sharing, VPN, etc and it costs me $0. I just install the service,
config, and done. Linux is an awesome server.
Phil Shrimpton
2004-01-27 01:53:09 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@newsgroups.borland.com>, ***@888.nu says...

Hi,
Post by JQP
Post by Phil Shrimpton
Because Windows is much more expensive than Linux in terms of Licences,
and in a lot of cases, people are not paying anything for Linux, so one
Windows server sale is going to be a lot bigger, in terms of OS dollar
value, than 100 Linux server sales.
A lot bigger?!? How much do you think a Windows license costs?
W2003 with 25 CAL's is approx £1700, 100 CAL's is approx £2800, so for a
server supporting 250 users, it comes in approx £8000 ($14400)
Post by JQP
It is a very small part of the cost of a server.
I can buy a lot of server for $14.5K

Phil
Hilton Evans
2004-01-23 15:55:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by pNichols
OK, lets see if I can make even more plain.
Linux has more server market share than Windows and is gaining more
everyday. OK, so I am going to code only for Windows, so that I can
increase my business. Does this make any sense at all?
It certainly can if 1 you own only a tiny fraction of the market
and 2 if you introduce new products.
Post by pNichols
Linux is growing on the desktop as well. It is also growing in the
semi-computer market, like telecommunications, PDAs, Smart TV type
computers, Tivo, etc. faster in all of these areas, than anyone else,
including Windows. So, therefore I am going to code only for Windows. This
way I can ensure my future viability and marketability. Does that make any
sense at all?
It can since developing for multiple platforms is more exception than
rule.
Post by pNichols
Now I will give the reverse (yes I know you are an avid Redmond fan, so we
will turn it around. It is, after all, REALITY).
Windows has approx. 30% server market share.
From a business standpoint percent market share is meanless.
Size of market is what is meaningful. If a small piece a 30% market
share of 100 million can make you rich what do you care if the
other 70% is fought over by others. It also depends on the price
and nicheness of your products.
Post by pNichols
Does it make sense for me to avoid 30% of the market,
because I like Linux better than Windows?
See above and switch numbers.
Post by pNichols
But that would be the exception, not the
norm. For most every consumer type or customized business application, you
had better worry about xplatform, or see your competiton beat you into the
ground in a very short period of time.
Nonsense. One need only spend a few minutes in a computer store
to see this is patently untrue. Plenty of people are doing find developing
solely for specific PDAs or for cell phones or for Windows or for Mac.
For solutions oriented companies, vendors often bundle the platform into
the pricey specialty product. x-platform is overrated.
--
Hilton Evans
-----------------------------------------------
ChemPen Chemical Structure Software
http://www.chempensoftware.com


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.566 / Virus Database: 357 - Release Date: 1/22/04
Ender
2004-01-25 15:16:11 UTC
Permalink
So you should know that Qt offer much less functionality than, for example,
VCL.

p> OK, lets see if I can make even more plain.

p> Linux has more server market share than Windows and is gaining more
p> everyday. OK, so I am going to code only for Windows, so that I can
p> increase my business. Does this make any sense at all?

You may increase your business developing high quality things that required
by customers. This is straightforward, simple, fair and efficient way to
increase your business.

Difference in market share may increase business but i'm not sure that
having "small" difference, say 20%..25% percent, will give to your business
significantly better chances. That may play if difference will be great like
80 vs 20 or 90 vs 10. And this exactly what currently happens with Windows
development. It HAS that advantage from market share.

Even if you get some advantage from distribution of market share, it may be
eaten by various expences like increased development and support expences
once you go to cross platform.

p> Linux is growing on the desktop as well.
p> It is also growing in the semi-computer market, like telecommunications,
p> PDAs, Smart TV type computers, Tivo, etc. faster in all of these areas,
p> than anyone else, including Windows. So, therefore I am going to code
p> only for Windows. This way I can ensure my future viability and
p> marketability. Does that make any sense at all?

You constantly forgetting about subject. The subject is "Linux Desktop".

p> Now I will give the reverse (yes I know you are an avid Redmond fan,
p> so we will turn it around. It is, after all, REALITY).

p> Windows has approx. 30% server market share. So I am going to code
p> only for
p> Linux and/or Solaris, and skip Windows. Sure, this may cover 50-60%
p> of the server marketshare, but I am going to purposefully leave out,
p> by my stubborn, ill-informed fanaticism. coupled with an uneducated
p> mindset, 30% of the market. Does it make sense for me to avoid 30% of
the market,
p> because I like Linux better than Windows?

What you mean under coding under Linux or Windows on the server market? If
i'm work with Oracle i'm code under Oracle. If i'm code under Java i will be
automatically cross platform. If i do some turn-key system it is often does
not matter what platform it use.

p> On the Desktop, Windows has approx. 90% of the Desktop market as of
p> last reports. But I use and like Linux better and see it really
p> growing (one of my largest customers' customer is starting this
p> month, switching out 15,000 desktops to Linux). So because I like
p> Linux better, I am going to ignore that 90% (even though it is on the
p> decline), and code for the 10% of Linux and Mac. Does that makes
p> sense? Of course not.
p> None of the above scenarios make any sense. Now if my company was
p> focused only on special utilities for one OS and not the other (say I
p> work for a
p> Virus software company, where sales for Linux would be nil,
p> since viruses are so rare, no one even worries about very much on Unix),
p> I might not need to put in the special effort. But that would be the
p> exception, not the norm. For most every consumer type or customized
p> business application, you had better worry about xplatform, or see
p> your competiton beat you into the ground in a very short period of
p> time. It is this simple.

So you have to select truly x-platform development tools and lose certain
amount of productivity and flexibility or have to create two development and
support branches for Windows and for Linux (which more expensive). I think
that you had first worry about quality of your applications and quality of
support instead of "being x-platform".

p> You may not do it, but you can bet your competition will. And they
p> will be expanding their business while you watch your marketshare,
p> shrink.

Being x-platform is just tool to gain some more money if time and resources
permits.
Steve-O
2004-01-16 17:55:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Undercash
I predicted the exact same thing in this newsgroup not too long ago.
Looks
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/15/1531237&mode=thread&tid=106&tid=
126&tid=163&tid=185
Post by Jeff Undercash
Everyone else on the planet is promoting Linux while the focus here is on
.Net...
Yawn... Every year seems to be the year Linux will trounce on MS. Still
waiting for the big showdown.
JQP
2004-01-16 19:39:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve-O
Yawn... Every year seems to be the year Linux will trounce on MS. Still
waiting for the big showdown.
Maybe they figure it's like predicting the weather. If you say it's gonna
rain and you say it long enough, eventually you'll be right. Of course, in
the process, you'll demonstrate to most people that you really don't have a
clue.
Steve-O
2004-01-17 04:12:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by JQP
Maybe they figure it's like predicting the weather. If you say it's gonna
rain and you say it long enough, eventually you'll be right. Of course, in
the process, you'll demonstrate to most people that you really don't have a
clue.
I guess the operate by the maxim: We can't lose em' all!

Steve-O
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...