OSNews

"This is getting really interesting"

These migrations of a few hundred/thousand workstations have been making news for years. Many of them end up using Linux but still running their windows applications through some sort of virtualization.

Munich, one of the largest yet announced their ~45 million dollar 14,000 PC migration back in ~2002 and with any luck they should have about 500 machines on Linux by the end of this year.

Personally, I think the fact that migrating more than 400 machines over to Linux still makes the news is pretty depressing.

Personally, I think the fact that migrating more than 400 machines over to Linux still makes the news is pretty depressing.

It's hard for those hundreds of thousands of individuals and small companies installing Linux to make the news.

Really? Why is that? And why do we keep hearing about it if it's so hard?

>>>Personally, I think the fact that migrating more than 400 machines over to Linux still makes the news is pretty depressing.

>>It's hard for those hundreds of thousands of individuals and small companies installing Linux to make the news.

>Really? Why is that? And why do we keep hearing about it if it's so hard?

Err... OK, if you equate say Nettie Johnson from say Provo, Utah reporting, on some forum or blog, her almost-perfect-but-what-is-this-ndiswrapper-thing Ubuntu installation with "making the news", then I guess you're right.

Munich, one of the largest yet announced their ~45 million dollar 14,000 PC migration back in ~2002 and with any luck they should have about 500 machines on Linux by the end of this year.

Personally, I think the fact that migrating more than 400 machines over to Linux still makes the news is pretty depressing.

Let's keep it in perspective though. The actual deployment only began in September and is scheduled to roll out through 2009.

The decision in Munich wasn't a kneejerk reaction based in anti-MS sentiments, and it wasn't all about eliminating license fees. The objective was to remove long-term dependencies on proprietary software, and the city went through a proper consultative and analysis stage before making any decisions. This included studies of the software used, the viability of open source replacements, useability, resource requirements etc. IBM and Novell/Suse were both involved in this stage, providing expert guidance on the integration of linux and OSS applications in enterprise network environments.

This was followed by a testing phase. In addition, decisions were made on software and they opted to roll their own distro. A service was designed to facilitate imaging, management and application deployment to simplify the rollout and ongoing maintenance.

In short, Munich did their due diligence. Organizations with large infrastructures cannot make whimsical decisions concerning platform migrations etc., these things need to be studied, considered and re-studied to the nth-degree the determine impact across all areas of the business (or government in this case). Large companies will go through a similar process just determining how to approach upgrading from NT to XP, or XP to Vista.

The process in Munich was also sidelined for a period during the whole software patent issue, until the government was confident that their use of linux and other OSS applications would not be impacted.

Linux deployments need to be looked at realistically, perhaps smaller organizations can shorten that period of time and start migrating but larger organizations don't have that luxury. There is a considerable amount of analysis, preparation, training and testing that needs to be done.

Munich should be a blueprint for other organizations, particularly at the public level, in managing their own studies. In fact, much of the groundwork that was done for Munich can benefit other organizations or institutions considering a similar migration.

I've never believed linux will be a wholesale replacement for Windows in enterprises, but I've always maintained that when viewed with an objective set of standards, linux is surprisingly adaptable and suitable for a variety of deployments. I'd rather see strong successes that proceed at a glacial pace than fast "look at me!" type headline-grabbing deployments that ultimately fail due to lack of understanding and preparation.

The fact that Munich as made it this far and has begun actual deployment is a significant success, in my view anyways.

You forgot the fact that from long term they went with FAR FAR cheaper deal.

Well, that depends entirely on who you choose to believe. If you go with IBM and Novell's estimates, they claim that it's "cheaper" over the long term -- but that depends on how far you're willing to go to stretch "long term". But, consider the fact that the operating costs of using Linux are more expensive and aren't likely to decrease. And, since the cost of a software license is less than 2% of the overall TCO, Munich is largely depending on potentially vaporous estimates from IBM and Novell (who provided at-cost consulting to pull the deal through). If IBM and Novell hadn't provided this consulting at-cost (which they WON'T do except in the few high-profile deployments such as Munich), the costs would have been much higher. And let's not forget that they've already had several time-cost overruns.

I'm sure you enjoy your checks from Bill Gates and/or Steve Ballmer very much.

The double tragedy of Munich is not only the extra 12,000,000 its that only 80% of the desktops can be moved to Linux. 20% will stay with Windows XP to run applications like AutoCAD.

That will cause extra costs to run two OS infrastrutures.

Munich is great lesson for business. Linux is expensive.

Munich is great lesson for business.

I agree. Let's take a look.

only 80% of the desktops can be moved to Linux. 20% will stay with Windows XP to run applications like AutoCAD.

Hmmm. An organization with 14,000 desktops decides to do a full scale analysis of their infrastructure, business requirements, organizational objectives and future needs assessment. They discover that out of those 14,000 desktops, only 2,800 of them actually *require* a rich-client OS like Windows for mission-specific applications. Interesting.

That will cause extra costs to run two OS infrastrutures.

Maybe. But then based on the fact that Windows is only required on 20% of the desktops, this implies that Windows and a Windows-based software stack are possibly being used unnecessarily on the remaining 11,200 desktops.

So then the smart thing to do is look at the licensing costs of the software for those 11,200 desktops compared to alternatives, whether free in cost or not. In addition, we need to compare the expense of the necessary Microsoft server infrastructure and management utilities incremental to those additional clients.

The LiMux distribution they are using for those 11,200 clients is free. As is the core software running on it. In addition, these clients will connect to linux-based servers that do not require client licenses at additional cost. They will be centrally managed by an OSS-based application that does not require incremental client fees. None of the software involved in the core stack will require annuity software maintenance fees. So that's something to start with.

It's possible that even with the non-existent license costs of their chosen client and the necessary support infrastructure to support 11,200 desktops alongside the 2,800 platforms they are locked into, it could still be cheaper to simply purchase the necessary licenses, CLA's, servers etc. Or it might not be.

Of course license cost is only a small part of the equation. As are annuity fees for maintenance contracts etc. I guess it boils down to whether linux can be deployed and managed at a cost equivalent to or less than a Microsoft solution.

I suspect that maybe it can, depending upon requirement. After all, I've been using it daily for a good couple of years now. No games, no high-end multimedia editing, I don't need that for work. Just good old fashioned document processing, email, web, connecting to MS shares on our corporate network, citrix, that sort of thing. Believe it or not, I installed it and it just works. I don't even have to recompile my kernel every week or write my own software patches or execute a cryptic array of CLI commands every time I plug a thumb drive in. I know, shocking.

So it's entirely possible that, looked at *objectively* (sorry, I'm not intentionally trying to use terms that are over your head, here's a link that should help explain that term: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/objectivity), a properly managed and deployed linux desktop could be useable for Joe Average whether in the civil service or simply doing admin work at your average enterprise. I know that in my own company, our IT department doesn't force employees to install their own OS or software, doesn't expect them to edit the registry or download applications or access online forums for support in order to get their desktops working. I can only assume other organizations are similar, and that IT departments would not expect users to install or configure linux for themselves. Maybe I'm crazy.

Of course, neither my opinion or yours really matters. Opinions have no place without some degree of empirical data to back them up. I would certainly hope that before the City of Munich would commit to this, they would perform studies and tests coupled with a proper cost-benefit analysis weighed against their objectives and requirements before making any decisions, the same way any smart well-run organization would operate.

Oh, wait a minute, I almost forgot. They did that, didn't they?

Linux is expensive.

So is Microsoft. So are Porsches. So is universal health care.

Concepts of cost and expense are relative. You keep harping on the fact that Munich should have just rolled over and accepted the discounted licenses to save that money.

But they stated right from the beginning that their objectives were not short-term cost reduction, it was long-term. Long-term cost-reduction often entails short-term expense, and vice versa.

So the easy decision would have been to cave in, accept Microsoft's deal, and let it become somebody else's problem down the road when licenses were again up for renewal, or Microsoft wasn't feeling as generous, decided to change their support plans etc. But again, short term budget savings were not the objective here.

There were considerable costs involved. Much of it entails consulting, migration and training. In fact, training is half of the budget and they're already saying based on the initial testing and rollouts that training will not be as big a concern or obstacle as initially projected, based on the test systems and initial deployment.

Your argument about it being more expensive is simply in comparison to Microsoft's license fees. But the costs Munich are carrying amounts effectively to a one-time investment. Once the deployment is completed and the training and support infrastructure is in place, the costs for ongoing maintenance and expansion will be considerably reduced. THAT was the whole objective. It will take some time, and it will take some money, but they have planned for that and their projected returns center around that. That's how business decisions are made.

The same cannot necessarily be said for a Microsoft-centric strategy since they will simply expect to be paid on demand, even more so the further entrenched they get in the network. Hell, this whole exercise could have been unworkable if Windows was maybe required on 30% or 40% of the desktops instead of only 20%. Fortunately for them Windows is terribly underutilized and not really necessary in the vast majority of their desktops.

Change is never the easiest thing in the world, but that doesn't justify resisting it at all cost.

Munich is great lesson for business.

So let's close where we began. I agree with you, I think that Munich will be a great lesson for businesses. It will provide a template and a methodology for organizations considering a similar move. Doesn't mean that it's the right move for everyone, I've never said that or believed it myself, but their success will certainly lower the bar a bit more for others that are sure to follow. Good stuff.

----
Linux - capable of sort of duplicating Windows NT.
----

What you really meant was this:

Windows Longhorn Server + PowerShell * $1000+ = capable of sort of duplicating SUSE, Fedora, or RedHat/CentOS GNU/Linux.

NotParker, what do you do for a living? I still disagree with you an many points but you seem to have a inexhaustible amount of information at your disposal. I honestly do not care enough about any of this to have researched Munich enough to provide the myriad of crud you have.

You seem to think it a foregone conclusion Munich will fail. I sincerely hope you are wrong, I am not aware of any successful large scale roll outs of Linux to the desktop to date. The Munich project seems well thought out from a deployment standpoint with maintenance taken into account. Time will tell I guess.

On a side note, why does everyone use Photoshop as the example of a program that does not run on Linux? I agree Gimp is not a substitute for Photoshop, but I think there are viable alternatives on Linux for non graphics designers. Really, what percentage of your average desktop user uses Photoshop? Word, Outlook (in businesses), Excel too, but Photoshop?

NotParker is probably a MS astroturfer. I hope he is, for his own sake.

NotParker, MS is a virtual monopoly. Jackson's ruling might have been overturned, but that doesn't mean that MS is not a monopoly.

It's funny how on one hand you say that Linux' market share is less than 1% (for which you have no real proof outside dubious net statistics), while on the other hand you argue that MS is not a monopoly. Hint: when you have more than 90% of a market, you *are* a monopoly in the common sense of the word.

Contradicting yourself in such a blantant is another reason why you're a troll.

Edited 2006-11-28 05:44

Windows is even more expensive when you factor in downtime due to viruses and malware.

Political stunt!? This is France, not America, give them some credit.

You know I would love to know why you get marked down for being sarci about France.

And yet the other guy gets marked up for being sarci about America.

Me smells double standards, both comments should be taken as humour, or neither.

Personally I would have said some thing more along the lines of "The french choose striking as the favourite form of politcal pressure".

The first guys comment was decently worded, the second had "lol" printed in all caps. Why do you think he got voted down?

If you're going to make snyde remarks you have to do it with some diction, otherwise people notice it. Notice that my, actually insulting, comment about the French Revolution, in reply, did not get voted down.

Yea, we know, that's why we're worried...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution

With governments everything is political;)
With all that's going on these days, why would any government have any part of their information infrastructure controlled by a foreign group?

Well .. maybe half half - half politics - half belief .

Some things are still typically French - in a positive way .

Like closing shops during the day or all their "ridiculous" protesting - we could really learn something from them here in Germany - but then we just dont care enough & just want our peace - which also isn't bad .

But a tendency away from MS towards OpenSource freedom might just be something fitting into the French mentality .


Highly IMOd


Good Luck

From a selfish point of view, I have enjoyed many years of using GNU/Linux without the hassle and fear of malware. My worry is that if GNU/Linux becomes increasingly popular on the desktop, then we can expect to see more malware targeted at GNU/Linux. After all, nothing is perfect.

I totally agree. I'm on Linux _only_ for several years now, but personally, I don't want Linux to replace Windows - I'd be happy if "we" had a market share big enough to get recognized by hardware vendors and some software companies, but a market share small enough for Linux to remain "ours". Well I hope you know what I mean. Linux should just be one respected OS amongst others (Windows, Mac OS, BSD etc.). It should just be well balanced amongst those systems (and hopefully Windows will die out sometimes in the nar future, so we have only UNIX-like OSes left, which makes all the OSes heterogenous but still compatible at the same time ;-) )

Tom

Hopefully the design of the Linux system will make it harder for malware authors to get their wares to work. I think the ubiquity of Windows has given people the mistaken impression that all platforms are equally susceptible. Fortunately, that's not true.

I guess we will revisit that once Linux gains enough market share to either prove or disprove this theory. My vote is disprove.

//Hopefully the design of the Linux system will make it harder for malware authors to get their wares to work.//

If one has a policy of "install applications only from the distribution repositories" then there will be no malware on the machines at all.

Guaranteed.

We are talking open source here. How does any author write an open-source malware application? Anyone and everyone can see the source code!

The phrase "open-source malware application" is an oxymoron.

Do you think that linux will only run open-source software if/when it becomes big? I'm pretty sure that when a lot of people start using it, there will be a huge market for commercial software and this market will include malware.

Some interesting links on this topic:

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/01/linux_security_1.html

http://techtics.iblogzz.com/2006/04/18/why-linux-is-more-safe-than-...

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1884318,00.asp

My take: The most important things about a security model are:

1) That is easy to understand, so that users can actively keep their systems secure. Security is the last thing you want to automate.

2) It should be strictly imposed on all user applications. No exceptions, no excuse.

These two requirements are much better met in Unix-like sytems than in Windows.

And, if the OS is a Free/Open Source one such as GNU/Linux, you get a huge bonus: Lots of FOSS applications in centralised repositories, which are inherently safer than proprietary, closed-source applications scattered throughout the internet.

The key to security, I think, is never needing antiviruses and other pattern-oriented, attacker-centered applications. Once you need them, you are lost. It's a bit like fighting a rat infestation by chasing rats with a stick: It's much better to keep the house clean and the food locked, so that rats have nothing to eat.

I think it's an important step, especially in politics. Now they're questioning what they use. Just to mention security risks, on Linux systems you can exactly control what program does what. You have the complete source code and may even build the system by your own. With "Windows" you can't.

"[...] and make a decision based on solid arguments. I expect more and more people will choose Linux."

That's the point. Decisions should be made by people who have the knowledge needed to decide. And the decision should be lead by facts, not by fanboyism or religious-like behaviour.

"As an added bonus, malware will have a harder time spreading because of more OS diversion. Which in the end benefits all of us."

I think so too.

In Germany, complete PC networks of famous banks (Deutsche Bank, Commerzbank) and of the mail authority (Deutsche Post) have been infected and abused for spamming actions. So I got an information to go to a webpage and enter my PIN - I don't even have an acoount there! :-)

I'd like to see industry and administrations follow. Most illegal stuff is done using company networks. If they request more security and better knowledge about the systems they're using, PC vendors would benefit on putting some Linux on their machines.

"Interesting tidbit: I have seen a PC maker that used some kind of embedded Linux in order to be able to offer a display on their PC's that is always on and that has playback buttons and a screen that shows song/movie/... information. So you can always access your media playback, even if your computer is switched off (well, not fully 'off' of course...)."

Reminds me to status displays and system consoles on the SGI racks where you could see processor loads and memory usage... :-)

Good to hear that more and more people are choosing open source on basis of its merits.


LMAO! What makes you think that a political organization does ANYTHING based on its merits? This is politics, pure and simple.

"This is politics, pure and simple."
I think it's funny how people always make this argument when things goes *against* them and never when things goes their way.

hungry?

stop the fud

linux don't need a lot ram, you can run a light windows manager like icewm with 16meg of ram

i use kde on a system with 128 meg of ram

"linux don't need a lot ram, you can run a light windows manager like icewm with 16meg of ram "

In your imagination of RAM usage you thought that the problem would be the GNU part of Linux(KDE/GNOME/..), whereas the problem truly is from the applications that you will run on linux.

Linux applications tend to take more RAM than windows counterpart, even for the same application written by the same software developers.

Besides, linux loves Caching, thus your memory will be consumed with cache then when more applications start they will start using swap space, you can easily notice this on gnome-system-monitor in case of GNOME or ksysguard in case of KDE. I am currently running 4 applications on CentOS on 1GB RAM and 15% of swap space is already used, leaving performance of the system to hell. Solution will be to install more RAM.

petnython@localhost ~ $ free
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 1027644 957928 69716 0 57688 645972
-/+ buffers/cache: 254268 773376
Swap: 1959920 264 1959656
petnython@localhost ~ $ free
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 1027644 985304 42340 0 58040 647728
-/+ buffers/cache: 279536 748108
Swap: 1959920 264 1959656
petnython@localhost ~ $

On my Gentoo amd64 1GB RAM box the only thing that obviously changes is the amount of free RAM.However the amount of used swap space stays the same.

Hey "pal". You really don't have a clue do you?

Linux applications tend to take more RAM than windows counterpart, even for the same application written by the same software developers.

This is an outright lie. Most actually take much less RAM because in linux 90% of the code is shared with PIC-ed .so files, while in windows, most app take all their libraries with them. What you measure is probably all the memory each app takes + shared memory, which usually is actually taking most of it, and should be only counted once as one block for all.

Besides, linux loves Caching, thus your memory will be consumed with cache then when more applications start they will start using swap space...

Yes and no. Linux caches because it's much more effective than what windows does. And no it won't affect swapping because if linux needs more memory it takes it from the cached part which are oldest (afaik, I don't know the choice algorithm).

Actually this is what makes linux SO much more effective than windows. Running even big stuff 2x is what I call "silent" (no disk activity), unlike in windows.

All in all you said all lies.

BTW. I'm running about 5 big apps right now, my usage is 26% of 1GB, and I never saw swap being used. Perhaps CentOS is kind of broken? Even with big stuff like compilation/linking and image processing I never got swap active. Even with big late games like doom or nwn. Can't say so for windows tho. It's swapping like hell all the time.

Sorry to say that hraq, but are you stupid ?

1) You just say non sense, and you have no idea about how memory management works, if I have 16G of ram, I would be happy if my OS uses all of that, otherwise it would be a waste.

2) You are talking about shared libraries, but again you really have no idea what it means, shared libraries are SHARED. Prove your saying before saying nonsense again.

3) Here again, you still didn't upgrad eyour brain, and you still think 100% like a msft user, you are using RedHat and/or CentOS not because of their advantages/disatvantages for your but rather because they are the most known distro, just like a msft windows user would prefer to use Photoshop just for scaling or rotating photos.

4) Compilation and Linking can be memory intensive, go take some compilation courses and come back.

Sorry if I was *very* harsh, but I got fedup for your FUD.

OK in linux most of shared libraries that you must install for a given application will never be used for another application; so to install 10 applications you will need to install 100 shared libraries that almost all will never be shared because there is no app other than that you installed will use it!

Wrong. From libc and stuff like openSSL to gtk and qt, all are pretty well used by many apps. Only few fringe libs aren't actualy "shared".

The dll hell argument is partially right, but taking all the shared stuff with each copy of program is stupid. You could just as well go with static linking. Try telling that to security experts wise guy.


Compilation or image processing are CPU intensive tasks not memory intensive tasks Mr Genius. You have to try P2P networking with Gigabytes of files sharable or better try java based applications like Azureus and see the results, or open 20 tabs on firefox with heavy graphics and flash aniamtions; add to that a movie that you would like to watch with xine based player.


Java based applications suck equally well on most platforms. Windows happens to have a bit better java implementation (as can be tested by the fact that many java applets crash here while work in windows) but that's about it. It has nothing to do with linux per-se.

Btw. linking is real ram and cpu killer. Ever tried smart-linking a half-million lines of code thing? Probably not. Suffice to say, I had to kill ld AND X. In windows I'd have to kill windows tho .

Image processing is a RAM killer too. Try doing something on 4000 by 4000 image then we can talk again.

Point is we're comparing apples and oranges.

And thing is, windows IO and memory handling is worse than linux one. I can't prove it, but I can sure feel it every day.

Thats not my experince... last time i had to setup a linux server it needed not only a lot more but double the amount of ram windows needed. It was a fedora core 3. Even without any load on the server it kinda walked insted of running as win2k3 did.

How much crap did you leave in the install....

Even Microsoft realizes the everything and a the sink on the server is a bad idea. Look at what they are doing with Longhorn server... between striped down out of the box (no gui) and power shell it's clear the minimal server route with a strong command line is the best way and even microsoft sees this as the case...I think a lot of MCSE's are gonna be in trouble soon...

Hmm... My Windows 2003 Server works as a Desktop OS and it uses pretty much the same amount of RAM as Gnome does. The difference is that in Linux the RAM is used as "swap" and doesn't use the harddisk swap at all, while in Win2K3 it doesn't use RAM that way, but uses as much swap as Linux uses cache. Vista uses the RAM as cache.

It's been a long time ago since I used FC3, so I dare not say if it is particularly memory hungry, but FC3 was the reason why I switched to LFS (and today gentoo).

OK in linux most of shared libraries that you must install for a given application will never be used for another application

Name one !
It's good to see only lies can help you make your point.
Which of libpng, zlib, openssl, nss, ... will never be used by another app ?
How can you even be sure of that, are you psychic ?
I've yet to find one library that you MUST install that is used by one app only.

so to install 10 applications you will need to install 100 shared libraries that almost all will never be shared because there is no app other than that you installed will use it!

You don't even know what a shared library is, do you ?
You never need to install 100 or even 10 shared libraries for one application.
Just show me one of these apps please.
Note well : Everything is compiled from source on my Linux OS, so if what you say was true, I would be the first to know. But to me, it's pretty obvious you're a clueless lier.

And by the way dependancy hell in windows is unnoticable to customers, but in linux dependacies are deterrent to the platform, and need to be addressed soon

Riiiiight. Like when codec packages urge you to desinstall any other, that's because they fear faeries ? Yes, that's the most prominent case of dependancy hell, that can make your video work one day (when you just installed the software without rebooting), and when you reboot Windows, it doesn't work anymore.
It's always clueless people like you that dare say such nonsense.
FYI, Linux library dependancies work extremely well, and are already addressed. The dependancies problems people have are only in the package systems, that try to prevent the user from destroying their system.

Never, it's Redhat Enterprise Linux without redhat logos, besides these horrible things will show up even more with some other weak distros

Yes, CentOS is not broken. As you're clueless, you thought that the fact that swap was taken (15 % here) meant you actually used it every time (referred to as thrashing) and so, you thought your lie that the system was going to a crawl would fly.

Compilation or image processing are CPU intensive tasks not memory intensive tasks Mr Genius

It's amazing to be so clueless as you are, really !
Compilation (especially C++ with GCC) and image processing are one of the most memory intensive tasks !
Actually, the kdebindings package compilation (with final options) was one of the only compilation capable of making my main computer go to a crawl, by taking all my memory + swap (1 GB + 2GB).

You have to try P2P networking with Gigabytes of files sharable or better try java based applications like Azureus and see the results

You using memory leak full apps like Azureus doesn't mean Linux apps use lots of memory, that just means they are buggy software.
My wife use (k)mldonkey with gigabytes of files shareable, and we never got a problem.

or open 20 tabs on firefox with heavy graphics and flash aniamtions; add to that a movie that you would like to watch with xine based player

And just the same, I'd never use Firefox on my Linux desktop (except when forced to). We use Galeon or EPiphany with far more tabs combined than you have (but not with heavy graphics and flash anims on each, except for ads), constantly open, and never had any problem launching (k)mplayer.
So please, keep your anecdotical bizarre evidences to yourself, they don't mean anything, especially as to Linux apps memory usage.
If you didn't realise by now that your heavy graphics and flash animations are the memory takers, you're a lost soul.

Compilation is memory intensive and CPU intensive.

Some libraries actually get shared quite a bit, examples:
Gtk/QT (obvious, and everyone shares them)
libgcrypt (what do you think is used in all those crypto programs on Linux?)
gtkhtml (could be, but many applications reinvent the wheel here because html isn't the best way to display everything that's pretty)
kdelibs (there's a lot of stuff here that's very effectively shared amongst kde applications, and some of it is necessary in order to ensure centralized handling of network protocols).

And some libraries seem to only get used by one program. Often this is because it doesn't make sense to have multiple programs: Example, an irc library. But linux software is usually designed around having a package manager to deal with these issues.
Linux has taken the high road here and it's a touch one. Obviously it's not going to be as easy to use, but the users seem to appreciate it nonetheless. And it's users whom you should cater to and not potential users if you're a respectable human being.

Well.. more bullshit.

Azureus requires approx. 25-30 MBytes. I have Azureus running on occasion (usually helping out with torrents for *bsd or obscure linux-distributions). I have never had any kind of swap use with gentoo on a 1 GB RAM system. Reducing the ram to 512 MB changes the look though. Then the PC starts using something like 150-250 MB of swap space (I have 1.5 GB swap - and it is never used with 1 GB of ram).

Your system must be broken, or I am better at compiling applications then CentOS. Pick whatever answer you prefer (and I don't believe I'm better than the CentOS packagers).

There's an easy way to determine how many shared libraries on your system aren't really shared. Try this simple pipeline:

find /usr/bin/ -type f -perm /a=x -exec ldd {} + | grep -v ^/ | cut -d= -f1 | sort | uniq -c | egrep ' +1 '

This will give you a list of .so files used by exactly one program in /usr/bin/, which is where 90% of all user programs will exist.

find /usr/bin/ -type f -perm /a=x -exec ldd {} + | grep -v ^/ | cut -d= -f1 | sort | uniq -c | egrep ' +1 ' | wc -l

to get the count of how many there are

find /usr/bin/ -type f -perm /a=x | wc -l

to determine how many programs there are in total.

On my system I find 6544 files in /usr/bin/ and only 418 non-shared .so files. That does not seem like "100 shared libs for every program" it seems more like "15 programs for every shared lib".

Besides, linux loves Caching, thus your memory will be consumed with cache then when more applications start they will start using swap space...

Yes and no. Linux caches because it's much more effective than what windows does. And no it won't affect swapping because if linux needs more memory it takes it from the cached part which are oldest (afaik, I don't know the choice algorithm).

You are absolutely right. One of the keys of how Linux uses RAM can be summed up with the statement "Unused RAM is useless RAM". That is to say, if the RAM is just sitting there unused, then what good is it? Linux caches aggressively so that the system runs faster, putting items in the buffer cache so they don't need to be read from disk every time.

Naive Windows users think this means Linux "needs more RAM than Windows", but that's truly not the case. It doesn't "need" it, but it will use it if available to make the system run faster.

Windows Vista caches memory much like this.

The more memory you have, the more memory Vista will use for caching and the better your applications will perform.

This debate about which OS uses more memory wont exist past January.

Linux also doesn't calculate memory usage correctly in multi-threaded programs.

"linux don't need a lot ram, you can run a light windows manager like icewm with 16meg of ram "

In your imagination of RAM usage you thought that the problem would be the GNU part of Linux(KDE/GNOME/..), whereas the problem truly is from the applications that you will run on linux.

I would agree with this whole heartedly, at least to say. If you were to specifically choose all of your applications to be "light" on memory usage, then choosing a light window manager is worth while.

However, if you choose to use a light window manager, and then run Firefox, Evolution, Gaim, OpenOffice, on top of it, the memory use of the "modern" applications dwarf that of the window manager by so much, the choice is rendered redundant.

Linux applications tend to take more RAM than windows counterpart, even for the same application written by the same software developers.

I may be wrong, but I think one of the main reasons for this, is the fact that when running windows and Microsoft Application, a lot of the libraries that they require and data, are pre-loaded, and as such when you start the "application" be it word or any thing else, the memory foot print does not appear to change all that much. But that is not due to the application taking less ram, it is due to the information already being loaded.

Some may ask, "So What". My only real answer is "I'm a pedant"

Besides, linux loves Caching, thus your memory will be consumed with cache then when more applications start they will start using swap space, you can easily notice this on gnome-system-monitor in case of GNOME or ksysguard in case of KDE. I am currently running 4 applications on CentOS on 1GB RAM and 15% of swap space is already used, leaving performance of the system to hell. Solution will be to install more RAM.

I'm sorry but this is crap, in so far as...

Yes, Linux makes EXCELLENT use of the ram, and any thing that is unused will be used for file system caching. However my understanding is, that as soon as ram is required, file system cache will be dropped, and RAM will be provided. It does not force the use of swap.

That being said, I had noticed that with one of the FC Test releases, that over time ALL of my ram and SWAP was consumed. This was a bug/glitch some where.

A fresh builds with the final release does not echo this issue, and I am fairly certain that all final builds of just about any distro, will not do what you are describing.

I've been runing Evolution, Gaim, Open Office, Terminals, audio players, blah blah blah. And no swap is in use.

On 1 GB system Linux uses no swap space at all, while Windows uses several hundred megabytes of swap. At least that's the case for my system. And I'm even running eclipse, firefox, thunderbird, gaim and openoffice at the same time. No swap space is being used (but 69% of my ram works as cache, e.g. as RAM swap in stead of HDD swap - when more RAM is needed, the cache is reduced - I use no more than 28 kilobytes of swap

OTOH Linux uses a lot of ram for cache, but that's not a problem, since it's reduced as ram is needed by other applications. Linux only trashes the harddisk when you have very little ram, while Windows always trashes the hard disk

So basically I call bullshit on your post. You really don't know what you are talking about.

[quote]In your imagination of RAM usage you thought that the problem would be the GNU part of Linux(KDE/GNOME/..), whereas the problem truly is from the applications that you will run on linux. [/quote]

In my experience in running both Linux and Windows for years, this is simply not true.

> linux don't need a lot ram, you can run a light windows
> manager like icewm with 16meg of ram

But do you really think they'll use icewm? They'll probably use whatever the distro ships as default, KDE or gnome.

Edited 2006-11-27 14:44

linux administrator are not morron, it will use the correct de for the power of the machine...

it will use mandriva
mandriva ship many de

Yea, in general my 192MB system ran much better with KDE than it has with WinXP. The window manager itself sucks up ram like none other, but the applications are tiny as a result of the code reuse.

What a load of FUD.

>>They will still face some other problems<<

As opposed to what? Do you think windows is problem free? Do you think "upgrading" to Vista will be easy?

>>1. Choosing the right stable distro<<

Easy to do, I'll bet they have already done that. BTW: there are several desktop versions of Vista, and if you chose the wrong one - you have to pay for your mistake.

>>2. Upgrading the RAM on all the 1000 PCs currently running windows, as linux is so hungry for RAM.<<

WTF? The more advanced versions of Vista will not run correctly without 2GB of RAM. And 3D video up the wahzoo.

>>3. Setting up the permissions of file/program/device access.<<

As it should be with any OS. It's called security. Maybe, one day, msft users will understand.

>>4. Updating linux very carefully, as some updates change the kernel and render some device modules useless, unless you rebuild the module for 1000 PC by means of a deployment method<<

Same with windows. Upgrading to W2K broke all kinds of drivers etc. Even XP/SP2 broke all kinds of compatibility.

">>3. Setting up the permissions of file/program/device access.<<

As it should be with any OS. It's called security. Maybe, one day, msft users will understand. "

I have mentioned that because linux permissions are less than suitable for enterprises; thats why Redhat incorporated SELinux to its OS; namely to have ACLs.

And many linux distros didn't incorporate it yet.

">>4. Updating linux very carefully, as some updates change the kernel and render some device modules useless, unless you rebuild the module for 1000 PC by means of a deployment method<<

Same with windows. Upgrading to W2K broke all kinds of drivers etc. Even XP/SP2 broke all kinds of compatibility."

You said upgrading while I said updating; there is a difference Pal.
Applying updates to windows (lets assume XP with SP1) will not break any application unless you upgrade to SP2; but in linux even updating will break compatiblity (eg Ubuntu 6.10 with old kernel and ubuntu 6.10 with new kernel; and remember I am not talking about ubuntu v 7)

I have mentioned that because linux permissions are less than suitable for enterprises; thats why Redhat incorporated SELinux to its OS; namely to have ACLs.

SELinux is far more than Access Control Lists.

Every Linux has Access Control Lists.Only SELinux has mandatory ones which means a role or policy is mandatory,even root is effected by them.So if you don't make a proper policy you can easily make your system unusable.

Grsecurity is also much and much more than having suddenly *real* ACL's.

Edited 2006-11-27 13:53

Bullshit.

Updating the kernel doesn't break anything. Upgrading the kernel (going from 2.15 to 2.16 - equivalent to going from win2k to winxp) can break something, but usually things will work quite fine.

I don't know what kind of trouble you have had, but either you have chosen a bad distribution or you have no clue about configuring your PC. (Perhaps a combination since you are mentioning Redhat.)

Well, I posted the news several days ago when it was published in Denmark (but nowhere else, apparently).

1) There are many stable distributions. However, they all have a few quirks of their own. Any mainstream distribution will do fine.

2) RAM upgrade isn't necessary. Linux with KDE or Gnome runs fine on older hardware. A new fullyfledged bloated Gnome desktop requires no more than XP with a few minor applications running. 256 MB of ram can do it. 1024 is better, but that's also something I recommend for XP and Win2K3 (512 MB is enough for Win2K).

3) Done mostly automatically. No more configuration needed than with Windows. Perhaps even less (depending on the applications).

4) Updating Linux (the kernel only?) is usually not a problem, but there is no reason for updating apart from security fixes. There is no need for worrying here.

Redhat is definitely a possibility, or perhaps Fedora if they have a good IT-department. There are others they can use, incl. gentoo (requires a wise deployment method - and it makes it difficult for ordinary users to install applications locally) or Ark Linux, Suse or Xandros.

Exactly the same way. Just about every Linux distro, and even the BSDs can be set up on a PXE boot station and loaded automatically. Some just require more work than others to get it up and running, but once it's set loading a 1000 PCs is a cake walk.

Uhhhhh, installation is only one facet. How about training, how about app compatibility, how about documentation, how about procedures, how about app porting, etc? Oh, yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Duh...

Reality bites, huh?

The simple answer is with LTSP. I don't know why people who use computers for office work don't go with thin client systems. I'm an IT person for a moderately large school division in saskatchewan and we have a rather large number of users using thin clients (mix between LTSP and Sunray).

"I don't know why people who use computers for office work don't go with thin client systems."

Hmmm... that would be a good solution. You'd have to do administration only on few computers and could add and remove workstation clients as you like.

The library of the university I once studied at had a Sun system with Ray clients. They were small, fast, silent, you could log in everywhere you wanted and still have all your files and settings. You could add local and central printers and had support for many hardware accessories (e. g. via USB). The system was running Solaris, of course. Linux already supports the modern Sun hardware platforms.

Did I mention they were silent? PC stuff usually is loud. Not good for work, neither at home.

So get rid of PCs and use thin clients where it makes sense. In the discussed case it surely does.

Make rpm your bitch. I'd set up my own rpmfind.net server in house with rpm2html, rpm all corporate software packages and just go old school on it. If I couldn't do kickstart I'd create custom iso's to slam it home no questions asked unattended.

There's no problem with 1000 PC's on the network being identical?

There's no problem with 1000 PC's on the network being identical?

No, because they're not identical at all. For example, all the NIC should have different MAC addresses, which allows you to setup things like DHCP for different IP addresses in each PC.

I would have suggested setting up a yum (fc, soon to be redhat) up2date (redhat) repository for all custom built RPM's.

Good plan.

//how do you deploy 1000 Linux PC's with all the software installed in a quick fashion?//

These support people can tell you how to do it for 100,000 machines.

http://www.ubuntu.com/support/paid

1,000 would be dead simple.

This is an example of politics winning over substance.

One would claim it was invented by the greeks or the vikings or some forgotten creature in our hidden past :p

The french also invented the guillotine - don't forget that

Guillotine was invented to give a less cruel death.
Maybe it failed, but later other things were invented like lethal injection and electric chair and they are even worse in terms of sufference inflicted.
And while guillotine isn't used anymore, the other are still used.

Edited 2006-11-28 10:23

Use of such stereotypes will only showcase your own ignorance.

I don't need stereotypes. It's called "historical accuracy".

Are you saying that the French were the first to ever surrender? That's clearly false.

If you're claiming that the french invented the word surrender, that's not exactly true either. The word "surrender" was the English form of the French expression "se rendre", which means "to give oneself up".

For the rest, it's just a tired, inaccurate stereotype. The reason the French were forced to surrender during WWII was that they were ill-prepared for the Blitzkrieg, a new War tactic that had never been seen before. The French had mistakenly prepared for another trench war, like WWI, and were overrun by Germany's quick and powerful Panzer divisions.

Prior to WWII, the French were a military force to be reckoned with. They held their own during WWI, and I'm quite certain you're familiar with a certain Napoleon Bonaparte...

If you're going to claim "historical accuracy", perhaps you should actually learn some history first.

Hey, look at that, you just got your tush handed out to you by a Frenchman...I guess that'll teach you to try talking military history with someone who actually studied the subject in college...

I guess the question now is: are you ready to surrender, or shall I punish you some more? :-)

NotParker,

Force GNU/Linux pre-installed on brand name systems like Dell and watch how fast consumer market share would jump.

This is specifically how fantastic operating systems such as Windows 98 and ME came to power in it's day.

Any questions?

Yeah except you have to multiply by 100 to move the decimal two places.

.36% * 100 = 36%

36% marketshare looks about right after a few years of Linuxified Dells.

36% marketshare looks about right after a few years of Linuxified Dells.

I would suggest Dell would go out of business. The margin on PC manufacturing is very, very small.

People want Windows.

Rubbish, most people do not even know what Windows is or any other operating system for that matter. They assume it is part of or is the computer. That is all they know.
It's what everyone else is using and it's what comes with the computer. The are not aware of the economics involved. To them it is like the control panel on their DVD player. And trust me, even though dealing with end users is not my job but as an IT professional I am the de facto tech support for friends and family. So trust me they don't even know what it is let alone want it.

Rubbish, most people do not even know what Windows is or any other operating system for that matter.

Thats your opinion.

But when they try to install their games or Office or tens of thousands of other software titles, they'll find out.

And Dell would be toast.

They would learn about Wine, CrossOver Office, and Cedega and how they allow you to run thousands of Windows applications and games. For those who dont like paying, the last two could possibly be found illegally with some googling.

They would also learn about the open-source and even commercial alternatives that replace their Windows counterparts.

Example:

Gimp (FOSS), Pixel (Commercial), Photoshop (Windows)

All three will run on Linux. But Pixel could easily replace Gimp and/or Photoshop as a low-cost Photoshop clone that runs natively on Linux.

Edited 2006-11-27 21:15

People want whatever is set in front of them.

You'd think his math would be a lot better the way he's always flinging numbers and statistics around.

Bullshit.

Someone please ban NotParker and his IP addresses. This guy is pure, unadulterated troll.

"Someone please ban NotParker and his IP addresses."

Bah, that's pointless. As inflammatory and incorrect as most of his posts are I'm pretty sure he's capable of getting around an IP address ban.
The only way to deal with guys like this (whatever side they're on) is to ignore them or refute them with undeniable fact.

Edit:
Also, don't vote these guys down just because of who they are. NotParker for example has, quite amazingly, made some posts that are in no way off-topic or inflammatory but still are voted down. Not being pro-GPL is not in itself a reason for being modded down and being pro-gpl is not in itself a reason for being modding up.

Edited 2006-11-28 03:32

//Also, don't vote these guys down just because of who they are. NotParker for example has, quite amazingly, made some posts that are in no way off-topic or inflammatory but still are voted down. Not being pro-GPL is not in itself a reason for being modded down and being pro-gpl is not in itself a reason for being modding up. //

Agree with this. A very few of the things that NotParker says in postings are actually accurate.

That makes it triply annoying about the other 95% of his points that are utterly false.

Given the quantity, repetition, falsity and noise level of his postings, it is pointless to respond.

One of the failings of the ideal of "freedom of speech", I suppose, is that it also allows "freedom to confuse and spread disinformation".

//Just because you think Gartner and IDC and Google and Onestat are involved in some sort of giant conspiracy to try and depress OSS supporters by pointing out the market share of Linux is trivial doesn't make it true.//

The "market share" of any number of zero cost items is zero. That is a mathematical fact.

I have no view one way or another about Gartner and IDC and Google and Onestat and whatever.

I find it a shame that a company like Microsoft can manipulate the alleged "free market" in America via political lobbying to the point where most PC suppliers are forced into offering only Windows. At one point I have heard (I don't know if it still applies), Microsoft managed to make it illegal in America to sell a PC without an OS pre-installed, and they also managed to make it so that Linux did not count as an OS under that regulation! If Linux is not an OS, exactly what is it?

I find it amusing that a company like Microsoft can, in the so-called "land of the free" and "home of capitalism", get so very close to making it illegal to compete against it in the software market. I find it amazing that Microsoft are able to control the public perceptions so much that in the mind of the public, apparently "the PC" and "Windows" are one and the same. I find it equally amazing that Microsoft are able to control the media to the extent that when the media report on malware, viruses and other security threats and hazards such as Internet banking, they are able to get the media to talk in terms of "lack of security of PCs" and not in terms of "the failings of Microsoft Windows".

It is even more amusing when Microsoft makes PR noises about "improving interoperability" when the largest development efforts of the company are directed at making its products deliberately obscure and not interoperable.

None of this has anything to do with rational choices about which software one should run, however.

More and more institutions and companies will see through the FUD and liberate themselves from Microsoft, perhaps in a similar vein to Ernie Ball's experience, or perhaps like the french National Assembly, or perhaps they will do it quietly without any fanfare at all and no visibility to any of the figures from Gartner and IDC and Google and Onestat.

In a while, sooner or later, the effect will build momentum and become unstoppable, like a snowball rolling down a hill.

"Let me know when you plan to make something up again and pretend its an "undeniable fact"."

Oh don't worry. You're firmly in the "loonies-to-ignore-most-of-the-time" group along with Moulineuf.

You would appear to still be at increment 1 on the Mahatma Progress Bar. The next step is to ignore the scores, followed by fighting them, followed by ...

My advice: Don't get too bent over this. However your choice is your own.

Your comments get modded down because they are off-topic, like most flamebaiting usually.

Installing Linux saves money.

Linux market share on the desktop is around 2.5% and growing.

Linux growth on server is still in the double digits.

Microsoft, for all practical purposes, has a virtual monopoly on Office suites and desktop OSes.

Will you just copy/paste your own message as a response, as you so pathetically did for your previous off-topic message that was buried? Please do, and I'll mod it down again.