OSNews

Now why does moving away from windows actomaticly mean a switch to linux?

Because OSX is not an option? It's just as proprietary as Windows.

BSD could be an option, but why not just use Linux then which has the most momentum of the two?

I never said they should switch to OSX... So i don't know where you get that from. So insted taking a serious look at whats out there you should just go for the hype?

I never said they should switch to OSX... So i don't know where you get that from. So insted taking a serious look at whats out there you should just go for the hype?

LOL You're telling me to be serious?

So, enlighten me, what else is out there, that can be successfully deployed on desktop, as Windows replacement? OK, so it's not Linux, it's not MacOS X.. OK, what else? But, please, take your own advice and be serious before you spit it out.

And why aren't those European governments moving to those other systems? Because they're not serious?

Whether he's a fanboy or not, *I'm* interested in hearing an answer since it's a valid question.
It wasn't so much a "sad attempt" at talking you down as a valid point, albiet slightly attacking, which you appear to be getting overly defensive about.

I wont get into a pissing contest here about what OS is the best.. Unlike others it seems thats not what i'm getting a kick off. Hell let them learn there own lesson by using linux see if i care. I'm all for using what suits you best.

I've been working with linux and i just don't see it what all the hype is about. The only good thing i can think of about linux must be the installer from ubuntu. Just a shame it locked my computer insted of just work.

LOL You're telling me to be serious?

So, enlighten me, what else is out there, that can be successfully deployed on desktop, as Windows replacement?

I'm sorry. I don't believe you've enlightened us all as to what advantages Windows has in these kinds of government environments, and why Linux is just such a poor fit.

Migration to Linux is too expensive, takes too long.

Why?

Windows is already there, custom applications are already created

It's a stmubling block, as anything already in place already is, but that's a woefully poor reason for maintaining the status quo because change is always required in any environment. You're looking at what you're going to save over a period of something like five to ten years rather than what you have today.

Just take a look at Munich migration. It started, what, 3-4 years ago, expenses are now around $35M (initially $30M), and it is not finished yet.

And you think rollouts to Windows XP are actually finished in many environments?

Besides, as I pointed out above, organisations are looking at what they can get out of this over a period of something like five to ten years. I can give you a list if you like:

1. Real remote working from anywhere without the woeful administration overhead of Microsoft Office licenses and Terminal Services licensing (had my fill of that personally) and the cost both in licenses an administration involved.

2. Unix and Linux do real centralised management. You mount a directory as if it's local and apply permissions there. All the applications anyone needs are there and you don't need to distribute apps through MSI or over Zenworks and with Active Directory. When a knew app goes live you just copy it there. This costs a huge amount of time and money to do in Windows environments.

Microsoft purposefully tries to keep that dividing line between clients and servers, and as long as they do that administration in these kinds of Windows environments is going to continue to be absolutely astronomical.

So, enlighten me, what else is out there, that can be successfully deployed on desktop, as Windows replacement? OK, so it's not Linux, it's not MacOS X.. OK, what else? But, please, take your own advice and be serious before you spit it out.

Sun/sunray thin clients. Excellent stuff, great management, tadbit expensive (just as rolling out a big deployment of linux is). It's tailored for government and big industry, has good support and best of all: it's not linux ;-)

For most government purposes OSX is not viable. Not because it doesn't work, not because it isn't pretty, which it is, but mostly because it isn't a thin client solution. Where I work (in the netherlands), I've seen a big movement away from standalone workstations. The organizations where I have been stationed are mostly turning away to either a complete thin client solution (with windowsCE thin clients) or a partial thin client solution (Citrix/Win2K3 terminal services with some programs subscribed in Powerfuse). It's the management, stupid.

The organizations where I have been stationed are mostly turning away to either a complete thin client solution (with windowsCE thin clients) or a partial thin client solution (Citrix/Win2K3 terminal services with some programs subscribed in Powerfuse). It's the management, stupid.

So it is Microsoft again.. both on servers and clients?

As far as I have seen, it still remains Microsoft on both clients and servers. Some are retaining a Netware solution, but many companies are phasing it out. I think that it is a shame, the helpdesking gig I did at a (partial) Netware shop was quite enjoyable.

Remote management services were nice, and I happen to like Groupwise for collaboration purposes.

Thin clients are not the magical solution to everything. They are useful in certain situations. You can't automatically recommend thin clients (or any other solution, for that matter) without knowing the particular circumstances for an organization or company. Try offering thin clients to a design company or an architecture firm and you'll be laughed out of the building.

Many have tried recommending people to revert to thin clients over and over again. I remember Sun preaching the same ten years ago. It's just marketing, trying to sell a particular product. The actual demand has relegated thin clients to a niche. It's good for those who need it, but not for everybody.

These being said, here's a heads up: Linux can make for excellent thin client setups just as well.

Now why does moving away from windows actomaticly mean a switch to linux?

What else? MacOS X?

So, you'd replace Windows with Mac and therefore replace Microsoft with Apple? How's that better? Not to mention that hardware-wise you'd be dependent on one company - Apple..

I was kind of thinking the same, it's so easy to go and buy all those Windows licenses when you're spending someone elses money.

I was kind of thinking the same, it's so easy to go and buy all those Windows licenses when you're spending someone elses money.

No, my company does not spend taxpayers' money. We spend what we make. And if we spend too much, we'll all lose our jobs. Big difference.

Of course, but we're talking about Governments who are spending taxpayers money and as such aren't concerned about the proven lower TCO of Linux. I'm not sure where you lost me on this one.

No, as I said governments are not good example because they spend someone else's money - it really doesn't matter if it's Windows or Linux, etc. They can make political decision to do it, no matter what the costs are.

That is why I asked how come there are no European companies on that list.

Not sure where you lost me on that one.

Thousands of European companies are currently using Linux for all kinds of workloads and functions. The article did not name them because the article was about use of Linux in the public sector and because the article is written with the intent of planting fear, uncertainty and doubt into those that are in the process of starting their own migrations to Linux.

as I said governments are not good example because they spend someone else's money

No company has a God-given right to money. They provide service, they get money for it - no different to a government. They are in a far worse position than governments in this sense, because however bad governments are, they do have an obligation to (for example) defend their citizens.

Any company that *does* think it has a God-given right to other people's money is exactly the kind of company anyone with nous stays away from if at all possible.

Yes, that's right, everyone who uses Linux in preference to Windows is being "emotional and ideological".

/Rolls eyes.

-5.

I doubt I need lectures on reading from someone who thinks Linux users (let alone "any members of the human race, besides Microsofties - actually, delete that last bit) - actually want to use Vista:
http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=16553&comment_id=184978

In point of fact, this is more telling:

http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36259

I bet much of the (lack of) enthusiasm is due to the fact that Vista costs 20% more to build:

http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36251

Compete with free (as in freedom and price) by slapping a higher price on draconian software. That's so stupid it's almost clever.

Edited 2006-12-11 01:22

I don't think that Linux users needs Vista. I know OSS fundies yearn Windows Vista.

Learn to read.

:)

I know OSS fundies yearn Windows Vista.

Yeah, I long to waste FIFTEEN GIGABYTES on something that does the same as something I've already got, but more expensively and less well.

Then those organisations deserve to fail to listening to those technicaladmins without conducting proper business analysis.

How come we don't see big European companies moving to Linux?

I am a developer, and don't know much about office & productivity application. Far as I know Microsoft productivity applications are ahead of competition.

On the other hand, to be honest, majority of government employees are not working that much, and the productivity is not of the essence. That's why less expensive alternatives are practical.

Another matter is that government institution should not depend too much on particular vendor. I am not talking about conspiracy theories. Imagine that the vendor gets hit by terrorist attack and goes out of business.

DG

First get them to Firefox over IE.
Then get them to switch media formats.
Then openoffice over MS office.
Then and only then will people switch to another OS. It has to be done incrementally.

Yeah right.. you know how much time and effort is involved in that? Too much, otherwise we'd all be using Linux by now.

C'mon, if Linux was as good as Windows (I'm talking about desktop usage), who would want to pay for Windows? (And no, we're not sheep and you're not smarter than everyone else. The whole "Windows desktop" environment is simply better choice right now.)

But I see something else there: the scenario you described can be used to get better deal from Microsoft. And that is exactly what most of the companies are going to do, for the time being. 10 years from now? I don't know, I guess we'll see.

Edited 2006-12-10 19:25

C'mon, if Linux was as good as Windows (I'm talking about desktop usage), who would want to pay for Windows?

Governments that have documents locked in in file formats that only can be read by applicatiosn that only runs on windows. It have nothing to do with windows allegedly being better than Linux.

Governments that need to be independent of companies in foreign companies for doing mission critical things like national defence.

Governments that want to give the citizens in their county equal access to information, regardless of financial capacity of paying expensive software licenses.

Governments that prefer stimulating the local economy rather than sending money to Redmond.

you don't have to change your entire OS and throw out all your other software to avoid locked in file formats.

Governments that have documents locked in in file formats that only can be read by applicatiosn that only runs on windows.

Not true anymore. How's using Windows stopping me from using, for example, OpenOffice?

Governments that need to be independent of companies in foreign companies for doing mission critical things like national defence.

Ah yeah.. another conspiracy theory.

Why are they all using USA technology such as jetfighters: F-15, F-16, etc?

Governments that want to give the citizens in their county equal access to information, regardless of financial capacity of paying expensive software licenses.

How's Windows stopping them from doing that?

Governments that prefer stimulating the local economy rather than sending money to Redmond.

Is that why we all wear shoes and T-shirts made in China (with the exception of Italian guys, sure :-)? Did you ever buy anything from non-European company (Sony, Apple, Toyota..)?

Edited 2006-12-10 20:02

Not true anymore. How's using Windows stopping me from using, for example, OpenOffice?

You didn't get it, and I won't explain it to you, would be waste of 20 seconds, and you wouldn't get it anyhow.

Ah yeah.. another conspiracy theory.

Why are they all using USA technology such as jetfighters: F-15, F-16, etc?

Because they are stupid? Actually my country is using Migs and Sus. They are cheaper, and better. The only difference might be with parts, not sure how much industry is left in Russia for this.

How's Windows stopping them from doing that?

By costing too much in the first place.

Is that why we all wear shoes and T-shirts made in China (with the exception of Italian guys, sure :-)? Did you ever buy anything from non-European company (Sony, Apple, Toyota..)?

What was this about? When americans shout "evil chinks ruining our economy" it's OK, but when some european says that stimulating local economy is good he's a xenophobe?

"Most of the European countries already are or soon will be in NATO. That also means bye bye to MiGs and Sus."

For your information: dropping the Russian techniques does not necesseraly mean adopting US ones. For fighters both Hungary and Czechia chose the Swedish Saab's Gripens from the NATO countries; also Germany, France and the UK runs several concurrent air force projects.

Sorry, I could not decide whether or not it was off-topic, maybe the theories behind are the same.

You didn't get it, and I won't explain it to you, would be waste of 20 seconds, and you wouldn't get it anyhow.

He had you cold: It ISN'T necesary to change OSes to use open file formats. The fact that you don't want to "explain it" has more to do with the fact that you CAN'T explain it.

Because they are stupid?

No argument here. /sarcasm

By costing too much in the first place.

Again, the cost of Windows has nothing to do with the choice of file formats. You completely dodged that issue.

When americans shout "evil chinks ruining our economy" it's OK, but when some european says that stimulating local economy is good he's a xenophobe

There's a big difference between objecting to an overwhelming trade gap ($30B per year) and trying to stimulate a local economy by purchasing a locally-created product. The former really IS ruining an economy. The latter isn't.

Edited 2006-12-12 00:04

Why are they all using USA technology such as jetfighters: F-15, F-16, etc?

They wouldn't be if those fighters or the manufacturing company's policies required McDonnell Douglas pilots and Texaco fuel. That is the best analogy to the situation we have in the proprietary software industry. Remember, even the UK government, presently headed by the man pretty much everyone describes as "Bush's lapdog", roundly told the US that it could either hand over top secret information on the workings of some US technology we were buying or the American govt. could stick the deal where the sun don't shine.

They wouldn't be if those fighters or the manufacturing company's policies required McDonnell Douglas pilots and Texaco fuel. That is the best analogy to the situation we have in the proprietary software industry.

You need Microsoft technician to install and use Windows and you're forced to use MS Office on Windows? And you can't use PDF, etc, etc? How's that?

And any governement can have access to Windows internals, I am sure you know that.

So, what is your point?

You need Microsoft technician to install and use Windows

You need technicians trained in the technology of one single company, which is Microsoft, in a corporate setting, yes.

and you're forced to use MS Office on Windows? You are if you need 100% compatibility with all Office applications. Until quite recently you were forced to if you needed any compatibility at all.

And you can't use PDF, etc, etc? How's that?
Until recently Office couldn't save to PDF. In fact I may be wrong in thinking that it can now - and PDF creators are more expensive than Office.

You need technicians trained in the technology of one single company, which is Microsoft, in a corporate setting, yes.

So what? You need technicians either way.

Until recently.. Until recently..

Can you please fast forward to "today"?

I beg to differ sir...PDFCreator is free.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/pdfcreator/

Actually to get it loggically correct you have to switch things upside down.
The fuel is synonym of Windows and doc files are synonym of the fighters.

Not true anymore.

And just why is the file format lock-in cycle not true anymore?

If you're going to say what I think you're going to say then I would advise you to go away and read some other articles around here. Put simply - you don't know what you're talking about, or if you do, then you're just talking crap for reasons only you know.

How's Windows stopping them from doing that?

Go away and do some reading before making a fool of yourself here.

that's my point. it's a lot easier to switch to firefox than linux. And no I don't think linux has what it takes. The open source community has to stop with this linux focus and work on apps that are also on Windows. For example, gnucash, koffice, konqueror, etc. don't work well on windows so Windows users will just use Quicken, MS office and IE and they will never ever switch to any other OS.

I don't agree that Linux devs need to "switch focus"...I think it's good that good open-source apps are available for Windows, but work still needs to continue on Linux in parrallel.

Look, guys, this isn't going to happen overnight. It's often a chicken/egg situation, except that in this case governments have decided to step in and get things started. Extremadura is a good example that, yes it can be difficult, but it's worth it, as they saved more than 30 million Euros in licensing fees, and are developing a good local know-how in Free Software (which will help others who want to switch).

The first steps are always the hardest.

"For example, gnucash, koffice, konqueror, etc. don't work well on windows so Windows users will just use Quicken, MS office and IE and they will never ever switch to any other OS."

I have been using Quicken on Linux for years and I have colleagues who have run Microsoft Office 2000 and XP on Linux for years as well.

In summary, the three applications you cited for staying in Windows land, Office, Quicken and IE work well enough with Crossover-office, although I'd argue that IE is close to useless and unless you have to use some brain-dead intranet app, stay away from it.

And governments have the power to ask developers to code to w3c standards and to make sure that applications work with all major browsers.

porcel I don't see crossover as viable for anyone beyond home users and very small offices. Great you can 'use' MS Office in linux but who will support you? Microsoft will say "hey don't run to us if you have a problem! We never intended it to run well on linux."

Most governments have their own internal support mechanisms. If they chose to use crossover office and Microsoft Office, which most governments wouldn't do when Openoffice is available, I am sure they would evaluate their usage pattern and workloads beforehand to see if the combination was stable under those circumstances.

And were you to have issues that arose from your use of Crossover Office, you would get support from Codeweavers the makers of Crossover Office.

there's a limit to what codeweavers can do to help because they don't control the source to Office. It will always be second class support and when it comes to critical govt documents I'd rather have them use Windows and Office instead of risking it on some frankenMSlinux

The more people get "good deals" from Microsoft, the less money it is going to bring in. That will eventually be a problem.

Given a five-year delay in getting your new system out, a smaller company like Commodore would probably have gone bust.

Oh wait, it did.

Microsoft get by because of their massive cash reserves; it helps to offset these cock-ups like ME being useless or Office98 not having Office95 filters.

Reminds me of the American vs. Soviet approaches to writing in space. The Americans spent millions (billions?) developing pens that would write in space.

The Russians used...

...pencils.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/s/spacepen.htm

OK, so the space pen vs. pencil meme is a myth. The point still stands that when you have money to throw around, you accept less cost-effective solutions than when you don't. Necessity, not luxury, is the mother of invention.

Reminds me of the American vs. Soviet approaches to writing in space. The Americans spent millions (billions?) developing pens that would write in space.

The Russians used...

...pencils.

I'm sorry, but that's just urban legend.
A great story, very appealing, but mythical.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/613/1
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM9YN7O0MD_index_0.html
http://www.pencilrevolution.com/2005/12/russian-space-pen/
etc.

<edit> Sorry again, I was too late with this.
Uknow, I think I must have spread the story myself, too some day. And I'm 100% sure that similar things actually do happen allthe time. </edit>

Edited 2006-12-10 23:51

Yes, we've already discussed the point:

http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=16684&comment_id=190546

http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=16684&comment_id=190551

Edited 2006-12-10 23:47

The more people get "good deals" from Microsoft, the less money it is going to bring in. That will eventually be a problem.

Yeah, but why would I care about Microsoft?

Microsoft get by because of their massive cash reserves

Indeed. THEIR massive cash reserves. Not mine.

Yeah, but why would I care about Microsoft?

Well, considering you apparently love Windows and they are the sole source, I kinda would if I were you.


Indeed. THEIR massive cash reserves. Not mine.

See above. Sooner or later MS are going to go under. Red Hat will too, and Novell will whether they become more profitable because of the MS deal or not. But their technologies (ok, RH's tech and some of Novell's) won't be rendered obsolete by their disappearance.

Well, considering you apparently love Windows and they are the sole source, I kinda would if I were you.

What's love got to do with it? :-) So, considering that is not true, your point is?

As I said, I could not care less if one day Microsoft disappears. I'll gladly use ANY system that is cheaper, yet good enough.

That is why 95% or so people and companies are still using Windows. And as I said, no, we're not sheep, and you guys are not smarter than everyone else.

See above. Sooner or later MS are going to go under. Red Hat will too, and Novell will whether they become more profitable because of the MS deal or not. But their technologies (ok, RH's tech and some of Novell's) won't be rendered obsolete by their disappearance.

As I said, why would I care if one day that happens to Microsoft?

But, you said, "sooner or later" and that is not "today". I use Windows today because it is cost-justified. In 5 or 10 years from now, if Linux solution is still cheaper and does everything I need, I'll dump Windows. But today is not the day. So.. you know, we've all been hearing about Linux on desktop.. for, what, 10 years now? Let's wait till that happens and then we can all trash Microsoft for good reason.

What's love got to do with it? :-) So, considering that is not true, your point is?

I doubt very much that is not true.


As I said, I could not care less if one day Microsoft disappears. I'll gladly use ANY system that is cheaper, yet good enough.

It's good enough for me, and I don't need my daily fix of config-file editing as some people on this site are suggesting. Even if I did, that's basically what Windows Control Panel does. And not only is it good enough for me, but for everyone else who uses Linux.

I'm perfectly willing to listen to reasons why "Linux is not good enough", for one application or all - there are even some people at my local LUG who will say so. Unlike most Windows fanboys on this site, however, their arguments are not limited to "Linux users are smelly communists and moving your screen pointer requires assembly-language hand hacking and a deep knowledge of binary"-type astroturfing.

As I said, why would I care if one day that happens to Microsoft?

You'll care when you have to migrate all your old data by hand because OO.org 2025 only understands Office files up to 2006, after which MS started using DRM to "protect" Office files from other apps.


But, you said, "sooner or later" and that is not "today". I use Windows today because it is cost-justified.

I don't Windows today because, for me, it isn't.


In 5 or 10 years from now, if Linux solution is still cheaper and does everything I need, I'll dump Windows.

Not without a lot of pain from DRM-infected files, you won't.

But today is not the day. So.. you know, we've all been hearing about Linux on desktop.. for, what, 10 years now? Let's wait till that happens and then we can all trash Microsoft for good reason.

I started using Linux on the desktop ten years ago. The last time I tried to install Windows XP I failed (and considering that I'm one of these supposed uber-hackers who uses Gentoo, that's BAD). I'd be quite happy using openSUSE if it weren't for the MS FUD, too.

MS said Win98 was a really good operating system. I don't need an OS that crashes that well. By your own criteria, I have good reasons to trash Microsoft.

Who in their right mind would use Linux on desktop 10 years ago???

Someone who needed a system that didn't crash every five minutes. That may be an exaggeration. "Every half hour to every hour" wouldn't be.

No OpenOffice, no decent browser, hardware support was horrible, same with desktop experience, etc, etc..

WordPerfect, Netscape, it worked with the hardware I had, WindowMaker didn't have ActiveDesktop, etc. etc..

Then, you're such a Linux fanboy, that all discussion is useless, no offense.

You're an arsehole who doesn't know the first thing about what he's on about. "No offense".

Then, you're such a Linux fanboy, that all discussion is useless, no offense.

I don't know how starting to use something ten years ago makes you a fanboy. If discussion is useless, then why did you bother to comment - or was there some other motivation?

Who in their right mind would use Linux on desktop 10 years ago??? No OpenOffice, no decent browser, hardware support was horrible, same with desktop experience, etc, etc..

Linux and various Unixes were used quite happily in many environments where people were less keen on rebooting their PCs every couple of hours. Remember the memory leak in Windows 95?

Who in their right mind would use Linux on desktop 10 years ago??? No OpenOffice, no decent browser

Well, that's a Windows fanboy comment if ever I saw one.

I'm still waiting for an actual comment by you with a point, that is related to this article, as to why Linux is such a poor fit in government environments.

The fact is, you've given nothing to reply to.

FYI, I know people who've been using Linux since 1993 or so. They're probably more clued-up than me, but whether they are or no, if it weren't for their programming/advocacy/funding efforts I wouldn't have been able to use it in 1999. If it weren't for people like me using it now, the people who will convert in the future wouldn't be able to either.

//Who in their right mind would use Linux on desktop 10 years ago??? No OpenOffice, no decent browser, hardware support was horrible//

Strangely enough, "No Office, no decent browser, hardware support was horrible" is a valid description of a fresh-out-of-the-box install of Windows even to this very day.

Typical Linux distributions, OTOH, do include a full Office suite, two decent browsers and have vastly more supported hardware than the Windows install disks do.

I'll address one (last) thing though:

I started using Linux on the desktop ten years ago.

Then, you're such a Linux fanboy, that all discussion is useless, no offense.

I started using it as such in 1994 or even 93. You'd probably say that makes me Linus Torvalds

Who in their right mind would use Linux on desktop 10 years ago??? No OpenOffice, no decent browser, hardware support was horrible, same with desktop experience, etc, etc..

No OpenOffice? There were Applixware, Wordperfect, although I never needed Office suite.

No decent browser? Same Netscape as on Windows was not decent?

Hardware support? HCL answers all troubles, it was like that, it is like that and it will be like that. No matter the OS some hardware performs too bad to be considered as running.

Desktop experience? Actualy, all my friends envied me on beaty of my desktop. Custom built with custom graphics (first was Afterstep running kdm and all sorts of tweaks, second was Enlightment crossed with Gnome, again custom built). I can say I was more productive in those times than now with vanilla Gnome, desktop was always perfected for my needs in my early linux years.

In those years linux was perfection for "do it your self" kind of people. In that time it was a hacker-only OS, not user-friendly OS. So you might be in trouble only if your skills were not adequate. But if you were good enough, it was a perfection.

You need to stop, sit down and rethink your life :-)

Shouldn't you do that? You speak of things you don't know.

Well said tweenex. The implication of Microsoft putting enforced DRM on Office documents send the shivvers down my spine.
Suddenly things like the Freedom of Information Act etc become irrelevant. You can't read this government document. Not because its secret but Microsoft has enforced a DRM system thst stops just about anyone but the author from reading it.
This has implications that politicians all over the world have just not woken up to yet and probably will not do so before it is far too late.
IMHO, DRM is a virus that will wriggle its way unseen into our lives

I dare you to say the todays Linux distro Desktops are BETTER than XP or Vista but Linux still lacks in apps and hardware drivers.

Do not forget people use what there used to change is often scary...

Edited 2006-12-10 21:24

That's the last way to do that. Incrementally you end with one department using Office 2000, a couple of thousand still runnning Word Perfect, another couple of departments on OpenOffice 1.something, another on Open Office 2.something, etc, etc. Different versions of Office cause enough problems, with a myriad of different suites and OS's.

These guys need to share information, and have hope in hell of it looking the same when chucked over the fence. Oh - and they may have *macros*, charts they want people to be able to read, complex edit tracking / approval scenarios, workflow systems that rely on particular features of Offfice, etc, etc.

none of that matters in a government setting. They're the government. They can dictate what they will and will not use and support, and everyone else has to cooperate.

Ever work for them?

You might be amazed to learn that linux has support for more hardware out of the box than windows.

For any hardware that isn't supported there are plenty of other similar hardware from different vendors that are supported.

Applications are still a problem for some industries, graphic designers(Inkscape and Scribe are still playing catch up), musicians(Rose Garden is also playing catch up) and engineers (there is pretty much nothing for CAD) are still going to have to stick with windows for now.

Most office workers that do word processing, web browsing, email, should have no problems running GNULinux

Custom built applications might be a problem, but it might end up cheaper to re-write the application to save on microsoft licencing.

>>
You might be amazed to learn that linux has support for more hardware out of the box than windows.
<<

You mean CPUs. Bottom line, I can not go to my local computer store, and pick up a wireless card, or multi-function printer/scanner/fax, or winmodem, or whatever, and expect it that it will work with linux.

>>
For any hardware that isn't supported there are plenty of other similar hardware from different vendors that are supported.
<<

I want to use what I want to use. Besides, when it comes to stuff like wireless, linux is just awful.


>>
Most office workers that do word processing, web browsing, email, should have no problems running GNULinux
<<

This is what linux users don't get, and probably never will. There are tons of apps that only work on windows. Linux users are often high-school, or college, students. They use linux for email and listening to mp3s, and figure that is all anybody needs. The real world is *very* different. One quick example: UPS worldship, it's used by thousands of small, and large, businesses, and it doesn't work with linux. Also, 80% of small business use quickbooks.

>>
Custom built applications might be a problem, but it might end up cheaper to re-write the application to save on microsoft licencing.
<<

Not by a long, *long*, shot. BTW: I have worked in IT for 27 years, I use linux at home, and at work. I even have a weenie comptia linux+ certification.

You mean CPUs. Bottom line, I can not go to my local computer store, and pick up a wireless card, or multi-function printer/scanner/fax, or winmodem, or whatever, and expect it that it will work with linux.

When it comes to multi-function printer/scanner/faxes, you have a point. When it comes to wireless, you don't (see below). When it comes to winmodems, if you want to use those then it's your funeral.


I want to use what I want to use. Besides, when it comes to stuff like wireless, linux is just awful.

If you pick the cheapest generic crap you can find, then yes, you might have a problem. Being picky about hardware is good whether you use Linux or Windows. And if when it comes to stuff like wireless, linux is just awful, then I need a new adjective to describe the worse state of wireless drivers on Windows.


This is what linux users don't get, and probably never will. There are tons of apps that only work on windows. Linux users are often high-school, or college, students. They use linux for email and listening to mp3s, and figure that is all anybody needs. The real world is *very* different. One quick example: UPS worldship, it's used by thousands of small, and large, businesses, and it doesn't work with linux. Also, 80% of small business use quickbooks.

This is what windows fanboys don't get, and probably never will. There are tons of apps that only work on linux, or work better than on Windows. Windows users often knnow next to nothing about technology. They use windows for email and listening to mp3s. Others use AutoCAD or Quicken or MS Office, and figure there are no alternative solutions. Two quick examples: When HSBC UK was derided publicly for not letting users do Internet banking from RiscOS, they quickly changed their tune. RiscOS has nowhere near the userbase of Linux even on the desktop (unfortunately), so it can't be that hard.

Quickbooks doesn't come with UK tax solutions anymore, so I doubt 80% of UK small business use quickbooks.

When it comes to multi-function printer/scanner/faxes, you have a point. When it comes to wireless, you don't (see below). When it comes to winmodems, if you want to use those then it's your funeral...If you pick the cheapest generic crap you can find, then yes, you might have a problem.

**Yep. That's right, it's YOUR fault for buying the wrong stuff, even if it' generic.**

This is what windows fanboys don't get, and probably never will. There are tons of apps that only work on linux, or work better than on Windows.

**But nobody uses them. But that's OK, because that's their fault as well.**

**Sounds a bit like this:
Woman 1: So how did Jonny do on the parade?
Woman 2 (proud mother): He did fine, but everyone spoilt it by marching out of time.**

So what would you say to someone who bought a Lada and then couldn't understand why it won't work for more than 5 minutes.

In my experience if a hardware product supports linux it's plastered all over the box. So finding a product that supports linux, it just isn't hard.

In comparing Lada's to Linux, I think that you are underestimating Lada's.

Whatever.

>>
For any hardware that isn't supported there are plenty of other similar hardware from different vendors that are supported.
<<

I want to use what I want to use. Besides, when it comes to stuff like wireless, linux is just awful.

When Microsoft releases a new OS, one of the very first thing that comes to mind is to check the HCL that they probably put in place the date that the software hit the shelves so that one can avoid those hardware traps where the scanner/printer/whatever works with one version of the OS but not the latest one.

That happened with Windows NT (which was anything but a consumer OS), happened with Windows 2000, XP and most likely will be the same story all over again with Vista.

I have a scanner which is perfectly capable and functional that doesn´t have a driver for Windows XP therefore I have to resort to the old Win2000 driver (that I´ve found on Driversguide.com as the manufacturer is clueless and couldn´t care less about Windows XP users) and hope that it works.

There is no such a thing as "I want to use what I want to use", even for Windows users. If the manufacturer does not advertise the product as being compatible with your operating system, then good luck trying to make it work.

You may have a point regarding wireless, but then, this is a smaller issue than you make it appear to be. Wireless Access Points and related technology still is a little bit expensive for third world countries and therefore, it is much less of an issue than, say, application compatibility.

Also, 80% of small business use quickbooks.

Where did you get these numbers from? It has been quite some time since the last time that I´ve seen QuickenBooks here on Brazil. Most small offices seem to be using something that they put together on Excel or Access (which can be converted with ease to a web app, really!) or some custom solution that they bought or hired a company or someone to do for them.

Never heard about the UPS thing, so I don´t think that this is a huge problem either.

What some of you guys need to do is to stop thinking as an American user and try to put things in context and then you will realize that the Linux/BSD solution is closer to being replacement for Windows in certain situations than you think.

I won´t deny that software availability IS a hurdle that must be overcome by Linux in order to turn it into a drop-in replacement for proprietary OSes but this problem has been becoming smaller and tends to keep decreasing for the foreseeable future.

You might be amazed to learn that linux has support for more hardware out of the box than windows.

That's a useless and irrelevant issue. Fact is, Windows has far wider driver support than Linux could ever hope for. Asking a user to put in an install CD to install the drivers which came with a particular hardware product isn't a big deal. But it IS a big deal when the Linux drivers DON'T EXIST.

//Unless Linux can catch up with windows in terms of apps and drivers//

Linux is already well ahead of even XP in terms of driver support.

It is immeasurably ahead of Vista ... Linux will run on a huge array of hardware that Vista will not run on.

There are 20,000+ packages available for Linux in the Debian/Ubuntu repositories, covering almost every imaginable class of application. There would be less than a few percent of users who did not have every application that they could possibly use covered.

The only problem is porting existing data from specific, proprietary applications. As an example: it is not like there is no CAD application for Linux, but rather that AutoCAD is not available for Linux.

See here: http://www.tech-edv.co.at/lunix/CADlinks.html

However, if a sizeable number of "undemanding" users (ie users who did not demand a specific application only, but rather used generic applications such as "web browser" or "wordprocessor" or "spreadsheet") moved to Linux, then companies like Autodesk would see a demand, and even that problem would be solved.

Edited 2006-12-11 00:01

I think you need to look a little harder and a little deeper; you are correct about drivers, although the installation, configuration obtaining could be improved; given my experience installing ipw3945 on Fedora, its not exactly for the faint hearted.

As for the applications, there is a definlate shortage for those who want to do more than the minimum; for example, look at Photoshop Elements for example, there is nothing that can hold a candle to it on Linux.

Thats at the low end, at the high end, there are such things as Cakewalk, Quark, Creative Suite (the whole suite) and many other titles - no matter how good you make the opensource equivilant, people like using what they're used to.

Now, if those issues were addressed; then there would be no reason to run Windows - people only stay with Windows because of ease of hardware installation (in regards to setting up when the drivers are provided on cd) and the accessibility of applications, remove those two barriers, and people will jump off the operating system upgrade treadmill and go with Linux or what ever other operating system hits the g-spot that is desktop nirvana.

you are correct about drivers, although the installation, configuration obtaining could be improved; given my experience installing ipw3945 on Fedora, its not exactly for the faint hearted.

Not for drivers to which the Linux developers have the source. The last time I inserted a new NIC all I had to do was find the right module - which wouldn't even have been necessary if I didn't compile my own kernel. And no, it's not necessary to compile your own kernel. It is desirable, however.

You'd have the self-same problem with a Windows device that ignored the "proper procedure" and had its own installation - in fact I did have that problem with some hardware I installed about three months ago. An Epson printer isn't exactly obscure hardware.

Whether with Linux or Windows, the problem you describe is a device manufacturer problem, not a Linux problem. Reasonable people will see that when the issues are explained to them. Fanboys won't.

True, I am not arguing with you over that fact; it is a manufacturer problem, but like the issue with Windows, if something does go wrong, the first people/organisation they'll blame will be the operating system vendor - even if they had no part in the provision of the driver.

On my blog ( http://kaiwai.blogspot.com ) I've out lined what I had to do to get the freshrpm ipw3945 package setup along with wpa_supplicant configured.

Like I said, that isn't for the faint hearted, and I hope that Fedora maintainers do look at that scenario and see that the amount of work I needed to do to get my wireless networking up and running is completely unacceptable in this day and age.

Yes, I have heard before that wpa_supplicant is a bitch.

It's not Linux which can catch up with windows in terms of apps (or drivers), it's the developers of the software. They need to support Linux and to do that they need a reason. The biggest reason is demand.

But in the big system space, it is often the case that software is developed to run on specific hardware (not necessarily Windows or Linux), for example specialist hardware such as Tandem (now HP Nonstop) or Mainframe, for example, and the customers wishing to run those systems buy the hardware to match. At that level the apps can be more expensive than the hardware.

Smaller apps are usually cheaper than the hardware, so the customers decide what they will run and buy the apps based on that. In most cases they see that the apps they want run on Windows, so they buy Windows. Occasionally they may choose Linux for web or other server purposes, but when they still think of business apps as MS Office, Outlook, etc. they will buy Windows. If the thinking moves to OOO for example, then they may look more at Linux.

>>
Linux is already well ahead of even XP in terms of driver support.

It is immeasurably ahead of Vista ... Linux will run on a huge array of hardware that Vista will not run on.
<<

Non-sense, and I have a wireless card - with a penguin logo on the box - to prove it.

>>
There are 20,000+ packages available for Linux
<<

Doesn't matter. The apps that are actually used in business don't run under linux: ms-project, ms-viseo, ups worldship, quickbooks - to name a few. There are thousands of specialized 3rd party apps that only work on windows.

>>
There would be less than a few percent of users who did not have every application that they could possibly use covered.
<<

Way off. Way *way* off.

Linux could catch up, but Linux does not want to catch up. Linux distributions are mainly based on GPL software,
and not every piece of software, particulary a driver is compliant. FSF has got a rigit stance on that, and I can't see any room for compromise. That's why the Linux market penetration is limitted and will stay limitted.

Linux community is in perpetual state of ambivalence. They are advocating Linux broader use of Linux and similar software. On the other hand they want software that meets their specifical philosophical and
political agenda, and their own vision of IT, which is not shared by the majority.

People out there are not buying GNU/Freedom ideas today, and the majoity of them never will.

DG

everything begins with one step and this sounds like a damn fine one to me...

I wonder if they're using OO.o v1...because I'm using v2.04 right now and I have to say that it's very, very good!

Openoffice Writer is pretty good, I haven't had any issues with it as a replacement for Word, but Calc is quite poor compared to Excel. The basic features are there, but the whole package is far less intuitive than Excel. I don't do a lot with it, but for basic stats and graphing Excel is by far the better option. I still wouldn't spend the money to buy MS Office for myself, so I use Openoffice, but I can't deny that it is not as good as MS Office in quite a few aspects.

I don't use Excel enough to judge, though I've heard they're putting lots of effort into this one right now.

I've also heard that Impress is very good, though I haven't really taken the time to play around with it. In any case, the whole project has been progressing at a very healthy pace...now, if they can only get that Outline mode in...

Excel better than OpenOffice? You've got to be kidding. Excel is the less intuitive and more buggy IMO. For example, try matrix multiplication in both apps. In Excel you have to select the required amount of cells which really slows you down when you have some big calculations to do. In OO.org you just select one cell.

Well, that is a bit too optimistic - speaking as a user who makes living using word processors. Even leaving format compatibility aside, there's a lot of usability/efficiency issues with OOo making me way less productive on it than on MS Word 2000. BTW, these are issues with basic things like the lack of "Normal" mode (even Abiword has it, though not completely right!), poor logical model of paragraph formatting, inefficient and inflexible hotkey assignment, poorly documented macro language and incomprehensiveness of the stuff spit by the macro recorder, AutoCorrect working or not working randomly... Surely OOo is good enough for a lot of people, but for a sizeable chunk of workers it won't be able to replace Word anytime soon.

It depends on what you write, really. I also use Word as my primary worktool, while writing a side project (a novel) OO.o. For that use, it is of course sufficient. I also haven't had any real issues with AutoCorrect so far...

For general office use it depends if you use a lot of Macros or not. At my job, where we produce design documents for video games, we do not use macros at all, so that wouldn't be an issue.

As far as normal mode and hotkey assignment go, I personally never use either of them and so that is also not a problem for me.

One place where OO.o actually works better than MSWord is how it handles image placement. We have *lots* of images in our documents, and I regularly curse at Word for getting all funky with images jumping pages and the like. I haven't seen that weird behavior in my albeit limited time with OO.o.

I'm not sure what your issue is with paragraph formatting, however.

I agree with you, though, that it's not for everyone...yet. However, I was really impressed with the project's overall improvement in version 2.04.

'm not sure what your issue is with paragraph formatting, however.

It's the fact that I can't reliable copy just the text of the paragraph or the whole paragraph with the associated formatting. It happens that when I copy even a small fragment of text from the middle of a paragraph, the target paragraph becomes formatted like the source one. This does not happen always, and I suspect that this is related to bullets/numbering. Speaking of which, I don't know who decided that bullets and numbering are NOT a part of paragraph formatting, but that person surely must be subjected to a cruel or unusual punishment. I often need to clear formatting from a paragraph, but bullets and numbering still remain after that operation.

It's the fact that I can't reliable copy just the text of the paragraph or the whole paragraph with the associated formatting. It happens that when I copy even a small fragment of text from the middle of a paragraph, the target paragraph becomes formatted like the source one.

Ah, yes, I see what you mean. Word also does some similar weirdness, but only if you select the entire line (by clicking in the margins or by selecting the normally invisible paragraph mark) instead of selecting just the text.

This is a valid point of criticism. There should be a way to copy only text, and not the formatting (Lotus Notes is also very vexing for that, so much so that I now keep a copy of Notepad open just to use as a copy/past buffer that strips text formatting). They should definitely include a way to turn this off.

Speaking of which, I don't know who decided that bullets and numbering are NOT a part of paragraph formatting, but that person surely must be subjected to a cruel or unusual punishment.

I agree with that as well. You should bring these points up on the bug database, after all the cool thing about OO.o being an open source project is that you can participate in its development.

Copy
Edit-Paste Special-Plain Text

Yes, you should be able to set the default paste method in any applicaiton!

Temcat: Surely OOo is good enough for a lot of people, but for a sizeable chunk of workers it won't be able to replace Word anytime soon.

That's what they said about MS Word in comparison to StarWriter and WordPerfect in the 1990s. I, for example, am a StarWriter user since DOS times, StarOffice 3.1 was my last MS Windows version, StarOffice 5.0 my last GNU/Linux version and my switch to OpenOffice has been painless. OOo2 actually is quite a dog for me because it tries to emulate MS Office so hard, which is alien to me.

Thus, I'd argue that your issue is more about things we are used to and less about how things are actually done.

Thanks. At least you didn't call him a moron for not liking FOSS alternatives.

Was there an actual point for your comment? Because I'm trying very hard to find one, and I can't.

Why would I call him a moron for not liking something? I think you have me confused with NotParker or some other member of your Trolling club.

For your information, I've used MS Office for years, and still use it. I do like it better than OpenOffice, unfortunately it does not run natively on Linux. That said, I'm unbiased enough to recognize that OpenOffice has made great strides over the past couple of months, and that for *many* users, it's a more than adequate replacement.

"Mandrake 2007"

Mandriva 2007.

Linux has less than 1% of the desktop OS market.

Actually, it has between 3 and 6%.

IDC, a company which you yourself have described as reliable, places Linux at 3% as of Jan. 2005, estimating 6% for 2006.

The number you give is based on web stats, which cannot be used to accurately reflect market share.

Stop spreading misinformation in order to further your anti-Linux agenda.

You just cut and paste your replies. You know what you sound like? A broken record.

IDC had Linux at 3% in Jan. 2005.

Webstats are too inaccurate to determine market share.

Linux server has 28% market share (which by default means per unit).

Windows' greater market share per revenue is due to it being overpriced.

Linux server growth is moderating towards a healthy 5%, more than Windows, after enjoying double-digit growth because it basically started from near zero.

Okay, I think I've pretty much covered all your disinformation here. I'll do like you do, and just keep copy/pasting this in replies to your own copy/pasting. Deal?

BTW. I wasn't replying to you originally...are you stalking me by any chance? :-)

You just cut and paste your replies. You know what you sound like? A broken record.

The funny thing about your exchanges with NotParker is that at least he provides data to back up his comments; whereas, you post half-assed conjecture and speculations. NotParker is right: Linux desktop market share is shrinking (not growing) because the overall market is growing and Windows is gaining more seats. Not surprising ... but it does require a little mathematical ability to comprehend the dynamic.

Excellent post.

Thanks to the stalker who continually mods me down. Get a life.

You're a transparent hypocrite. Because on the one hand you call bullshit when Web statistics support products that you like (ie. Firefox) and then say they're "inaccurate" when the statistics don't support others that you like (ie. Linux). You only get to choose one delusion. Not both.

Web statistics are inaccurate. I wasn't "calling bullshit" in the Firefox article - I was stating that the 11% figure thrown around by NutParker was not anymore valid that the 28% percent I found elsewhere. The point I was making, and which apparently went completely over your head, is that neither figure could be said to be more valid than the other, and that if NotParker was going to throw one stat around, I could very well do the same. However, contrary to what you're tying to make me say, I never claimed that web stats were accurate in this particular case. To me, they were as inaccurate as they are to calculate OS market share.

Ergo, my position is the same both on the Firefox issue and the Linux issue. In both cases, web stats are inaccurate and cannot be used to determine market share. No hypocrisy, no inconsistency, no ambiguity.

Jeez, can anyone here pose a real challenge? I'm tired of these lightweights.

Web statistics are inaccurate.

No, they're not. That's an overgeneralization. The quality of the statistics depends entirely on the sample size and the methodology for collecting samples. The credible statistics-gatherers use millions of samples and gather them from a wide variety of sources. And, if you examine a bunch of them, a pattern emerges: Linux really does have less than 1% desktop share. I don't see why you find that surprising. Practically no OEM sells desktop PCs with Linux preinstalled. Which means that the only ones running Linux are those who specifically reinstalled Linux over Windows. That market is absolutely less than 1% of all desktop users; nonetheless, given the size of the desktop market, that's still a large number of machines. For example, 0.5% of 500M PCs is still 2.5M machines. Not chump change.

No, they're not.

Yes they are. Read the two links I provided (for someone who complains I don't give reference, you obviously haven't checked out mine. One is from Statistics Canada, by the way). They clearly outline the limits of web stats, and make it clear one cannot use them to determine market share. Period.

Provide the links here.

Replying to my own comment I would like to add:

That the problem with lock-in and propritary formats is universal.
And like so often before the USA is leading the way out of that unacceptable state.
The one organisation that knows this better than anyone else is Microsoft.

Microsoft is probably spending more money and effort, to day, on lobbying and politics than on improving their products.

They are to day sitting on the wrong side of the fence and their effort to fool us with an open format is not convicing but also shows they are not unavare of the facts.

+5!

Ironically, the French Gendarmes will probably still have to pay a U.S. company licensing fees for the Linux distribution it uses on its PCs.

Explain please, how is this so ?

Sounds like they are moving to Novell. I *think* the move was announced before Novell's MS deal; if so they may well be re-evaluating their choice of distro. If they decided to go with Novell after the announcement, or they aren't reevaluating, I'm glad I'm not a French citizen. Then again, I haven't heard HMG talking of moving to FOSS at all.

I am totally opposed to govts trying to break down microsoft with anti-trust rulings.

Anti-trust laws are there to punish illegal monopolies in general, not to punish Microsoft in particular - they've been active long before MS existed and even went after other companies during the lifetime of MS.

The reasons why MS have been involved in such huge and protracted anti-trust cases are:

(a) The computer industry seems to be particularly heavily infested by people who think they have a God-given right to be different from everyone else. Imagine if every coffee maker restricted you to its own coffee machines. If you needed not "a driving licence" but "a Ford driving licence" or a "Toyota driving licence"...

(b) Governments were very lax in getting to Microsoft once it was clear they were using monopolistic tactics.

(c) MS have been very good at hiding their tactics with NDA's, etc.

(d) They are doing their utmost to wriggle out of the cases and any fallout from being convicted.

Edited 2006-12-10 21:48

make something better than Microsoft and it will no longer be a monopoly. People will switch like they are doing with Firefox. The problem is that linux and its apps aren't that much better than Windows. That has to change but there's point in crying about it or pretending the problems aren't there.

make something better than Microsoft and it will no longer be a monopoly. People will switch like they are doing with Firefox. The problem is that linux and its apps aren't that much better than Windows. That has to change but there's point in crying about it or pretending the problems aren't there.

I'm not "pretending problems aren't there", but the problems are very often not with Linux. The developers, for example, can and already do code device drivers for a vast amount of devices - and happily. The ones they can't are the ones for which the manufacturer refuses to release code and/or specs. It's the same with manufacturers not releasing apps for Linux.

As far as I'm concerned Linux *is* better than Windows. The gap has narrowed, but the fact that it has *narrowed* rather than widened shows that vendor lock-in is the problem.

EDIT: that wasn't clear: if vendor lock in was no problem, people would have switched when Linux was miles better,

Edited 2006-12-10 22:25

bold is so frickin irritating, would you please stop? thank you!

I do it actually to make it easier for you, so that you can easily see what is it I am answering to.. How about italics?

Thank you! Yes italics are great. I tried bold a time or two and it is much easier to read but it is distracting seeing it over and over. I guess I get distracted too easy but man it looked like a checkerboard to me or similar... Thanks again!

Noting like debating three persons at one and keeping the upper hand...

Still having math problems?

How about more corroboration?

http://www.webhits.de/webhits/browser.htm

How about more corroboration?

It's not "corroboration" when all you do is provide more web stats. Let me repeat it again: web stats cannot be used to determine market share. I've already given the reasons why, the fact that you have not tried to challenge them shows that you're out of arguments.

You lose.

It's not "corroboration" when all you do is provide more web stats.

Yes it is.

By the way, do have any usage numbers from 2006 yet?

Let me repeat it again: web stats cannot be used to determine market share.

As your quote says, "small sample size" is problematic.

The sample size on my references (I'm still waiting for yours) is HUGE.

Therefore webstats work just fine. Otherwise people would have to guess at Firefox's market share (for example). I'd guess 1% tops. Large web analytics firms disagree.

Do you have an non-webstats numbers suggesting Firefox's market share is above 1%?

Yes it is.

No it's not.

As your quote says, "small sample size" is problematic.

No, "sample bias" is problematic. In this case, it's not a random sample, so it is useless from a statistical point of view.

It's also only one of several issues with web stats. I've enumerated them. You've ignored them. Go figure.

In this case, it's not a random sample, so it is useless from a statistical point of view.

75,000 websites. Anyone can go to them. As random a sample as you can get.

A self-selected sample can never be considered random.

Your ignorance of basic statistical science is obvious - that's kind of a problem when your whole argumentation is based on misrepresenting statistics!!

A self-selected sample can never be considered random.

It is statistically significant if it involves 75,000 collection points day after day after week after week and the numbers all match.