Linked by David Adams on Tue 22nd Jun 2010 15:47 UTC, submitted by shaneco
Privacy, Security, Encryption With Windows XP SP2 support ending in three weeks, a new report highlights the security risks that come with running an unsupported service pack.
Permalink for comment 431332
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

Of course the whole linux thing is not applicable to every established company structure.

Computer magazines? Yeah, ok, whatever.

The thing made of paper or available online that covers topics related to computers and IT. Often contains advertisements. You are posting in one-of-many right now.

I'm not talking about the IT staff, I'm talking about the users.

Reviewing your post, you neither explicitly talked about users, nor explicitly about IT staff.

They need to be retrained.

When one of my most non-nerd friends (i.e. a prototypical end user) switched to a GNOME based Linux OS, transition was easy. Basically, it was a move from [Start-Menu]->[Programs]->[Vendor]->[Vendor's application] to [GNOME-Menu]->[Topic]->[Application]. For most end-users, the differences between OOCalc and Excel are subtle at max. Not to talk about the situation where they are already used to Open Office.

Apart from that, many large enterprise applications are running on multiple operating systems. And a lot of applications are already running on some Unix, IBM, or Linux, and just the terminal-windows run on windows (this is e.g. the case in many german department stores). So, often, windows is just the host.

Users also have to be retrained when switching to yet another anti-value-added version of MS Office. Nobody says they must the damn switch right now. But maybe a tip before the next office revision.

And didn't Lemur2 state
At this point (*) in time,
, which is btw exactly the quote that you are basing your lamentation on, with (*) == upgrading Windows XP to a newer OS? -> Now if you insist that moving users from Windows XP to 7 is less difficult then from Windows XP to some Linux, then I must question your integrity.

Users don't have to know about filesystems, symbolic links, backups, makefiles, package management, et cetera.

So the gross of the (short term) transition cost will be in infrastructure, not users.

or are you one of those IT guys that don't care about your users?

I think you are one of those IT guys who think they are infallable, as in
I'm not talking about the IT staff, I'm talking about the users.

all those access DBs, small VB apps and what have you kicking around any medium/large business

Not any, but some.

(A vm is still a computer, and can catch viruses, have configuration issues, whatever)

That's horrible. I wonder why those so-called "virtual machines" have a big market ... if they still can catch viruses. ... Possibly because they allow for smooth transition? Possibly because they reduce hardware maintaining support (spare parts)? Possibly because hardware is not in danger anymore? Too many reasons to see how any of those is a good one?

IT helpdesk costs would increase because calls to the help desk would increase


, at least in the short term, as users figure out how to do their jobs. Add in the cost of the time lost due to the retraining, and you have a situation where at best you save enough money to break even.

As you seem to be very informed, you prolly know
* (very recent report)

Also, may I re-iterate the words "short" and "term" you stated, and express my dissapointment about the missing "long term" perspective in your rather informal reply.

I said it isn't free, and doesn't magically save money.

And nobody claimed the opposite.

Edited 2010-06-24 13:40 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0