Linked by Howard Fosdick on Mon 30th May 2011 22:04 UTC
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu Canonical Ltd., the company behind Ubuntu Linux, estimates that the product has over 12 million users worldwide. And why not? Ubuntu is free and it runs more than ten thousand applications. It has a vibrant user community, websites covering everything you might ever need to know, good tutorials, a paid support option, and more. Yet I often hear friends and co-workers casually criticize Ubuntu. Perhaps this the price of success. Or is it? In this article I'll analyze common criticisms and try to sort fact from fiction.
Permalink for comment 475165
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Yeah right
by SteveB on Mon 30th May 2011 22:55 UTC
Member since:

"Until there is a true competitor to Active Directory, Exchange, Outlook, and the MANAGEMENT of the machines, Ubuntu will not succeed in the Enterprise."

This all exists on Ubuntu too (note: I don't like Ubuntu personally but this is more because I don't like DEB). People often forget that IBM has a product that can easy replace Exchange and Outlook (just to name one of the above requirements. Products delivering the same scope as AD, Management of machines, etc exist too). Yes. It exists. It's called IBM Lotus Domino/Notes and has even packages for Debian/Ubuntu. The statement that some companies are open for alternatives for Exchange and Outlook is plain wrong. They would never accept another solution beside Exchange and Outlook. It's that simple. So if a company needs/wants Exchange and Outlook then no replacement, regardless how good/bad it is will succeed. It will never be Exchange/Outlook because only Exchange/Outlook can be like Exchange/Outlook.

A lot of users and companies are fixed on products and not on the functionality the product is supposed to deliver.

I have done migrations from Windows to Ubuntu (this is where my dislike for Ubuntu comes from mainly) and even if you replace the whole OS with Ubuntu and install them something like the users can't stop in thinking about their old applications. The don't say: "How do I sum a column in the spreadsheet application?". They just call support and say: "I don't know how to sum the column in the new Excel. In the old Excel I used to select a column and press the icon xyz and I got the sum. But the new Excel I got installed yesterday does not have any more that icon. Where do I get that icon in the new Excel?".

Management mostly does not much care about what OS. They mostly care about money (is it cheaper?) and that they can use all their applications. That's all.

The IT department (if they know Linux) mostly loves something like Ubuntu. I remember a IT worker telling me that they need 17 Minutes for automatically installing a whole new system, including all applications, configuration of LDAP, network shared homes, etc... With Windows it took them way more and was (according to them) more expensive. Managing the system is easy as 1-2-3. Updates of software is damn easy from a internal repository. Once central place to manage all applications. etc...

Just look at Munich in Germany ( ). They have decided to move to Linux and they have success with their project. Is the project without issues? Hell no! Which project is? But if want to move then what should stop you from moving?

btw: One of the above mentioned migrations from Windows to Ubuntu had some applications that needed Windows. After some while it was clear that they could not move everything to Ubuntu. So they took one of their HP blade servers and installed VMWare Server on it and installed a bunch of Windows XP VMs on it (they had enough legitimate licenses of XP) and installed a terminal software from Elusiva to run those applications on the virtual environment. It's just a bunch of applications. Nothing ultra critical. Still needed for the business but not every desktop needs them. And for the end user it is not important where the application runs as long as they can run the application. For the IT department using such a hybrid environment is still much cheaper (short and long therm) then going fully with Windows.

I am not trying to say here that Ubuntu/Linux is better than Windows. This is not my point. My only point is that if you want/need to move away from Windows then you can.

I asked the CIO why Ubuntu and not a new version of Windows? His reply was: "We don't sell more of any of our products because we use Windows. We need mail, office applications, fax and printing and our AS/400 for our business application. Our company exists since many generations and we like to plan for the future. Spending every two years for new hardware and migration to a new Windows and Office software is not what we want."

Reply Score: 5