Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Myths of Linux on the Desktop (ZDNet)
Gartner
examines the myths surrounding Linux on the Desktop. "Although
Linux has many attributes that make it a fine operating system (OS), and it
will be a viable option for certain types of users and enterprises, there
are several areas of Linux's reputation on the desktop that we feel will be
proved, over time, to be myths. Enterprises need to understand where
reality ends and myth begins so they can make informed, justifiable
decisions for its use on the desktop."
(Log in to post comments)
Myths of Linux on the Desktop (ZDNet) Posted Apr 25, 2003 17:57 UTC (Fri) by acar (guest, #10082) [Link] The author correctly identified the issue about the support for the old versions of Windows and Linux, however he conveniently missed one important issue of perpetually paying for the new versions in the case of Windows.
Myths of Linux on the Desktop (ZDNet) Posted Apr 25, 2003 20:55 UTC (Fri) by jjstwerff (subscriber, #4082) [Link] This is a great article... not a one sided bashing of M$ or Linux but a clear and well balanced overview of the desktop issues for an enterprise. After reading this they can make up their mind and do their right thing... and in the end that is Linux!The picture is much more clear for a normal consumer... only the gaming geek should use microsoft... the rest should use the free world. That's my opinion and I make it a reality in my family. Everything from word-processing, internet, simple gaming to mulimedia inside a cheap box (536 euro, including 17 inch monitor). That is the reality that linux offers to us no microsoft can beat that.
Myths of Linux on the Desktop (ZDNet) Posted Apr 25, 2003 21:33 UTC (Fri) by sidboyce (guest, #10891) [Link] I agree culture is a hurdle. I have colleagues using Windows to admin Solaris boxes and would use nothing else. They will tell you how easy and great Windows is to use in one breath, then in the next relate all the problems they encounter. Curiously a few days ago a colleague saw me using kermit to a solaris box and asked if I had to do all that to get connected, whereas he could simply use hyperterminal. I replied that I had many ways, then clicked on an icon and brought up gtkterm just to show him what was possible. These same guys find Solaris hard going and a necessary evil to earn a crust. With Linux, I show them I can do all they can do plus many other very neat touches that make the job easier, but they prefer to plod along with Windows.
Myths of Linux on the Desktop (ZDNet) Posted Apr 25, 2003 21:49 UTC (Fri) by microlhk (guest, #7619) [Link] Linux and opensource offer substantial benefits to organizations, in particular larger ones which have in-house expertise and bigger management resources. These organizations have to invest relatively little to reap substantial benefits by economics of scale.Smaller organizations (and individuals), in particular those without technical expertise, face relatively greater obstacles and have somewhat less to gain by their small installations. Further, the windows way historically caters to the non-technical consumer. Benefits of migrating to linux must be understood. Migrating to linux must be well planned and executed. This article provides reasonable and objective insights and also helps the community to focus its efforts. After all, we like migrators to linux to succeed and to eventually provide at least promotional support to the community by demonstrating successful deployment to peers, clients and even their families.
Sly Posted Apr 25, 2003 22:18 UTC (Fri) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] This is a very sly article. Its overall level of articulateness and internal cohesion suggest that it was written by a Gartner customer and published more or less unchanged. Make no mistake, despite the apparent evenhandedness, this report is meant to muddy the water. If Free Software really offers only a "slight edge" here and there, and numerous "problem[s] replicating this [or that] technology", who would dare switch? The section headings, identified as "myths", are meant to be taken as false, when in fact they all remain substantially true despite the author's quibbling.Perhaps the slyest bit of slight-of-hand was the claim that the cost of supporting Linux users would not be significantly less than for Windows users. As support, the author quotes somebody saying that Linux required about as much support staff as Unix -- then just guesses (ignoring contrary reports) that the same would obtain vs. supporting Windows desktops. Another is the suggestion that working well on older hardware actually counts against Free software. The author says, for instance, "After warranty support is over, many enterprises choose not to repair broken PCs, but to replace them with new ones." This is in large part because the repaired PC would no longer be able to run current MS software versions anyhow. Similarly, the author suggests that keeping older hardware means managing many more varieties of hardware. Yet, it is not old, well-understood hardware that is hard to manage, but the forced influx of new hardware needed to run new versions of software. Absent that forced turnover, an enterprise may reasonably stick with substantially the same hardware configuration (with optional upgrades in clock speed and storage capacity) until there are compelling, objective reasons to switch. Equally damning are the omissions. The author carefully avoids mentioning lock-in, and never mentions the possibility of obtaining support from independent (and possibly local, and competing) third parties, or from the in-house expertise that can only develop with Free software. For a good comparison, consider the SUNY Faculty Senate resolution published at http://orange.math.buffalo.edu/csc/resolution2_april2003_approved.html . I could go on and on, but the point is that the opposition has become more sophisticated. This is more clever than "Free software is a cancer that threatens the American Way", but the intent and the conclusion are the same. Now the strategy is "make minor concessions, but sow seeds of fear, doubt, and confusion." The falsehoods reveal the true intent.
Linux and Microsoft Office Posted Apr 25, 2003 22:33 UTC (Fri) by skybunny (guest, #4478) [Link] I had one particular problem with the Gartner group's myth debunking about Microsoft Office and Linux.Linux will be less expensive than Windows because StarOffice/OpenOffice.org can then be used instead of Microsoft Office. ...The decision about changing the office productivity package should be made separately from the decision of whether to change the client OS... I would be happy to accept this idea, save one problem: Microsoft is more than willing to assert its right not to port Microsoft Office to Linux. Logically, I can separate my decision to change my Office Productivity package from my operating system if and only if the productivity packages I'm evaluating are available for all operating systems in question. Running this down anew, I can easily make the following statements:
Perhaps I could rephrase their original 'myth' like this, for rebuttal: Linux will be less expensive than Windows because StarOffice/OpenOffice.org (or a presumably less-expensive-than-Office-alternative) must be used instead of Microsoft Office.
Linux and Microsoft Office Posted Apr 28, 2003 3:06 UTC (Mon) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] > Linux will be less expensive than Windows because StarOffice/OpenOffice.org> (or a presumably less-expensive-than-Office-alternative) must be used > instead of Microsoft Office. True, and this is a good thing. This nearly exposes one of the greatest benefits of Free Software. The problem is that all explanations to management will hide some of the benefits behind the term "OpenSource". Imagine if every company that uses MS Word gave a quarter of it's annual cost of MS Word licenses to a group to work on OpenOffice? I bet they'd mostly want the same features, and I bet they'd get those features with plenty of money left over. They could call it the "Business Software Alliance". Oh, hang on, that name is taken... reminds me of the Ministry of Plenty of George Orwells "1984". When will the companies that *use* and purchase software rise up and realise that collectively they are hundreds of times bigger than the software industry that they kneel in front of? Ciaran O'Riordan
Linux and Microsoft Office Posted Apr 28, 2003 10:06 UTC (Mon) by Peter (guest, #1127) [Link] They could call it the "Business Software Alliance". Oh, hang on, that name is taken... reminds me of the Ministry of Plenty of George Orwells "1984". Ah, but this discussion is about journalism. Surely you meant the Ministry of Truth (aka ZDNet, in the present case)? (:
Myths of Linux on the Desktop (ZDNet) Posted Apr 27, 2003 23:16 UTC (Sun) by cpeterso (subscriber, #305) [Link] Ironically, the Microsoft banner ad on that Gartner article (when I read it) declares one of Windows Server 2003's advantages is "UNIX-level reliability without a UNIX-level budget." That sounds more like an ad for Linux than Windows! :-)
|
|
||||||||||||