Living (and dying) with Linux in the workplace (ComputerWorld)
Living (and dying) with Linux in the workplace (ComputerWorld)
Posted Mar 21, 2007 18:53 UTC (Wed) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523)In reply to: Living (and dying) with Linux in the workplace (ComputerWorld) by madscientist
Parent article: Living (and dying) with Linux in the workplace (ComputerWorld)
I found this review to have about the same flaws as the others, despite the
commendable effort of the reviewer to be open-minded:
1) Review performed on old hardware: even though it did not lead Linux to
be useless in this instance, it still provide a strong incentive to the reviewer to get back to their standard desktop, which make the conclusion
predictable from the start: "Linux is nice, but I will continue using Windows" and is therefore a waste of the time spent configuring the system.
2) No forward planning: no software requirement were performed before the
switch to Linux and no enquiry about what was alternative were available
until the reviewer get under urgent need.
3) Comparing apple and orange: e.g. comparing Linux hardware support on
hardware A to Windows hardware support on hardware B is flawed from the start.
4) Gratuitous conclusion: 'It does not work for power user but it work
standard user.' Only a (so-called) 'standard user' could make such statement from fact instead of guess.
5) Very small experimental data: a single user experimenting a single distribution in a single environment is about the minimal amount
of experimental data.
Posted Mar 22, 2007 3:06 UTC (Thu)
by CyberDog (guest, #29668)
[Link] (1 responses)
2) This was done in a business environment where they had fairly specific software requirements. Do you expect the entire company to change their infrastructure to support Linux clients for the purpose of this test? I don't see many cases where the author missed any obvious alternative applications, either.
3) What? I really don't know what this is supposed to mean, but it seems like in terms of "hardware support" the user was applying nearly the same hardware in both cases (printers, ipods, etc).
4) No idea what you mean here. I think you're trying to say that they're generalizing in their conclusions, in which case, yes, they're generalizing a little. Clearly they should be banned from every printing an other stories, ever.
5) These stories crop up all the time, and they're nearly always very similar. Either you're going to suggest Microsoft is sponsoring all these stories in a giant conspiracy, or there's a pattern here.
Posted Mar 22, 2007 12:46 UTC (Thu)
by ballombe (subscriber, #9523)
[Link]
2) They should have gathered a list of application they were running on Windows, and look for availability or alternative for Linux before making the switch, instead of diving into Linux and then fighting to get anything done.
3) The review provide no evidences that the Palm T/X would actually sync under Windows on the same box. It works on a different box, but that's it.
4) The article state that "After several weeks, I can report that desktop Linux does appear ready for no-frills home users.". But the reviewer later claims to be a power user instead of a 'no-frills home users', so this is not from personal experience.
5) There is, yes, a, pattern of sloppy methodology in review. I ascribe it to poor training rather than to MS but your guess is as good as mine.
Posted Mar 25, 2007 1:56 UTC (Sun)
by h2 (guest, #27965)
[Link]
They were clear enough to admit this, but they didn't draw the proper conclusion, which is that you can't compare two apps if you are trained on one and not on the other. The correct conclusion would have been: I can't actually say much about this because I haven't had a corresponding level of training on the Free application, so until I matched that training level the comparison is meaningless.
But overall, it was an ok article, better than usual. Although I'd like to see one of these authors try to install Windows from scratch, no driver cds, just install cd versus install cd. Then Linux type systems would rank WAY ahead, no comparison.
1) I don't see anywhere in the article's conclusion that the user holds the hardware responsible for wanting to go back. They fully recognized the shortcomings of the hardware, and I don't think they held it against Linux at all.Living (and dying) with Linux in the workplace (ComputerWorld)
1) The last words are invariably "I will go back to my Windows box". That is the message. But in fact this was planned from the start.Living (and dying) with Linux in the workplace (ComputerWorld)
But the review state that "In addition, if you've got a handheld, portable media player or other mobile device, chances are it's not as plug-and-play on Linux as it is with Windows" without providing proof.
It was reasonably fair, with one GLARING exception: the author compared apps that they had training on, had books on, in windows, with an app they had no training on, and had no material about. That is just patently absurd, and totally unfair. Living (and dying) with Linux in the workplace (ComputerWorld)