Living (and dying) with Linux in the workplace (ComputerWorld)

Posted Mar 22, 2007 3:06 UTC (Thu) by CyberDog (guest, #29668)
In reply to: Living (and dying) with Linux in the workplace (ComputerWorld) by ballombe
Parent article: Living (and dying) with Linux in the workplace (ComputerWorld)

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.

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.

Living (and dying) with Linux in the workplace (ComputerWorld)

Posted Mar 22, 2007 12:46 UTC (Thu) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523) [Link]

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.

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.
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.

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.