Do you use (or want to use) desktop Linux in your SMB?

[aaronweiss]

Hi,

We at SmallBusinessComputing.com are looking at the progress of desktop Linux in 2007. Linux has long had a well-established presence on the backend, and seems to be making inroads on the desktop.

As a small business, have you adopted any distribution of desktop Linux for day to day use? Have you evaluated any of the major desktop distributions (Ubuntu, SUSE, Xandros, Linspire) and decided for or against them at this time? Why?

Has Microsoft's release of Vista, and the perceived reluctance of some business' to make the switch, influenced your interest in desktop Linux at all?

These questions are very open-ended -- please feel free to contribute your thoughts on desktop Linux in your business.

thanks!
Aaron Weiss

[HyperTex]

As a small business, have you adopted any distribution of desktop Linux for day to day use? Have you evaluated any of the major desktop distributions (Ubuntu, SUSE, Xandros, Linspire) and decided for or against them at this time? Why?

Has Microsoft's release of Vista, and the perceived reluctance of some business' to make the switch, influenced your interest in desktop Linux at all?

I would love to run my firm on Linux. Unfortunately, the software we need isn't available on Linux. We need robust accounting/billing, document generation and management, and case management. I'm working with some projects to help make my dream a reality. But until then, we will still have to use Windows.

The decision doesn't have anything to do with Vista, I'm just a big Linux fan.

Chris

[or_josh]

Chris, are you a law firm? Check out these projects:

PostBooks is a robust accounting and billing application. http://www.xtuple.org
LibreLex aims to be a complete law office management app: http://www.librelex.org

There are document management apps available (Nuxeo, Alfresco), but the document assembly apps are weak, if they exist at all. LibreLex aims to close many of these gaps but hasn't been worked on in quite a while.

http://www.nuxeo.org
http://www.alfresco.org

Cheers,
-J

[ObiWayneKenobi]

For a little while I was evaluating moving our company to a Linux/Open-source solution, due to our sticky licensing situation. However, I decided against it due to several factors:

A) The learning curve. I don't care what the pro-Linux people say, it's a lot harder to do anything on Linux than it is on Windows. Even simple things like installing plugins or software is more difficult with Linux, even on distros that use GUI package managers (because usually the manager does not have the most up-to-date version of a program). I'm an IT person and it takes me nearly twice as long to install simple things on Linux, whereas it takes only a few seconds with Windows.

B) It would take too long to retrain everyone to use Linux and learn how to perform their daily tasks with it. OpenOffice still does not hold a candle to Microsoft Office.

And, most of all:

C) Most open-source programs are garbage compared to their commercial equivalents. We require the need to automate and integrate large amounts of varied data from different providers; with SQL Server this can be done via SQL Server Integration Services. I'm not aware of any open-source database that even comes close to having this. MySQL is suitable only for basic database things. Postgres I've heard comes close to SQL Server, but still is not good enough for our needs.

Speaking as an IT Professional, it's my opinion that Linux on the desktop still has a very long way to go, although it's improved recently. There are just too many things which companies, even small ones, need that Linux cannot provide as well as Microsoft.

[helios]

For a little while I was evaluating moving our company to a Linux/Open-source solution, due to our sticky licensing situation. However, I decided against it due to several factors:

The learning curve. I don't care what the pro-Linux people say, it's a lot harder to do anything on Linux than it is on Windows. Even simple things like installing plugins or software is more difficult with Linux,


I've read and re-read this and had to check the date on it every few words, expecting to see the post date as somewhere around 1999.

I run Linux Labs 3 times a week at different locations for middle school kids AND their parents. It takes about, let's see...45 minutes for the most computer illiterate of them to pull it all together. Plugins via firefox are click and install. I don't know what difficulties you are having with one single mouseclick but I would assume it's inhibiting to say the least.

12 year olds are picking this system up...I mean the entire system in less than an hour. I don't know who you have to train, but I might suggest looking over their resumes a bit. How much easier can software installation get than typing in "music player" in synaptic and then choosing the one you want? Oh...you want to go out on the internet and drag it to your desktop and install it from there? And you wonder why viruses are rampant in Windows.

Software installation is not only simple, the software you say is garbage is superior in most ways...agreed, it doesn't have sparkling rainbows and dancing ponies swirling around a cloud of pixie-dust stars when you click it, but I'll take my down-to-business FOSS stuff any day of the week. AND ever heard of Wine? How about Cross Over office? Since you don't mind paying for software, spend 40 bucks on Crossover and you can run darned near anything MS has developed right inside linux. Not good enough for you? Try virtualbox. It's OS emulation for idiots...Even I can do it.

You spent an hour or so messing with Linux and decided that it's just not enough like Windows to suit you. Your entire career is built around MSCE criteria and you don't want to retrain...I deal with you every day in this aspect. You are protecting turf...not offering objective, honest opinion.

Ernie Ball INC? Groovy Lube Inc - nation wide? How about the CIA, the Pentagon...The FBI? These are Linux DESKTOPS, not just servers.

I am speaking as a 22 year IT professional and I couldn't get Microsoft Windows and Office off of my business computers fast enough. Mysql runs a complex database shared on three networks across 9 cities in spectacular fashion.

But here is the meat of the subject. Mom and Dad, Sis and Bro...they are tired of spending 300 bucks just to buy the latest MS break-ware. How's Vista workin' out for ya? Better yet, how's that invasion of personal privacy workin out? They went into your machine recently and "updated" your computer even though you told them not to. They did it to millions. If you are happy using a product that requires you to purchase or use two or more other products in order for the first one to work, you can be my guest...

The rest of us are sick of it...and posting things that are known not to be accurate doesn't help anything at all. I will buy into your "report"...but it's only because you either haven't used Linux in the past two years or you are just posting untrue things in order to sway the conversation.

Either way...it was not only wrong, it bears strong resemblance to dishonesty.

h

[HyperTex]

Chris, are you a law firm? Check out these projects:

PostBooks is a robust accounting and billing application. http://www.xtuple.org
LibreLex aims to be a complete law office management app: http://www.librelex.org

http://www.nuxeo.org
http://www.alfresco.org

Thanks for those links. I have searched high and low and somehow I keep missing things. LibreLex looks dead, which is unfortunate.

Yes, I am a law firm. I have sparked a re-birth of the Debian-Lex project, so hopefully we can get Linux into the law office.

Chris

[ObiWayneKenobi]

Yes, well I set up a fresh copy of OpenSUSE 10.3 on an old computer to play around with Linux for an evaluation, and it was insanely difficult to use. I attempted to install some basic applications via the package manager (YaST, I believe?), and while the manager said it installed successfully, there was no icon set up, and no easy way to launch the thing. Perhaps Windows has "spoiled" me, but when I install something I expect it to be easy to find and launch. Actually I expect the install wizard (a concept foreign to every Linux distro I've used) to set up an icon and, to use Linux parlance, a symlink in the appropriate category (e.g. Menu > Applications > Program X).

I attempted to set up Apache/PHP/PostgresSQL and Subversion to experiment with migrating our ASP application to PHP. YaST informed me Apache was installed. Could not start the service, it returned with a "command not found". Set up PHP, and something was missing with its Apache configuration; could not do a basic phpinfo() environment test. I later set both of these up within 10 minutes on Windows, without having to do anything other than click thru some wizards.

When installing the same thing takes about 10 minutes on Windows (excluding download times), and provides me direct feedback to how the install process is going, Windows wins out. I would take wizards that walk you through what needs to be done to set something up than running a single so-called application that claims something is installed but gives no indication whatsoever of where it's installed or what steps need to be taken to get it up and running any day of the week.

Don't get me wrong, I like Linux. I want to use Linux (it would be great for our business model and image to run off of open-source applications). But when basic things that are a snap to do in Windows thanks to wizards require knowing exactly what shell commands to type, or else it's not going to be set up right, something is wrong. I'm not a stupid person. I know my basic shell commands. But something as trivial as installing the latest version of Firefox, or installing the freaking Java plugin for Firefox should be as simple as downloading an executable and double-clicking on it, not running around configuring things. Even with RPMs, installing software is not nearly as simple and intuitive as on Windows, and RPMs are pretty much the closest thing Linux has to an .exe file.

If I have trouble with it, I can only imagine what our non-technical users would experience.

[or_josh]

Hi ObiWayne,

You've shed some light on some important points. Let me see if I can understand what you're saying.

Yes, well I set up a fresh copy of OpenSUSE 10.3 on an old computer to play around with Linux for an evaluation, and it was insanely difficult to use....

Here, you've outlined what may be the best example of a "weak point" in Linux - which distribution to choose. I'm not sure what led you to choose OpenSUSE, but did you try any other distro (specifically, Ubuntu or CentOS) before you posted here? Did you have any plans to try any other distro? The reason I ask is this: OpenSUSE is intended as an experimenter's testbed, not as something you'd use in a commercial setting. You should expect things to be broken in such a distro. If you want the SuSE flavor, you should ask Novell for an evaluation copy of the real SuSE, which won't have these issues. If you want an OS that is free and ready to run in a commercial setting, you should take a look at CentOS (a clone of RedHat) or Ubuntu. Having used both of those extensively, I can say with confidence that you shouldn't have the issues you discussed here.

Why not evaluate new IT products like you'd evaluate trucks, if you were a small delivery company for example? Reading your posts in this thread, here is what I see. I may be wrong, of course, so feel free to correct me: "I'm a gas engine mechanic who works on trucks for the local bakery. We normally use gasoline trucks, but I wanted to save my management some money so I test drove a diesel. I looked around and got a special tuner truck from GMC; it isn't intended to be used in a commercial setting because it has all kinds of new and untested gadgets. I tried to add power steering, but couldn't find any evidence of it having power steering. There were some other things wrong with this truck as well. This must mean that every diesel truck made by GM, Ford, or Dodge can't have power steering added to it and has the problems I experienced..."

Can I share how I came to this conclusion?

I attempted to install some basic applications via the package manager (YaST, I believe?), and while the manager said it installed successfully, there was no icon set up

I'm not sure how Yast works, but using the Synaptics Package Manager under Ubuntu (or apt-get under CentOS)), you have access to tens of thousands of packages via a few keystrokes or mouse clicks. These packages (including Java and Flash for browsers) Just Install without hassle, and they add menu shortcuts. This has been my experience, in any case.

I attempted to set up Apache/PHP/PostgresSQL and Subversion to experiment with migrating our ASP application to PHP. YaST informed me Apache was installed...(and stuff didn't work -orj)

What did the OpenSUSE folks say in the forums when you asked them about this?

You did ask for help, didn't you?

If you were a technician who worked on gas engines (Windows), and you were evaluating a diesel engine truck (Linux), and the diesel engine had something wrong you didn't know about... wouldn't you consult with a friend who worked on diesel engines?

In any case - on CentOS, I can issue a few commands like this:

apt-get install httpd
/sbin/service httpd start

...and I have a working Apache installation. It isn't that hard, on a system that works. (And, to be fair, apparently your system didn't work properly...)

If I have trouble with it, I can only imagine what our non-technical users would experience.

May I ask what your non-technical users are doing, that would require them to install and configure applications? For a basic user who uses an office-type application, e-mail, web applications, and an accounting application, Linux is just as easy to use as Windows. Some would say it's even easier. There's nothing inherently different about pointing and clicking icons and menus in Linux than in Windows.

It would take too long to retrain everyone to use Linux and learn how to perform their daily tasks with it. OpenOffice still does not hold a candle to Microsoft Office.

On what evidence do you base this assertion? Migrating to Office 2007 would require more training than migrating to OpenOffice. As far as basic OS usage, it's close enough to Windows that training isn't an issue - I'll dig up some links I have with this regard and post later. (The case studies have shown that users moving to Linux desktops require far less training than was originally anticipated...)

As to OpenOffice "not holding a candle to Microsoft Office" - can you give some specifics? If you have a financial guru, whose fingers are physically trained on Excel keystrokes, I could see there being problems - and you wouldn't move this user to OO. If you have thousands of documents with Office macros, then converting them may take time and cost more than the benefits you'd reap. But for 99% of the users, OpenOffice just works. Can you elaborate on what doesn't work in your situation, so that the forum readers can further understand where you're coming from?

"Most open source programs are garbage compared to their commercial equivalents..." Again, can you provide examples of: a) What need you're trying to fill, b) What OSS application you used that is "garbage", and c) What commercial equivalent is better.

I agree with you 100% that it's not a good idea to run mission-critical apps on MySQL. But, aside from the lack of integration capabilities, why is SQL-Server "better" than PostgreSQL? Have you evaluated EnterpriseDB? Have you looked at other integration alternatives like JitterBit?

Obi, I understand completely how a bad software experience can color your glasses brown. But it seems you're saying that because a particular environment (that is not intended to fill your need, and that you are not used to) doesn't match your needs exactly and doesn't behave as you expect it to, most or all Linux or Open Source software is bad or "worse than" all commercial software.

I don't think that's what you're saying. Can you please clarify, so that the readers of this forum understand exactly what issues you're having and how to work with the issues in their own endeavors?

Can you try the following exercises (under "What do you want to do" on the link below) on CentOS 5.1, and see if you have the same issues?

http://www.redhat.com/promo/easy/

Linux actually is very easy, even for newbies, if you use the right software; that's what I'm attempting to convey. But the trick is to get the right distro and have an open mind about how things work, rather than trying to apply a Windows-based mindset to it.

Cheers,
-J

[ObiWayneKenobi]

I have used Ubuntu on my laptop at home. I've played with Red Hat 8 and 9, and the previous version of Fedora Core (FC7, I believe). I've also used... Linspire (when it was "Lindows") and Mandrake (Not sure of the version, it was a while ago).

Even with Ubuntu, it was a pain to install new versions. Sure, the Synaptic package manager is good if you don't care about being a version or three behind, but I prefer to keep software up to date. On Ubuntu I was able to find a Python script that would automatically update Firefox and Thunderbird, but it was a hassle to find (I also had an issue with Ubuntu not recognizing my Dell's wireless card, but that's not specific to Ubuntu so I don't hold it against it). It was certainly more difficult than clicking through wizards on Windows, and even something simple like installing a Java plugin for Firefox took some googling to figure out how the hell to do it and get Firefox to recognize it (I planned on switching my programming skills from .NET to Java, so I wanted to get the most recent version of Java, and wanted to use the real JDK instead of using the Java-compatible crap most distros come with), when it took all of 5 seconds on Windows.

Okay, I concede that our users don't really use much more than Office, and OpenOffice would almost certainly suffice for their needs. Hell, 95% of what they do is done via a web application, anyways. I forget the problem with the Apache setup, but I googled it and found out what it is; the issue I was making is that on Windows, I wouldn't have had to google anything. The install wizard would have taken care of all the setup for me, and the only thing I would have had to configure manually would be if there were special requirements.

In regards to the database, apart from the integration services there isn't any reason I wouldn't use Postgres. Unfortunately, the integration services is a huge part of my improvement plan (the fact management already spent $$$ on a SQL Server license is another issue).

I will also concede that I have a "windows" mindset. Every time I've tried to switch to Linux (for personal use) I've gotten frustrated with the fact there are no wizards, and I usually can't just double-click an installer, click "next" a couple of times, maybe check/uncheck some checkboxes, and install something.

I'll tell you what: I'll play around with some other flavors of Linux, since like I said I'd absolutely love to move this company to using it (I really do think that Linux and open-source is the future, just that it's not as easy and intuitive yet). I doubt I could sell senior management on it (I'm just the IT Director), due to their existing investment in Microsoft software, but it'd be worth a fair try.

Oh, for the record I used OpenSUSE because I wanted to experiment with Linux, and didn't feel like spending money (since IMO the main selling point of Linux to a business, especially a small one, is that it's pretty much free unless you need dedicated support from a vendor like Novell or RedHat)

[or_josh]

Wow, Obi, you sure are experienced when it comes to Linux!

Even with Ubuntu, it was a pain to install new versions. Sure, the Synaptic package manager is good if you don't care about being a version or three behind, but I prefer to keep software up to date.

Here's an interesting note on versions of software included in Synaptic:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=356575

There are some categories of updates, like security updates, that are essential to apply whenever they come out. I know that FireFox and OpenOffice have reminders that advise the user when a new version is out, but I do not know if they update portions work on Ubuntu - I'll have to check tonight. I know that the FireFox updater does work on a custom FireFox I have installed in my home dir, so I'm assuming it'd work the same for an OS-installed version.

On the other hand, if you're running a business you don't always want the latest version of everything. If there is a particular bug that's difficult to work around, you might want to upgrade to fix that; but in general, the tried, true, and tested versions of apps are better business choices than the latest and greatest. (This also works for Windows: you wouldn't use the latest version of SQL-Server that you got from MSDN to store your accounting data, would you?)

I admit, this is aggravating if you're using a really stable distro like CentOS, because you have to compile things yourself (and often resolve dependency conflicts) to get features added within the last 6 months. It can be done (I like to throw things under /opt) but it's not for the faint of heart. Thankfully, most software is very useful to businesses in its stable form. Ubuntu is much better at including newer software, but I don't think it's as tested as CentOS is.

I forget the problem with the Apache setup, but I googled it and found out what it is; the issue I was making is that on Windows, I wouldn't have had to google anything. The install wizard would have taken care of all the setup for me, and the only thing I would have had to configure manually would be if there were special requirements.

Wow. I don't doubt at all that you had particular issues with Apache, and that should not be the case. In my experience, Apache installs have usually been painless, but your mileage has varied...

...but it'd be worth a fair try.

It sounds like you're giving it a fair try; good luck to you!

Cheers,
-J

[ObiWayneKenobi]

The biggest point of contention in my wanting to move the company to Linux is that our investment is in Microsoft; hell they just spent $6,000 on a SQL Server license a few months ago. For most of the employees, things could be done on Linux alone (As I said, 95% of tasks are done via a web application). There are a few things which would be tougher.. in particular our primary supplier sends their data in MS Access formats, but I believe there are ways to get Linux to read it (OpenOffice Base, perhaps? Not 100% sure as I haven't fully investigated this).

The issue I'm noticing is that, Linux sounds fine and dandy because it's, effectively, free. The minute it starts to cost money, it's that much harder to justify and sell the decision makers, because for a little more you can get Windows-based things. For example, I looked at that EnterpriseDB package, and its license is the same as SQL Server (roughly $6,000). Now, I haven't done a total comparison (since it seems more like Oracle, and Oracle costs a fortune anyway), but in this particular case it seems like SQL Server wins out most of the time.

In short, to seriously consider a move to Linux I'd have to: A) Justify the reasoning to move away from the "standard" platform (i.e Windows), B) Show how the savings are significant compared to Windows, and C) Find Linux/OSS equivalents to do everything we need to do (now and for the future). It just seems like too daunting a task, without any compelling business reasons.

[helios]

Obi,

My initial response may have been harsh in light of the fact that you've continued the dialog with an open mind and an honesty I now recognize. You have my sincere apology for the aggressive tone taken in that post.

Not to hyper-extend my arm by patting myself on the back, I am probably one of the top three most active Linux advocates in the nation...not that you'd have guessed it by my post. ;-). I am responsible for the migration of several companies to Linux and FOSS; if not completely, then by a percentage of 60 percent or more. I even outlined one of the more challenging ones here

I'm not going to be the Advocate to tell you that Linux is a cure-all for every computer or server based problem...I cannot do that with any degree of honesty. People make extremely important decisions on the advice and recommendations of my organization and I am not going to maintain any level of credibility by "toeing the party line".

There are weaknesses inherent in all systems. I have found that the majority of those in Linux can be "fixed" or strengthened easily most times. Windows being proprietary does not allow us to do these things. There are thousands oif people who are writing code to fix the problems individuals such as yourself face...and most of them do it just because they can. It's hard not to feel a sense of gratitiude toward those who build us systems in order for US to prosper.

Should you need any specific help, I will be more than glad to offer my own assistance along with individuals from my organization. I want to see you succeed and if Linux cannot be or is not the answer to that growth, I will be for first one to tell you...but it's important to remember some things right off. Linux is not and will never be Windows. Things are done differently here for a reason. Ever wonder why you don't have to use an antivirus program for a stand-alone linux system?

Viva la difference'

Ken Starks - aka helios
lobby4linux/fixedbylinux.com

[or_josh]

In short, to seriously consider a move to Linux I'd have to: A) Justify the reasoning to move away from the "standard" platform (i.e Windows), B) Show how the savings are significant compared to Windows, and C) Find Linux/OSS equivalents to do everything we need to do (now and for the future). It just seems like too daunting a task, without any compelling business reasons.

Obi,

It seems as if you're contemplating an all-or-nothing, black-and-white approach. If you go with Linux, you can - and should - go piecemeal, not whole-hog at once. (The exception is if you're being audited by the BSA and are in the hole for hundreds of K for software licenses. It doesn't take a lot to be in this position: if you combine one disgruntled employee - and who doesn't have one of those - with the fact that you may not have line-itemized invoices (and cancelled checks showing payment) for every single piece of commercial software you have installed on every machine, you get a perfect storm in which the BSA demands payment for software that you may have already paid for.)

Don't try to migrate Access apps - it won't work. If you have business-critical pieces of software, you might be able to isolate them on one or two Windows based servers until they can be replaced.

Also, don't sell Linux as a "free" solution. Linux is like plumbing: you can either get the pipes and do the work yourself (monetarily free but costing in time), or hire a plumber (buy RedHat or Suse - costs money but takes less time). You need to do a true, deep, Total Cost of Ownership analysis to see where Linux shines. Linux will still cost money, but it may be less.

You know all those hours you use to maintain your Windows servers? (Maintain means testing patches and upgrades before they're put into production, putting patches and upgrades into production, keeping tabs on anti-virus software and its updates, making sure you're licensed properly, putting out fires, and more.) Those hours are greatly reduced, leading to less weekend work and more time during business hours to work on new projects instead of putting out fires. There are updates to manage, but they are far easier and generally have less of a chance of doing damage. (At an industry conference, one VP of a large bank noted that his System Admin Team can take care of more than 1,000 linux servers per admin. Windows servers are limited to less than 200 per admin. This works backwards, in that you'll spend less time maintaining your Linux server than your Windows server.) Keep in mind that any software app can crash, even those on Linux servers - but generally, well-written applications under Linux are far more reliable than their Windows counterparts.

So you have less time involved in Linux admin.

Next, let's try something you can't do with Windows: ammortize your IT equipment over 10 or 15 years. Generally, PC's need to be replaced every 3-5 years because the latest version of Windows requires so much more processing power (regardless of the fact it doesn't deliver any additional business capability) than the current one. The PC you bought 2-3 years ago to run XP Professional isn't going to run Vista.

You can comfortably use 10 year old equipment with Linux. It may not be super-fast, but it will get the job done. If you have many workers who do simple things - like a call center, for example - use thin terminals instead of full PC's. $300 per user is much more tolerable than $500 or more. The City of Largo in Florida has been doing this for many years with great success:

http://davelargo.blogspot.com

Keep in mind that any time or money saved by using Linux is multiplied by the fact that you can use this time and money to be proactive and create new money saving or money generating projects instead of being reactive and putting out fires...

Cheers,
J

[RockEnt]

And I would argue that just because some people like wasting their time figuring out how to fix a problem in Linux, doesn't mean everyone does. In the end, it's a personal choice. If you get a SysAdmin that enjoys fixing problems in Linux, then you can get away with migrating to it and save in costs by getting the software free, and just paying him to do it. As soon as you have to hire an outside consultant or pay a company for Linux, you may as well go Windows for software compatibility alone, if nothing else.

I've been using computers for 15 years now. My first computer (short of playing on my sister's Tandy), was a Commodore Amiga 2000. I've used DOS 6.22, Windows 3.11/95/98/ME/NT4/2000/XP (32-bit & 64-bit), & Vista (32-bit and 64-bit). I have plenty of experience in the matter, and I can guarantee that my computer is just as stable and secure as any Linux box.

Yes, it takes time to secure a Windows PC, just as it takes time to configure a Linux PC, but the fact is that given that either way is going to take time, what's the inherent reason for them to switch to Linux? Age of the computers isn't an issue. PC's are designed to be disposable anymore. In fact, many times they will fail before the 3-5 year time span. I work on computers for a living, and I see them fail time and time again. 9 times out of 10, it's just as cost effective for the customer to buy a new machine as get the old one fixed. That's why businesses replace them every few years.

Not only that, but you can use 10-year old computers with Windows. It won't be super-fast either, but it will work. I'm not saying there's not problems with using Windows - just as I'd hope you wouldn't say there's not problems with using Linux - but I do get tired of the day-in/day-out bashing of Microsoft and Windows. There's a reason they're so mainstream, and it's not just because of marketing. The product works.

You mention thin terminals? Windows can do that, too. You claim a PC bought 3 years ago can't run Vista? Hogwash. I can make a computer from 2000 run Vista, providing it has at least 512MB of RAM. As you said above, "it may not be super-fast, but it will get the job done".

My point - ultimately - is that these platitudes presented by the Linux community just aren't accurate, and Windows is just as viable a solution for long-term TCO as Linux.

Just for the record, I do not work for MS and am not affiliated with them in any way. This is just my personal feelings as one who's worked in the IT industry for about a decade.

[or_josh]

Hi RockEnt,

I hope you and yours are having an excellent holiday season! Now, on to your message...

And I would argue that just because some people like wasting their time figuring out how to fix a problem in Linux, doesn't mean everyone does.

Can you be more specific when you say 'wasting time'? So that the readers of this forum can better understand how Linux fits in with your particular circumstance, let's consider this a little further. What problems are the folks 'wasting their time' figuring out how to fix? And, how is this different than wasting time due to a virus scanner interrupting my day, or wasting a weekend due to a virus infection in Windows? (At least with Linux, once a problem is solved it's generally solved for good. Viruses tend to come back repeatedly, wasting even more time.)

In the end, it's a personal choice. If you get a SysAdmin that enjoys fixing problems in Linux, then you can get away with migrating to it and save in costs by getting the software free, and just paying him to do it. As soon as you have to hire an outside consultant or pay a company for Linux, you may as well go Windows for software compatibility alone, if nothing else.

Ok, there are a couple of different ideas in this paragraph: hiring the right sysadmin and software compatibility. You are 100% correct in that you have to hire the right SysAdmin. Let me turn the question on its head and ask you, RockEnt: could you be more valuable to your customers if you knew how to administer Linux, since the environment itself produces profound cost savings as compared to Windows? You could have more clients and do a lot more proactive, productive work if you didn't have the cost of Windows administration amongst all your clients.

Let's talk about compatibility. What specific business problems have you tried to solve and failed to do because of a lack of compatibility? When you performed your due diligence, did you examine applications that were compatible with both Linux and Windows?

Yes, it takes time to secure a Windows PC, just as it takes time to configure a Linux PC, but the fact is that given that either way is going to take time, what's the inherent reason for them to switch to Linux?

Less cost in ongoing administration, less worry about license issues, less time to configure the Linux PC. In general, less risk. However, as most analysts know, each case needs to be considered on its own merits to determine the cost savings of a Linux migration (compared to sticking with Windows). In some cases, a Linux migration is a bad idea.

Age of the computers isn't an issue. PC's are designed to be disposable anymore. In fact, many times they will fail before the 3-5 year time span. I work on computers for a living, and I see them fail time and time again. 9 times out of 10, it's just as cost effective for the customer to buy a new machine as get the old one fixed. That's why businesses replace them every few years.

Can you define "many times"?

When you indicate that replacement is just as cost effective as a repair, are you also considering the time involved in rebuilding the PC, re-installing the software, and planning for contingencies when software doesn't work?

Just because some MBA decides that the PC should be designed to be disposable does not mean that this is a good idea. It's only a good idea for the PC manufacturers, but bad for everyone else and bad for the planet.

I'm not saying there's not problems with using Windows - just as I'd hope you wouldn't say there's not problems with using Linux

There are challenges to work around with both environments. However, the challenges with Linux, when they are fixed, stay fixed. The challenges with Windows are recurring. (For example: I had a challenge in compiling a driver for a Wacom tablet for my fiancee's Ubuntu Linux installation; but once it was done, it was done, and it worked. Constrast this with the continual problems I have on my XP-based work PC. I fix these problems as well, but they keep coming back.)

There's a reason they're so mainstream, and it's not just because of marketing. The product works.

Yes, Windows works... but Linux works better and is cheaper to run. I admit that the industry is just now approaching the time when Linux works well for folks who are average users - I wouldn't recommend the Linuxes of 3 or 4 years ago for small businesses, but the Linuxes available today are more than suitable. It's your loss, and the loss of your clients, if you don't realize this.

You mention thin terminals? Windows can do that, too.

But remember, if you hang thin terminals off of Windows Server, you are required to pay client licensing costs (approximately equivalent to XP license costs) for each client you connect. That adds up quickly. As organizations such as the city of Largo have found, there are zero additional license costs when you hang thin terminals off of a Linux server.

For 200 users, you might pay $1,300 for RedHat Enterprise Linux, and $5,000 for NX Server, and be done with it at $6,300. For Windows, that number would be at least $30,000. (This isn't counting hardware.)

I can make a computer from 2000 run Vista, providing it has at least 512MB of RAM. As you said above, "it may not be super-fast, but it will get the job done".

This is quite an accomplishment! Can you post screenshots to demonstrate how it works?

My point - ultimately - is that these platitudes presented by the Linux community just aren't accurate, and Windows is just as viable a solution for long-term TCO as Linux.

RockEnt, Wikipedia defines a platitude as "a trite, meaningless, or prosaic statement that is presented as if it were significant and original." How are facts describing how many companies have saved millions of dollars using Linux platitudes?

Cheers,
-J