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

I keep forgetting to check this site, so I sometimes miss out on replies :)

I won't completely discount Linux as a solution, although as I mentioned I doubt that management will want to get rid of their "investment". I'm not certain about this company, but in my past experiences once the company has spent money on something (in our case it was a $6,000 license for MS SQL Server), they don't want to "throw it away" by moving to a platform where it wouldn't function anymore (i.e. If we convert our servers to Linux).

or_josh, you're right in that I'm making the error of thinking a move to Linux has to be done in one fell swoop. I'm new to being in the "Director" level position (although it's not a "real" director position as I don't have direct reports) and being able to recommend solutions/upgrades/etc. so I tend to jump the gun a little and think in broad, sweeping changes instead of starting small. In a pinch we could even keep the desktops running XP for now (moving Office -> OpenOffice) and use Linux on the servers, and move the clients to them at a later date :)

Anyways, it's something I will bring up if I get the chance to discuss future options with management, as an alternative to spending close to $20,000 (over three years, granted, but still) on getting the required MS licenses. Although, from what I've seen (and I admit I didn't look 100% into it), going with a Linux provider (let's say Novell/SuSE, since I'm not a fan of RedHat) still has a yearly or monthly charge, if you want support (which, for a business, I'd certainly want). As I recall, the price was only slightly less than the cost of Windows (although less licensing restrictions, I admit); it was still about a hundred bucks or so per computer, per month or year (I forget which). To management, that looks like a bigger cost because, technically speaking, once you pay the fees for using/licensing Windows, that's it. You don't have to keep paying Microsoft unless you upgrade the software, and even then it's usually a one-time charge for a couple of years. Linux seems like it's more of a cost (although it's not) because it's a recurring charge. Although, I suppose my experience has been flawed because I've normally worked for very tight-fisted companies who hated spending any money at all, and actually have had subscription charges refused because they didn't like the idea of having that much money (I forget the details and the price) be automatically recurring.

In any event, I'll keep it as an option. Thanks again. Happy holidays to all!

Your point about licensing costs is well made, but your other points are mere platitudes. Cases in point.

Quote:

---

(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.)

---

A good sysadmin won't let a virus on his network. I've never once encountered a virus on my personal PC, because I know how to lock down Windows and make it secure.

Quote:

---

Less cost in ongoing administration, less worry about license issues, less time to configure the Linux PC. In general, less risk.

---

I'm not going to argue the cost of the licenses, but if you have to hire outside consultants to administer the network because you don't have anyone on-staff that knows Linux, then the situation becomes moot.

I will argue that "less time to configure the Linux PC" is inaccurate at best. And what makes Linux any less or Windows any more of a risk?

Quote:

---

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.

---

Cost has nothing to do with being more productive. Usability of the software has everything to do with that.

Quote:

---

However, the challenges with Linux, when they are fixed, stay fixed...Constrast this with the continual problems I have on my XP-based work PC.

---

Then there's obviously something wrong with your computer. I don't have any recurring problems on my PC. The only issue I have with Vista is a very minor one related to Remote Desktop, and I think it's actually more to do with the printer drivers than with Vista.

Quote:

---

Yes, Windows works... but Linux works better and is cheaper to run.

---

Classic example of what I was talking about. How is it better? And cheaper - as I've been pointing out this whole time - depends greatly on your existing support staff.

I don't have any problems with businesses running Linux. Competition makes for better software. But with all the "pro-Linux" posts being made, I felt someone needed to make the counterpoint that Windows is just as viable a solution as Linux.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RockEnt

I don't have any problems with businesses running Linux. Competition makes for better software. But with all the "pro-Linux" posts being made, I felt someone needed to make the counterpoint that Windows is just as viable a solution as Linux.

---

I agree completely. Neither solution is "better" than the other, all things considered. In some cases, Linux/Open Source might be a better solution for the company's goals - in others, Windows/Microsoft solutions are better.

As a matter of fact, I am considering starting a consulting firm that specializes in Linux and open-source solutions for small businesses, as these are in my experience where the biggest issues arise with Windows due to licensing costs. Too many small businesses run illegal copies of MS software to avoid paying the costs, when they could look to Linux and open-source software and achieve 95% of the same functionality (roughly speaking, of course) through a lot less expense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ObiWayneKenobi

but in my past experiences once the company has spent money on something (in our case it was a $6,000 license for MS SQL Server), they don't want to "throw it away" by

---

...and I agree 100%, you should get some value out of something that you have purchased. One thing you might consider is application compatibility. You indicated that you're making aggregates from several data feeds; you might look into the possibility of doing this in an open way, so that you can deploy on SQL Server today and migrate to a different platform in a few years if that makes more sense.

Quote:

---

In a pinch we could even keep the desktops running XP for now (moving Office -> OpenOffice) and use Linux on the servers, and move the clients to them at a later date :)

---

That's usually the best way to do things - get folks used to the applications on Windows first, then take the jump to Linux.

Quote:

---

didn't look 100% into it), going with a Linux provider (let's say Novell/SuSE, since I'm not a fan of RedHat) still has a yearly or monthly charge, if you want support (which, for a business, I'd certainly want). As I recall, the price was only slightly less than the cost of Windows (although less licensing restrictions, I admit); it was still about a hundred bucks or so per computer, per month or year (I forget which). To management, that looks like a bigger cost because, technically speaking, once you pay the fees for using/licensing Windows, that's it.

---

This is absolutely correct. If you compare what you're getting with that yearly charge (ongoing support - if it breaks, call tech support for no additional charge and problem is solved) compared to what you get from a one-time OEM Windows installation (the right to use the software, and the right to have to pay Microsoft $250 per incident for support), you see that there is a bit more value in that recurring fee. But you are correct in that it looks more expensive.

There are a few ways to mitigate this, however. First, if you use a server and thin clients (or even thin client software on current PC's), that yearly fee becomes much less when ammortized on a per-user basis. For example, twenty users might cost $1,000 per year on a per-pc basis, but only $50 per year if you install the OS on one server and access it with NoMachine. (Actually, I'm surprised - I went to check the price for SuSE Desktop and it's only $50/year. Compare this to Vista Business at $400 and Office 2007 at $300. For the price of Vista alone you could buy 8 years of SusE support. Note that you can't use the OEM pricing for Vista in this comparison because with OEM pricing, you get no support from Microsoft.)

If you have identical hardware across your enterprise, you can also buy one support contract and use the free versions across most desktops. If you end up with a problem on one desktop, see if that problem exists on the desktop with the contract; then file the support ticket on that desktop. (Many folks do this with RedHat and CentOS...)

Happy Trails and Happy Holidays!
-J

Hello RockEnt,

Good discussion we're having here.

Quote:

---

A good sysadmin won't let a virus on his network. I've never once encountered a virus on my personal PC, because I know how to lock down Windows and make it secure.

---

I don't disagree with you here. But let me ask you this: has any employee of any of your clients ever had a virus infect the client's PC? A statement such as yours is like, "A good doctor won't let his patient have a heart attack...."

Quote:

---

I'm not going to argue the cost of the licenses, but if you have to hire outside consultants to administer the network because you don't have anyone on-staff that knows Linux, then the situation becomes moot.

---

I agree with this as well, but the same thing can be said about having to hire outside consultants when the client doesn't know how to administer the Windows network himself... or properly set up virus remidiation.

Quote:

---

I will argue that "less time to configure the Linux PC" is inaccurate at best.

---

This is neither here nor there (as configuration is normally a one-time cost), but I'll bite. Suppose that I was upgrading my OS or installing a white box with nothing on it. How long would it take to go from nothing to a PC on which I could be productive? Let's say that I have a Canon scanner, a Fuji digital camera, and two Epson Printers.

For Windows, I would have to:

1. Install the OS
2. Install the display drivers
3. Install the driver for printer 1
4. Install the driver for printer 2
5. Install the camera software
6. Install the scanner software
7. Install a graphics program
8. Install an office suite

For Linux, I would have to:

1. Install the OS
2. Start using the software that is already included, with the hardware that is automatically recognized.

To be fair, things get a lot more hairy with either Windows or Linux when you don't have compatible hardware. But I'd argue that a good consultant wouldn't advise a client to buy incompatible hardware...

Quote:

---

And what makes Linux any less or Windows any more of a risk?

---

Ok, there are a few kinds of risk.

1. Virus / Malware. Windows was designed in such a way that many applications require "administrator access" - basically, the master key to the entire computer. To be fair, some of this responsibility lies with the software companies, as secure software can be written for Windows. However, with Microsoft changing the API's so much, it is often difficult to write. Because of this, vulnerabilities with the software packages themselves extend to the operating system itself. With Linux, it is much easier to write applications with proper security. In this way, an application with a security problem generally does not pose a risk to the operating system itself. If you were to examine the risk of an errant application being able to replace system libraries on Windows, you would know how much of a risk this is. Since it is much harder for errant apps to replace system libraries on Linux, this is much less of a problem. This is the root cause of the virus problem with Windoes - it is impossible to secure the system when you have applications that require the key to the whole system.

2. Licensing. Do each and every one of your clients have absolutely happy employees, none of which would ever think about complaining about their situation? Are all of your clients able to produce proof of purchase (and payment) for each and every software program on their PC's? If the answer to either of these questions is no, and they are running any form of Microsoft product, then they are subject to auditing and fines by the Business Software Alliance. These "compliance operations" normally are the result of a disgruntled employee tattling, and have an average cost in the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. Even if all of your PC's are licensed, if the OS is not a line item on the invoice then you are subject to fines as you cannot prove you purchased it. Furthermore, because Microsoft licensing is so complex, it takes a great deal of time (money) to ensure that you are in compliance.

Those are examples of two kinds of risk you encounter with Windows.

Quote:

---

Cost has nothing to do with being more productive. Usability of the software has everything to do with that.

---

Agreed 100%. That's why I'd never recommend giving a financial guru (whose fingers are welded to Excel) OpenOffice. But the workers in the city of Largo, FL don't seem to have any usability problems. As I said above, there is nothing inherently different between clicking a menu or icon in Linux and clicking the same under windows. Both OS's have similar menu and icon structures.

Happy Trails and Happy Holidays,
-Josh