September 3rd, 2004 03:00 PM
I presume you meant to say it will never take over from Microsoft offerings as the dominant OS, and I ask, why not?
Originally posted by: Travish
Imho Linux will never take over MS as OS.
What users are interested in is irrelevant in a corporate setting. It's not their equipment, it is the company's. It is a company decision, and users live with it regardless. Users may well want to do their jobs quicker and more efficiently, but this could be accomplished using either Operating System. The amount of work would vary with the needs as has been previously stated numerous times, but it is still a decision that should not be related to "user interest". If a user can accomplish their tasks as fast or faster on a Linux desktop compared to a Windows desktop, what does it matter?
Linux is cheaper, and support for Linux is relatively cheap as well. The problem is the bulk of the users who are unwilling for change. I work in a company with 800 employees, and I dare not think about changing form Windows to Linux. The people in my company are not interested in IT, Linux, Windows or whatever. They are only interested in doing their job quicker using a computer.
Well, apart from my point above about it not being their decision, I wonder if you have in fact had much experience with user reaction. Have you actually loaded up a Linux box and showed it to a user? In my experiences, it takes a very minimal effort to "learn linux" as an end user becuase a lot of the software developers of open sourced projects like Evolution are mindful of the fact that the big players offer certain features, and have a certain look and feel to their software, and do their best to emulate it. With KDE, you can make it so the user doesn't even know they aren't using Windows untli such time as they try to do something like run a game they downloaded (which they shouldn't be doing on work time anyway, right?).
They have been using Windows over the past years (at home or at work) so they are very reluctant to change, because it would require an effort for them. Windows would not require that (initial) effort, because they are already used to it. It's an effort they are not willing to take (since they are not interested in IT).
The fact is Linux support is growing in many economically deprived countries. There will be employees in under ten years coming from Asia and South America who as students were exposed primarily to Linux, which will bring more use and familiarity with it, and in turn effect change. Whether we see a lot of that in North America remains to be seen, but it will have an impact in a global sense.
What I'm trying to say here is that Windows will always be the major player because most people are not interested in IT and most people have been using Windows for years. So why change? That's the genius about Microsoft, they are excellent marketeers and sales people, no matter if there product is good or bad.
Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting you should switch, but I am saying that it isn't as "incapable" of an operating system from a user perspective as you might think.
There are people to whom this matters as they will have a direct benefit/detriment from implementing either solution. Requirements do vary by needs, that's a given, but looking at TCO is a good measuring stick of where you will start baseline-wise.
Originally posted by: pooh sun tzu
1. Windows may be more expensive than Linux. Linux may be more expensive than Windows. You know what? Who gives a fsck which is more expensive and which is cheaper. NO one that has anything better to do with their lives, that's who
I don't see any bitching, and I do see some healthy arguing, so what's wrong with that? It's not being personal, each person is arguing their own point of view (as you are here), I see no reason this needs to stop. If it continues, you might even learn something, which is the whole point of conversing and arguing points in the first place.
2. Stop bitching and arguing over fake statistics. Most people here are complaining and theorizing about situations they have never experienced nor had interaction with. Stop it.
Those aren't the only issues in converting/implementing, those are in fact the quantifiable ones, where fact comes into play and the numbers will compare favourably for Linux (at least, in my experience). There are certain circumstances that this does not apply to, where costs of one system will far outweigh the other, but for the bulk of companies (say, those with more than one server) Linux usually ends up being cheaper in the Licensing/Training/Hiring column.
Some companies will find Windows more expensive because of licensing, product porting and employee training, while other companies may find Linux more expensive for the exact same (don't bullshit me about licensing either, read enterprise level OS licensing options). Each company will assess what is best/cheaper for them, and arguing for a god damn answer it all universal to the question is not going to happen.
These are other factors in TCO, which is why it is a reliable number. Reimplementing software, ensuring comfort of users in performing their tasks, etc., all belong to the varies-per-company category of TCO.
3. If you are considering an OS change on an entire company level, you had damn well better look beyond costs alone. Usablity, speed, comfort, productability, customization, portability, and so forth need to be primary concerns.
True, but as in all things generalities apply to a lot of people (otherwise they wouldn't be generalities), so it is perfectly useful and reasonable to compare two things that commonly affect the companies in question. This isn't really all that different from examining the benefits of switching your network from IPv4 to IPv6. I don't get why it's a big deal to you that people are arguing about TCO of various operating systems. Perhaps you could explain it, if you care to do so?
4. Which brings us back to here. What was the point of this conversation? This entire thread?! It makes no difference which is more expensive because each cost situation will vary per user/company/idealology and buisness practices.
Sure there is, soup kitchens and food banks operate under this premise.
Originally posted by: Nihil
1. There is no such thing as a free meal.
This may apply in certain industries, but in software it is generally irrelevant because of how frequent changes and updates occur. Windows 2000 has had numerous updates that both change the quality, generally improving it, and by and large come at no cost. The quality at time of purchase doesn't reflect the quality of the software now.
2. The quality is remembered long after the price is forgotten.
Beancounters only rule our lives when beans are the issue.
3. "Securityology" is a new way of spelling "Mythology"
4. The "bean counters" rule our lives (unfortunately).
The Nelson-Shepherd cutoff: The point at which you realise someone is an idiot while trying to help them.
\"Well as far as the spelling, I speak fluently both your native languages. Do you even can try spell mine ?\" -- Failed Insult
Is your whole family retarded, or did they just catch it from you?