Linux and Why Nobody Seems To Care.........

Discussion in 'Windows Vista General Discussion' started by Moshe. Goldfarb, May 23, 2008.

  1. http://www.applematters.com/article/about-linux-and-why-nobody-seems-to-care1/

    " The general consensus seems to be that Mac users are the sort who want
    the best in quality, no expenses spared; Windows users are those who're
    looking for the best bang for their buck (generally in the short term); and
    Linux users are the ones who want everything for free, particularly
    software."

    " Some Linux users are easily dazzled by superfluous and completely useless
    effects (wobbly windows, blatant overuse of transparency, etc.) and assume
    that it must be better than Mac OS X because it's so cosmetically made-up
    and then there are others who only need the Terminal and can keep typing on
    it whole day long."

    " The problem with the Linux community is that, like any community, it has
    members with widely varying interests and preferences and the open source
    developers are developing hundreds of distributions to try and cater to
    every single whim and fancy of these members. The result is a cornucopia of
    free software, software that has been developed at the expense of the hard
    work and time of some of the most skilled developers on the planet, and yet
    does not have a single product that is complete in and of itself and is
    generating any profit at all."

    " There is no way whatsoever that thousands of developers sitting in front
    of their computers in different corners of the world and spending only
    their non-working hours trying to develop something that they know isn't
    going to make them any money, are ever going to come up with anything good
    enough to seriously challenge software from companies like Microsoft and
    Apple. There is just no chance at all."

    " Linux has been around for more than a decade now and it's nowhere near
    challenging either Mac OS X or Windows. The vast majority of hardware and
    software makers around the world are still shipping products that are
    incompatible with Linux."

    " There's no guarantee that the camera you bought today and is compatible
    with your Ubuntu installation will work with Fedora Core too should you
    change your mind in a few days, as is a common practice among the Linux
    enthusiasts."

    " All of this and more are reasons enough to ignore Linux. Linux users are
    never quite sure which one is the best distribution around. They have
    debates in their own community with twenty different users vouching for
    twenty different variations. They constantly have to keep figuring out
    workarounds to make all their software and hardware work together. They
    can't just go out and buy a new accessory, assured in the knowledge that it
    will work. They are afraid to upgrade, lest things go wrong."

    And so forth......

    Obviously this guy has had experience with LinSUX because his article is
    right on the money....
     
    Moshe. Goldfarb, May 23, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Moshe. Goldfarb

    Alias Guest

    Why are you so afraid of Linux, Moshe?

    Alias
     
    Alias, May 23, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Hi, alias, you are one of the ones who has been afraid to upgrade in the
    past, how did it go this time?
    Have the wobbly windows made your life better?
     
    [email protected], May 23, 2008
    #3
  4. Moshe. Goldfarb

    Alias Guest

    False. Where did you get that idea?
    Why would you think that or are you being facetious again?

    Alias
     
    Alias, May 23, 2008
    #4
  5. Moshe. Goldfarb

    Mike P Guest

    I don't think he is. All the points made in this article are valid.

    Linux won't make it into the mainstream as a business desktop OS. I'm IT
    support manager for one of the biggest pharma companies in the world. There
    isn't a hope in hell of us ever going to Linux, mainly because of the
    reasons stated above but also we have 40,000 users worldwide. Where would
    the money come to retrain them all? Who is going to pay for my staff's time
    to rebuild all those machines with Linux on them?
    Who's going to pay to retrain all my support staff to use a totally new OS?
    What are our customers going to say when the documents we create and send
    them don't open or format correctly on their Windows boxes?

    It'd be like going back to the late 80s when I started in IT. We had 4
    different word processing apps at my first company, none of which could talk
    to the other without an add-on and lots of pissing about.

    I'm not saying Linux is a bad OS, it has it's uses, and I think if it had
    the coverage Windows got when Win3 first came out, it would probably be
    doing a lot better on the desktop, but it didn't, and it won't. Saying that,
    I have 3 linux PCs at home, and I set my gran up with one running Ubuntu
    recently, so I'm not *against* Linux per se.

    Face it. I can go out and buy a named brand PC, with an OS for less than
    £300 for our office. I can plug it in, and it just works when the user logs
    in. It sees all the servers, the drives map. It does it perfectly. OK, it's
    Windoze, but nothing is perfect. ..

    Mike P
     
    Mike P, May 23, 2008
    #5
  6. Moshe. Goldfarb

    Alias Guest

    Let's see, 40,000 workstations with Vista and all need to be trained or
    40,000 workstations with Ubuntu and all need to be trained. What's the
    difference? Vista is expensive, both for the software itself and the
    upgraded hardware, and Ubuntu is free. If you want your company to stay
    in the past, don't train them to use Ubuntu and train them to use Vista
    and fork out the money for new hardware.

    And that doesn't include the cost of cleaning off viruses and malware
    from these Windows workstations.

    Alias
     
    Alias, May 23, 2008
    #6
  7. Moshe. Goldfarb

    Mitch Guest

    A general consensus, not a summary of reasons or of personalities.
    People may buy Mac because they refuse to deal with Windows, but still
    want a full OS and reliability.
    Yes; there are always people around assuming that the most obvious and
    shiny part if the best one. Glamor effects are useless, and often
    detracting, not beneficial -- even if they are technically impressive
    and complicated or hard to make happen.
    Didn't he start by saying it is uniform?
    That's ignorant. There are many examples, especially in software, of
    individuals making great products or tools.
    Only because the 'challenging' part is being gauged by something that
    Linux doesn't do -- retail sales from a single provider.
    There is no doubt it is significant, being useful, being applied in
    important ways, and being enjoyed by the type of people who very well
    could produce the next important products.
    But the situation is more flexible and changing than that, has more
    frequent upgrades and updates, and -- probably most importantly -- it
    is easy and common to just have more than one OS to use for different
    tasks. That means the worst consequence might be having to reboot.
    Linux users are afraid to upgrade?
    Most people would suggest they do this more than almost all other user
    types, particularly for software, and that they have little hesitation
    making other changes.
     
    Mitch, May 23, 2008
    #7
  8. Apache. Mysql. Perl. Php. Bind. Inn. Dhcpd. Netfilter.

    **Linux**

    BTW, what OS is MacOS based on? Windows 2003, right? No?

    For instance, Ditch Witch has absolutely no Linux support whatsoever.
     
    the wharf rat, May 23, 2008
    #8
  9. Moshe. Goldfarb

    Mike P Guest

    What viruses? We've not had a virus outbreak since 2002...

    We don't need to train most users to use Vista, because XP works very well
    and is very stable for our needs. Even if we did, Vista isn't expensive for
    us, has a "familiar" feel to it, and our corporate image would be set as
    we've set XP up so there wouldn't be a great deal of change.

    We'll only start upgrading once the machines we buy are no longer supplied
    with XP, even then they have a 3 year life cycle then are replaced, which is
    standard practice for corporate IT departments. So we won't upgrade until
    absolutely necessary. It's not "staying in the past", it's good business
    sense to use something that works reliably, which contrary to Linux users
    beliefs, Windows does in a corporate environment when set up correctly.

    We have a lot of in house software written for windoze, and other software
    ( clinical trial software, Drug regulatory software etc ) that only works on
    Windoze.

    Mike P
     
    Mike P, May 23, 2008
    #9
  10. Oh, horseshit. "Wobbly windows" ? "Afraid to upgrade"? Give
    me a break...
    And the IT manager for one of the biggest companies in the world
    has never heard of an incremental rollout?
    Just a guess, mind you, but perhaps the same executives who
    considered the cost of retraining when they decided that moving to a new
    platform was a cost effective solution to having their business held
    hostage to Redmond?

    In the cases where I've seen Linux make significant inroads on the
    desktop it's uniformly been a "grassroots" movement. Typically a few
    of the more technical employees will switch, and their success convinces
    others. It's possible only in an organization that encourages its employees
    to think and gives them permission to innovate. That's probably why you
    don't see it happen often.
     
    the wharf rat, May 23, 2008
    #10
  11. Moshe. Goldfarb

    Alias Guest

    Yeah, riiiiiight.
    Sorry to hear it. What would you do if MS goes out of business?

    Alias
     
    Alias, May 23, 2008
    #11
  12. Moshe. Goldfarb

    xfile Guest

    I agree with you but that is for now.

    Dell was not a threat for Compaq as Microsoft was not for IBM. What
    happened?

    We are living in a dynamic world in which everything is changing. The
    question is, which direction?

    My job requires me to work for the best interests of the company, customers,
    suppliers and other stakeholders, except for any technology/product company.
    Even I prefer MS solutions at this point, but it doesn't mean that it will
    not change if it no longer serves our best interests.

    I tend to think that is the difference between a professional (e.g.
    corporate IT manager) and a fanboy. You must have heard about what Andy
    Grove once said: Only Paranoid Can Survive. No one can better describe
    today's business environment including IT industry than him.
     
    xfile, May 23, 2008
    #12
  13. Moshe. Goldfarb

    Hobbes Guest

    What a Linux monkey you are.
    You're swinging from a dead branch...ya stupid monkey.
     
    Hobbes, May 23, 2008
    #13
  14. Moshe. Goldfarb

    Alias Guest

    Gosh, that sure refuted what I said, NOT!

    What is it about MS fanboys and their obsessions with animals?

    Alias
     
    Alias, May 23, 2008
    #14
  15. Moshe. Goldfarb

    Mike P Guest

    You are free to believe what you like of course, but that is true. That's
    what happens when a WAN is set up securely and sensibly. Last virus we got
    hit by was sometime in summer 2002.
    Riiiight... and Linux is going to do that to MS is it? I think not. Part of
    me would like to see it, but it aint going to happen. Linux won't make it as
    a serious desktop OS in my lifetime. I'm 36..

    I note that you haven't disputed any of my points in my next to last
    paragrah. With today's pricing structure/volume licencing agreemnts and the
    fact that pretty much *everyone* who joins our company can use Windows with
    no training makes any sort of move to another desktop OS totally crazy. I'm
    sure our directors would love to give me a good few million pounds to make
    things more complex, employ more support staff, pay for lots of training
    that we simply have NO business reason for.

    As I said before, I'm not a microsoft fanboi, I do have a deal of respect
    for the Linux community and I have linux machines at home. For serious
    business use, it's still a long way away from being right

    Mike P
     
    Mike P, May 23, 2008
    #15
  16. Moshe. Goldfarb

    JEDIDIAH Guest

    Apple users commenting about anything Unix is probably bound to
    generate nothing but a lot of nonsesene...
    So? That's not the point.

    Although the claim is highly debatable.

    Linux does very well in places that MacOS is never seen.
    This is an obvious fallacy of course.

    Besides, who proved that money necessarily equals better software. In
    general, it is the true professionals rather than the mercenaries that
    make the better product. They are the ones more concerned about
    excellence versus profit.

    Microsoft is a great example of this.
    Be careful. This claim is probably more true of MacOS than it is Linux.
    A Mac will have the same problem. A Mac will suffer from this more.

    This is why my HTPCs run Linux instead of MacOS.
    ...yes, we wouldn't want a community where they let some lone rogue
    with a hammer interfere with an address by Big Brother.
     
    JEDIDIAH, May 23, 2008
    #16
  17. Moshe. Goldfarb

    Alias Guest

    Ever hear of Enron? TWA? Pan Am? No one thought they would go out of
    business either. MS treats their paying customers like dirt and
    constantly accuses them of being thieves and you think that the paying
    public is stupid enough to let that continue? Linux won't put MS out of
    business; MS will.

    Alias
     
    Alias, May 23, 2008
    #17
  18. Moshe. Goldfarb

    Mike P Guest

    Support manager please, there's three more tiers of bloody managers above me
    before the IT director! Yes, I have organised many incremental rollouts, but
    in the heavily audited and regulated world of pharmaceuticals, all our
    departments worldwide share data, everything has to be compatible at all
    times. That won't happen if we rollout Linux to the business slowly now will
    it? When we went from Win95>2000, we had no problems. Win2k>XP no problems.
    If we now have machines running Linux and throw them into the mix, we'd have
    nothing but problems (solvable yes) but we don't *need* these problems and
    the extra expense.
    yes, they'd love to give me millions of dollars to waste on something we
    don't need, make it essential to train all our staff on a load of new apps
    (do you know how much IT training costs here in the UK?) . Wed;

    I think you'll find the company I work for one of the most innovative in
    it's field. Free thinking is encouraged, however making a decision to switch
    to Linux would be corporate suicide, certainley at present anyway. With
    Micro$ofts licencing, the prices of Windows on new machine being negligble,
    it just makes no sense whatsoever.

    Mike P

    Mike P
     
    Mike P, May 23, 2008
    #18
  19. Moshe. Goldfarb

    Hobbes Guest

    What is it with old geezers and their obsession with Linux ?
    Linux just plain sucks ... believe me, I tried Ubuntu.
    Formatting it from my hard drive gave me great pleasure.
    Wobbly windows indeed ... the whole OS is wobbly.
     
    Hobbes, May 23, 2008
    #19
  20. Moshe. Goldfarb

    Mike P Guest

    Pan-Am never recovered from Lockerbie, and TWA's dodgy maintenance/Boeing's
    iffy design led to TWA 800 disintegrating 14000ft above the Atlantic, from
    which the the company never recovered.
    Enron? well, they were just all bent weren't they?

    Mike P
     
    Mike P, May 23, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.