Re: [PLUG] A lesson for us all?

-----Original Message-----
From: "W. Chris Shank"
Sent: Oct 28, 2004 11:56 AM
To: plug@lists.phillylinux.org
Subject: Re: [PLUG] A lesson for us all?

On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 21:17 -0400, Tobias DiPasquale wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Oct 27, 2004, at 7:56 PM, W. Chris Shank wrote: > This is the first time I've posted for a while, we've been pretty > busy here. Anyhow, I wanted to relate a story/situation regarding > Linux, it's use, and it's perception as a business ready operating > system. DSICLAIMER: This is a rant and probably not worth your time > reading. First, let me say that we've all been there. Every one who uses Linux that's had a taste of Windows before it can find something that they can't do as well or at all after switching to Linux. I totally feel where you're coming from. I still can't get my fonts to look right on my AMD64 box, and I write Linux kernel code for a living! Having said that, I hope you understand the rest of what I'm about to say. DISCLAIMER: Its not clear as to the extent of your involvement prior to this development, so if I'm insulting you personally, I'll apologize in advance. That's not my intent at all.

No problem. We had NO involvement with this at all - and still don't. We were just asked to come in (as Linux professionals) to bid on fixing the issue.

> We were recently contacted by a small company currently running about > a dozen FC2 desktops and server. They had been running RH7.2 and > upgraded to FC2 sometime within the last few months. Their server is > more or less ok, but their desktops aren't. Apparently RH7.2 was > working fine but their current setup is a mess. None of the apps are > integrated well, printers rarely work, users are forced to use the > command line to switch printing, openoffice defaults are bad, none of > the mozilla plugins work well, I could go on. Basically everyone is > pissed because they are inundated with problems - their computers are > downright unproductive right now. The current maintainer is obviously > way over his head regarding how to really configure these systems. > Since I haven't touched Fedora in a while, I suspect much of their > problem has to do with Fedora being only a half an implementation - > the real one being saved for $$RedHat. But I'm not really sure. I have two things to say about this: 1. Try upgrading Windows NT 3.51 desktop machines to Windows XP and see if you don't have as many, if not more, problems than you're having currently. They just jumped up 5 revisions of software, which represents something like 4 or 5 years of changes. Perhaps they should have tried RH9 first before moving all the way to FC2, or even gone with another distro like SuSE. There are a number of them out there that resemble RH enough to be manageable without much particular experience in the particulars. 2. I think the real problem brought to light here was that of a lack of testing. Attempting to bring an entire office up to a new version of any software all at once with minimal testing isn't the greatest idea in any circumstance. If I'm wrong about the testing, please let me know, but it sounds like the person doing the job previously didn't have much knowledge in system administration. I personally find it much better to spend some extra time testing and working out the kinks of a new system before installing it, rather than going through the kind of hassle you're currently experiencing. It doesn't sound like you were at the helm for this decision, so I guess this is all moot. But I believe also that its critically important for Linux in particular to do this kind of thing, since, as you stated, if things go wrong you'll get that knee-jerk, "Linux is a toy" attitude from most businesspeople which would prematurely limit its exposure in that environment.

> Anyway, the current perception at this company is that this "Linux" > thing is a joke, or just crappy, or a fraud being perpetrated by > zealots. The current maintainer is on his way out the door > (literally) - so the owners are looking to "fix" their mess and > migrating to Windows is one option they are seriously considering. I > hope we can keep them from doing that - but they are pretty badly > burned over this fiasco. Here's what I would do: Roll them back to RH7.2 for now. Then tell them that you could have a tested, working configuration of their software running on a newer RH rev/distro within X timeframe. And tell them that if you can't, that you'd be happy to help them migrate to Windows however they would like it. As I'm sure you're aware, their biggest concern is just getting back to work, so I think rolling them back is probably the right move in the immediate term. And by promising to investigate both avenues, you will place yourself above the current ill feelings towards Linux without totally ruling it out for them. Remember: they will save money over time running Linux and have less hassles. You just have your Linux hassles all up front, IMO.

I doubt that's an option because i don't think this was done in a way that is "roll backable" - at least without a fresh install. And if a fresh install is required - I'd rather give them a modern version that works right instead. And, FYI, we are offering to let test a box with our preferred version of Linux to see if it's acceptable. If they still don't like it we'll take them right to windows.

> So the real meat of my posting here is how something like this can > really hurt any chance Linux has for desktop adoption. The person who > set this up obviously meant well but just didn't have the knowledge to > execute well. I have to wonder how many other companies have "played" > with some half configured Linux and deemed it not enterprise ready? I'll bet a lot. We installed OpenOffice on our CFO's box and he was digging it for a while. But one night, he tried to do something that was a snap in Excel but took him four hours to get right in OOo and that turned him all the way off. To him, free wasn't a good enough reason to switch if he had to give up any kind of functionality and I'll bet a lot of people in the business setting are the same way and I can't always fault their decision. So we switched him back to Excel the next morning.

Our sucesses with OpenOffice is about 30%. We've found that if we throw it users who know MS Office and expect them to be just as proficient - it fails miserably every time. What has been successful is easing them into it with a few hours of training and a support number to call when they need additional help. The problem is that by the time the training costs are factored in, OpenOffice is nearly as expensive as MS Office. So the decision makers have to clearly understand the long-term cost advantage. If they look at the short-term only - then we don't even push OpenOffice. If they want to blow a few grand on MS Office - I let em.

> I really don't have a point here btw- just venting. I know that > desktop Linux can work - but I've also learned that it's not Windows > and can't be treated like Windows. Every one of our clients uses Linux > in some capacity - even on the desktop - so we know it works. But for > companies like these folks, I wonder if it's even possible to get the > bad taste out of their mouth at this point? And worse than that - I'm > certain they will spread their bad experience with Linux with their > friends and colleagues. This only continues to make it difficult to > get businesses to consider Linux. I guess if I have a point - it's > that bringing Linux into a company and failing to give it the chance > it deserves is 100 times worse than letting Windows remain. Even with > Windows XP, I'm not bothered if my clients want to install that - > because I know they will begin to see pressure to migrate with 2 years > - and who knows where Linux will be by then. I think its important to stress to them that the problems they are having are due to a lack of solid upgrade plan and not any particular fault of Linux. They could just as easily have had these problems with Windows or OS X or BeOS or whatever doing what they tried to do.

- -- Tobias DiPasquale 202A 04C4 2CE6 B985 8520 88D6 CD25 1A6C B9B5 1595 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (Darwin) iD8DBQFBgEjHzSUabLm1FZURAvVQAJ4peJYY3sS2kI+V+7AtNLDQiuz6xgCfTHgc Rjrr1C8Dx1U9ym9qrRYU1XI= =0Fhi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ___________________________________________________________________________ Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org Announcements - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce General Discussion -- http://lists.phillylinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug