|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
>
> I am not picking on you. I see this over and over in people who are
> otherwise Linux advocates. Why are we so defensive about Linux
> rollouts
> and so hesitant to recommend it whole heartedly? It's good enough for
> Munich, it's good enough for Extremadura, and many many more. Why
> isn't
> it good enough for you?
Well, since I've been called to the carpet. Linux is good enough for
me. In fact it's great for ME. I've been using Linux as my primary
desktop OS for years and years - probably close to 8-9 years before I
got a MacBook Pro about 14 months ago. And I actually got that with
the intention of bootcamping Linux and Windows along with OS X (my
story of switching is whole nother thread). The primary desktop OS in
all the technician workstations at my office are Linux (we have 5) and
we use LDAP, Samba, mounted NFS homes, etc. So it is good enough for
me - like I said it's great! But I'm in an office full of techs that
can help each other out with issues (and there are issues). I have
also reproduced our setup for some of my customers, so I am familiar
with setting up Linux desktops in a business environment. Getting a
business to adopt Linux has it's own challenges. But I've found that
business don't care much about what OS is on their server or network -
so long as it works. They do care about what is in front of their face
and trying to figure out how to get around in it and be able to ask
someone for a little help goes a long way.
So when I argue against Linux desktop solutions, I'm doing so from the
standpoint of someone who is in the business, has actually done it,
and currently supports Linux Desktop implementations.
What confuses me is when nieve technophiles think it's such an easy
thing to stick Linux in front of user and they are somehow going to
thank you for making them learn all new shit. Put yourself in the
shoes of the user for once. You can lead a horse to water, but it has
to want to drink. If someone asks you to switch them - you should jump
at the opportunity. But don't force it on them because you think you
know what they need better than they do, even if it's true.
On Jan 19, 2008, at 5:33 PM, Stephen Gran wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 19, 2008 at 03:25:23PM -0500, W. Chris Shank said:
>>
>> I'm sorry if I'm ranting. I'm really not anti-Linux. I use it to a
>> tremendous extent and even commercially support about a dozen Linux
>> desktops. So I know from experience, Linux itself isn't the answer to
>> a poorly designed network or untrained users or crappy hardware or an
>> inadequate IT budget. It will in fact will make your life miserable
>> and make users skeptical about using Linux in the future when it
>> truly
>> has overcome the few remaining hurdles. I guess I'm jaded because
>> I've
>> been there - done that, and it sucks to see your effort fail. This
>> hits close to home for me because I've been in James position and
>> attempted to do just what he's trying to do about 5 years ago. Back
>> then, instead of Vista as the problem OS it was XP and Windows 98 as
>> the incumbent. But the story is very similar. Linux is more mature
>> than it was then, but XP is also far superior to Windows 98, so the
>> starting points aren't that far off.
>>
>> What these schools need is a real _comprehensive solution_ that
>> addresses all their needs and pain points. Just sticking Linux in the
>> lab is only going to make his life harder because he'll have more
>> complexity to try to manage.
>
> You make some very good points, but I have to admit I'm always a
> little
> confused by people making these arguments (not just you, I've seen
> this
> time and time again).
>
> Your argument is, effectively:
> Linux is good, but people want feature A that may or may not work.
> Poorly set up and indifferently maintained networks and machines
> lead to
> a poor user experience and sour people on Linux adoption.
> Additionally,
> people who expect Linux to behave exactly the same as some other OS
> will
> just be disappointed.
>
> What always strikes me about this line of argument is that no other OS
> is any different. People who are used to Windows 98/2K are unhappy
> with
> XP, since the admin interface is completely different. MS Office is
> not compatible across platforms or versions. Indifferently maintained
> Windows machines are if anything worse than indifferently maintained
> Linux machines. The only argument that is difficult to refute
> immediately
> is that people who expect different platforms to behave exactly the
> same
> will be disappointed. But by your line of reasoning, it's safe to
> offer
> them XP in place of Windows 98, but not OK to offer them GNOME or KDE,
> and that makes no sense to me. They are about as disparate in UIs.
>
> I am not picking on you. I see this over and over in people who are
> otherwise Linux advocates. Why are we so defensive about Linux
> rollouts
> and so hesitant to recommend it whole heartedly? It's good enough for
> Munich, it's good enough for Extremadura, and many many more. Why
> isn't
> it good enough for you? Of course there will be some rocky
> moments. Of
> course a poorly done rollout will reflect poorly on the OS as well as
> the admin. Of course there will be a few odd complaints. None of
> those
> are particularly compelling, at least to me.
>
> There will be complaints on a Windows OS upgrade. There will be rocky
> moments when transitioning versions of Windows, since applications
> will
> behave differently. Maybe the only thing that won't change is that a
> poorly planned rollout won't be blamed on the OS? That is all I can
> think of, as it seems to be the only difference that matters. That
> just
> means that you, as the admin, have a responsibility to actually think
> about what you're doing before you do it. It is not a reason to
> pretend
> that Windows is useful desktop OS, and it is not a reason to act
> ashamed
> of what Linux has to offer as a Desktop tool or as an educational
> environment.
>
> </blatant advocacy mode>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> | Stephen Gran | Even historians fail to learn
> from |
> | steve@lobefin.net | history -- they repeat the
> same |
> | http://www.lobefin.net/~steve | mistakes. -- John Gill,
> "Patterns of |
> | | Force", stardate
> 2534.7 |
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> 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
--
W. Chris Shank
ACE Technology Group, LLC
www.MyRemoteITDept.com
(610) 640-4223
___________________________________________________________________________
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
|
|