|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|
Re: [PLUG] Linux on the desktop (was: rationalizing .Mac web pages)
|
What is the best path For a Linux Office product, with max compatibility with windows office.
1st try with "office" that came with rh9 was problematic.
the gap remains.
3/4 windows users are NOT power users.
they would get even more upset with a linux box.
new desktops have been a snap in the windows world- GHOST images!
pushing apps?
sms in big ms shops, impractical ($, ease of use) in smaller ones
novell still lives in med to large shops- hope to get some zen work shortly. seems ok.
ron kaye
-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus Hedemark <chrish@trilug.org>
Sent: Feb 26, 2004 7:46 AM
To: plug@lists.phillylinux.org
Subject: [PLUG] Linux on the desktop (was: rationalizing .Mac web pages)
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Paul wrote:
> I was told that Linux just passed Mac in percentage of desktop users.
I'd like to know how anyone could get numbers on Linux desktop use. If
Apple were cooperative, it wouldn't be hard to pull Mac numbers.
I don't know of any Macs at $WORK, where I support about 500 users. I
know of several dozen Linux machines, most of them desktops. I can hardly
walk to the men's room without someone else approaching me asking if I can
upgrade their Windows desktop to Linux.
In the corporate environment, I think the things that are holding back
Linux adoption (IMHO anyway) include:
* Office suite. OOo doesn't score too well on interoperability with MS
Office, which is pretty much a requirement. Lots of complaints from users
about ease of use, performance, and UI consistancy.
* Groupware. I know the KDE camp has some neat stuff going on here so
this may change.
* Applications. I work for a company that does E911 location services.
As you might imagine, we use a lot of software for mapping. The options
on Linux are pretty slim here. This seems to be true for a lot of
application types. There are a lot of half finished projects, and about a
zillion finished IRC clients. Clue: We don't need any more IRC clients.
* Network filesystem. NFS (<v4) should go the way of telnet.
Unfortunately it is the defacto standard. AFS sounds good in theory but
is a nightmare in practice. There are some other options, mostly academic
experiments, but nothing stands out as a good way to mount remote
filesystems in a secure fashion.
In a lot of other areas, Linux beats the snot out of Windows and even
Macs (on the corporate front, anyway). I've put a system in place to
automate the deployment and patching of all of my Linux systems, and it
should scale well. Deploying a Linux desktop takes about an hour of real
time, but about five to ten minutes of real work (most of that is staging
the hardware) while the rest is passive time waiting for the automatic
kickstart process to complete, and the post-install script that automates
the customization of the box.
Deploying a Windows desktop, however, can
take an hour or more of real work plus another hour of downloading the
base image. Deploying software packages on Windows is really a messy
process and many apps cannot be pushed as they need to be installed in the
context of the end user or have some other odd requirements that require
manual intervention.
Thanks also to gr for shaming me into brushing up on my shell
scripting-fu. ;-) It could be argued that Windows has VBScript but I have
yet to see any sysadmins effectively employing its use.
___________________________________________________________________________
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
___________________________________________________________________________
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
|
|