The IT industry is shifting away from Micro$oft

[MultimediaMan]

Cjolley, thus brings the topic, back on topic.

Thank You.

The Pundit in that Rag has it wrong. There is only one thing that will make Linux viable in the Enterprise. That will be Enterprises using it. There are places in nearly every Enterprise that use Linux. That doesn't qualify it as a replacement for Unix or Windows.

If you expect to see Microsoft's market share evaporate, think again. Expect it to increase with Win2K3 over the next two years. Win2K3 has turned the head of more than one Windows/Unix administrator.

If you think you'll see Unix developers drop what they are doing en masse and staple a penguin poster on their cubicle walls, you'll have a long wait ahead of you.

The real loser is going to be Unix in the end, not Windows, and the numbers bear that out.

[cjolley]

Originally posted by albatorsk

But what about when the company's IT structure is due for a real overhaul? Why not take the chance aand move to a cheaper alternative while you're at it? Several companies I've consulted has done this, and it works just fine.

Y2K is over.
Never again will anybody just throw away their entire IT infrastructure all at once.
And that is what we are talking about to make Linux any more than a side-show.

The desktop its'self is the ONLY part of Linux that is cheaper.
Managers who switch to linux because the OS is free are idiots.
TCO wize: LINUX IS NOT CHEAPER, IT COSTS MORE!!!
That's the whole point.
chuck

PS SASQ has a point about Postgre SQL.
But that's because of Oracle's suicidal pricing structure, and nothing to do with Linux at all.

[albatorsk]

Originally posted by cjolley
Y2K is over.
Never again will anybody just throw away their entire IT infrastructure all at once.

Unfortunately I'm unable to provide you with company names, but 2 not so small swedish companies exchanged their entiire IT "infrastructure" under my supervision during 2003. One because of a buyout, and the other because it was simply time to get rid of the old crud they were still using.

The desktop its'self is the ONLY part of Linux that is cheaper.
Managers who switch to linux because the OS is free are idiots.

If that's the only criteria, then I am inclined to agree. But the fact that it's free certainly doesn't make it any *less* attractive.

TCO wize: LINUX IS NOT CHEAPER, IT COSTS MORE!!!
That's the whole point.

Well, as with any other point, that depends. For small companies with only a cople of servers and a few workstations, the software can be almost half of the price of the IT system, and maintenance costs for a low cost MS admin or Linux admin are more or less the same, the TCO cannot possible be higher than with Windows.

[GNEP]

The only time I could really advocate the use of Linux throughout a business' infrastructure from the server to the desktop would be in a VERY small (<= 10 people) desk-based company who's person in charge is (a) a Linux hobby-user and (b) doubles as the IT support.

Then it makes sense, unless that company is happy going with non-legit copies of MS software (which I doubt is a rare occurence). Of course the person in charge would also have a hobby of building his own machines as otherwise winXP would come pre-installed anyway.

As that company grew in size, there would be no real incentive to go back to MS. Of course people new to the company would have to be happy to work with a desktop environment they were not used to as well (as it's a fairly safe assumption these days that all people going for a desk-job have experience using windows and office.

So there is a situation where it's feasible. It's just not a particularly likely one, and it's DEFINITELY not an economically important one (talking proportion of the economy here <<1%)

[cjolley]

Originally posted by albatorsk


... For small companies with only a cople of servers and a few workstations, the software can be almost half of the price of the IT system, and maintenance costs for a low cost MS admin or Linux admin are more or less the same, the TCO cannot possible be higher than with Windows. [/B]

Does this organization have a full time IT staff or write any of it's own software?
Or do they just hire some kid to cake care of the computer stuff.

If you are talking about full time IT staff with a development group, the payroll costs of *nix are a lot higher.
As are the tech department payrolls.
And Sysadmin.
And DBA

TCO can be higher than with windows because the desktop is the ONLY part of the entire system that is cheaper with Linux.

chuck

[The PIT]

Originally posted by albatorsk
Rubbish statment. *Some* hardware isn't supported until several months after it's been released. Some is instantaneously. Some hardware isn't fully supported in Windows either until several months after release. A specific video card comes to mind.

Now you're talking rubbish Linux drivers are well down the list priorties of most manufactures although again this changing. I used several Linux distros in the past that haven't reconised hardware after several months on the market.


And the relation to Knoppix is...?
I've had to manually install drivers for other hardware in Windows too. It doesn't really mean anything.
[/QUOTE]

I'm talking about Linux generally as the thread was about Linux generally not just one distro. Okay I could taken the referance to Knoppix out of the quote.


I hope you sent a letter of complaint to Red Hat. They still list the 9800 as supported in their HCL. It doesn't say anything about the 9800 Pro, though, but I assume it's the same chip.[/QUOTE]

Why should I wasn't expecting it too work properly anyway. As long as 2d worked with generic driver I was happy. It's up to ATI too release drivers if they think theres a market for it. They have done now sadly with a none working script to tell users which Xfree version they're using or not as the case. Good job you can find the details elsewhere.


Oh the joys of binary modules. Hardly Mandraks fault, though.
[/QUOTE]

Well it was becuase the card I had been using had been out for months and months. If it weren't for the crappy KT133a chipset I would have been using the onboard controller but the 686b bug was a bitch.


PS. Sorry for being belittleing, but the ignorance based Linux-bashing in this thread is just overwhelming. [/QUOTE]

It's okay Lunix users normally suffer slightly from delusions of Grandure.

[cjolley]

@GNEP: exactly.
chuck

[The PIT]

Originally posted by albatorsk
Yeah, that mouse thingy is a real pain to use.



Except that all components of the Mozilla family are self contained.



Yeah, that's probably the big showstopper. If only there was a way to put an icon on the desktop....

Sadly most documentation now still doesn't say click and the mouse and dump it here. It still says do x with the following flags which are normally wrong cos the author forgot something. Yes I do now double click on the damn things.

Okay firebird was a bad example but I've had that happen with Opera and couldn't be arsed to find the get Libraries as they should be self contained.

I may know how to stick an Icon the desktop under Linux but Joe average wouldn't.

[The PIT]

What are the symptoms? Maybe I can help.

Well old Linux is running like it's on a 286 suddenly click on a program make a cup of tea and it may have loaded. Once loaded it runs fine.

Changes in the system Motherboard Bios and the AGP size. The latest ATI drivers under windoze seem to prefer 256mb for some reason or again it's the bios.
Under linux only two errors I can see. The Parrell port as this is disabled as it's unused. The ATI card isn't seeing gart properly and since I'm going to try the later drivers this may fix it or not.

[albatorsk]

Originally posted by cjolley
Does this organization have a full time IT staff or write any of it's own software?
Or do they just hire some kid to cake care of the computer stuff.

I don't know how it's like in USA now, but in Sweden, it's pretty common for smaller companies to hire outside consultants for the IT infrastructure maintenance ever since the "IT bubble" '00.

If you are talking about full time IT staff with a development group, the payroll costs of *nix are a lot higher.
As are the tech department payrolls.
And Sysadmin.
And DBA

See above.

TCO can be higher than with windows because the desktop is the ONLY part of the entire system that is cheaper with Linux.

But you just said with absolute certainty that Linux has a higher TCO than Windows. Now you say that Linux *can* result in a higher TCO than Windows. What's to say it can't be the oother way around? That's what I was getting at.

[albatorsk]

Originally posted by The PIT
Sadly most documentation now still doesn't say click and the mouse and dump it here. It still says do x with the following flags which are normally wrong cos the author forgot something. Yes I do now double click on the damn things.

Are you talking about source code, or packages such as RPM? If the former, then you of course understand that there has to be some form of interaction from your part. It won't compile it self. You probably wouldn't expect source code downloaded for windows in a ZIP-file to compile it self, would you? If the latter, then I've probably lost you. RPMs installs just fine in their respective distros by clicking on them in a filemanager. At least in the ones I've tried.

Okay firebird was a bad example but I've had that happen with Opera and couldn't be arsed to find the get Libraries as they should be self contained.

Urhrmm... Opera (static version), which is the recommended download by Opera Soft for users not certain wether they have QT installed or not, is also self contained

I may know how to stick an Icon the desktop under Linux but Joe average wouldn't.

Most software do however put it self in the KDE menu. It's just a matter of figuring out where to look for Joe Average. Especially if it's his first contact with computers, then he won't have to "retrain".

[albatorsk]

Originally posted by The PIT
since I'm going to try the later drivers this may fix it or not.

Well, try the latest drivers and see if it works.

[cjolley]

Originally posted by albatorsk
I don't know how it's like in USA now, but in Sweden, it's pretty common for smaller companies to hire outside consultants for the IT infrastructure maintenance ever since the "IT bubble" '00.



...



But you just said with absolute certainty that Linux has a higher TCO than Windows. Now you say that Linux *can* result in a higher TCO than Windows. What's to say it can't be the oother way around? That's what I was getting at.

I used the word "can" because you used the word "cannot"
as in "the TCO cannot possible be higher than with Windows"

But, I admit it. Given the following:
1, Outside contractors who charge the same for Linux or Windows support.
2, No internal development staff.
3, No up-to-date pre existing IT infrastructure.
4, No software used but normal office suite.

In that case Linux would be cheaper than windows because of the initial outlay for the OS and Office.
But the difference would still not be much over the long run percentage wise.
And I don't thinks it's likely that you will find many outside contractors who charge the same for *nix and windows support.
They will charge less for windows support because their long term costs for Linux savvy payroll will be higher.
I just don't count a sub 1% install base as much of a trend.
chuck

[cjolley]

Originally posted by albatorsk
Well, try the latest drivers and see if it works.

Said like true Windows IT tech support.
chuck

[albatorsk]

Originally posted by cjolley
Said like true Windows IT tech support.
chuck

I guess I've been hanging out at the Matrox Techsupport forum tor too long.