The IT industry is shifting away from Micro$oft

[albatorsk]

Originally posted by cjolley
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.

Agreed.

2, No internal development staff.

Well, that's pretty much up to what they are working with, wouldn't you say? Maybe a webbased intranet solutions written in PHP and MySQL. Would you say a PHP programmer working in Linux is more expensive than the same guy working in Windows?

3, No up-to-date pre existing IT infrastructure.

Well, that's a given. Why switch if your current system works and is up to date?

4, No software used but normal office suite.

There are a lot more free applications suitable for corporate use than Office.

I just don't count a sub 1% install base as much of a trend.

I would argue that the install base is a lot larger than that, but since neither of us has any real numbers to go on, it would be pointless.

[The PIT]

Okay Albatorsk you want a challenge head over to the linux section.

[albatorsk]

I'm on me way!

[cjolley]

Originally posted by albatorsk

Well, that's pretty much up to what they are working with, wouldn't you say? Maybe a webbased intranet solutions written in PHP and MySQL. Would you say a PHP programmer working in Linux is more expensive than the same guy working in Windows?

If they are staff, absolutely.
If it's some student who comes in from time to time to play with your system and may or may not document anything they do, then the kid is cheaper.
I admit it.
chuck

[albatorsk]

Originally posted by cjolley
If they are staff, absolutely.

Well, not where I do business. It seems as if the business climate is somewhat different depending on if you're in USA or in Europe.

[The Rock]

Originally posted by Gurm
MY GRANDMOTHER LEARNED HOW TO USE IT! IT ONLY TOOK ELECTROSHOCKS AND 8 YEARS, BUT SHE LEARNED! IT WAS EASY!

HAhahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

[Gurm]

BINGO! Albemarle has FINALLY hit the nail on the head!

It IS a LOT different in the USA than it is in your part of the universe!

Around here, Linux gurus are expensive and mean. They don't share their knowledge readily, and they charge DOUBLE what their Windows counterparts charge.

And here you thought that we were just bullshitting you about costs!

- Gurm

[Wombat]

Originally posted by Gurm
Around here, Linux gurus are expensive and mean. They don't share their knowledge readily, and they charge DOUBLE what their Windows counterparts charge.

Good thing you're around to show us what Windows admins are like. And *nix admins generally take care of 3-5x as many boxes as a Windows admin. SMS pales in comparison to Unix administration.

[Kurt]

yawn....

BSD now rules the *nix world. In one fell swoop it did. Called it Mac OS X they did...

I haven't switched over. You haven't. Linux ppl have cause it's beter than their usual Linux distro and they can upgrade the kernel and all the fun tools they always used before.

Probably: Mac OS is Linux. (well, BSD really...but since every Linux user is supposed to switch over...)

Anyway, back on topic: Linux is fine for servers. Repeat. Why? 'Cause it's easier to train 10 admins than 1000 users who work on Windows at home anyway. Then again not all admins, because there still isn't a solution that equals MS Exchange on Linux. Lotus is out. The others are still trying.

Other reasons are: you can buy software that will actually make your productivity go higher on Windows, so you spend on software but you don't have to compile everything and use beta software just because there isn't a finished program/project that might do what you need done (unles you do it yourself - which is probably even WORSE).

Etc, on and on.

Linux is fine, it's also a waste of time and money in most cases. Linux is a curiosity, a connoisseurs's delight. A way to get Microsoft to lower the price of Windows...

[Kurt]

Originally posted by Wombat
Good thing you're around to show us what Windows admins are like. And *nix admins generally take care of 3-5x as many boxes as a Windows admin. SMS pales in comparison to Unix administration.

Only because companies that have that many PCs usually invested on unix years ago and can't face the cost of switching over. Microsoft didn't really sell any NT servers until 3.51 was out which wasn't really that long ago. Unix was aleady well implanted in big businesses by the time - and only NT 4.0 started to put a dent in the Unix server market.

It's not as if Windows is better than this or that version of Unix, it's just that it's one standard program to develop for. Until all the *nixes will evolve to a common structure, you will have super expensive gurus that cater to their Unix distro that garners their 0.00001% market share. The return on investment just isn't there for 99% of companies. Money drives the industry, not Linux.

[Gurm]

You have NO idea what I'm like when I have actual users to take care of. I'm a pretty nice admin, even to the super dumb ones who bring viruses into the office and erase their own hard disks.

Also, I like to think I've dispensed more free Windows advice on this forum than most.

Compare that to Linux admin types who, when asked a perfectly reasonable question on a Linux forum, mock and degrade you.

- Gurm

[leech]

Well crap, I know my linux, but wouldn't ever call myself a guru, but you mean I can make double a Windows admin? Come on, most people in the IT industry anymore need to know at least a little of everything.

2, No internal development staff.

This one kills me. Isn't this why some companies ARE switching to linux. Because they have internal development staff AND with linux they have the SOURCE CODE??? Need a bug fixed, they can fix it themselves without having to wait on someone else.

http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=6011

The old system is so slow that the clones firing lasers appear to be throwing javelins. We've seen about a five times speed improvement with Linux, which is appreciated! I'd say Linux is one of the most successful efforts we've had. I can't say enough good things about it. It is intuitive, incredibly stable, and we can get stuff fixed at a moment's notice. Our renderer hasn't been ported yet but will be by the summer. That's all that's keeping me on the O2."

Hmm, so far not many have actually provided links here.

Oh and for those that think that the linux desktop looks SO different from Windows? Try Xandros 2.0. It uses the Plastik theme by default and looks quite similar (yet IMHO much nicer) than the Luna theme.

One thing that always irritated me about windows, and definitely confuses new computer users, is the way the "Start" menu works. Click on it, click on All Programs... uhm then what? Ok, who makes program x? Oh wait, you've told it to arrange by name, but it stopped doing that and now every new program you install is at the bottom of this huge list???

Ok, let's take a look at either Gnome or KDE. You press Applications (at least in Debian's Gnome, in Redhat it's more like KDE) or you press the Foot or K. Up pops a nice orgaized menu. You want Office programs? Oh look, there they are. You want a browser? scroll to Internet, then select... oh how could this be EASIER?? WEB BROWSER? WOW, what a novel concept. If you were a BRAND new computer user, Gnome/KDE would be MUCH easier than Windows. Really what it comes down to is installation. Which really is dependant on what hardware you run... though this also applies to Windows.

From my personal experience (and I have tons in this because as a hobby I try out different OS's.) Xandros, Lindows, Redhat, Mandrake, etc. all have fully GUI installs. The first two are so easy a GRANDMA COULD install it. If that's all they wanted on their system that is. Of course doing Dual-Booting would add a little complexity (Xandros will even re-size NTFS partitions for you, if it's a second OS.) Literally with Xandros you have to click about 4 times. Done. It installs the binary drivers for ATI/nVidia cards and of course all cards that XFree86 supports. This is the linux that is targetting Corporate Desktops. This is the OS that you could install fo Grandma. It has all basic functionalities that you'd want from a computer. Media playback, email, web browsing, etc. And out of box, supports more Hardware than windows. (If you want facts on this, think Broadcom 4400 NICs that are very popular onboard. That's right, Xandros supports right away. With Windows XP, you have to download it or install the older driver that comes on the CD.) http://www.xandros.com

Leech

P.S. Happy Linuxing.
"

[leech]

A note on installation. If you want cutting edge, let's face it, you'll have to compile it. But for debian and most any RPM based distro, there is Synaptic. Yup, it's REAL hard to click on Applications->System Toos->Synaptic Package Manager. Then type in your root password, then look in the section you want a program out of. Let's say you want to install a game. Ok, click on Games and Amusements. Wow, look at that list. Hmm, what sounds fun? Tuxracer. Ok, double-click on that (or highlight it and click install.) And then perhaps it'll pop up saying "Queue additional required changes" And will list the other packages that are required to be installed. (You can also set in the preferences to just automatically say yes to this.) So you click "Queue" Bingo, then you click Execute. What do you know, it downloads, installs AND sets it up for you right without having to insert a CD, or type in a serial number. Wow, now you can click on Applications->Games-> Tuxracer, and you'll be flying down that mountain side.

Yup, that's real hard.

Leech

[The PIT]

Leech don't some companies that devolop stuff for windows have there own source after writing it and then fix it themselfs???? The companies that have done work for us ask to keep the source code.

No grandma couldn't install Linux or even windoze if you think that you haven't met many grandma's. Try your own mother she couldn't even do the simplier XP install more likely than not.

Start menu well when install new apps on Linux in most cases it doesn't get added or if it does not in the place stated in the documentation. Now that will confuse users. Users aren't bothered who makes program X so why bring that up? If you want to configure the start menu under XP or win2k go to settings > taskbar and start menu my grandmother could do it.

Love to see Grandma compile stuff.

Leech you've got used to it and you're used to computers it makes one hell of a differance. I work with end users believe me Linux would lose them.

[leech]

My grandma is 81, and I think she could run linux. Even after she's had her stroke. Windows confuses the hell out of her. And yes, through KDE and Gnome, most distros (Mandrake especially) WILL add the program you just installed to the proper menu. Heck, even the commercial version of Tuxracer was placed under the Games menu properly under Gnome in my Debian install.

Most distros come with pretty much any program for normal use. (Most importantly for Freecell)

There is one thing that is difficult about installing Xandros. That would be to make the computer boot off the CD-Rom. Other than that, cake. Oh you want easier? Try Knoppix. Just pop that CD in and boot off it and there ya go, OS.

Most of the reason why Linux is 'Hard' is because people are used to the messed up way that windows does things. You know, "Let's install almost everything into Program Files, but it's not standard. Let the people who write the installers worry about that." With linux, most of the time you don't have to worry where it installs, since the package manager keeps track of that and will remove the appropriate files later on.

And good god, don't even get me started about the registry.....At least GConf uses english for most of it's purposes.

Check out Xandros, you'll be amazed at how EASY it is to install.

Leech