With all the commotion surrounding the annual LinuxWorld conference in New York this week the issue of Linux on the desktop as a 'Windows-killer' has once again reared its head.
Sun's UK MD cheekily offered to help IBM following Big Blue's leaked memo last week that is is planning to move its desktop environment completely over to Linux. An important meeting was also due to take place in London today with Bill Gates meeting the NHS director general of IT Richard Granger about just how much 500,000 Windows licences should cost – Granger of course has started trials of Sun's Java Desktop System just in case Gates needs a little prodding on the discount level.
In reality though we're as far away from Linux as desktop 'Windows-killer' as we were five years ago when Linux users took to stripping Windows off new laptops, installing Linux and then claiming a refund for the operating system they removed.
What has happened with the emergence of more robust enterprise Linux desktop offerings is that it gives businesses more of a genuine bargaining tool when entering licensing negotiations with Microsoft. Earlier this month Newham Borough Council dropped plans for a move to a Linux desktop after finding it wasn't that cheap after all and with Microsoft offering to be a bit more flexible in thrashing out a new deal.
Where the Linux operating system has gained real traction, however, is in the server environment, running high-end systems. But again this isn't a 'Microsoft-killer' – most of that market share has been gained at the expense of Unix, with Windows also making steady inroads into the data centre environment.
Linux has come a long way in the past five years and there is still vast potential for the open source technology in business computing but let's be realistic with our expectations.
Comments
There are 15 comments. Join the discussion
1. anonymous
What has happened with the emergence of more robust enterprise Linux desktop offerings is that it gives businesses more of a genuine bargaining tool when entering licensing negotiations with Microsoft.
If everyone sticks to this line and refuses to adopt Linux it won't be long before Longhorn, DRM and true proprietry lockin remove Linux's bargaining power. Short term thinking is, unfotunately a common affliction among the UKs IT elite.
2. Andy
Linux isnt trying to be a Windows killer. Why does it always come to this?
Stupid individuals who consider themselves experts, making meaningless comments about an operating system which they do not even understand.
For the record, linux is already a windows killer - (if this is what interests you?) - it has been for some time. I have to use computers to do my physics research, I have software standards, these are NOT met by Windoze XP. Crashing while I am trying to do my work just isn't acceptable.
Linux isnt difficult to use (unless you are thick, and find Windoze a challenge), my 8 year old brother has no trouble, nor do any of my friends, who have tried Linux. All of which are non geeks.
Linux doesn't exist to destroy Windoze, Linux is for people who have standards.
So can you please stop talking out of your behinds when you talk about linux?
3. Chris Prentis
Andy may be just a student. But listen and learn. Take him seriously because he is right.
I run a small busineess with 24 desktops that have been running Red Hat and Mozilla for nearly 2 years. No server down time and total reliability. Simply better. No contest.
How entertaining that there are still people out there who believe that no one ever got sacked for specifying Microsoft. Watch this space!
4. Yvonne Wood
I'm amazed, as a business that is fully functioning on Linux I fail to understand how much cheaper you can get than FREE !!!! Bundled with software that, in addition to the operating system, would cost £thousands, I have yet to find anything that Windows can do, that Linux can't, and many things that Linux can do that cost an additional small fortune to do on windows. The only costs involved are with regards to support, and if that worried, large companies could afford to train and provide their own support that would not cost them a minor fortune every year! Come on businesses, do you intend to let microsoft dictate to you what you can and can't do on YOUR system, apparently, due to very little foresight, the answer is yes.
5. alan bruce
I run linux (RH9)on a few machines, but as of march 2004, there will be no new patches.
Everybody is expected to move to the new Redhat Enterprise systems and pay for updates etc. Alternatively you can risk all and use Fedora (remaining free, open source redhat linux).
Or better still, get cracking with FreeBSD, which as its name suggests is ....
It runs most, if not all Linux apps, is more secure out of the box, and is looking better and better with each release.
If you run RH, try *BSD and see how you like it.
FreeBSD 4.9 stable with Gnome 2.4 window manager, is slick.
6. Teddy Caddy
Companies are "stuck" in thier ways. Change management and initiating change is expensive. It is the fault of the corporate culture, not the fault of Linux. In reality, most any change in a company equates to apprehension and feelings of impending catastrophe. Let this story be a testament of how hard it is to initiate change, no matter how obviously beneficial it is.
Also, consider the fact that many upper-level management people are computer illiterate (they can barely use Windows). If they fund a project to put Linux on the desktop, they might be putting themselves out of a job. From an upper management perspective, keeping MS might mean covering your own ass.
7. Mike Hingley
I think poeople are getting sidetracked by the whole windows thing - let me elaborate.
I believe that Linux doesn't have to be a windows beater - just a better os. If it wants to be a real alternative to the MS offering, then it has to offer better options.
Devices should work seamlessly
Apps should install easily
As one of the previous comments said that FreeBSD runs most Linux... Hello? Would you buy Windows if it would run most windows applications? I appreciate that for 16 bit apps this s the fact, but you can take any (and I have yet to find one that doesn't work) 32 bit windows app and run it sucessfully on win2k, XP etc etc without having to worry about compatability.
This is where linux really has to sort itself out. There needs to be a convergence of the linux platforms not a divergence. There should be no need for users to have to 'compile' stuff to work on their machines.
My advice to Linux developers - Ask yourself "What would windows do"...
Because ultimately the windows user is the person you are going to havee to convince.
8. Ceri Davies
In response to Mike Hingley, who said:
"As one of the previous comments said that FreeBSD runs most Linux... Hello? Would you buy Windows if it would run most windows applications? "
FreeBSD isn't Linux, so your point doesn't make any sense; they don't even have a common ancestor.
Also, regarding 32bit apps that don't work on all versions of Windows, check Commandos 2.
9. anonymous
In many linux distros the whole process of downloading and installing an application is as easy as typing one or two command line commands. But of course, the command line is evil.
That's why there are even graphical front-ends for that.
10. anonymous
I find it interesting that Mike Hingley, whom is a developer would have such an warped view of the Windows OS. I work for a large retailer in the U.S.A. Most of the down time that the company has is DUE TO WINDOWS issues. Programs that are designed to work without alot of effort from the user crash, don't work at all, or only work some of the time. IS cost alone is through the roof. The company is now looking at linux.
11. Chris Nixon
'Anonymous' completely missed Mike's point. I use both WinXP and Red Hat at home, one as an ultra-reliable server and one for the family, games, etc. Guess which is which? Why is it that anyone who dares to even suggest that Linux is even slightly awkward to configure / use is flamed? We all know the hideous problems caused by Bill's bloatware, that's not up for discussion. I think Mike was talking about plug-and-play, out-of-the-box ease of use - as if, say, your PC was a video recorder. Until Linux has a similar, generic, consistent front-end it will not convince the vast majority of Windows fans to change.
12. Mike Hingley
Don't get me wrong here - I am a big fan of open source - I hapily play with my mandrake distro, but there have been a copuple of comments regarding my previous post.
Ceri - My comments were comments that referred to a previous post - that's why I said "As one of the previous comments said that FreeBSD runs most Linux..."
In many ways I believe this highlights some of the misonceptions that people like myself have regarding Linux. There I was hapily thinking that FreeBSD was a linux type OS, yet I am also being told that it isn't .Yet the FreeBSD site itself says :
"It is derived from BSD, the version of UNIX® developed at the University of California, Berkeley"
It's no wonder that it's so confusing for a newcommer to the Linux world.
My experience is limited with Linux - I admit it... I hold my hand up. However these early explorations into a Linux based environment have only made me more aware of the features that I love about Windows, and the features that I'd like to see in Linux.
I found it painful to set up my soundcard - trying to get my network card was a gargantuan effort, and it was only due to the fact that I had windows working on there as well that I actually managed to get it to work.
Did i have the same issues with windows? Nope. Windows automatically found hardware for me, and I had nothing to worry about.
I'm not dissing Linux - But I look forward to the time when Linux can compete and offer this type of functionality.
Ceri also states that Commandos 2 doesn't work with (I assume Win XP). Well - I'll take your word for it. That's one.
I admit that I have a strong affiliation with windows, but I'm not that inflexible that I won't try something else. However to really sell Linux the mindset has to be less 'knocking' and more constructive.
Mike Hingley
13. Abha
Mike Hingly complains about having to configure his hardware under Linux. But, if he consulted the Mandrake hardware database before he began ( http://www.linux-mandrake.com/en/hardware.php3 ), did some research, and asked questions, he might find it easier.
These are all good practices if one is going to use ANY operating sytem. In addition, even WINDOWS devices may cease to work on Windows itself when a new upgade comes along. The manufacturer may stop providing new drivers.
If your hardware is pretty standard (Nvidia Graphcs, Soundblaster standard) etc, and you choose to configure it prior to the END of the install process, you will find it will probably all work. Linux support is coming for other devices. Two years ago my HP scanner did not work--now it does, and MANDRAKE was the only distro I have tried that set it up without any wrinkles. Of course I had to find out what software packages to install in order to run it, but this is part of the learning process.
Do some more research, Mike. Don't blame Linux for what you don't know.
14. Sha Nee
to amsterdam student!
CLI != Evil
Lack of Knowledge or (More importantly) Lack Of Desire (of knowledge) is == Evil!.
Quoth""
To do what others cannot do is talent.
To do what talent cannot do is genius.
-Will Henry
15. gerben hoeksma
People are indeed afraid.
But what if my company would switch to Linux (something I really would appreciate), and I cannot use my USB interface to download oscilloscope pictures from my Yokogawa oscliioscope any moer. Who gives me the support for this. I must add to this that I had to install W200 instead of XP to be sure of software compatibility. With major acceptance og open source, this would not be a problem, but intially yoe may have higher cost.
Working to standards (think of the German DIN standards) has always benificial for economies.
Let us go to open software standards as soon as possible, and forget all the crazy compatibilty modi of Microsoft (they do not work in moet then 50 % of the cases).