A rant about Linux haters

Post Reply New Topic

Quite true, the main use of Linux is in servers. However that doesn't mean that linux can't be adopted in the small business segment. Especially since companies don't buy new computers every year. Thus making linux better since it can run on older hardware. Meaning businesses waste less money on buying new computers every 2-3 years and only have to do it once they burn out of old age.

Not to mention that I believe Microsoft buys out the software and hardware companies. Example Microsoft will be ending Windows 2000 support on July 13, 2010. To make sure people for sure upgrade to the new OS or get a new computer Microsoft might pay off Cisco or Nvidia to cut of Driver and Software support for Win 2K on the same day they do. Meaning if after that date if the IT director buys a Cisco Wi-Fi Card for an aging system and just happen to find out that Windows 2000 no longer has driver support they will then buy a new computer or upgrade to XP.

Maintenance cost is disputable however. While Maintenance and Training costs will be high right after a business switches to linux it will go down after people learn it. And in the case of Ubuntu, Fedora and such there isn't much of a learning curve.

Nobody uses Linux in a desktop in a business setting unless it's a high tech company, and don't blame Microsoft's underhanded business tactics for it. Businesses are in business to make money, and training/maintenance costs outweigh hardware cost by several orders of magnitude. Microsoft Office doesn't run on Linux, and virtually every business uses Microsoft Office as a productivity tool. OpenOffice is not acceptable. The Gimp is not acceptable. The learning curve and associated price tag is not acceptable. A larger number of system tasks can be performed by a relative 'noob' in Windows than in Ubuntu 9.10.

If Windows applications ran seamlessly, it might have a chance in hell, but that's about it.

Even Ubuntu kills maintenance/support on older versions after a given period of time, and that period does not extend all the way to 2000.

In many cases, businesses depend on proprietary legacy applications. That's why my dad still regularly works in a DOS emulator as an engineer.


General Electric wants to ditch MS Office. They're on Office 2003 and probably won't ever upgrade to a later version. They gave OpenOffice a trial several years ago, but at the time Microsoft's obfuscated and proprietary file formats still did not always open properly. OOo has improved significantly in opening MS file formats, and next time they try it will work.


Debian/RHEL.

I seriously doubt that file formats were the only reason they didn't migrate to OpenOffice. I suspect the fact that it is a generally inferior product in almost every conceivable way also played a part. Last time I checked, which was around version 3.0, it was not a serious competitor to Office 2007. Unfortunately I don't have time to properly debate the thousands of individual points I need to back myself up here, and don't think we would agree anyhow.

I'll certainly agree that Office 2007 is better than OpenOffice. But big corporations like GE don't upgrade to the latest stuff. They're still on Office 2003, which isn't much better than OOo3.2, if at all. Most of the same functionality is there in both products, with a somewhat inferior UI in OpenOffice. The issue is cost, and MS wants to charge insane amounts to corporations that need site licenses. GE was using Windows 95 up until about 2003 or 2004. They don't upgrade very frequently, and they are going to try their utmost to avoid paying more money to Microsoft. If that means they have to use a somewhat worse spreadsheet app, that's fine with them as long as it is still usable, and OOo is definitely usable, even if it has problems.

My experience with the various companies I've worked with has been that there is a lag time getting the whole company moved, but generally a new product begins rollout within a year of its release. The major exception to this has been Windows Vista, where most companies chose to keep installing XP for understandable reasons. The 10,000 employee business I currently work with is about 90% on Office 2007, which it began rolling out in 2008. I realize GE is a far bigger and more sluggish company (and I complain about my current one sometimes). It's a safe bet that any documents on our intranet are in the .docx, .pptx, etc formats. We also make significant use of XLS templates to generate Word and Excel documents from proprietary XML files, which is a feature not automatically available prior to Office 2007 or in any OpenOffice.

My experience has also been that although the software cost is not insignificant, maintenance cost outstrips it by at least 2 orders of magnitude, and that figure is doubled for Linux installations. I don't know about OpenOffice itself.

I think Microsoft needs a serious competitor, but the competitor is not OpenOffice.

Right. You would be blown away if you knew some of the stuff I've shoehorned into DOS - massively multithreaded, Ruby scripted software with OpenGL rendering with the latest vertex and pixel shader technology and h.264 high definition video playback. Most front office people I've seen though are running Windows XP and Office 2007. I'm starting to see Windows 7 more.

Well linux does have its flaws but most of it is because businesses built their systems around Microsoft. People have been using Windows for 20 Years and don't like anything else. There would be the same issues if businesses were to deploy Macs. Not just because of exisitings infrastructure and file formats but because the employees may not like the GUI in Linux and so on. I know that's the case with Macs.

Oh and programs will be an issue and its not always a guarantee an emulator like WINE or DosBox will work. I can run a lot of my Windows programs in linux under WINE but it may be different for others.

However a business, government or organization can deploy Linux entirely on all computers and servers within their organization. The French Police is a prime example.

It sure is easy to blame others isn't it.

Well no, If businesses poured lots of money to build a network infrastructure around Microsoft they will use that infrastructure until it is no longer adequate to meet their needs.

Like if the Police Department in Atlanta Georgia spent $6.5 million to buy a bunch of new Dell Computers and Servers. Teach all the employees to use the new Windows and then set up a database and E-Mail client for all the employees I will stick to that infrastructure too. I

I repair computers for a living and as we all know Norton/ McAfee are expensive, memory-hogging Security Programs. While my customers may find out that there are free Antivirus alternatives like AVG and Avast they will not switch over to the freebies until their subscription is done with. Especially since they payed $$$ for Norton and such.

Just look at both sides of the issue. Everyone has their personal preference and yours is towards proprietary software and mine is towards open-source. I'm just telling you how I see the issues.

Did it occur to you even once that they don't like Linux?

Also, Norton 2009 sorted the resource hogging issues. Not too familiar with McAfee. Avast has a problem with false positives. Just sayin.

Trust me I know. A lot of people prefer Windows. There is a lot of people who like the way Windows GUI is designed. The way the programs are set up, what you can do with windows and so on. Microsoft does know how to build and OS.

I personally don't have too much of an issue with XP and 7.However I still think Vista was a flop. I just feel that Linux is the best OS for what I do. That may be different for others that just prefer Windows or have Windows-Only Programs. Microsoft did make a alright OS. i just think Linux is better. I'm also less than enthusiastic about M$'s business practices.

some people think they're OS are the second comming and that there are no miracles they can not perform

So true.

so wrong

Linux beats Windows by a mile. People say Linux is more secure because fewer people use it, I say those people are wrong because its mainly to do with how the permissions system works and the general structure of the OS. To all those people who b***h about how Linux is supposedly hard to use, its not hard to use its just different. About support and updates have you ever heard of Gentoo before? Its a rolling release the updates and support goes on for ever. If Windows is such a superior OS how come most infrastructures run Linux or UNIX-Like OS's?