Re: What Linux really needs
- From: Crashdamage <03z1krd7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 20:57:04 +0000 (UTC)
On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:16:35 +0100, Christopher_Hunter <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Crashdamage wrote:
On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 09:24:35 +0100, Christopher_Hunter
<invalid@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Crashdamage wrote:
I couldn't care less what Tweedle Dee & Tweedle Dumb think.
/I/ could - it's actually quite important. As long as they don't see
Linux
as a threat, then so much the better for us. When the development of our
favourite OS makes Windows an insignificant irrelevance (as it already is
in the web server field), they won't see it coming...
They're not that stupid. They're paying attention.
Not really. They've been blind-sided repeatedly by FOSS developments!
In the past. Don't you think maybe they're paying more attention now?
We have several software pacakges and IE-only websites which we must use
to service our customers which are not supported on Linux. There is no
way whatsoever to NOT run Windows. I certainly would if I could.
I used to think that, until I discovered that *any* "web application" could
be trivially rebuilt using FOSS. If you need to know how to do it, my
consultancy fees are quite reasonable!
You miss the point. It doesn't matter what *I* want or how reasonable your
fees are - *I* don't get to choose the software. Our customers do, and if
we want to keep their business then we use what *they* dictate. Linux is not
in the equation for *any* of our several hundred clients.
We, and most businesses, have no choice but to run M$ on the server and
the desktop. Again, In order to use the IE-only client websites and
Windows-only crapware that is required, nothing else will do but Windows.
Wee build web applications that /specifically/ don't allow the use of IE.
The fundamental insecurity, instability and general incompatibility of IE
r]just makes it another MS attempt at "vendor lock-in".
We can't even use virtualization to achieve what we need. It's very much
a Windoze world in business and much as I wish it weren't so, I just don't
see Linux being a realistic alternative for many years.
You're probably ten years behind the times. Many companies, institutions,
and many Governments - outside the USA - are leaving proprietary software
to the home market - MS is mostly an expensive irrelevance. MS can't even
make their file formats compatible from version to version of "Office".
It's just /another/ attempt at forcing unwanted "upgrades" on to their
users.
Again, we *must* use what our customers dictate. They choose, we use.
Now, for a few large companies that can dictate what they use such as your
above example, maybe. For the vast majority of businesses who cannot
pick and choose, no way, no how.
Making the business case for FOSS is now easier than ever, particularly when
there are plenty of FOSS companies willing and able to provide high quality
end-user support at realistic prices.
As an aside: a large architectural company I do business with paid MS
for "support" for their 200+ machines "running" XP. Whenever they
had /any/ problem, all that MS "support" could ever tell them to do
was "Reformat and Reinstall".
Until they "saw the light" and migrated to a combination of Red Hat for
their servers and Suse or Ubuntu for their desktops, they used to regularly
lose huge amounts of important data. They now pay a trivially small amount
annually to Red Hat and another support company, and they have /no/
significant problems at all!
You don't need to make any of these points to me. But I doubt I can
convince the IT departments of hundreds of companies of the virtues of OSS
by myself.
A while back, I thought - "Hey, as everyone we do business with goes to
cloud-based apps the OS won't matter, it's just running in a browser. So
then if the vendor who supplies the software we run locally in the office
finally sees the light and supports Linux on the server, I can run a Linux
server and Linux workstations running virtualized Windoze, at least as a
stepping stone 'til they fully support Linux on workstations too. Cool!"
Naaahhh...ain't happening. Support for a Linux server for our software
packages is at least years away. For the desktop workstations - who knows?
Waaaay down the road. Vista compatibilty is the only thing the programmers
are worried about right now.
And those OS-independent cloud-based apps? Get real. We have about 16-17
websites we must use, and *every one* requires IE 6-7, and most IE-only
plugins, Direct X or other crapware that prevents using Firefox on Windows
or even IE in a Windows VM.
Particularly for small or medium-size businesses who can't afford custom
software, it's a M$ world and will be for many years. I hate it, but it's
the reality.
--
Registered Linux user #266531
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: What Linux really needs
- From: Christopher_Hunter
- Re: What Linux really needs
- References:
- Re: What Linux really needs
- From: swampyfern
- Re: What Linux really needs
- From: Ivan Marsh
- Re: What Linux really needs
- From: Crashdamage
- Re: What Linux really needs
- From: Christopher_Hunter
- Re: What Linux really needs
- Prev by Date: Re: ReInstalling W98 on old games box - (Vent)
- Next by Date: Re: wine
- Previous by thread: Re: What Linux really needs
- Next by thread: Re: What Linux really needs
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
