• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

2012 - year of Linux!

A.Nonymous said:
By that logic, Android and iOS both are huge competitors with Windows except that they really aren't. At least no more than a motorcycle is a competitor with an automobile.
Click to expand...

I think that Balmer's annual statements to Wall Street clearly indicate that he believes that iOS and Android compete with Windows in a big way.

Frankly, I don't really care. Linux has gained a tremendous position due in large part to Android. Many Android users don't know that and many that do, don't care.

But Balmer certainly does know and does care. Have you followed the statements surrounding his compensation package for the past few years? These trends are affecting the man where he lives.
 
A.Nonymous said:
There's far more involved in switching to Linux than just cost. You have to figure out if your apps will run (some won't), whether those apps that run will be supported (many won't) and factor in re-training lots and lots of users in a different way of doing things. Your business will possibly grind to a halt for up to a month while all the kinks shake out. Or you can stay with Windows like you currently are and lose a couple of days at most with an upgrade.
Click to expand...

Business grind to a halt? Any business that migrates like that deserves all the pain it gets. I'd expect any IT department seriously looking at migrating would at least skim through something like this: IBM Redbooks | Linux Client Migration Cookbook, Version 2: A Practical Planning and Implementation Guide for Migrating to Desktop Linux Having done that, they could then look forward to potentially reaping the benefits of 40% lower TCO that a 2005 IBM commissioned report talked about.
 
linuxrich said:
I too would like to know how much public money (My taxes!!!) go to Redmond every year. Especially considering there are European companies (Canonical, SuSE.) that could provide a very competitive deal I'm sure!
Click to expand...

Before you start complaining, smiley, consider this: when a large group switches their OS across lots of machines, you must consider the support costs, the costs of training people to use the new OS, the cost of replacing applications that do not run on the new OS or perhaps the cost of writing new applications for the new OS and on and on.

An OS like Ubuntu would be far more costly in many cases than simply upgrading Windows. Free is often bloody costly.
 
linuxrich said:
Business grind to a halt? Any business that migrates like that deserves all the pain it gets. I'd expect any IT department seriously looking at migrating would at least skim through something like this: IBM Redbooks | Linux Client Migration Cookbook, Version 2: A Practical Planning and Implementation Guide for Migrating to Desktop Linux Having done that, they could then look forward to potentially reaping the benefits of 40% lower TCO that a 2005 IBM commissioned report talked about.
Click to expand...

I'm extremely curious how they get their vendors to support their software in a WINE environment. I've had vendors refuse to support a database server in a virtual environment because they claimed the server knows it's virtual and doesn't communicate with the network the way a physical server does (WTF??). I've had vendors refuse to support a product running under XP mode in Windows 7. I have a difficult time believing that most vendors would support their products running inside WINE or some other emulation in Linux.

Look at it another way. Let's say you really can cut your costs virtually in half. Why aren't people lining up around the block to do this? Why isn't there a great demand for a Linux migration?
 
Who knows why some don't migrate?

Getting the right tools for the right job? Political pressures?

I noticed a distinct lack of response to my article showing that the Department of Defense and other agencies had migrated to it.

A Microsoft senior VP stood before the defense committee demanding to know the same. He insisted on knowing how the DoD planned to avoid viruses with open software. The question was turned to the head of the fact-finding committee who replied, "That's really simple. We intend to stop running Outlook."

The Microsoft wonk had no rebuttal, sat down in silence and the migration began.

And who supports government computers running Linux? The same subcontractors that support everything else.
 
EarlyMon said:
Who knows why some don't migrate?

Getting the right tools for the right job? Political pressures?

I noticed a distinct lack of response to my article showing that the Department of Defense and other agencies had migrated to it.

A Microsoft senior VP stood before the defense committee demanding to know the same. He insisted on knowing how the DoD planned to avoid viruses with open software. The question was turned to the head of the fact-finding committee who replied, "That's really simple. We intend to stop running Outlook."

The Microsoft wonk had no rebuttal, sat down in silence and the migration began.

And who supports government computers running Linux? The same subcontractors that support everything else.
Click to expand...

Governments are famous for doing things on the cheap though. Not the best example IMO.
 
EarlyMon said:
You must know a different Department of Defense than the one I worked for.
Click to expand...

I used to work in a non-IT position for the county government here. Every time we needed new equipment, they would take bids and pick the lowest one. The lowest bid could be vaporware, unicorns and dreams, but if it was the cheapest that was what they were going for. It was ridiculous.
 
A.Nonymous said:
Look at it another way. Let's say you really can cut your costs virtually in half. Why aren't people lining up around the block to do this? Why isn't there a great demand for a Linux migration?
Click to expand...

1- It is free, therefore, it is suspect
2- IT departments cant learn, wont learn, refuse to learn, so "we will stick with Windows, thank you very much"
3- Training costs are huge; in this economy, huge costs do not fly
4- Some software might require rewriting so it runs under Linux or Windows apps might be a problem
5- All of those IT professionals with Microsoft Certs wasted their money, perhaps? Question: would a company running Linux need to hire more IT wonks that know the OS or what (I do not know)
6- People do not like change. They are comfortable where they are and so learning a new OS is scary
7- The National Labor Union of Microsoft Users would firebomb anyone daring to switch
8- Switching is very costly, regardless of the free OS

Pick one or all, the truth is out there, as someone who worked for the FBI once told us.
 
A.Nonymous said:
I used to work in a non-IT position for the county government here. Every time we needed new equipment, they would take bids and pick the lowest one. The lowest bid could be vaporware, unicorns and dreams, but if it was the cheapest that was what they were going for. It was ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Ah. We didn't have that. We were able to select things from those cheapest that got the job done.

But whether public or private sector, purchasing often involves some kind of politics and I'm sure most of us hate that.
 
Bob Maxey said:
1- It is free, therefore, it is suspect
2- IT departments cant learn, wont learn, refuse to learn, so "we will stick with Windows, thank you very much"
3- Training costs are huge; in this economy, huge costs do not fly
4- Some software might require rewriting so it runs under Linux or Windows apps might be a problem
5- All of those IT professionals with Microsoft Certs wasted their money, perhaps? Question: would a company running Linux need to hire more IT wonks that know the OS or what (I do not know)
6- People do not like change. They are comfortable where they are and so learning a new OS is scary
7- The National Labor Union of Microsoft Users would firebomb anyone daring to switch
8- Switching is very costly, regardless of the free OS

Pick one or all, the truth is out there, as someone who worked for the FBI once told us.
Click to expand...

1 is probably not an issue. Many of my clients would kill for free software and bitch and moan that they have to pay for anything. We once spent many, many hours trying to figure out how to use Open Office to do many of the advanced functions that Office does. Some we could figure out, the important ones we couldn't. They still periodically ask about free Office alternatives. The training and the software are the biggest hurdles. It is difficult to find qualified Linux support people because there is such scarce demand for it. Those that have the necessary skills charge an arm and a leg because they are in scarcity.

EarlyMon said:
Ah. We didn't have that. We were able to select things from those cheapest that got the job done.

But whether public or private sector, purchasing often involves some kind of politics and I'm sure most of us hate that.
Click to expand...

It's more so in government I think. I sometimes swore they would ask the employees what they wanted so they could do the opposite.
 
A.Nonymous said:
I'm extremely curious how they get their vendors to support their software in a WINE environment. I've had vendors refuse to support a database server in a virtual environment because they claimed the server knows it's virtual and doesn't communicate with the network the way a physical server does (WTF??). I've had vendors refuse to support a product running under XP mode in Windows 7. I have a difficult time believing that most vendors would support their products running inside WINE or some other emulation in Linux.

Look at it another way. Let's say you really can cut your costs virtually in half. Why aren't people lining up around the block to do this? Why isn't there a great demand for a Linux migration?
Click to expand...

Well, from my perspective - working in the IT arm of a large European/international bank - they'd better wake up and start supporting what the customer wants because the outfit I'm employed by is in the midst of a huge migration to quite a complex Linux/virtualisation infrastructure. The idea is to massively improve resilience by mirroring across several sites to put it simply. The cost of licensing so many virtual and physical systems would be ... prohibitive using proprietary software. What with these tough financial times we live in, I guess TCO and efficiency is sweeping aside all those other comparatively minor objections.
 
At one time banks would only use Internet Explorer - I read somewhere that it was the coding and ease of integration into the system the bank was using.

Banks now list IE and Firefox.

I actually had one bank customer service rep ask me what Linux was!
Chrome, Safari, Opera are not listed at all.

If you use Android - the bank will need a special app. They'd probably never deal with all the other browsers available.
 
linuxrich said:
Well, from my perspective - working in the IT arm of a large European/international bank - they'd better wake up and start supporting what the customer wants because the outfit I'm employed by is in the midst of a huge migration to quite a complex Linux/virtualisation infrastructure. The idea is to massively improve resilience by mirroring across several sites to put it simply. The cost of licensing so many virtual and physical systems would be ... prohibitive using proprietary software. What with these tough financial times we live in, I guess TCO and efficiency is sweeping aside all those other comparatively minor objections.
Click to expand...

A company not supporting their product running in a virtual or an emulation environment is not a minor objection. When the app breaks, and all apps will break at some point, you try calling tech support and then try explaining to a client why tech support won't help you and why this is all your fault since you recommended the system in the first place. It will ruin your day, their day and everyone's week guaranteed. It's not a minor consideration at all. It's a HUGE consideration. Sure, you can roll the dice and hope it won't happen to you. I've seen many companies do that. But if the dice come up wrong, you can wind up unemployed in a heartbeat.
 
A.Nonymous said:
A company not supporting their product running in a virtual or an emulation environment is not a minor objection. When the app breaks, and all apps will break at some point, you try calling tech support and then try explaining to a client why tech support won't help you and why this is all your fault since you recommended the system in the first place. It will ruin your day, their day and everyone's week guaranteed. It's not a minor consideration at all. It's a HUGE consideration. Sure, you can roll the dice and hope it won't happen to you. I've seen many companies do that. But if the dice come up wrong, you can wind up unemployed in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...
Very true! If you're the person where the buck stops, you'd better know what's what. But when the decision has been made at the highest level and it's a project across the whole organisation then I would imagine that support vendors would be somewhat more flexible when their software running on a virtualised solution breaks. It would seem to me to be in their best interests not to upset their bigger customers. Logic would then dictate that if they're supporting virtualisation etc. for major account holders then they would have the expertise in place that they'd want to use to offer the same support to smaller companies.
 
EarlyMon said:
I used to have to shlep two laptops around and reduced that to one thanks to virtual machinery.

And since getting my Evo in June 2010 (not my first Android - that one) and later my dual core 3D, I've had less and less occasion to drag a laptop around at all.

More than the simple e-appliance that my feature phone or first Android was, I not only get email and web, I get streaming media and fun games, I get a fully-featured and comprehensive photo editor (and a video editor if I so choose, but it's a CPU hog), I get full Microsoft office documents editing capability (whose compatibility has been more than good enough for me), a portable wireless network monitor, full videochat capabilities, an ebook reader, wifi printing - and plus it can make phone calls.

Given that I use my phone now in over half the cases where I once HAD to rely on my laptop, I don't think it's cooking the numbers at all to include Android. Or for Apple to include iPads by the same logic. And when MS unifies their desktops and mobiles under Win8, I don't think that adding them in will be cooking the numbers either.

Ask anyone how useful they'd find their desktop without the internet. Mobile superphones are fast becoming the internet access point of choice for many.

So - Android, not Linux-based, but rather, simply Linux, and because I no longer have to carry a Mac, Win, or *nix laptop at all times because of it - Android counts in my book.

Personal computing is changing.

No longer are you restricted to using a stripped down business machine running a home edition of a real OS or a Mac as your primary home user choices for the Linux-afraid or Linux for the more savvy.

Now you can do personal computing on a truly personal device.

An iPhone is great smartphone.

An Android is a mini-laptop, thanks to it being Linux.
Click to expand...


^All of this!

jmar
 
9to5cynic said:
On your android device open up terminal emulator and type in
Code: 
 uname
It'll spit back out "Linux" That's enough for me. ;)
Click to expand...

Yup

m9tfl.jpg


jmar

Not showing my imgur screeny!
 
Bob Maxey said:
Before you start complaining, smiley, consider this: when a large group switches their OS across lots of machines, you must consider the support costs, the costs of training people to use the new OS, the cost of replacing applications that do not run on the new OS or perhaps the cost of writing new applications for the new OS and on and on.

An OS like Ubuntu would be far more costly in many cases than simply upgrading Windows. Free is often bloody costly.
Click to expand...

It's true there are costs - yes, expensive at times - to such a switch, but once it's done, you're home free. It's the cost of investment that will return dividends and save you money in the long run (not so long of a run actually).

... It's like how the government might invest in scientific research that is in no way financially beneficial now, but will be years down the road for whole industries.
 
baillou2 said:
It's true there are costs - yes, expensive at times - to such a switch, but once it's done, you're home free. It's the cost of investment that will return dividends and save you money in the long run (not so long of a run actually).

... It's like how the government might invest in scientific research that is in no way financially beneficial now, but will be years down the road for whole industries.
Click to expand...

Costs go up long term too. If you are hiring new IT techs you have to hire ones who know Linux. They are scarce because there is not much demand and are expensive because they are scarce. You may pay more for a less experienced Linux tech than a more experienced Windows tech. If you are hiring regular employees to run your business training costs are probably going to go up because it's difficult to find someone off the street who knows how to use Linux proficiently. Your search for employees may take longer and training costs will be higher. Plus, if you decide you don't like the application package you're using finding a replacement that will run and be supported on Linux natively or in an emulator environment can be difficult as well. None of these are insurmountable of course, but all are cons that have to be considered.
 
baillou2 said:
It's true there are costs - yes, expensive at times - to such a switch, but once it's done, you're home free. It's the cost of investment that will return dividends and save you money in the long run (not so long of a run actually).

... It's like how the government might invest in scientific research that is in no way financially beneficial now, but will be years down the road for whole industries.
Click to expand...

We once started basic Windows training because we were starting to implement the latest version of Windows. It never ended. I can only guess if we switched everyone from Winders to Linux, we would need to continue Windows training as well as add Linux training.

Then there is application training. Everyone used Office components, and OO would likely require that we add OO training to Windows training and to the new Linux training and then there is support.

I disagree with you. I see it as a never ending training session growing more complex with every passing free alternative. Most companies need productive people today and they do not worry about the benefits a few years down the road.
 
Many of our clients use free software for some uses. The main problem is the lack of support. A free product broke on us the other day. If there was support for the product, a quick phone call probably would've resulted in a solution. Instead, there was half a day of work and half a day of lost productivity for the business looking for the solution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom