http://www.applematters.com/article/about-linux-and-why-nobody-seems-to-care1/

 

" The general consensus seems to be that Mac users are the sort who want

the best in quality, no expenses spared Windows users are those who're

looking for the best bang for their buck (generally in the short term) and

Linux users are the ones who want everything for free, particularly

software."

 

" Some Linux users are easily dazzled by superfluous and completely useless

effects (wobbly windows, blatant overuse of transparency, etc.) and assume

that it must be better than Mac OS X because it's so cosmetically made-up

and then there are others who only need the Terminal and can keep typing on

it whole day long."

 

" The problem with the Linux community is that, like any community, it has

members with widely varying interests and preferences and the open source

developers are developing hundreds of distributions to try and cater to

every single whim and fancy of these members. The result is a cornucopia of

free software, software that has been developed at the expense of the hard

work and time of some of the most skilled developers on the planet, and yet

does not have a single product that is complete in and of itself and is

generating any profit at all."

 

" There is no way whatsoever that thousands of developers sitting in front

of their computers in different corners of the world and spending only

their non-working hours trying to develop something that they know isn't

going to make them any money, are ever going to come up with anything good

enough to seriously challenge software from companies like Microsoft and

Apple. There is just no chance at all."

 

" Linux has been around for more than a decade now and it's nowhere near

challenging either Mac OS X or Windows. The vast majority of hardware and

software makers around the world are still shipping products that are

incompatible with Linux."

 

" There's no guarantee that the camera you bought today and is compatible

with your Ubuntu installation will work with Fedora Core too should you

change your mind in a few days, as is a common practice among the Linux

enthusiasts."

 

" All of this and more are reasons enough to ignore Linux. Linux users are

never quite sure which one is the best distribution around. They have

debates in their own community with twenty different users vouching for

twenty different variations. They constantly have to keep figuring out

workarounds to make all their software and hardware work together. They

can't just go out and buy a new accessory, assured in the knowledge that it

will work. They are afraid to upgrade, lest things go wrong."

 

And so forth......

 

Obviously this guy has had experience with LinSUX because his article is

right on the money....

 

--

Moshe Goldfarb

Collector of soaps from around the globe.

Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:

http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

Moshe. Goldfarb wrote:

> http://www.applematters.com/article/about-linux-and-why-nobody-seems-to-care1/

>

> " The general consensus seems to be that Mac users are the sort who want

> the best in quality, no expenses spared Windows users are those who're

> looking for the best bang for their buck (generally in the short term) and

> Linux users are the ones who want everything for free, particularly

> software."

>

> " Some Linux users are easily dazzled by superfluous and completely useless

> effects (wobbly windows, blatant overuse of transparency, etc.) and assume

> that it must be better than Mac OS X because it's so cosmetically made-up

> and then there are others who only need the Terminal and can keep typing on

> it whole day long."

>

> " The problem with the Linux community is that, like any community, it has

> members with widely varying interests and preferences and the open source

> developers are developing hundreds of distributions to try and cater to

> every single whim and fancy of these members. The result is a cornucopia of

> free software, software that has been developed at the expense of the hard

> work and time of some of the most skilled developers on the planet, and yet

> does not have a single product that is complete in and of itself and is

> generating any profit at all."

>

> " There is no way whatsoever that thousands of developers sitting in front

> of their computers in different corners of the world and spending only

> their non-working hours trying to develop something that they know isn't

> going to make them any money, are ever going to come up with anything good

> enough to seriously challenge software from companies like Microsoft and

> Apple. There is just no chance at all."

>

> " Linux has been around for more than a decade now and it's nowhere near

> challenging either Mac OS X or Windows. The vast majority of hardware and

> software makers around the world are still shipping products that are

> incompatible with Linux."

>

> " There's no guarantee that the camera you bought today and is compatible

> with your Ubuntu installation will work with Fedora Core too should you

> change your mind in a few days, as is a common practice among the Linux

> enthusiasts."

>

> " All of this and more are reasons enough to ignore Linux. Linux users are

> never quite sure which one is the best distribution around. They have

> debates in their own community with twenty different users vouching for

> twenty different variations. They constantly have to keep figuring out

> workarounds to make all their software and hardware work together. They

> can't just go out and buy a new accessory, assured in the knowledge that it

> will work. They are afraid to upgrade, lest things go wrong."

>

> And so forth......

>

> Obviously this guy has had experience with LinSUX because his article is

> right on the money....

>

 

Why are you so afraid of Linux, Moshe?

 

Alias

"Alias" <iamalias@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message

news:g15vm4$8kk$1@aioe.org...

 

> Why are you so afraid of Linux, Moshe?

>

> Alias

 

Hi, alias, you are one of the ones who has been afraid to upgrade in the

past, how did it go this time?

Have the wobbly windows made your life better?

dennis@home wrote:

>

>

> "Alias" <iamalias@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message

> news:g15vm4$8kk$1@aioe.org...

>

>

>> Why are you so afraid of Linux, Moshe?

>>

>> Alias

>

> Hi, alias, you are one of the ones who has been afraid to upgrade in the

> past,

 

False. Where did you get that idea?

> how did it go this time?

> Have the wobbly windows made your life better?

 

Why would you think that or are you being facetious again?

 

Alias

"Alias" <iamalias@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message

news:g15vm4$8kk$1@aioe.org...

> Moshe. Goldfarb wrote:

>> http://www.applematters.com/article/about-linux-and-why-nobody-seems-to-care1/

>>

>> " The general consensus seems to be that Mac users are the sort who want

>> the best in quality, no expenses spared Windows users are those who're

>> looking for the best bang for their buck (generally in the short term)

>> and

>> Linux users are the ones who want everything for free, particularly

>> software."

>>

>> " Some Linux users are easily dazzled by superfluous and completely

>> useless

>> effects (wobbly windows, blatant overuse of transparency, etc.) and

>> assume

>> that it must be better than Mac OS X because it's so cosmetically made-up

>> and then there are others who only need the Terminal and can keep typing

>> on

>> it whole day long."

>>

>> " The problem with the Linux community is that, like any community, it

>> has

>> members with widely varying interests and preferences and the open source

>> developers are developing hundreds of distributions to try and cater to

>> every single whim and fancy of these members. The result is a cornucopia

>> of

>> free software, software that has been developed at the expense of the

>> hard

>> work and time of some of the most skilled developers on the planet, and

>> yet

>> does not have a single product that is complete in and of itself and is

>> generating any profit at all."

>>

>> " There is no way whatsoever that thousands of developers sitting in

>> front

>> of their computers in different corners of the world and spending only

>> their non-working hours trying to develop something that they know isn't

>> going to make them any money, are ever going to come up with anything

>> good

>> enough to seriously challenge software from companies like Microsoft and

>> Apple. There is just no chance at all."

>>

>> " Linux has been around for more than a decade now and it's nowhere near

>> challenging either Mac OS X or Windows. The vast majority of hardware and

>> software makers around the world are still shipping products that are

>> incompatible with Linux."

>>

>> " There's no guarantee that the camera you bought today and is compatible

>> with your Ubuntu installation will work with Fedora Core too should you

>> change your mind in a few days, as is a common practice among the Linux

>> enthusiasts."

>>

>> " All of this and more are reasons enough to ignore Linux. Linux users

>> are

>> never quite sure which one is the best distribution around. They have

>> debates in their own community with twenty different users vouching for

>> twenty different variations. They constantly have to keep figuring out

>> workarounds to make all their software and hardware work together. They

>> can't just go out and buy a new accessory, assured in the knowledge that

>> it

>> will work. They are afraid to upgrade, lest things go wrong."

>>

>> And so forth......

>>

>> Obviously this guy has had experience with LinSUX because his article is

>> right on the money....

>>

>

> Why are you so afraid of Linux, Moshe?

 

I don't think he is. All the points made in this article are valid.

 

Linux won't make it into the mainstream as a business desktop OS. I'm IT

support manager for one of the biggest pharma companies in the world. There

isn't a hope in hell of us ever going to Linux, mainly because of the

reasons stated above but also we have 40,000 users worldwide. Where would

the money come to retrain them all? Who is going to pay for my staff's time

to rebuild all those machines with Linux on them?

Who's going to pay to retrain all my support staff to use a totally new OS?

What are our customers going to say when the documents we create and send

them don't open or format correctly on their Windows boxes?

 

It'd be like going back to the late 80s when I started in IT. We had 4

different word processing apps at my first company, none of which could talk

to the other without an add-on and lots of pissing about.

 

I'm not saying Linux is a bad OS, it has it's uses, and I think if it had

the coverage Windows got when Win3 first came out, it would probably be

doing a lot better on the desktop, but it didn't, and it won't. Saying that,

I have 3 linux PCs at home, and I set my gran up with one running Ubuntu

recently, so I'm not *against* Linux per se.

 

Face it. I can go out and buy a named brand PC, with an OS for less than

£300 for our office. I can plug it in, and it just works when the user logs

in. It sees all the servers, the drives map. It does it perfectly. OK, it's

Windoze, but nothing is perfect. ..

 

Mike P

Mike P wrote:

> "Alias" <iamalias@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message

> news:g15vm4$8kk$1@aioe.org...

>> Moshe. Goldfarb wrote:

>>> http://www.applematters.com/article/about-linux-and-why-nobody-seems-to-care1/

>>>

>>> " The general consensus seems to be that Mac users are the sort who want

>>> the best in quality, no expenses spared Windows users are those who're

>>> looking for the best bang for their buck (generally in the short term)

>>> and

>>> Linux users are the ones who want everything for free, particularly

>>> software."

>>>

>>> " Some Linux users are easily dazzled by superfluous and completely

>>> useless

>>> effects (wobbly windows, blatant overuse of transparency, etc.) and

>>> assume

>>> that it must be better than Mac OS X because it's so cosmetically made-up

>>> and then there are others who only need the Terminal and can keep typing

>>> on

>>> it whole day long."

>>>

>>> " The problem with the Linux community is that, like any community, it

>>> has

>>> members with widely varying interests and preferences and the open source

>>> developers are developing hundreds of distributions to try and cater to

>>> every single whim and fancy of these members. The result is a cornucopia

>>> of

>>> free software, software that has been developed at the expense of the

>>> hard

>>> work and time of some of the most skilled developers on the planet, and

>>> yet

>>> does not have a single product that is complete in and of itself and is

>>> generating any profit at all."

>>>

>>> " There is no way whatsoever that thousands of developers sitting in

>>> front

>>> of their computers in different corners of the world and spending only

>>> their non-working hours trying to develop something that they know isn't

>>> going to make them any money, are ever going to come up with anything

>>> good

>>> enough to seriously challenge software from companies like Microsoft and

>>> Apple. There is just no chance at all."

>>>

>>> " Linux has been around for more than a decade now and it's nowhere near

>>> challenging either Mac OS X or Windows. The vast majority of hardware and

>>> software makers around the world are still shipping products that are

>>> incompatible with Linux."

>>>

>>> " There's no guarantee that the camera you bought today and is compatible

>>> with your Ubuntu installation will work with Fedora Core too should you

>>> change your mind in a few days, as is a common practice among the Linux

>>> enthusiasts."

>>>

>>> " All of this and more are reasons enough to ignore Linux. Linux users

>>> are

>>> never quite sure which one is the best distribution around. They have

>>> debates in their own community with twenty different users vouching for

>>> twenty different variations. They constantly have to keep figuring out

>>> workarounds to make all their software and hardware work together. They

>>> can't just go out and buy a new accessory, assured in the knowledge that

>>> it

>>> will work. They are afraid to upgrade, lest things go wrong."

>>>

>>> And so forth......

>>>

>>> Obviously this guy has had experience with LinSUX because his article is

>>> right on the money....

>>>

>> Why are you so afraid of Linux, Moshe?

>

> I don't think he is. All the points made in this article are valid.

>

> Linux won't make it into the mainstream as a business desktop OS. I'm IT

> support manager for one of the biggest pharma companies in the world. There

> isn't a hope in hell of us ever going to Linux, mainly because of the

> reasons stated above but also we have 40,000 users worldwide. Where would

> the money come to retrain them all? Who is going to pay for my staff's time

> to rebuild all those machines with Linux on them?

> Who's going to pay to retrain all my support staff to use a totally new OS?

> What are our customers going to say when the documents we create and send

> them don't open or format correctly on their Windows boxes?

>

> It'd be like going back to the late 80s when I started in IT. We had 4

> different word processing apps at my first company, none of which could talk

> to the other without an add-on and lots of pissing about.

>

> I'm not saying Linux is a bad OS, it has it's uses, and I think if it had

> the coverage Windows got when Win3 first came out, it would probably be

> doing a lot better on the desktop, but it didn't, and it won't. Saying that,

> I have 3 linux PCs at home, and I set my gran up with one running Ubuntu

> recently, so I'm not *against* Linux per se.

>

> Face it. I can go out and buy a named brand PC, with an OS for less than

> �300 for our office. I can plug it in, and it just works when the user logs

> in. It sees all the servers, the drives map. It does it perfectly. OK, it's

> Windoze, but nothing is perfect. ..

>

> Mike P

>

>

 

Let's see, 40,000 workstations with Vista and all need to be trained or

40,000 workstations with Ubuntu and all need to be trained. What's the

difference? Vista is expensive, both for the software itself and the

upgraded hardware, and Ubuntu is free. If you want your company to stay

in the past, don't train them to use Ubuntu and train them to use Vista

and fork out the money for new hardware.

 

And that doesn't include the cost of cleaning off viruses and malware

from these Windows workstations.

 

Alias

In article <1jjsl67rniymr$.d1hhjl07keuj$.dlg@40tude.net>, Moshe.

Goldfarb <brick.n.straw@gmail.com> wrote:

> http://www.applematters.com/article/about-linux-and-why-nobody-seems-to-care1/

>

> " The general consensus seems to be that Mac users are the sort who want

> the best in quality, no expenses spared Windows users are those who're

> looking for the best bang for their buck (generally in the short term) and

> Linux users are the ones who want everything for free, particularly

> software."

A general consensus, not a summary of reasons or of personalities.

People may buy Mac because they refuse to deal with Windows, but still

want a full OS and reliability.

> " Some Linux users are easily dazzled by superfluous and completely useless

> effects (wobbly windows, blatant overuse of transparency, etc.) and assume

> that it must be better than Mac OS X because it's so cosmetically made-up

Yes there are always people around assuming that the most obvious and

shiny part if the best one. Glamor effects are useless, and often

detracting, not beneficial -- even if they are technically impressive

and complicated or hard to make happen.

> " The problem with the Linux community is that, like any community, it has

> members with widely varying interests

Didn't he start by saying it is uniform?

> " There is no way whatsoever that thousands of developers sitting in front

> of their computers in different corners of the world and spending only

> their non-working hours trying to develop something that they know isn't

> going to make them any money, are ever going to come up with anything good

> enough to seriously challenge software from companies like Microsoft and

> Apple. There is just no chance at all."

That's ignorant. There are many examples, especially in software, of

individuals making great products or tools.

> " Linux has been around for more than a decade now and it's nowhere near

> challenging either Mac OS X or Windows.

Only because the 'challenging' part is being gauged by something that

Linux doesn't do -- retail sales from a single provider.

There is no doubt it is significant, being useful, being applied in

important ways, and being enjoyed by the type of people who very well

could produce the next important products.

> " There's no guarantee that the camera you bought today and is compatible

> with your Ubuntu installation will work with Fedora Core too

But the situation is more flexible and changing than that, has more

frequent upgrades and updates, and -- probably most importantly -- it

is easy and common to just have more than one OS to use for different

tasks. That means the worst consequence might be having to reboot.

> " All of this and more are reasons enough to ignore Linux. Linux users are

> never quite sure which one is the best distribution around. They have

> debates in their own community with twenty different users vouching for

> twenty different variations. They constantly have to keep figuring out

> workarounds to make all their software and hardware work together. They

> can't just go out and buy a new accessory, assured in the knowledge that it

> will work. They are afraid to upgrade, lest things go wrong."

Linux users are afraid to upgrade?

Most people would suggest they do this more than almost all other user

types, particularly for software, and that they have little hesitation

making other changes.

In article <1jjsl67rniymr$.d1hhjl07keuj$.dlg@40tude.net>,

Moshe the Troll <stupid.troll@trollsrus.com> wrote:

>

>" There is no way whatsoever that thousands of developers sitting in front

>of their computers in different corners of the world and spending only

>their non-working hours trying to develop something that they know isn't

>going to make them any money, are ever going to come up with anything good

>enough to seriously challenge software from companies like Microsoft and

>Apple. There is just no chance at all."

>

 

Apache. Mysql. Perl. Php. Bind. Inn. Dhcpd. Netfilter.

 

**Linux**

 

BTW, what OS is MacOS based on? Windows 2003, right? No?

 

>" Linux has been around for more than a decade now and it's nowhere near

>challenging either Mac OS X or Windows. The vast majority of hardware and

>software makers around the world are still shipping products that are

>incompatible with Linux."

>

 

For instance, Ditch Witch has absolutely no Linux support whatsoever.

"Alias" <iamalias@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message

news:g16382$8rt$1@aioe.org...

> Mike P wrote:

>> "Alias" <iamalias@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message

>> news:g15vm4$8kk$1@aioe.org...

>>> Moshe. Goldfarb wrote:

>>>> http://www.applematters.com/article/about-linux-and-why-nobody-seems-to-care1/

>>>>

>>>> " The general consensus seems to be that Mac users are the sort who

>>>> want

>>>> the best in quality, no expenses spared Windows users are those who're

>>>> looking for the best bang for their buck (generally in the short term)

>>>> and

>>>> Linux users are the ones who want everything for free, particularly

>>>> software."

>>>>

>>>> " Some Linux users are easily dazzled by superfluous and completely

>>>> useless

>>>> effects (wobbly windows, blatant overuse of transparency, etc.) and

>>>> assume

>>>> that it must be better than Mac OS X because it's so cosmetically

>>>> made-up

>>>> and then there are others who only need the Terminal and can keep

>>>> typing on

>>>> it whole day long."

>>>>

>>>> " The problem with the Linux community is that, like any community, it

>>>> has

>>>> members with widely varying interests and preferences and the open

>>>> source

>>>> developers are developing hundreds of distributions to try and cater to

>>>> every single whim and fancy of these members. The result is a

>>>> cornucopia of

>>>> free software, software that has been developed at the expense of the

>>>> hard

>>>> work and time of some of the most skilled developers on the planet, and

>>>> yet

>>>> does not have a single product that is complete in and of itself and is

>>>> generating any profit at all."

>>>>

>>>> " There is no way whatsoever that thousands of developers sitting in

>>>> front

>>>> of their computers in different corners of the world and spending only

>>>> their non-working hours trying to develop something that they know

>>>> isn't

>>>> going to make them any money, are ever going to come up with anything

>>>> good

>>>> enough to seriously challenge software from companies like Microsoft

>>>> and

>>>> Apple. There is just no chance at all."

>>>>

>>>> " Linux has been around for more than a decade now and it's nowhere

>>>> near

>>>> challenging either Mac OS X or Windows. The vast majority of hardware

>>>> and

>>>> software makers around the world are still shipping products that are

>>>> incompatible with Linux."

>>>>

>>>> " There's no guarantee that the camera you bought today and is

>>>> compatible

>>>> with your Ubuntu installation will work with Fedora Core too should you

>>>> change your mind in a few days, as is a common practice among the Linux

>>>> enthusiasts."

>>>>

>>>> " All of this and more are reasons enough to ignore Linux. Linux users

>>>> are

>>>> never quite sure which one is the best distribution around. They have

>>>> debates in their own community with twenty different users vouching for

>>>> twenty different variations. They constantly have to keep figuring out

>>>> workarounds to make all their software and hardware work together. They

>>>> can't just go out and buy a new accessory, assured in the knowledge

>>>> that it

>>>> will work. They are afraid to upgrade, lest things go wrong."

>>>>

>>>> And so forth......

>>>>

>>>> Obviously this guy has had experience with LinSUX because his article

>>>> is

>>>> right on the money....

>>>>

>>> Why are you so afraid of Linux, Moshe?

>>

>> I don't think he is. All the points made in this article are valid.

>>

>> Linux won't make it into the mainstream as a business desktop OS. I'm IT

>> support manager for one of the biggest pharma companies in the world.

>> There isn't a hope in hell of us ever going to Linux, mainly because of

>> the reasons stated above but also we have 40,000 users worldwide. Where

>> would the money come to retrain them all? Who is going to pay for my

>> staff's time to rebuild all those machines with Linux on them?

>> Who's going to pay to retrain all my support staff to use a totally new

>> OS? What are our customers going to say when the documents we create and

>> send them don't open or format correctly on their Windows boxes?

>>

>> It'd be like going back to the late 80s when I started in IT. We had 4

>> different word processing apps at my first company, none of which could

>> talk to the other without an add-on and lots of pissing about.

>>

>> I'm not saying Linux is a bad OS, it has it's uses, and I think if it had

>> the coverage Windows got when Win3 first came out, it would probably be

>> doing a lot better on the desktop, but it didn't, and it won't. Saying

>> that, I have 3 linux PCs at home, and I set my gran up with one running

>> Ubuntu recently, so I'm not *against* Linux per se.

>>

>> Face it. I can go out and buy a named brand PC, with an OS for less than

>> ?300 for our office. I can plug it in, and it just works when the user

>> logs in. It sees all the servers, the drives map. It does it perfectly.

>> OK, it's Windoze, but nothing is perfect. ..

>>

>> Mike P

>>

>>

>

> Let's see, 40,000 workstations with Vista and all need to be trained or

> 40,000 workstations with Ubuntu and all need to be trained. What's the

> difference? Vista is expensive, both for the software itself and the

> upgraded hardware, and Ubuntu is free. If you want your company to stay in

> the past, don't train them to use Ubuntu and train them to use Vista and

> fork out the money for new hardware.

>

> And that doesn't include the cost of cleaning off viruses and malware from

> these Windows workstations.

>

 

What viruses? We've not had a virus outbreak since 2002...

 

We don't need to train most users to use Vista, because XP works very well

and is very stable for our needs. Even if we did, Vista isn't expensive for

us, has a "familiar" feel to it, and our corporate image would be set as

we've set XP up so there wouldn't be a great deal of change.

 

We'll only start upgrading once the machines we buy are no longer supplied

with XP, even then they have a 3 year life cycle then are replaced, which is

standard practice for corporate IT departments. So we won't upgrade until

absolutely necessary. It's not "staying in the past", it's good business

sense to use something that works reliably, which contrary to Linux users

beliefs, Windows does in a corporate environment when set up correctly.

 

We have a lot of in house software written for windoze, and other software

( clinical trial software, Drug regulatory software etc ) that only works on

Windoze.

 

Mike P

In article <69ng8mF33j2j8U1@mid.individual.net>,

Mike P <privacy@privacy.net> wrote:

>

>I don't think he is. All the points made in this article are valid.

>

 

Oh, horseshit. "Wobbly windows" ? "Afraid to upgrade"? Give

me a break...

>to rebuild all those machines with Linux on them?

 

And the IT manager for one of the biggest companies in the world

has never heard of an incremental rollout?

>Who's going to pay to retrain all my support staff to use a totally new OS?

 

Just a guess, mind you, but perhaps the same executives who

considered the cost of retraining when they decided that moving to a new

platform was a cost effective solution to having their business held

hostage to Redmond?

 

In the cases where I've seen Linux make significant inroads on the

desktop it's uniformly been a "grassroots" movement. Typically a few

of the more technical employees will switch, and their success convinces

others. It's possible only in an organization that encourages its employees

to think and gives them permission to innovate. That's probably why you

don't see it happen often.

Mike P wrote:

> "Alias" <iamalias@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message

> news:g16382$8rt$1@aioe.org...

>> Mike P wrote:

>>> "Alias" <iamalias@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message

>>> news:g15vm4$8kk$1@aioe.org...

>>>> Moshe. Goldfarb wrote:

>>>>> http://www.applematters.com/article/about-linux-and-why-nobody-seems-to-care1/

>>>>>

>>>>> " The general consensus seems to be that Mac users are the sort who

>>>>> want

>>>>> the best in quality, no expenses spared Windows users are those who're

>>>>> looking for the best bang for their buck (generally in the short term)

>>>>> and

>>>>> Linux users are the ones who want everything for free, particularly

>>>>> software."

>>>>>

>>>>> " Some Linux users are easily dazzled by superfluous and completely

>>>>> useless

>>>>> effects (wobbly windows, blatant overuse of transparency, etc.) and

>>>>> assume

>>>>> that it must be better than Mac OS X because it's so cosmetically

>>>>> made-up

>>>>> and then there are others who only need the Terminal and can keep

>>>>> typing on

>>>>> it whole day long."

>>>>>

>>>>> " The problem with the Linux community is that, like any community, it

>>>>> has

>>>>> members with widely varying interests and preferences and the open

>>>>> source

>>>>> developers are developing hundreds of distributions to try and cater to

>>>>> every single whim and fancy of these members. The result is a

>>>>> cornucopia of

>>>>> free software, software that has been developed at the expense of the

>>>>> hard

>>>>> work and time of some of the most skilled developers on the planet, and

>>>>> yet

>>>>> does not have a single product that is complete in and of itself and is

>>>>> generating any profit at all."

>>>>>

>>>>> " There is no way whatsoever that thousands of developers sitting in

>>>>> front

>>>>> of their computers in different corners of the world and spending only

>>>>> their non-working hours trying to develop something that they know

>>>>> isn't

>>>>> going to make them any money, are ever going to come up with anything

>>>>> good

>>>>> enough to seriously challenge software from companies like Microsoft

>>>>> and

>>>>> Apple. There is just no chance at all."

>>>>>

>>>>> " Linux has been around for more than a decade now and it's nowhere

>>>>> near

>>>>> challenging either Mac OS X or Windows. The vast majority of hardware

>>>>> and

>>>>> software makers around the world are still shipping products that are

>>>>> incompatible with Linux."

>>>>>

>>>>> " There's no guarantee that the camera you bought today and is

>>>>> compatible

>>>>> with your Ubuntu installation will work with Fedora Core too should you

>>>>> change your mind in a few days, as is a common practice among the Linux

>>>>> enthusiasts."

>>>>>

>>>>> " All of this and more are reasons enough to ignore Linux. Linux users

>>>>> are

>>>>> never quite sure which one is the best distribution around. They have

>>>>> debates in their own community with twenty different users vouching for

>>>>> twenty different variations. They constantly have to keep figuring out

>>>>> workarounds to make all their software and hardware work together. They

>>>>> can't just go out and buy a new accessory, assured in the knowledge

>>>>> that it

>>>>> will work. They are afraid to upgrade, lest things go wrong."

>>>>>

>>>>> And so forth......

>>>>>

>>>>> Obviously this guy has had experience with LinSUX because his article

>>>>> is

>>>>> right on the money....

>>>>>

>>>> Why are you so afraid of Linux, Moshe?

>>> I don't think he is. All the points made in this article are valid.

>>>

>>> Linux won't make it into the mainstream as a business desktop OS. I'm IT

>>> support manager for one of the biggest pharma companies in the world.

>>> There isn't a hope in hell of us ever going to Linux, mainly because of

>>> the reasons stated above but also we have 40,000 users worldwide. Where

>>> would the money come to retrain them all? Who is going to pay for my

>>> staff's time to rebuild all those machines with Linux on them?

>>> Who's going to pay to retrain all my support staff to use a totally new

>>> OS? What are our customers going to say when the documents we create and

>>> send them don't open or format correctly on their Windows boxes?

>>>

>>> It'd be like going back to the late 80s when I started in IT. We had 4

>>> different word processing apps at my first company, none of which could

>>> talk to the other without an add-on and lots of pissing about.

>>>

>>> I'm not saying Linux is a bad OS, it has it's uses, and I think if it had

>>> the coverage Windows got when Win3 first came out, it would probably be

>>> doing a lot better on the desktop, but it didn't, and it won't. Saying

>>> that, I have 3 linux PCs at home, and I set my gran up with one running

>>> Ubuntu recently, so I'm not *against* Linux per se.

>>>

>>> Face it. I can go out and buy a named brand PC, with an OS for less than

>>> ?300 for our office. I can plug it in, and it just works when the user

>>> logs in. It sees all the servers, the drives map. It does it perfectly.

>>> OK, it's Windoze, but nothing is perfect. ..

>>>

>>> Mike P

>>>

>>>

>> Let's see, 40,000 workstations with Vista and all need to be trained or

>> 40,000 workstations with Ubuntu and all need to be trained. What's the

>> difference? Vista is expensive, both for the software itself and the

>> upgraded hardware, and Ubuntu is free. If you want your company to stay in

>> the past, don't train them to use Ubuntu and train them to use Vista and

>> fork out the money for new hardware.

>>

>> And that doesn't include the cost of cleaning off viruses and malware from

>> these Windows workstations.

>>

>

> What viruses? We've not had a virus outbreak since 2002...

 

Yeah, riiiiiight.

>

> We don't need to train most users to use Vista, because XP works very well

> and is very stable for our needs. Even if we did, Vista isn't expensive for

> us, has a "familiar" feel to it, and our corporate image would be set as

> we've set XP up so there wouldn't be a great deal of change.

>

> We'll only start upgrading once the machines we buy are no longer supplied

> with XP, even then they have a 3 year life cycle then are replaced, which is

> standard practice for corporate IT departments. So we won't upgrade until

> absolutely necessary. It's not "staying in the past", it's good business

> sense to use something that works reliably, which contrary to Linux users

> beliefs, Windows does in a corporate environment when set up correctly.

>

> We have a lot of in house software written for windoze, and other software

> ( clinical trial software, Drug regulatory software etc ) that only works on

> Windoze.

>

> Mike P

 

Sorry to hear it. What would you do if MS goes out of business?

 

Alias

I agree with you but that is for now.

 

Dell was not a threat for Compaq as Microsoft was not for IBM. What

happened?

 

We are living in a dynamic world in which everything is changing. The

question is, which direction?

 

My job requires me to work for the best interests of the company, customers,

suppliers and other stakeholders, except for any technology/product company.

Even I prefer MS solutions at this point, but it doesn't mean that it will

not change if it no longer serves our best interests.

 

I tend to think that is the difference between a professional (e.g.

corporate IT manager) and a fanboy. You must have heard about what Andy

Grove once said: Only Paranoid Can Survive. No one can better describe

today's business environment including IT industry than him.

 

 

 

"Mike P" <privacy@privacy.net> wrote in message

news:69ng8mF33j2j8U1@mid.individual.net...

>

> "Alias" <iamalias@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message

> news:g15vm4$8kk$1@aioe.org...

>> Moshe. Goldfarb wrote:

>>> http://www.applematters.com/article/about-linux-and-why-nobody-seems-to-care1/

>>>

>>> " The general consensus seems to be that Mac users are the sort who want

>>> the best in quality, no expenses spared Windows users are those who're

>>> looking for the best bang for their buck (generally in the short term)

>>> and

>>> Linux users are the ones who want everything for free, particularly

>>> software."

>>>

>>> " Some Linux users are easily dazzled by superfluous and completely

>>> useless

>>> effects (wobbly windows, blatant overuse of transparency, etc.) and

>>> assume

>>> that it must be better than Mac OS X because it's so cosmetically

>>> made-up

>>> and then there are others who only need the Terminal and can keep typing

>>> on

>>> it whole day long."

>>>

>>> " The problem with the Linux community is that, like any community, it

>>> has

>>> members with widely varying interests and preferences and the open

>>> source

>>> developers are developing hundreds of distributions to try and cater to

>>> every single whim and fancy of these members. The result is a cornucopia

>>> of

>>> free software, software that has been developed at the expense of the

>>> hard

>>> work and time of some of the most skilled developers on the planet, and

>>> yet

>>> does not have a single product that is complete in and of itself and is

>>> generating any profit at all."

>>>

>>> " There is no way whatsoever that thousands of developers sitting in

>>> front

>>> of their computers in different corners of the world and spending only

>>> their non-working hours trying to develop something that they know isn't

>>> going to make them any money, are ever going to come up with anything

>>> good

>>> enough to seriously challenge software from companies like Microsoft and

>>> Apple. There is just no chance at all."

>>>

>>> " Linux has been around for more than a decade now and it's nowhere near

>>> challenging either Mac OS X or Windows. The vast majority of hardware

>>> and

>>> software makers around the world are still shipping products that are

>>> incompatible with Linux."

>>>

>>> " There's no guarantee that the camera you bought today and is

>>> compatible

>>> with your Ubuntu installation will work with Fedora Core too should you

>>> change your mind in a few days, as is a common practice among the Linux

>>> enthusiasts."

>>>

>>> " All of this and more are reasons enough to ignore Linux. Linux users

>>> are

>>> never quite sure which one is the best distribution around. They have

>>> debates in their own community with twenty different users vouching for

>>> twenty different variations. They constantly have to keep figuring out

>>> workarounds to make all their software and hardware work together. They

>>> can't just go out and buy a new accessory, assured in the knowledge that

>>> it

>>> will work. They are afraid to upgrade, lest things go wrong."

>>>

>>> And so forth......

>>>

>>> Obviously this guy has had experience with LinSUX because his article is

>>> right on the money....

>>>

>>

>> Why are you so afraid of Linux, Moshe?

>

> I don't think he is. All the points made in this article are valid.

>

> Linux won't make it into the mainstream as a business desktop OS. I'm IT

> support manager for one of the biggest pharma companies in the world.

> There isn't a hope in hell of us ever going to Linux, mainly because of

> the reasons stated above but also we have 40,000 users worldwide. Where

> would the money come to retrain them all? Who is going to pay for my

> staff's time to rebuild all those machines with Linux on them?

> Who's going to pay to retrain all my support staff to use a totally new

> OS? What are our customers going to say when the documents we create and

> send them don't open or format correctly on their Windows boxes?

>

> It'd be like going back to the late 80s when I started in IT. We had 4

> different word processing apps at my first company, none of which could

> talk to the other without an add-on and lots of pissing about.

>

> I'm not saying Linux is a bad OS, it has it's uses, and I think if it had

> the coverage Windows got when Win3 first came out, it would probably be

> doing a lot better on the desktop, but it didn't, and it won't. Saying

> that, I have 3 linux PCs at home, and I set my gran up with one running

> Ubuntu recently, so I'm not *against* Linux per se.

>

> Face it. I can go out and buy a named brand PC, with an OS for less than

> ?00 for our office. I can plug it in, and it just works when the user logs

> in. It sees all the servers, the drives map. It does it perfectly. OK,

> it's Windoze, but nothing is perfect. ..

>

> Mike P

>

>

Hobbes wrote:

>

> "Alias" <iamalias@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message

> news:g165o2$ub2$1@aioe.org...

>> Mike P wrote:

>>> "Alias" <iamalias@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message

>>> news:g16382$8rt$1@aioe.org...

>>>> Mike P wrote:

>>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>> news:g15vm4$8kk$1@aioe.org...

>>>>>> Moshe. Goldfarb wrote:

>>>>>>> http://www.applematters.com/article/about-linux-and-why-nobody-seems-to-care1/

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> " The general consensus seems to be that Mac users are the sort

>>>>>>> who want

>>>>>>> the best in quality, no expenses spared Windows users are those

>>>>>>> who're

>>>>>>> looking for the best bang for their buck (generally in the short

>>>>>>> term) and

>>>>>>> Linux users are the ones who want everything for free, particularly

>>>>>>> software."

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> " Some Linux users are easily dazzled by superfluous and

>>>>>>> completely useless

>>>>>>> effects (wobbly windows, blatant overuse of transparency, etc.)

>>>>>>> and assume

>>>>>>> that it must be better than Mac OS X because it's so cosmetically

>>>>>>> made-up

>>>>>>> and then there are others who only need the Terminal and can keep

>>>>>>> typing on

>>>>>>> it whole day long."

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> " The problem with the Linux community is that, like any

>>>>>>> community, it has

>>>>>>> members with widely varying interests and preferences and the

>>>>>>> open source

>>>>>>> developers are developing hundreds of distributions to try and

>>>>>>> cater to

>>>>>>> every single whim and fancy of these members. The result is a

>>>>>>> cornucopia of

>>>>>>> free software, software that has been developed at the expense of

>>>>>>> the hard

>>>>>>> work and time of some of the most skilled developers on the

>>>>>>> planet, and yet

>>>>>>> does not have a single product that is complete in and of itself

>>>>>>> and is

>>>>>>> generating any profit at all."

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> " There is no way whatsoever that thousands of developers sitting

>>>>>>> in front

>>>>>>> of their computers in different corners of the world and spending

>>>>>>> only

>>>>>>> their non-working hours trying to develop something that they

>>>>>>> know isn't

>>>>>>> going to make them any money, are ever going to come up with

>>>>>>> anything good

>>>>>>> enough to seriously challenge software from companies like

>>>>>>> Microsoft and

>>>>>>> Apple. There is just no chance at all."

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> " Linux has been around for more than a decade now and it's

>>>>>>> nowhere near

>>>>>>> challenging either Mac OS X or Windows. The vast majority of

>>>>>>> hardware and

>>>>>>> software makers around the world are still shipping products that

>>>>>>> are

>>>>>>> incompatible with Linux."

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> " There's no guarantee that the camera you bought today and is

>>>>>>> compatible

>>>>>>> with your Ubuntu installation will work with Fedora Core too

>>>>>>> should you

>>>>>>> change your mind in a few days, as is a common practice among the

>>>>>>> Linux

>>>>>>> enthusiasts."

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> " All of this and more are reasons enough to ignore Linux. Linux

>>>>>>> users are

>>>>>>> never quite sure which one is the best distribution around. They

>>>>>>> have

>>>>>>> debates in their own community with twenty different users

>>>>>>> vouching for

>>>>>>> twenty different variations. They constantly have to keep

>>>>>>> figuring out

>>>>>>> workarounds to make all their software and hardware work

>>>>>>> together. They

>>>>>>> can't just go out and buy a new accessory, assured in the

>>>>>>> knowledge that it

>>>>>>> will work. They are afraid to upgrade, lest things go wrong."

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> And so forth......

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Obviously this guy has had experience with LinSUX because his

>>>>>>> article is

>>>>>>> right on the money....

>>>>>>>

>>>>>> Why are you so afraid of Linux, Moshe?

>>>>> I don't think he is. All the points made in this article are valid.

>>>>>

>>>>> Linux won't make it into the mainstream as a business desktop OS.

>>>>> I'm IT support manager for one of the biggest pharma companies in

>>>>> the world. There isn't a hope in hell of us ever going to Linux,

>>>>> mainly because of the reasons stated above but also we have 40,000

>>>>> users worldwide. Where would the money come to retrain them all?

>>>>> Who is going to pay for my staff's time to rebuild all those

>>>>> machines with Linux on them?

>>>>> Who's going to pay to retrain all my support staff to use a totally

>>>>> new OS? What are our customers going to say when the documents we

>>>>> create and send them don't open or format correctly on their

>>>>> Windows boxes?

>>>>>

>>>>> It'd be like going back to the late 80s when I started in IT. We

>>>>> had 4 different word processing apps at my first company, none of

>>>>> which could talk to the other without an add-on and lots of pissing

>>>>> about.

>>>>>

>>>>> I'm not saying Linux is a bad OS, it has it's uses, and I think if

>>>>> it had the coverage Windows got when Win3 first came out, it would

>>>>> probably be doing a lot better on the desktop, but it didn't, and

>>>>> it won't. Saying that, I have 3 linux PCs at home, and I set my

>>>>> gran up with one running Ubuntu recently, so I'm not *against*

>>>>> Linux per se.

>>>>>

>>>>> Face it. I can go out and buy a named brand PC, with an OS for less

>>>>> than ?300 for our office. I can plug it in, and it just works when

>>>>> the user logs in. It sees all the servers, the drives map. It does

>>>>> it perfectly. OK, it's Windoze, but nothing is perfect. ..

>>>>>

>>>>> Mike P

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>> Let's see, 40,000 workstations with Vista and all need to be trained

>>>> or 40,000 workstations with Ubuntu and all need to be trained.

>>>> What's the difference? Vista is expensive, both for the software

>>>> itself and the upgraded hardware, and Ubuntu is free. If you want

>>>> your company to stay in the past, don't train them to use Ubuntu and

>>>> train them to use Vista and fork out the money for new hardware.

>>>>

>>>> And that doesn't include the cost of cleaning off viruses and

>>>> malware from these Windows workstations.

>>>>

>>>

>>> What viruses? We've not had a virus outbreak since 2002...

>>

>> Yeah, riiiiiight.

>>

>>>

>>> We don't need to train most users to use Vista, because XP works very

>>> well and is very stable for our needs. Even if we did, Vista isn't

>>> expensive for us, has a "familiar" feel to it, and our corporate

>>> image would be set as we've set XP up so there wouldn't be a great

>>> deal of change.

>>>

>>> We'll only start upgrading once the machines we buy are no longer

>>> supplied with XP, even then they have a 3 year life cycle then are

>>> replaced, which is standard practice for corporate IT departments. So

>>> we won't upgrade until absolutely necessary. It's not "staying in the

>>> past", it's good business sense to use something that works reliably,

>>> which contrary to Linux users beliefs, Windows does in a corporate

>>> environment when set up correctly.

>>>

>>> We have a lot of in house software written for windoze, and other

>>> software ( clinical trial software, Drug regulatory software etc )

>>> that only works on Windoze.

>>>

>>> Mike P

>>

>> Sorry to hear it. What would you do if MS goes out of business?

>>

>> Alias

>

> What a Linux monkey you are.

> You're swinging from a dead branch...ya stupid monkey.

>

 

Gosh, that sure refuted what I said, NOT!

 

What is it about MS fanboys and their obsessions with animals?

 

Alias

"Alias" <iamalias@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message

news:g165o2$ub2$1@aioe.org...

> Mike P wrote:

>> "Alias" <iamalias@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message

>> news:g16382$8rt$1@aioe.org...

>>> Mike P wrote:

>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message

>>>> news:g15vm4$8kk$1@aioe.org...

>>>>> Moshe. Goldfarb wrote:

>>>>>> http://www.applematters.com/article/about-linux-and-why-nobody-seems-to-care1/

>>>>>>

>>>>>> " The general consensus seems to be that Mac users are the sort who

>>>>>> want

>>>>>> the best in quality, no expenses spared Windows users are those

>>>>>> who're

>>>>>> looking for the best bang for their buck (generally in the short

>>>>>> term) and

>>>>>> Linux users are the ones who want everything for free, particularly

>>>>>> software."

>>>>>>

>>>>>> " Some Linux users are easily dazzled by superfluous and completely

>>>>>> useless

>>>>>> effects (wobbly windows, blatant overuse of transparency, etc.) and

>>>>>> assume

>>>>>> that it must be better than Mac OS X because it's so cosmetically

>>>>>> made-up

>>>>>> and then there are others who only need the Terminal and can keep

>>>>>> typing on

>>>>>> it whole day long."

>>>>>>

>>>>>> " The problem with the Linux community is that, like any community,

>>>>>> it has

>>>>>> members with widely varying interests and preferences and the open

>>>>>> source

>>>>>> developers are developing hundreds of distributions to try and cater

>>>>>> to

>>>>>> every single whim and fancy of these members. The result is a

>>>>>> cornucopia of

>>>>>> free software, software that has been developed at the expense of the

>>>>>> hard

>>>>>> work and time of some of the most skilled developers on the planet,

>>>>>> and yet

>>>>>> does not have a single product that is complete in and of itself and

>>>>>> is

>>>>>> generating any profit at all."

>>>>>>

>>>>>> " There is no way whatsoever that thousands of developers sitting in

>>>>>> front

>>>>>> of their computers in different corners of the world and spending

>>>>>> only

>>>>>> their non-working hours trying to develop something that they know

>>>>>> isn't

>>>>>> going to make them any money, are ever going to come up with anything

>>>>>> good

>>>>>> enough to seriously challenge software from companies like Microsoft

>>>>>> and

>>>>>> Apple. There is just no chance at all."

>>>>>>

>>>>>> " Linux has been around for more than a decade now and it's nowhere

>>>>>> near

>>>>>> challenging either Mac OS X or Windows. The vast majority of hardware

>>>>>> and

>>>>>> software makers around the world are still shipping products that are

>>>>>> incompatible with Linux."

>>>>>>

>>>>>> " There's no guarantee that the camera you bought today and is

>>>>>> compatible

>>>>>> with your Ubuntu installation will work with Fedora Core too should

>>>>>> you

>>>>>> change your mind in a few days, as is a common practice among the

>>>>>> Linux

>>>>>> enthusiasts."

>>>>>>

>>>>>> " All of this and more are reasons enough to ignore Linux. Linux

>>>>>> users are

>>>>>> never quite sure which one is the best distribution around. They have

>>>>>> debates in their own community with twenty different users vouching

>>>>>> for

>>>>>> twenty different variations. They constantly have to keep figuring

>>>>>> out

>>>>>> workarounds to make all their software and hardware work together.

>>>>>> They

>>>>>> can't just go out and buy a new accessory, assured in the knowledge

>>>>>> that it

>>>>>> will work. They are afraid to upgrade, lest things go wrong."

>>>>>>

>>>>>> And so forth......

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Obviously this guy has had experience with LinSUX because his article

>>>>>> is

>>>>>> right on the money....

>>>>>>

>>>>> Why are you so afraid of Linux, Moshe?

>>>> I don't think he is. All the points made in this article are valid.

>>>>

>>>> Linux won't make it into the mainstream as a business desktop OS. I'm

>>>> IT support manager for one of the biggest pharma companies in the

>>>> world. There isn't a hope in hell of us ever going to Linux, mainly

>>>> because of the reasons stated above but also we have 40,000 users

>>>> worldwide. Where would the money come to retrain them all? Who is going

>>>> to pay for my staff's time to rebuild all those machines with Linux on

>>>> them?

>>>> Who's going to pay to retrain all my support staff to use a totally new

>>>> OS? What are our customers going to say when the documents we create

>>>> and send them don't open or format correctly on their Windows boxes?

>>>>

>>>> It'd be like going back to the late 80s when I started in IT. We had 4

>>>> different word processing apps at my first company, none of which could

>>>> talk to the other without an add-on and lots of pissing about.

>>>>

>>>> I'm not saying Linux is a bad OS, it has it's uses, and I think if it

>>>> had the coverage Windows got when Win3 first came out, it would

>>>> probably be doing a lot better on the desktop, but it didn't, and it

>>>> won't. Saying that, I have 3 linux PCs at home, and I set my gran up

>>>> with one running Ubuntu recently, so I'm not *against* Linux per se.

>>>>

>>>> Face it. I can go out and buy a named brand PC, with an OS for less

>>>> than ?300 for our office. I can plug it in, and it just works when the

>>>> user logs in. It sees all the servers, the drives map. It does it

>>>> perfectly. OK, it's Windoze, but nothing is perfect. ..

>>>>

>>>> Mike P

>>>>

>>>>

>>> Let's see, 40,000 workstations with Vista and all need to be trained or

>>> 40,000 workstations with Ubuntu and all need to be trained. What's the

>>> difference? Vista is expensive, both for the software itself and the

>>> upgraded hardware, and Ubuntu is free. If you want your company to stay

>>> in the past, don't train them to use Ubuntu and train them to use Vista

>>> and fork out the money for new hardware.

>>>

>>> And that doesn't include the cost of cleaning off viruses and malware

>>> from these Windows workstations.

>>>

>>

>> What viruses? We've not had a virus outbreak since 2002...

>

> Yeah, riiiiiight.

 

You are free to believe what you like of course, but that is true. That's

what happens when a WAN is set up securely and sensibly. Last virus we got

hit by was sometime in summer 2002.

>> We don't need to train most users to use Vista, because XP works very

>> well and is very stable for our needs. Even if we did, Vista isn't

>> expensive for us, has a "familiar" feel to it, and our corporate image

>> would be set as we've set XP up so there wouldn't be a great deal of

>> change.

>>

>> We'll only start upgrading once the machines we buy are no longer

>> supplied with XP, even then they have a 3 year life cycle then are

>> replaced, which is standard practice for corporate IT departments. So we

>> won't upgrade until absolutely necessary. It's not "staying in the past",

>> it's good business sense to use something that works reliably, which

>> contrary to Linux users beliefs, Windows does in a corporate environment

>> when set up correctly.

>>

>> We have a lot of in house software written for windoze, and other

>> software ( clinical trial software, Drug regulatory software etc ) that

>> only works on Windoze.

>>

>> Mike P

>

> Sorry to hear it. What would you do if MS goes out of business?

 

Riiiight... and Linux is going to do that to MS is it? I think not. Part of

me would like to see it, but it aint going to happen. Linux won't make it as

a serious desktop OS in my lifetime. I'm 36..

 

I note that you haven't disputed any of my points in my next to last

paragrah. With today's pricing structure/volume licencing agreemnts and the

fact that pretty much *everyone* who joins our company can use Windows with

no training makes any sort of move to another desktop OS totally crazy. I'm

sure our directors would love to give me a good few million pounds to make

things more complex, employ more support staff, pay for lots of training

that we simply have NO business reason for.

 

As I said before, I'm not a microsoft fanboi, I do have a deal of respect

for the Linux community and I have linux machines at home. For serious

business use, it's still a long way away from being right

 

Mike P

On 2008-05-23, Moshe. Goldfarb <brick.n.straw@gmail.com> wrote:

>

> http://www.applematters.com/article/about-linux-and-why-nobody-seems-to-care1/

 

Apple users commenting about anything Unix is probably bound to

generate nothing but a lot of nonsesene...

>

> " The general consensus seems to be that Mac users are the sort who want

> the best in quality, no expenses spared Windows users are those who're

> looking for the best bang for their buck (generally in the short term) and

> Linux users are the ones who want everything for free, particularly

> software."

>

> " Some Linux users are easily dazzled by superfluous and completely useless

> effects (wobbly windows, blatant overuse of transparency, etc.) and assume

> that it must be better than Mac OS X because it's so cosmetically made-up

> and then there are others who only need the Terminal and can keep typing on

> it whole day long."

>

> " The problem with the Linux community is that, like any community, it has

> members with widely varying interests and preferences and the open source

> developers are developing hundreds of distributions to try and cater to

> every single whim and fancy of these members. The result is a cornucopia of

> free software, software that has been developed at the expense of the hard

> work and time of some of the most skilled developers on the planet, and yet

> does not have a single product that is complete in and of itself and is

> generating any profit at all."

 

So? That's not the point.

 

Although the claim is highly debatable.

 

Linux does very well in places that MacOS is never seen.

>

> " There is no way whatsoever that thousands of developers sitting in front

> of their computers in different corners of the world and spending only

> their non-working hours trying to develop something that they know isn't

> going to make them any money, are ever going to come up with anything good

 

This is an obvious fallacy of course.

 

Besides, who proved that money necessarily equals better software. In

general, it is the true professionals rather than the mercenaries that

make the better product. They are the ones more concerned about

excellence versus profit.

 

Microsoft is a great example of this.

> enough to seriously challenge software from companies like Microsoft and

> Apple. There is just no chance at all."

>

> " Linux has been around for more than a decade now and it's nowhere near

> challenging either Mac OS X or Windows. The vast majority of hardware and

 

Be careful. This claim is probably more true of MacOS than it is Linux.

> software makers around the world are still shipping products that are

> incompatible with Linux."

>

> " There's no guarantee that the camera you bought today and is compatible

> with your Ubuntu installation will work with Fedora Core too should you

 

A Mac will have the same problem. A Mac will suffer from this more.

 

This is why my HTPCs run Linux instead of MacOS.

> change your mind in a few days, as is a common practice among the Linux

> enthusiasts."

>

> " All of this and more are reasons enough to ignore Linux. Linux users are

> never quite sure which one is the best distribution around. They have

 

...yes, we wouldn't want a community where they let some lone rogue

with a hammer interfere with an address by Big Brother.

> debates in their own community with twenty different users vouching for

> twenty different variations. They constantly have to keep figuring out

> workarounds to make all their software and hardware work together. They

> can't just go out and buy a new accessory, assured in the knowledge that it

> will work. They are afraid to upgrade, lest things go wrong."

>

> And so forth......

>

> Obviously this guy has had experience with LinSUX because his article is

> right on the money....

>

 

--

Sophocles wants his cut. |||

/ | \

 

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services

----------------------------------------------------------

http://www.usenet.com

Mike P wrote:

> "Alias" <iamalias@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message

> news:g165o2$ub2$1@aioe.org...

>> Mike P wrote:

>>> "Alias" <iamalias@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message

>>> news:g16382$8rt$1@aioe.org...

>>>> Mike P wrote:

>>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>> news:g15vm4$8kk$1@aioe.org...

>>>>>> Moshe. Goldfarb wrote:

>>>>>>> http://www.applematters.com/article/about-linux-and-why-nobody-seems-to-care1/

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> " The general consensus seems to be that Mac users are the sort who

>>>>>>> want

>>>>>>> the best in quality, no expenses spared Windows users are those

>>>>>>> who're

>>>>>>> looking for the best bang for their buck (generally in the short

>>>>>>> term) and

>>>>>>> Linux users are the ones who want everything for free, particularly

>>>>>>> software."

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> " Some Linux users are easily dazzled by superfluous and completely

>>>>>>> useless

>>>>>>> effects (wobbly windows, blatant overuse of transparency, etc.) and

>>>>>>> assume

>>>>>>> that it must be better than Mac OS X because it's so cosmetically

>>>>>>> made-up

>>>>>>> and then there are others who only need the Terminal and can keep

>>>>>>> typing on

>>>>>>> it whole day long."

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> " The problem with the Linux community is that, like any community,

>>>>>>> it has

>>>>>>> members with widely varying interests and preferences and the open

>>>>>>> source

>>>>>>> developers are developing hundreds of distributions to try and cater

>>>>>>> to

>>>>>>> every single whim and fancy of these members. The result is a

>>>>>>> cornucopia of

>>>>>>> free software, software that has been developed at the expense of the

>>>>>>> hard

>>>>>>> work and time of some of the most skilled developers on the planet,

>>>>>>> and yet

>>>>>>> does not have a single product that is complete in and of itself and

>>>>>>> is

>>>>>>> generating any profit at all."

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> " There is no way whatsoever that thousands of developers sitting in

>>>>>>> front

>>>>>>> of their computers in different corners of the world and spending

>>>>>>> only

>>>>>>> their non-working hours trying to develop something that they know

>>>>>>> isn't

>>>>>>> going to make them any money, are ever going to come up with anything

>>>>>>> good

>>>>>>> enough to seriously challenge software from companies like Microsoft

>>>>>>> and

>>>>>>> Apple. There is just no chance at all."

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> " Linux has been around for more than a decade now and it's nowhere

>>>>>>> near

>>>>>>> challenging either Mac OS X or Windows. The vast majority of hardware

>>>>>>> and

>>>>>>> software makers around the world are still shipping products that are

>>>>>>> incompatible with Linux."

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> " There's no guarantee that the camera you bought today and is

>>>>>>> compatible

>>>>>>> with your Ubuntu installation will work with Fedora Core too should

>>>>>>> you

>>>>>>> change your mind in a few days, as is a common practice among the

>>>>>>> Linux

>>>>>>> enthusiasts."

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> " All of this and more are reasons enough to ignore Linux. Linux

>>>>>>> users are

>>>>>>> never quite sure which one is the best distribution around. They have

>>>>>>> debates in their own community with twenty different users vouching

>>>>>>> for

>>>>>>> twenty different variations. They constantly have to keep figuring

>>>>>>> out

>>>>>>> workarounds to make all their software and hardware work together.

>>>>>>> They

>>>>>>> can't just go out and buy a new accessory, assured in the knowledge

>>>>>>> that it

>>>>>>> will work. They are afraid to upgrade, lest things go wrong."

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> And so forth......

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Obviously this guy has had experience with LinSUX because his article

>>>>>>> is

>>>>>>> right on the money....

>>>>>>>

>>>>>> Why are you so afraid of Linux, Moshe?

>>>>> I don't think he is. All the points made in this article are valid.

>>>>>

>>>>> Linux won't make it into the mainstream as a business desktop OS. I'm

>>>>> IT support manager for one of the biggest pharma companies in the

>>>>> world. There isn't a hope in hell of us ever going to Linux, mainly

>>>>> because of the reasons stated above but also we have 40,000 users

>>>>> worldwide. Where would the money come to retrain them all? Who is going

>>>>> to pay for my staff's time to rebuild all those machines with Linux on

>>>>> them?

>>>>> Who's going to pay to retrain all my support staff to use a totally new

>>>>> OS? What are our customers going to say when the documents we create

>>>>> and send them don't open or format correctly on their Windows boxes?

>>>>>

>>>>> It'd be like going back to the late 80s when I started in IT. We had 4

>>>>> different word processing apps at my first company, none of which could

>>>>> talk to the other without an add-on and lots of pissing about.

>>>>>

>>>>> I'm not saying Linux is a bad OS, it has it's uses, and I think if it

>>>>> had the coverage Windows got when Win3 first came out, it would

>>>>> probably be doing a lot better on the desktop, but it didn't, and it

>>>>> won't. Saying that, I have 3 linux PCs at home, and I set my gran up

>>>>> with one running Ubuntu recently, so I'm not *against* Linux per se.

>>>>>

>>>>> Face it. I can go out and buy a named brand PC, with an OS for less

>>>>> than ?300 for our office. I can plug it in, and it just works when the

>>>>> user logs in. It sees all the servers, the drives map. It does it

>>>>> perfectly. OK, it's Windoze, but nothing is perfect. ..

>>>>>

>>>>> Mike P

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>> Let's see, 40,000 workstations with Vista and all need to be trained or

>>>> 40,000 workstations with Ubuntu and all need to be trained. What's the

>>>> difference? Vista is expensive, both for the software itself and the

>>>> upgraded hardware, and Ubuntu is free. If you want your company to stay

>>>> in the past, don't train them to use Ubuntu and train them to use Vista

>>>> and fork out the money for new hardware.

>>>>

>>>> And that doesn't include the cost of cleaning off viruses and malware

>>>> from these Windows workstations.

>>>>

>>> What viruses? We've not had a virus outbreak since 2002...

>> Yeah, riiiiiight.

>

> You are free to believe what you like of course, but that is true. That's

> what happens when a WAN is set up securely and sensibly. Last virus we got

> hit by was sometime in summer 2002.

 

Sure.

>

>>> We don't need to train most users to use Vista, because XP works very

>>> well and is very stable for our needs. Even if we did, Vista isn't

>>> expensive for us, has a "familiar" feel to it, and our corporate image

>>> would be set as we've set XP up so there wouldn't be a great deal of

>>> change.

>>>

>>> We'll only start upgrading once the machines we buy are no longer

>>> supplied with XP, even then they have a 3 year life cycle then are

>>> replaced, which is standard practice for corporate IT departments. So we

>>> won't upgrade until absolutely necessary. It's not "staying in the past",

>>> it's good business sense to use something that works reliably, which

>>> contrary to Linux users beliefs, Windows does in a corporate environment

>>> when set up correctly.

>>>

>>> We have a lot of in house software written for windoze, and other

>>> software ( clinical trial software, Drug regulatory software etc ) that

>>> only works on Windoze.

>>>

>>> Mike P

>> Sorry to hear it. What would you do if MS goes out of business?

>

> Riiiight... and Linux is going to do that to MS is it? I think not. Part of

> me would like to see it, but it aint going to happen. Linux won't make it as

> a serious desktop OS in my lifetime. I'm 36..

 

Ever hear of Enron? TWA? Pan Am? No one thought they would go out of

business either. MS treats their paying customers like dirt and

constantly accuses them of being thieves and you think that the paying

public is stupid enough to let that continue? Linux won't put MS out of

business MS will.

 

Alias

"the wharf rat" <wrat@panix.com> wrote in message

news:g165ig$epr$1@reader2.panix.com...

> In article <69ng8mF33j2j8U1@mid.individual.net>,

> Mike P <privacy@privacy.net> wrote:

>>

>>I don't think he is. All the points made in this article are valid.

>>

>

> Oh, horseshit. "Wobbly windows" ? "Afraid to upgrade"? Give

> me a break...

>

>>to rebuild all those machines with Linux on them?

>

> And the IT manager for one of the biggest companies in the world

> has never heard of an incremental rollout?

 

Support manager please, there's three more tiers of bloody managers above me

before the IT director! Yes, I have organised many incremental rollouts, but

in the heavily audited and regulated world of pharmaceuticals, all our

departments worldwide share data, everything has to be compatible at all

times. That won't happen if we rollout Linux to the business slowly now will

it? When we went from Win95>2000, we had no problems. Win2k>XP no problems.

If we now have machines running Linux and throw them into the mix, we'd have

nothing but problems (solvable yes) but we don't *need* these problems and

the extra expense.

>>Who's going to pay to retrain all my support staff to use a totally new

>>OS?

>

> Just a guess, mind you, but perhaps the same executives who

> considered the cost of retraining when they decided that moving to a new

> platform was a cost effective solution to having their business held

> hostage to Redmond?

 

yes, they'd love to give me millions of dollars to waste on something we

don't need, make it essential to train all our staff on a load of new apps

(do you know how much IT training costs here in the UK?) . Wed

 

> In the cases where I've seen Linux make significant inroads on the

> desktop it's uniformly been a "grassroots" movement. Typically a few

> of the more technical employees will switch, and their success convinces

> others. It's possible only in an organization that encourages its

> employees

> to think and gives them permission to innovate. That's probably why you

> don't see it happen often.

 

I think you'll find the company I work for one of the most innovative in

it's field. Free thinking is encouraged, however making a decision to switch

to Linux would be corporate suicide, certainley at present anyway. With

Micro$ofts licencing, the prices of Windows on new machine being negligble,

it just makes no sense whatsoever.

 

Mike P

 

Mike P

"Alias" <iamalias@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message

news:g16nap$pf1$2@aioe.org...

> Mike P wrote:

>> "Alias" <iamalias@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message

>> news:g165o2$ub2$1@aioe.org...

>>> Mike P wrote:

>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message

>>>> news:g16382$8rt$1@aioe.org...

>>>>> Mike P wrote:

>>>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>>> news:g15vm4$8kk$1@aioe.org...

>>>>>>> Moshe. Goldfarb wrote:

>>>>>>>> http://www.applematters.com/article/about-linux-and-why-nobody-seems-to-care1/

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> " The general consensus seems to be that Mac users are the sort who

>>>>>>>> want

>>>>>>>> the best in quality, no expenses spared Windows users are those

>>>>>>>> who're

>>>>>>>> looking for the best bang for their buck (generally in the short

>>>>>>>> term) and

>>>>>>>> Linux users are the ones who want everything for free, particularly

>>>>>>>> software."

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> " Some Linux users are easily dazzled by superfluous and completely

>>>>>>>> useless

>>>>>>>> effects (wobbly windows, blatant overuse of transparency, etc.) and

>>>>>>>> assume

>>>>>>>> that it must be better than Mac OS X because it's so cosmetically

>>>>>>>> made-up

>>>>>>>> and then there are others who only need the Terminal and can keep

>>>>>>>> typing on

>>>>>>>> it whole day long."

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> " The problem with the Linux community is that, like any community,

>>>>>>>> it has

>>>>>>>> members with widely varying interests and preferences and the open

>>>>>>>> source

>>>>>>>> developers are developing hundreds of distributions to try and

>>>>>>>> cater to

>>>>>>>> every single whim and fancy of these members. The result is a

>>>>>>>> cornucopia of

>>>>>>>> free software, software that has been developed at the expense of

>>>>>>>> the hard

>>>>>>>> work and time of some of the most skilled developers on the planet,

>>>>>>>> and yet

>>>>>>>> does not have a single product that is complete in and of itself

>>>>>>>> and is

>>>>>>>> generating any profit at all."

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> " There is no way whatsoever that thousands of developers sitting

>>>>>>>> in front

>>>>>>>> of their computers in different corners of the world and spending

>>>>>>>> only

>>>>>>>> their non-working hours trying to develop something that they know

>>>>>>>> isn't

>>>>>>>> going to make them any money, are ever going to come up with

>>>>>>>> anything good

>>>>>>>> enough to seriously challenge software from companies like

>>>>>>>> Microsoft and

>>>>>>>> Apple. There is just no chance at all."

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> " Linux has been around for more than a decade now and it's nowhere

>>>>>>>> near

>>>>>>>> challenging either Mac OS X or Windows. The vast majority of

>>>>>>>> hardware and

>>>>>>>> software makers around the world are still shipping products that

>>>>>>>> are

>>>>>>>> incompatible with Linux."

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> " There's no guarantee that the camera you bought today and is

>>>>>>>> compatible

>>>>>>>> with your Ubuntu installation will work with Fedora Core too should

>>>>>>>> you

>>>>>>>> change your mind in a few days, as is a common practice among the

>>>>>>>> Linux

>>>>>>>> enthusiasts."

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> " All of this and more are reasons enough to ignore Linux. Linux

>>>>>>>> users are

>>>>>>>> never quite sure which one is the best distribution around. They

>>>>>>>> have

>>>>>>>> debates in their own community with twenty different users vouching

>>>>>>>> for

>>>>>>>> twenty different variations. They constantly have to keep figuring

>>>>>>>> out

>>>>>>>> workarounds to make all their software and hardware work together.

>>>>>>>> They

>>>>>>>> can't just go out and buy a new accessory, assured in the knowledge

>>>>>>>> that it

>>>>>>>> will work. They are afraid to upgrade, lest things go wrong."

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> And so forth......

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Obviously this guy has had experience with LinSUX because his

>>>>>>>> article is

>>>>>>>> right on the money....

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Why are you so afraid of Linux, Moshe?

>>>>>> I don't think he is. All the points made in this article are valid.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Linux won't make it into the mainstream as a business desktop OS. I'm

>>>>>> IT support manager for one of the biggest pharma companies in the

>>>>>> world. There isn't a hope in hell of us ever going to Linux, mainly

>>>>>> because of the reasons stated above but also we have 40,000 users

>>>>>> worldwide. Where would the money come to retrain them all? Who is

>>>>>> going to pay for my staff's time to rebuild all those machines with

>>>>>> Linux on them?

>>>>>> Who's going to pay to retrain all my support staff to use a totally

>>>>>> new OS? What are our customers going to say when the documents we

>>>>>> create and send them don't open or format correctly on their Windows

>>>>>> boxes?

>>>>>>

>>>>>> It'd be like going back to the late 80s when I started in IT. We had

>>>>>> 4 different word processing apps at my first company, none of which

>>>>>> could talk to the other without an add-on and lots of pissing about.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> I'm not saying Linux is a bad OS, it has it's uses, and I think if it

>>>>>> had the coverage Windows got when Win3 first came out, it would

>>>>>> probably be doing a lot better on the desktop, but it didn't, and it

>>>>>> won't. Saying that, I have 3 linux PCs at home, and I set my gran up

>>>>>> with one running Ubuntu recently, so I'm not *against* Linux per se.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Face it. I can go out and buy a named brand PC, with an OS for less

>>>>>> than ?300 for our office. I can plug it in, and it just works when

>>>>>> the user logs in. It sees all the servers, the drives map. It does it

>>>>>> perfectly. OK, it's Windoze, but nothing is perfect. ..

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Mike P

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>> Let's see, 40,000 workstations with Vista and all need to be trained

>>>>> or 40,000 workstations with Ubuntu and all need to be trained. What's

>>>>> the difference? Vista is expensive, both for the software itself and

>>>>> the upgraded hardware, and Ubuntu is free. If you want your company to

>>>>> stay in the past, don't train them to use Ubuntu and train them to use

>>>>> Vista and fork out the money for new hardware.

>>>>>

>>>>> And that doesn't include the cost of cleaning off viruses and malware

>>>>> from these Windows workstations.

>>>>>

>>>> What viruses? We've not had a virus outbreak since 2002...

>>> Yeah, riiiiiight.

>>

>> You are free to believe what you like of course, but that is true. That's

>> what happens when a WAN is set up securely and sensibly. Last virus we

>> got hit by was sometime in summer 2002.

>

> Sure.

>

>>

>>>> We don't need to train most users to use Vista, because XP works very

>>>> well and is very stable for our needs. Even if we did, Vista isn't

>>>> expensive for us, has a "familiar" feel to it, and our corporate image

>>>> would be set as we've set XP up so there wouldn't be a great deal of

>>>> change.

>>>>

>>>> We'll only start upgrading once the machines we buy are no longer

>>>> supplied with XP, even then they have a 3 year life cycle then are

>>>> replaced, which is standard practice for corporate IT departments. So

>>>> we won't upgrade until absolutely necessary. It's not "staying in the

>>>> past", it's good business sense to use something that works reliably,

>>>> which contrary to Linux users beliefs, Windows does in a corporate

>>>> environment when set up correctly.

>>>>

>>>> We have a lot of in house software written for windoze, and other

>>>> software ( clinical trial software, Drug regulatory software etc ) that

>>>> only works on Windoze.

>>>>

>>>> Mike P

>>> Sorry to hear it. What would you do if MS goes out of business?

>>

>> Riiiight... and Linux is going to do that to MS is it? I think not. Part

>> of me would like to see it, but it aint going to happen. Linux won't make

>> it as a serious desktop OS in my lifetime. I'm 36..

>

> Ever hear of Enron? TWA? Pan Am? No one thought they would go out of

> business either. MS treats their paying customers like dirt and constantly

> accuses them of being thieves and you think that the paying public is

> stupid enough to let that continue? Linux won't put MS out of business MS

> will.

>

 

Pan-Am never recovered from Lockerbie, and TWA's dodgy maintenance/Boeing's

iffy design led to TWA 800 disintegrating 14000ft above the Atlantic, from

which the the company never recovered.

Enron? well, they were just all bent weren't they?

 

Mike P

Hobbes wrote:

> Alias wrote:

>> Hobbes wrote:

>>>

>>> "Alias" <iamalias@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message

>>> news:g165o2$ub2$1@aioe.org...

>>>> Mike P wrote:

>>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>> news:g16382$8rt$1@aioe.org...

>>>>>> Mike P wrote:

>>>>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>>>> news:g15vm4$8kk$1@aioe.org...

>>>>>>>> Moshe. Goldfarb wrote:

>>>>>>>>> http://www.applematters.com/article/about-linux-and-why-nobody-seems-to-care1/

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> " The general consensus seems to be that Mac users are the sort

>>>>>>>>> who want

>>>>>>>>> the best in quality, no expenses spared Windows users are

>>>>>>>>> those who're

>>>>>>>>> looking for the best bang for their buck (generally in the

>>>>>>>>> short term) and

>>>>>>>>> Linux users are the ones who want everything for free,

>>>>>>>>> particularly

>>>>>>>>> software."

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> " Some Linux users are easily dazzled by superfluous and

>>>>>>>>> completely useless

>>>>>>>>> effects (wobbly windows, blatant overuse of transparency, etc.)

>>>>>>>>> and assume

>>>>>>>>> that it must be better than Mac OS X because it's so

>>>>>>>>> cosmetically made-up

>>>>>>>>> and then there are others who only need the Terminal and can

>>>>>>>>> keep typing on

>>>>>>>>> it whole day long."

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> " The problem with the Linux community is that, like any

>>>>>>>>> community, it has

>>>>>>>>> members with widely varying interests and preferences and the

>>>>>>>>> open source

>>>>>>>>> developers are developing hundreds of distributions to try and

>>>>>>>>> cater to

>>>>>>>>> every single whim and fancy of these members. The result is a

>>>>>>>>> cornucopia of

>>>>>>>>> free software, software that has been developed at the expense

>>>>>>>>> of the hard

>>>>>>>>> work and time of some of the most skilled developers on the

>>>>>>>>> planet, and yet

>>>>>>>>> does not have a single product that is complete in and of

>>>>>>>>> itself and is

>>>>>>>>> generating any profit at all."

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> " There is no way whatsoever that thousands of developers

>>>>>>>>> sitting in front

>>>>>>>>> of their computers in different corners of the world and

>>>>>>>>> spending only

>>>>>>>>> their non-working hours trying to develop something that they

>>>>>>>>> know isn't

>>>>>>>>> going to make them any money, are ever going to come up with

>>>>>>>>> anything good

>>>>>>>>> enough to seriously challenge software from companies like

>>>>>>>>> Microsoft and

>>>>>>>>> Apple. There is just no chance at all."

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> " Linux has been around for more than a decade now and it's

>>>>>>>>> nowhere near

>>>>>>>>> challenging either Mac OS X or Windows. The vast majority of

>>>>>>>>> hardware and

>>>>>>>>> software makers around the world are still shipping products

>>>>>>>>> that are

>>>>>>>>> incompatible with Linux."

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> " There's no guarantee that the camera you bought today and is

>>>>>>>>> compatible

>>>>>>>>> with your Ubuntu installation will work with Fedora Core too

>>>>>>>>> should you

>>>>>>>>> change your mind in a few days, as is a common practice among

>>>>>>>>> the Linux

>>>>>>>>> enthusiasts."

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> " All of this and more are reasons enough to ignore Linux.

>>>>>>>>> Linux users are

>>>>>>>>> never quite sure which one is the best distribution around.

>>>>>>>>> They have

>>>>>>>>> debates in their own community with twenty different users

>>>>>>>>> vouching for

>>>>>>>>> twenty different variations. They constantly have to keep

>>>>>>>>> figuring out

>>>>>>>>> workarounds to make all their software and hardware work

>>>>>>>>> together. They

>>>>>>>>> can't just go out and buy a new accessory, assured in the

>>>>>>>>> knowledge that it

>>>>>>>>> will work. They are afraid to upgrade, lest things go wrong."

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> And so forth......

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Obviously this guy has had experience with LinSUX because his

>>>>>>>>> article is

>>>>>>>>> right on the money....

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Why are you so afraid of Linux, Moshe?

>>>>>>> I don't think he is. All the points made in this article are valid.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Linux won't make it into the mainstream as a business desktop OS.

>>>>>>> I'm IT support manager for one of the biggest pharma companies in

>>>>>>> the world. There isn't a hope in hell of us ever going to Linux,

>>>>>>> mainly because of the reasons stated above but also we have

>>>>>>> 40,000 users worldwide. Where would the money come to retrain

>>>>>>> them all? Who is going to pay for my staff's time to rebuild all

>>>>>>> those machines with Linux on them?

>>>>>>> Who's going to pay to retrain all my support staff to use a

>>>>>>> totally new OS? What are our customers going to say when the

>>>>>>> documents we create and send them don't open or format correctly

>>>>>>> on their Windows boxes?

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> It'd be like going back to the late 80s when I started in IT. We

>>>>>>> had 4 different word processing apps at my first company, none of

>>>>>>> which could talk to the other without an add-on and lots of

>>>>>>> pissing about.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> I'm not saying Linux is a bad OS, it has it's uses, and I think

>>>>>>> if it had the coverage Windows got when Win3 first came out, it

>>>>>>> would probably be doing a lot better on the desktop, but it

>>>>>>> didn't, and it won't. Saying that, I have 3 linux PCs at home,

>>>>>>> and I set my gran up with one running Ubuntu recently, so I'm not

>>>>>>> *against* Linux per se.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Face it. I can go out and buy a named brand PC, with an OS for

>>>>>>> less than ?300 for our office. I can plug it in, and it just

>>>>>>> works when the user logs in. It sees all the servers, the drives

>>>>>>> map. It does it perfectly. OK, it's Windoze, but nothing is

>>>>>>> perfect. ..

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Mike P

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>> Let's see, 40,000 workstations with Vista and all need to be

>>>>>> trained or 40,000 workstations with Ubuntu and all need to be

>>>>>> trained. What's the difference? Vista is expensive, both for the

>>>>>> software itself and the upgraded hardware, and Ubuntu is free. If

>>>>>> you want your company to stay in the past, don't train them to use

>>>>>> Ubuntu and train them to use Vista and fork out the money for new

>>>>>> hardware.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> And that doesn't include the cost of cleaning off viruses and

>>>>>> malware from these Windows workstations.

>>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> What viruses? We've not had a virus outbreak since 2002...

>>>>

>>>> Yeah, riiiiiight.

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> We don't need to train most users to use Vista, because XP works

>>>>> very well and is very stable for our needs. Even if we did, Vista

>>>>> isn't expensive for us, has a "familiar" feel to it, and our

>>>>> corporate image would be set as we've set XP up so there wouldn't

>>>>> be a great deal of change.

>>>>>

>>>>> We'll only start upgrading once the machines we buy are no longer

>>>>> supplied with XP, even then they have a 3 year life cycle then are

>>>>> replaced, which is standard practice for corporate IT departments.

>>>>> So we won't upgrade until absolutely necessary. It's not "staying

>>>>> in the past", it's good business sense to use something that works

>>>>> reliably, which contrary to Linux users beliefs, Windows does in a

>>>>> corporate environment when set up correctly.

>>>>>

>>>>> We have a lot of in house software written for windoze, and other

>>>>> software ( clinical trial software, Drug regulatory software etc )

>>>>> that only works on Windoze.

>>>>>

>>>>> Mike P

>>>>

>>>> Sorry to hear it. What would you do if MS goes out of business?

>>>>

>>>> Alias

>>>

>>> What a Linux monkey you are.

>>> You're swinging from a dead branch...ya stupid monkey.

>>>

>>

>> Gosh, that sure refuted what I said, NOT!

>>

>> What is it about MS fanboys and their obsessions with animals?

>>

>> Alias

>

> What is it with old geezers and their obsession with Linux ?

 

I wouldn't know being as I am not an old geezer and nor am I obsessed

with Linux. Now, why are you obsessed with animals?

> Linux just plain sucks ... believe me, I tried Ubuntu.

> Formatting it from my hard drive gave me great pleasure.

> Wobbly windows indeed ... the whole OS is wobbly.

 

It's not my fault you're too stupid to understand how to use Ubuntu.

 

Alias

Mike P wrote:

> "Alias" <iamalias@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message

> news:g16nap$pf1$2@aioe.org...

>> Mike P wrote:

>>> "Alias" <iamalias@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message

>>> news:g165o2$ub2$1@aioe.org...

>>>> Mike P wrote:

>>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>> news:g16382$8rt$1@aioe.org...

>>>>>> Mike P wrote:

>>>>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>>>> news:g15vm4$8kk$1@aioe.org...

>>>>>>>> Moshe. Goldfarb wrote:

>>>>>>>>> http://www.applematters.com/article/about-linux-and-why-nobody-seems-to-care1/

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> " The general consensus seems to be that Mac users are the sort who

>>>>>>>>> want

>>>>>>>>> the best in quality, no expenses spared Windows users are those

>>>>>>>>> who're

>>>>>>>>> looking for the best bang for their buck (generally in the short

>>>>>>>>> term) and

>>>>>>>>> Linux users are the ones who want everything for free, particularly

>>>>>>>>> software."

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> " Some Linux users are easily dazzled by superfluous and completely

>>>>>>>>> useless

>>>>>>>>> effects (wobbly windows, blatant overuse of transparency, etc.) and

>>>>>>>>> assume

>>>>>>>>> that it must be better than Mac OS X because it's so cosmetically

>>>>>>>>> made-up

>>>>>>>>> and then there are others who only need the Terminal and can keep

>>>>>>>>> typing on

>>>>>>>>> it whole day long."

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> " The problem with the Linux community is that, like any community,

>>>>>>>>> it has

>>>>>>>>> members with widely varying interests and preferences and the open

>>>>>>>>> source

>>>>>>>>> developers are developing hundreds of distributions to try and

>>>>>>>>> cater to

>>>>>>>>> every single whim and fancy of these members. The result is a

>>>>>>>>> cornucopia of

>>>>>>>>> free software, software that has been developed at the expense of

>>>>>>>>> the hard

>>>>>>>>> work and time of some of the most skilled developers on the planet,

>>>>>>>>> and yet

>>>>>>>>> does not have a single product that is complete in and of itself

>>>>>>>>> and is

>>>>>>>>> generating any profit at all."

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> " There is no way whatsoever that thousands of developers sitting

>>>>>>>>> in front

>>>>>>>>> of their computers in different corners of the world and spending

>>>>>>>>> only

>>>>>>>>> their non-working hours trying to develop something that they know

>>>>>>>>> isn't

>>>>>>>>> going to make them any money, are ever going to come up with

>>>>>>>>> anything good

>>>>>>>>> enough to seriously challenge software from companies like

>>>>>>>>> Microsoft and

>>>>>>>>> Apple. There is just no chance at all."

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> " Linux has been around for more than a decade now and it's nowhere

>>>>>>>>> near

>>>>>>>>> challenging either Mac OS X or Windows. The vast majority of

>>>>>>>>> hardware and

>>>>>>>>> software makers around the world are still shipping products that

>>>>>>>>> are

>>>>>>>>> incompatible with Linux."

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> " There's no guarantee that the camera you bought today and is

>>>>>>>>> compatible

>>>>>>>>> with your Ubuntu installation will work with Fedora Core too should

>>>>>>>>> you

>>>>>>>>> change your mind in a few days, as is a common practice among the

>>>>>>>>> Linux

>>>>>>>>> enthusiasts."

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> " All of this and more are reasons enough to ignore Linux. Linux

>>>>>>>>> users are

>>>>>>>>> never quite sure which one is the best distribution around. They

>>>>>>>>> have

>>>>>>>>> debates in their own community with twenty different users vouching

>>>>>>>>> for

>>>>>>>>> twenty different variations. They constantly have to keep figuring

>>>>>>>>> out

>>>>>>>>> workarounds to make all their software and hardware work together.

>>>>>>>>> They

>>>>>>>>> can't just go out and buy a new accessory, assured in the knowledge

>>>>>>>>> that it

>>>>>>>>> will work. They are afraid to upgrade, lest things go wrong."

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> And so forth......

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Obviously this guy has had experience with LinSUX because his

>>>>>>>>> article is

>>>>>>>>> right on the money....

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Why are you so afraid of Linux, Moshe?

>>>>>>> I don't think he is. All the points made in this article are valid.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Linux won't make it into the mainstream as a business desktop OS. I'm

>>>>>>> IT support manager for one of the biggest pharma companies in the

>>>>>>> world. There isn't a hope in hell of us ever going to Linux, mainly

>>>>>>> because of the reasons stated above but also we have 40,000 users

>>>>>>> worldwide. Where would the money come to retrain them all? Who is

>>>>>>> going to pay for my staff's time to rebuild all those machines with

>>>>>>> Linux on them?

>>>>>>> Who's going to pay to retrain all my support staff to use a totally

>>>>>>> new OS? What are our customers going to say when the documents we

>>>>>>> create and send them don't open or format correctly on their Windows

>>>>>>> boxes?

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> It'd be like going back to the late 80s when I started in IT. We had

>>>>>>> 4 different word processing apps at my first company, none of which

>>>>>>> could talk to the other without an add-on and lots of pissing about.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> I'm not saying Linux is a bad OS, it has it's uses, and I think if it

>>>>>>> had the coverage Windows got when Win3 first came out, it would

>>>>>>> probably be doing a lot better on the desktop, but it didn't, and it

>>>>>>> won't. Saying that, I have 3 linux PCs at home, and I set my gran up

>>>>>>> with one running Ubuntu recently, so I'm not *against* Linux per se.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Face it. I can go out and buy a named brand PC, with an OS for less

>>>>>>> than ?300 for our office. I can plug it in, and it just works when

>>>>>>> the user logs in. It sees all the servers, the drives map. It does it

>>>>>>> perfectly. OK, it's Windoze, but nothing is perfect. ..

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Mike P

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>> Let's see, 40,000 workstations with Vista and all need to be trained

>>>>>> or 40,000 workstations with Ubuntu and all need to be trained. What's

>>>>>> the difference? Vista is expensive, both for the software itself and

>>>>>> the upgraded hardware, and Ubuntu is free. If you want your company to

>>>>>> stay in the past, don't train them to use Ubuntu and train them to use

>>>>>> Vista and fork out the money for new hardware.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> And that doesn't include the cost of cleaning off viruses and malware

>>>>>> from these Windows workstations.

>>>>>>

>>>>> What viruses? We've not had a virus outbreak since 2002...

>>>> Yeah, riiiiiight.

>>> You are free to believe what you like of course, but that is true. That's

>>> what happens when a WAN is set up securely and sensibly. Last virus we

>>> got hit by was sometime in summer 2002.

>> Sure.

>>

>>>>> We don't need to train most users to use Vista, because XP works very

>>>>> well and is very stable for our needs. Even if we did, Vista isn't

>>>>> expensive for us, has a "familiar" feel to it, and our corporate image

>>>>> would be set as we've set XP up so there wouldn't be a great deal of

>>>>> change.

>>>>>

>>>>> We'll only start upgrading once the machines we buy are no longer

>>>>> supplied with XP, even then they have a 3 year life cycle then are

>>>>> replaced, which is standard practice for corporate IT departments. So

>>>>> we won't upgrade until absolutely necessary. It's not "staying in the

>>>>> past", it's good business sense to use something that works reliably,

>>>>> which contrary to Linux users beliefs, Windows does in a corporate

>>>>> environment when set up correctly.

>>>>>

>>>>> We have a lot of in house software written for windoze, and other

>>>>> software ( clinical trial software, Drug regulatory software etc ) that

>>>>> only works on Windoze.

>>>>>

>>>>> Mike P

>>>> Sorry to hear it. What would you do if MS goes out of business?

>>> Riiiight... and Linux is going to do that to MS is it? I think not. Part

>>> of me would like to see it, but it aint going to happen. Linux won't make

>>> it as a serious desktop OS in my lifetime. I'm 36..

>> Ever hear of Enron? TWA? Pan Am? No one thought they would go out of

>> business either. MS treats their paying customers like dirt and constantly

>> accuses them of being thieves and you think that the paying public is

>> stupid enough to let that continue? Linux won't put MS out of business MS

>> will.

>>

>

> Pan-Am never recovered from Lockerbie, and TWA's dodgy maintenance/Boeing's

> iffy design led to TWA 800 disintegrating 14000ft above the Atlantic, from

> which the the company never recovered.

> Enron? well, they were just all bent weren't they?

>

> Mike P

>

>

 

So you see my point?

 

Alias

"Mike P" <privacy@privacy.net> wrote in message

news:69o5njF349gvlU1@mid.individual.net...

>

> "the wharf rat" <wrat@panix.com> wrote in message

> news:g165ig$epr$1@reader2.panix.com...

>> In article <69ng8mF33j2j8U1@mid.individual.net>,

>> Mike P <privacy@privacy.net> wrote:

>>>

>>>I don't think he is. All the points made in this article are valid.

>>>

>>

>> Oh, horseshit. "Wobbly windows" ? "Afraid to upgrade"? Give

>> me a break...

>>

>>>to rebuild all those machines with Linux on them?

>>

>> And the IT manager for one of the biggest companies in the world

>> has never heard of an incremental rollout?

>

> Support manager please, there's three more tiers of bloody managers above

> me before the IT director! Yes, I have organised many incremental

> rollouts, but in the heavily audited and regulated world of

> pharmaceuticals, all our departments worldwide share data, everything has

> to be compatible at all times. That won't happen if we rollout Linux to

> the business slowly now will it? When we went from Win95>2000, we had no

> problems. Win2k>XP no problems. If we now have machines running Linux and

> throw them into the mix, we'd have nothing but problems (solvable yes) but

> we don't *need* these problems and the extra expense.

>

>>>Who's going to pay to retrain all my support staff to use a totally new

>>>OS?

>>

>> Just a guess, mind you, but perhaps the same executives who

>> considered the cost of retraining when they decided that moving to a new

>> platform was a cost effective solution to having their business held

>> hostage to Redmond?

>

> yes, they'd love to give me millions of dollars to waste on something we

> don't need, make it essential to train all our staff on a load of new apps

> (do you know how much IT training costs here in the UK?) . Wed

>

>

>> In the cases where I've seen Linux make significant inroads on the

>> desktop it's uniformly been a "grassroots" movement. Typically a few

>> of the more technical employees will switch, and their success convinces

>> others. It's possible only in an organization that encourages its

>> employees

>> to think and gives them permission to innovate. That's probably why you

>> don't see it happen often.

>

> I think you'll find the company I work for one of the most innovative in

> it's field. Free thinking is encouraged, however making a decision to

> switch to Linux would be corporate suicide, certainley at present anyway.

> With Micro$ofts licencing, the prices of Windows on new machine being

> negligble, it just makes no sense whatsoever.

>

> Mike P

 

The reasons you are likely having Linux problems is that you do not have at

least one experienced Linux mentor. Same thing happened with Mainframers

doing Windows and UNIX. A mess. For example, you don't need to rebuild a

desktop to run wobbly windows unless it is an old release pre Compiz. Took

me 20 minutes and Compiz was working great.

 

My experience in such conversions is that there are 25% of the admin/support

staff that will not change. And use every opportunity to sabotage change.

Solution, lay them off and replace them. They are usually also the ones

that are not team players and a poor understanding of what they do.

 

And you get the same kind of problems on MS upgrades too. Unless of course

you are flush with cash burning a hole in your pocket, to update every PC at

once and have mastered Vista skills in advance.

 

I recommend you start easy. Load FireFox and Open Office on to the

MS-Windows machines and give it 6 months to a year. This allows the users

to adapt. There is not any more learning to do going from IE 6 to IE 7 than

there is from IE 6 to Firefox. Once they know these two apps, the change to

Linux is more natural.

 

If you are already using Vista, you are in for hurt. MS designed Vista not

to interoperate with non-Microsoft. Lock-in. But fortunately, they too can

be overcome.

"Alias" <iamalias@removegmail.com> wrote in message

news:g16pmg$ftl$1@aioe.org...

> Mike P wrote:

>> "Alias" <iamalias@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message

>> news:g16nap$pf1$2@aioe.org...

>>> Mike P wrote:

>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message

>>>> news:g165o2$ub2$1@aioe.org...

>>>>> Mike P wrote:

>>>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>>> news:g16382$8rt$1@aioe.org...

>>>>>>> Mike P wrote:

>>>>>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>>>>> news:g15vm4$8kk$1@aioe.org...

>>>>>>>>> Moshe. Goldfarb wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> http://www.applematters.com/article/about-linux-and-why-nobody-seems-to-care1/

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> " The general consensus seems to be that Mac users are the sort

>>>>>>>>>> who want

>>>>>>>>>> the best in quality, no expenses spared Windows users are those

>>>>>>>>>> who're

>>>>>>>>>> looking for the best bang for their buck (generally in the short

>>>>>>>>>> term) and

>>>>>>>>>> Linux users are the ones who want everything for free,

>>>>>>>>>> particularly

>>>>>>>>>> software."

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> " Some Linux users are easily dazzled by superfluous and

>>>>>>>>>> completely useless

>>>>>>>>>> effects (wobbly windows, blatant overuse of transparency, etc.)

>>>>>>>>>> and assume

>>>>>>>>>> that it must be better than Mac OS X because it's so cosmetically

>>>>>>>>>> made-up

>>>>>>>>>> and then there are others who only need the Terminal and can keep

>>>>>>>>>> typing on

>>>>>>>>>> it whole day long."

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> " The problem with the Linux community is that, like any

>>>>>>>>>> community, it has

>>>>>>>>>> members with widely varying interests and preferences and the

>>>>>>>>>> open source

>>>>>>>>>> developers are developing hundreds of distributions to try and

>>>>>>>>>> cater to

>>>>>>>>>> every single whim and fancy of these members. The result is a

>>>>>>>>>> cornucopia of

>>>>>>>>>> free software, software that has been developed at the expense of

>>>>>>>>>> the hard

>>>>>>>>>> work and time of some of the most skilled developers on the

>>>>>>>>>> planet, and yet

>>>>>>>>>> does not have a single product that is complete in and of itself

>>>>>>>>>> and is

>>>>>>>>>> generating any profit at all."

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> " There is no way whatsoever that thousands of developers sitting

>>>>>>>>>> in front

>>>>>>>>>> of their computers in different corners of the world and spending

>>>>>>>>>> only

>>>>>>>>>> their non-working hours trying to develop something that they

>>>>>>>>>> know isn't

>>>>>>>>>> going to make them any money, are ever going to come up with

>>>>>>>>>> anything good

>>>>>>>>>> enough to seriously challenge software from companies like

>>>>>>>>>> Microsoft and

>>>>>>>>>> Apple. There is just no chance at all."

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> " Linux has been around for more than a decade now and it's

>>>>>>>>>> nowhere near

>>>>>>>>>> challenging either Mac OS X or Windows. The vast majority of

>>>>>>>>>> hardware and

>>>>>>>>>> software makers around the world are still shipping products that

>>>>>>>>>> are

>>>>>>>>>> incompatible with Linux."

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> " There's no guarantee that the camera you bought today and is

>>>>>>>>>> compatible

>>>>>>>>>> with your Ubuntu installation will work with Fedora Core too

>>>>>>>>>> should you

>>>>>>>>>> change your mind in a few days, as is a common practice among the

>>>>>>>>>> Linux

>>>>>>>>>> enthusiasts."

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> " All of this and more are reasons enough to ignore Linux. Linux

>>>>>>>>>> users are

>>>>>>>>>> never quite sure which one is the best distribution around. They

>>>>>>>>>> have

>>>>>>>>>> debates in their own community with twenty different users

>>>>>>>>>> vouching for

>>>>>>>>>> twenty different variations. They constantly have to keep

>>>>>>>>>> figuring out

>>>>>>>>>> workarounds to make all their software and hardware work

>>>>>>>>>> together. They

>>>>>>>>>> can't just go out and buy a new accessory, assured in the

>>>>>>>>>> knowledge that it

>>>>>>>>>> will work. They are afraid to upgrade, lest things go wrong."

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> And so forth......

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Obviously this guy has had experience with LinSUX because his

>>>>>>>>>> article is

>>>>>>>>>> right on the money....

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Why are you so afraid of Linux, Moshe?

>>>>>>>> I don't think he is. All the points made in this article are valid.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Linux won't make it into the mainstream as a business desktop OS.

>>>>>>>> I'm IT support manager for one of the biggest pharma companies in

>>>>>>>> the world. There isn't a hope in hell of us ever going to Linux,

>>>>>>>> mainly because of the reasons stated above but also we have 40,000

>>>>>>>> users worldwide. Where would the money come to retrain them all?

>>>>>>>> Who is going to pay for my staff's time to rebuild all those

>>>>>>>> machines with Linux on them?

>>>>>>>> Who's going to pay to retrain all my support staff to use a totally

>>>>>>>> new OS? What are our customers going to say when the documents we

>>>>>>>> create and send them don't open or format correctly on their

>>>>>>>> Windows boxes?

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> It'd be like going back to the late 80s when I started in IT. We

>>>>>>>> had 4 different word processing apps at my first company, none of

>>>>>>>> which could talk to the other without an add-on and lots of pissing

>>>>>>>> about.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> I'm not saying Linux is a bad OS, it has it's uses, and I think if

>>>>>>>> it had the coverage Windows got when Win3 first came out, it would

>>>>>>>> probably be doing a lot better on the desktop, but it didn't, and

>>>>>>>> it won't. Saying that, I have 3 linux PCs at home, and I set my

>>>>>>>> gran up with one running Ubuntu recently, so I'm not *against*

>>>>>>>> Linux per se.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Face it. I can go out and buy a named brand PC, with an OS for less

>>>>>>>> than ?300 for our office. I can plug it in, and it just works when

>>>>>>>> the user logs in. It sees all the servers, the drives map. It does

>>>>>>>> it perfectly. OK, it's Windoze, but nothing is perfect. ..

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Mike P

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Let's see, 40,000 workstations with Vista and all need to be trained

>>>>>>> or 40,000 workstations with Ubuntu and all need to be trained.

>>>>>>> What's the difference? Vista is expensive, both for the software

>>>>>>> itself and the upgraded hardware, and Ubuntu is free. If you want

>>>>>>> your company to stay in the past, don't train them to use Ubuntu and

>>>>>>> train them to use Vista and fork out the money for new hardware.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> And that doesn't include the cost of cleaning off viruses and

>>>>>>> malware from these Windows workstations.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>> What viruses? We've not had a virus outbreak since 2002...

>>>>> Yeah, riiiiiight.

>>>> You are free to believe what you like of course, but that is true.

>>>> That's what happens when a WAN is set up securely and sensibly. Last

>>>> virus we got hit by was sometime in summer 2002.

>>> Sure.

>>>

>>>>>> We don't need to train most users to use Vista, because XP works very

>>>>>> well and is very stable for our needs. Even if we did, Vista isn't

>>>>>> expensive for us, has a "familiar" feel to it, and our corporate

>>>>>> image would be set as we've set XP up so there wouldn't be a great

>>>>>> deal of change.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> We'll only start upgrading once the machines we buy are no longer

>>>>>> supplied with XP, even then they have a 3 year life cycle then are

>>>>>> replaced, which is standard practice for corporate IT departments. So

>>>>>> we won't upgrade until absolutely necessary. It's not "staying in the

>>>>>> past", it's good business sense to use something that works reliably,

>>>>>> which contrary to Linux users beliefs, Windows does in a corporate

>>>>>> environment when set up correctly.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> We have a lot of in house software written for windoze, and other

>>>>>> software ( clinical trial software, Drug regulatory software etc )

>>>>>> that only works on Windoze.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Mike P

>>>>> Sorry to hear it. What would you do if MS goes out of business?

>>>> Riiiight... and Linux is going to do that to MS is it? I think not.

>>>> Part of me would like to see it, but it aint going to happen. Linux

>>>> won't make it as a serious desktop OS in my lifetime. I'm 36..

>>> Ever hear of Enron? TWA? Pan Am? No one thought they would go out of

>>> business either. MS treats their paying customers like dirt and

>>> constantly accuses them of being thieves and you think that the paying

>>> public is stupid enough to let that continue? Linux won't put MS out of

>>> business MS will.

>>>

>>

>> Pan-Am never recovered from Lockerbie, and TWA's dodgy

>> maintenance/Boeing's iffy design led to TWA 800 disintegrating 14000ft

>> above the Atlantic, from which the the company never recovered.

>> Enron? well, they were just all bent weren't they?

>>

>> Mike P

>

> So you see my point?

>

> Alias

 

Sort of, but I doubt mad Libyans are going to blow MS up

 

-)

 

Mike P

"Alias" <iamalias@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message

news:g16p85$98d$2@aioe.org...

> Hobbes wrote:

>> Alias wrote:

>>> Hobbes wrote:

>>>>

>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message

>>>> news:g165o2$ub2$1@aioe.org...

>>>>> Mike P wrote:

>>>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>>> news:g16382$8rt$1@aioe.org...

>>>>>>> Mike P wrote:

>>>>>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>>>>> news:g15vm4$8kk$1@aioe.org...

>>>>>>>>> Moshe. Goldfarb wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> http://www.applematters.com/article/about-linux-and-why-nobody-seems-to-care1/

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> " The general consensus seems to be that Mac users are the sort

>>>>>>>>>> who want

>>>>>>>>>> the best in quality, no expenses spared Windows users are those

>>>>>>>>>> who're

>>>>>>>>>> looking for the best bang for their buck (generally in the short

>>>>>>>>>> term) and

>>>>>>>>>> Linux users are the ones who want everything for free,

>>>>>>>>>> particularly

>>>>>>>>>> software."

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> " Some Linux users are easily dazzled by superfluous and

>>>>>>>>>> completely useless

>>>>>>>>>> effects (wobbly windows, blatant overuse of transparency, etc.)

>>>>>>>>>> and assume

>>>>>>>>>> that it must be better than Mac OS X because it's so cosmetically

>>>>>>>>>> made-up

>>>>>>>>>> and then there are others who only need the Terminal and can keep

>>>>>>>>>> typing on

>>>>>>>>>> it whole day long."

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> " The problem with the Linux community is that, like any

>>>>>>>>>> community, it has

>>>>>>>>>> members with widely varying interests and preferences and the

>>>>>>>>>> open source

>>>>>>>>>> developers are developing hundreds of distributions to try and

>>>>>>>>>> cater to

>>>>>>>>>> every single whim and fancy of these members. The result is a

>>>>>>>>>> cornucopia of

>>>>>>>>>> free software, software that has been developed at the expense of

>>>>>>>>>> the hard

>>>>>>>>>> work and time of some of the most skilled developers on the

>>>>>>>>>> planet, and yet

>>>>>>>>>> does not have a single product that is complete in and of itself

>>>>>>>>>> and is

>>>>>>>>>> generating any profit at all."

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> " There is no way whatsoever that thousands of developers sitting

>>>>>>>>>> in front

>>>>>>>>>> of their computers in different corners of the world and spending

>>>>>>>>>> only

>>>>>>>>>> their non-working hours trying to develop something that they

>>>>>>>>>> know isn't

>>>>>>>>>> going to make them any money, are ever going to come up with

>>>>>>>>>> anything good

>>>>>>>>>> enough to seriously challenge software from companies like

>>>>>>>>>> Microsoft and

>>>>>>>>>> Apple. There is just no chance at all."

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> " Linux has been around for more than a decade now and it's

>>>>>>>>>> nowhere near

>>>>>>>>>> challenging either Mac OS X or Windows. The vast majority of

>>>>>>>>>> hardware and

>>>>>>>>>> software makers around the world are still shipping products that

>>>>>>>>>> are

>>>>>>>>>> incompatible with Linux."

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> " There's no guarantee that the camera you bought today and is

>>>>>>>>>> compatible

>>>>>>>>>> with your Ubuntu installation will work with Fedora Core too

>>>>>>>>>> should you

>>>>>>>>>> change your mind in a few days, as is a common practice among the

>>>>>>>>>> Linux

>>>>>>>>>> enthusiasts."

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> " All of this and more are reasons enough to ignore Linux. Linux

>>>>>>>>>> users are

>>>>>>>>>> never quite sure which one is the best distribution around. They

>>>>>>>>>> have

>>>>>>>>>> debates in their own community with twenty different users

>>>>>>>>>> vouching for

>>>>>>>>>> twenty different variations. They constantly have to keep

>>>>>>>>>> figuring out

>>>>>>>>>> workarounds to make all their software and hardware work

>>>>>>>>>> together. They

>>>>>>>>>> can't just go out and buy a new accessory, assured in the

>>>>>>>>>> knowledge that it

>>>>>>>>>> will work. They are afraid to upgrade, lest things go wrong."

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> And so forth......

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Obviously this guy has had experience with LinSUX because his

>>>>>>>>>> article is

>>>>>>>>>> right on the money....

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Why are you so afraid of Linux, Moshe?

>>>>>>>> I don't think he is. All the points made in this article are valid.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Linux won't make it into the mainstream as a business desktop OS.

>>>>>>>> I'm IT support manager for one of the biggest pharma companies in

>>>>>>>> the world. There isn't a hope in hell of us ever going to Linux,

>>>>>>>> mainly because of the reasons stated above but also we have 40,000

>>>>>>>> users worldwide. Where would the money come to retrain them all?

>>>>>>>> Who is going to pay for my staff's time to rebuild all those

>>>>>>>> machines with Linux on them?

>>>>>>>> Who's going to pay to retrain all my support staff to use a totally

>>>>>>>> new OS? What are our customers going to say when the documents we

>>>>>>>> create and send them don't open or format correctly on their

>>>>>>>> Windows boxes?

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> It'd be like going back to the late 80s when I started in IT. We

>>>>>>>> had 4 different word processing apps at my first company, none of

>>>>>>>> which could talk to the other without an add-on and lots of pissing

>>>>>>>> about.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> I'm not saying Linux is a bad OS, it has it's uses, and I think if

>>>>>>>> it had the coverage Windows got when Win3 first came out, it would

>>>>>>>> probably be doing a lot better on the desktop, but it didn't, and

>>>>>>>> it won't. Saying that, I have 3 linux PCs at home, and I set my

>>>>>>>> gran up with one running Ubuntu recently, so I'm not *against*

>>>>>>>> Linux per se.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Face it. I can go out and buy a named brand PC, with an OS for less

>>>>>>>> than ?300 for our office. I can plug it in, and it just works when

>>>>>>>> the user logs in. It sees all the servers, the drives map. It does

>>>>>>>> it perfectly. OK, it's Windoze, but nothing is perfect. ..

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Mike P

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Let's see, 40,000 workstations with Vista and all need to be trained

>>>>>>> or 40,000 workstations with Ubuntu and all need to be trained.

>>>>>>> What's the difference? Vista is expensive, both for the software

>>>>>>> itself and the upgraded hardware, and Ubuntu is free. If you want

>>>>>>> your company to stay in the past, don't train them to use Ubuntu and

>>>>>>> train them to use Vista and fork out the money for new hardware.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> And that doesn't include the cost of cleaning off viruses and

>>>>>>> malware from these Windows workstations.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> What viruses? We've not had a virus outbreak since 2002...

>>>>>

>>>>> Yeah, riiiiiight.

>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> We don't need to train most users to use Vista, because XP works very

>>>>>> well and is very stable for our needs. Even if we did, Vista isn't

>>>>>> expensive for us, has a "familiar" feel to it, and our corporate

>>>>>> image would be set as we've set XP up so there wouldn't be a great

>>>>>> deal of change.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> We'll only start upgrading once the machines we buy are no longer

>>>>>> supplied with XP, even then they have a 3 year life cycle then are

>>>>>> replaced, which is standard practice for corporate IT departments. So

>>>>>> we won't upgrade until absolutely necessary. It's not "staying in the

>>>>>> past", it's good business sense to use something that works reliably,

>>>>>> which contrary to Linux users beliefs, Windows does in a corporate

>>>>>> environment when set up correctly.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> We have a lot of in house software written for windoze, and other

>>>>>> software ( clinical trial software, Drug regulatory software etc )

>>>>>> that only works on Windoze.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Mike P

>>>>>

>>>>> Sorry to hear it. What would you do if MS goes out of business?

>>>>>

>>>>> Alias

>>>>

>>>> What a Linux monkey you are.

>>>> You're swinging from a dead branch...ya stupid monkey.

>>>>

>>>

>>> Gosh, that sure refuted what I said, NOT!

>>>

>>> What is it about MS fanboys and their obsessions with animals?

>>>

>>> Alias

>>

>> What is it with old geezers and their obsession with Linux ?

>

> I wouldn't know being as I am not an old geezer and nor am I obsessed with

> Linux. Now, why are you obsessed with animals?

>

>> Linux just plain sucks ... believe me, I tried Ubuntu.

>> Formatting it from my hard drive gave me great pleasure.

>> Wobbly windows indeed ... the whole OS is wobbly.

>

> It's not my fault you're too stupid to understand how to use Ubuntu.

>

> Alias

>

 

I'd be stupid to continue using obsolete software written by what are

otherwise unemployable hacks.

Come on !

Ubuntu is a joke....I just grasped the punch line sooner than you eventually

will.

"Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@unixhome.net> wrote in message

news:MXBZj.161353$Cj7.98729@pd7urf2no...

>

> "Mike P" <privacy@privacy.net> wrote in message

> news:69o5njF349gvlU1@mid.individual.net...

>>

>> "the wharf rat" <wrat@panix.com> wrote in message

>> news:g165ig$epr$1@reader2.panix.com...

>>> In article <69ng8mF33j2j8U1@mid.individual.net>,

>>> Mike P <privacy@privacy.net> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>I don't think he is. All the points made in this article are valid.

>>>>

>>>

>>> Oh, horseshit. "Wobbly windows" ? "Afraid to upgrade"? Give

>>> me a break...

>>>

>>>>to rebuild all those machines with Linux on them?

>>>

>>> And the IT manager for one of the biggest companies in the world

>>> has never heard of an incremental rollout?

>>

>> Support manager please, there's three more tiers of bloody managers above

>> me before the IT director! Yes, I have organised many incremental

>> rollouts, but in the heavily audited and regulated world of

>> pharmaceuticals, all our departments worldwide share data, everything has

>> to be compatible at all times. That won't happen if we rollout Linux to

>> the business slowly now will it? When we went from Win95>2000, we had no

>> problems. Win2k>XP no problems. If we now have machines running Linux and

>> throw them into the mix, we'd have nothing but problems (solvable yes)

>> but we don't *need* these problems and the extra expense.

>>

>>>>Who's going to pay to retrain all my support staff to use a totally new

>>>>OS?

>>>

>>> Just a guess, mind you, but perhaps the same executives who

>>> considered the cost of retraining when they decided that moving to a new

>>> platform was a cost effective solution to having their business held

>>> hostage to Redmond?

>>

>> yes, they'd love to give me millions of dollars to waste on something we

>> don't need, make it essential to train all our staff on a load of new

>> apps (do you know how much IT training costs here in the UK?) . Wed

>>

>>

>>> In the cases where I've seen Linux make significant inroads on the

>>> desktop it's uniformly been a "grassroots" movement. Typically a few

>>> of the more technical employees will switch, and their success convinces

>>> others. It's possible only in an organization that encourages its

>>> employees

>>> to think and gives them permission to innovate. That's probably why you

>>> don't see it happen often.

>>

>> I think you'll find the company I work for one of the most innovative in

>> it's field. Free thinking is encouraged, however making a decision to

>> switch to Linux would be corporate suicide, certainley at present anyway.

>> With Micro$ofts licencing, the prices of Windows on new machine being

>> negligble, it just makes no sense whatsoever.

>>

>> Mike P

>

> The reasons you are likely having Linux problems is that you do not have

> at least one experienced Linux mentor. Same thing happened with

> Mainframers doing Windows and UNIX. A mess. For example, you don't need

> to rebuild a desktop to run wobbly windows unless it is an old release pre

> Compiz. Took me 20 minutes and Compiz was working great.

>

> My experience in such conversions is that there are 25% of the

> admin/support staff that will not change. And use every opportunity to

> sabotage change. Solution, lay them off and replace them. They are

> usually also the ones that are not team players and a poor understanding

> of what they do.

>

> And you get the same kind of problems on MS upgrades too. Unless of

> course you are flush with cash burning a hole in your pocket, to update

> every PC at once and have mastered Vista skills in advance.

>

 

That's the thing. We don't need to train users to use Vista. We won't be

using it. XP works perfectly at the moment for us, hopefully the next

company wide upgrade will be the next version of Windows. It still *looks*

like Windows if the settings are right, so there would be no need to retrain

anyway.

 

At current prices, I can pay for 10 years upgrades from MS under our

licencing agreement, for the cost of 1 weeks basic Linux tech training ...

 

Mike P

Alias wrote:

> Moshe. Goldfarb wrote:

>

>> http://www.applematters.com/article/about-linux-and-why-nobody-seems-to-care1/

>>

>>

>> " The general consensus seems to be that Mac users are the sort who want

>> the best in quality, no expenses spared Windows users are those who're

>> looking for the best bang for their buck (generally in the short

>> term) and

>> Linux users are the ones who want everything for free, particularly

>> software."

>>

>> " Some Linux users are easily dazzled by superfluous and completely

>> useless

>> effects (wobbly windows, blatant overuse of transparency, etc.) and

>> assume

>> that it must be better than Mac OS X because it's so cosmetically made-up

>> and then there are others who only need the Terminal and can keep

>> typing on

>> it whole day long."

>>

>> " The problem with the Linux community is that, like any community, it

>> has

>> members with widely varying interests and preferences and the open source

>> developers are developing hundreds of distributions to try and cater to

>> every single whim and fancy of these members. The result is a

>> cornucopia of

>> free software, software that has been developed at the expense of the

>> hard

>> work and time of some of the most skilled developers on the planet,

>> and yet

>> does not have a single product that is complete in and of itself and is

>> generating any profit at all."

>>

>> " There is no way whatsoever that thousands of developers sitting in

>> front

>> of their computers in different corners of the world and spending only

>> their non-working hours trying to develop something that they know isn't

>> going to make them any money, are ever going to come up with anything

>> good

>> enough to seriously challenge software from companies like Microsoft and

>> Apple. There is just no chance at all."

>>

>> " Linux has been around for more than a decade now and it's nowhere near

>> challenging either Mac OS X or Windows. The vast majority of hardware and

>> software makers around the world are still shipping products that are

>> incompatible with Linux."

>>

>> " There's no guarantee that the camera you bought today and is compatible

>> with your Ubuntu installation will work with Fedora Core too should you

>> change your mind in a few days, as is a common practice among the Linux

>> enthusiasts."

>>

>> " All of this and more are reasons enough to ignore Linux. Linux users

>> are

>> never quite sure which one is the best distribution around. They have

>> debates in their own community with twenty different users vouching for

>> twenty different variations. They constantly have to keep figuring out

>> workarounds to make all their software and hardware work together. They

>> can't just go out and buy a new accessory, assured in the knowledge

>> that it

>> will work. They are afraid to upgrade, lest things go wrong."

>>

>> And so forth......

>>

>> Obviously this guy has had experience with LinSUX because his article is

>> right on the money....

>>

>

> Why are you so afraid of Linux, Moshe?

>

> Alias

 

Why are you so afraid of the truth, alias?

Frank