[GRLUG] Perceptions: Is Linux a suitable desktop platform?

[Adam Tauno Williams]

On Sat, 2008-10-04 at 17:38 -0400, Tim Schmidt wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 1:33 PM, David Pembrook <david at pembrook.net> wrote:
> > An interesting article on perceptions about Linux. The author polled
> > both pro-Linux and pro-Microsoft people and compared their arguments
> > http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT9186091276.html
> I've never found these articles relevant.  Linux has been in use as a
> 'suitable desktop platform' since Linus started hacking on it in 1991.
>  If some people don't think it's 'ready', that's their loss.  The rest
> of us have been, and will continue to innovate, improve, and have fun.

It is nice to see one of these articles from a credible source;  there
are an entire sea of these articles by miscellaneous nobodies.
Terpstra certainly has made real contributions to FOSS, so his opinion
has weight.   The real flaw in all these articles is what being a
"suitable desktop platform" means.  Being a suitable home desktop, a
suitable SOHO desktop, or a suitable desktop in a publicly traded
fortune 100 enterprise - these are really different kinds of things.
This article picks the "business desktop" which narrows it down nicely.

I've been using LINUX as by primary desktop since the release of Word
Perfect for Linux (fall 94?).  I used it only for e-mail and development
before that,  a stable word processor was the last hurdle. 

The articles does float to the surface some good points that usually
don't appear in similar articles:

* "Also, it seems obvious to me that with Win4Lin and VMWare one has to
pay for this software as well as pay for the MS Windows license – so why
not just run MS Windows on the users' PC? Why does this fact escape the
Pro-Linux opinions?"

So true, this is the most bogus card in the LINUX advocacy playbook.

* "There are not unified Linux network management tools: nothing like
Microsoft MMC"

This is *SO* true.  I've been involved in a large-ish LINUX desktop
project (80 machines).  Management is just non-existent, and scripts
don't count.   I'm disappointed that Terpstra let that one go without
commenting.

* "Ximian Evolution looks and works just like MS Outlook but no
pro-Windows respondent knew of this tool. Pro-Windows respondents saw MS
Exchange as synonymous with Internet email – Mircosoft have done a good
job with their messaging here!"

This is true in my experience.  When most IT staff and vendors say
"mail" they mean Exchange,  when they say "database" they mean "SQL
Server", etc...  It is important to be *very* up-front if you are not
using these products.   "Our products integrates with your mail server
to provide point-in-time backups and restores" means "Our product
integrates with Exchange..."   There is a real danger here that costs
LINUX credibility, especially when a layer of non-techy people liason
with vendors.   This becomes "Oh, they said it works with mail servers.
Why won't it work with *our* mail server?"

* "One can use VNC to support BOTH Linux and MS Windows network clients
Linux software is easier to keep up to date"

Has anyone managed to get VNC to run as a service in Vista?  The
performance of a VNC vs. RDP over a WAN is also beyond any comparison;
RDP runs circles around VNC.

As for updates;  Win32 is much easier to manager.  Install the [free]
WSUS service on a server.  It automatically downloads updates and lets
you approve or decline specific updates,  report on machines that
haven't updated, etc...  There is no equivalent AFAIK for LINUX for any
distribution.