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

[Adam Tauno Williams]

> > * "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.
> VMWare Server and VMWare Player are free for commercial use.  While I
> haven't looked into it recently, I hear that qemu has virtualization
> support now, too. (As opposed to strictly emulation.)

But you still have to have a licensed copy of Windows;  so the arguement
of "Why not just run Windows?" remains.  There certainly is no cost
advantage if you have to resort to this;  and it is certainly more
complex than just running one OS.

> > * "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.
> You *can't* run VNC as a service on Vista; Vista's security model
> disallows services that interact with the desktop.  The solution is to
> run the VNC server as part of the user's session.

That isn't a solution.  It means you can't manage a workstation unless a
user is logged in,  it becomes merely a help-desk tool.  With VNC and
NT/2000/XP I can log into a remote machine with my account, or
Administrator, and manage/fix/update/troubleshoot the box.  With VNC +
Vista that isn't possible.   I don't have any problems using RDP, but
the point is that it does invalidate the bullet point from the article:
"use VNC to support BOTH Linux and MS Windows network clients".

> > 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.
> That surprises me.  It's conceptually trivial to design something like
> that around Apt, perhaps a bit more difficult around dpkg.  I would be
> surprised if nobody's done it already.

Someone might have done it, but [AFAIK] it isn't packaged/available.  It
does seem like it would be pretty straight forward;  but getting
something that works and getting something that works *well* is a
different set of distances.  In general I think that management of LINUX
is pretty lacking,  until you can manage and configure services via an
API all the tools are basically hacks,  [ You can manage recent versions
of Samba from MMC, but then you need a Windows box to run the MMC client
- but that is a server not a desktop issue . ]   If the Microsoft crowd
can be blamed of thinking "mail" = "Exchange" the LINUX crowd can just
as fairly be blamed of thinking "LINUX" = "Web Server";  at least that
has been true until recently.  Things are getting better.  But doing
things like password policies, data retention, certificate distribution
(PKI), etc... on LINUX workstations/desktops [or on LINUX networks] is
still very hackish.   One of the most frustrating bits of that is that
if you bring up those questions (seeking advice) on many forums you'll
quite possibly be either (a) attacked as a corporate stooge and be
treated to long libertarian diatribes about how such things are "evil"
or (b)  you'll just be told that, no, you don't really need those
features.  After a decade of using LINUX, and advocating and supporting
LINUX, and developing on LINUX,  I have to say I'm not surprised a
solution like the aforementioned doesn't exist; I believe the use of
LINUX / Open Source in "the enterprise" is quite seriously exaggerated.
Maybe lots of people are using as a file server for some department, or
a web server for their Intranet,  but it sure doesn't seem like very
many shops of significant size are using it as their general-purpose
platform.