51–60 of 141 posts
They moved from Windows NT to Linux in 2006 . No wonder it reduced complaints. I'd be far more interested in a migration from Win 7 or Win XP to Linux.
Disclaimer: I'm not a programmer and have been a bystander in medium sized IT projects. Does anyone think that large organisations will tend to move to Web-browser based business applications over the next few years? If so, will that make it easier to switch the client device without major change in the central plumbing?
Yes. We're upgrading (slowly but certainly) JDE and it gets rid of all the fat / skinny clients in favor of Web. Which has been the trend in ERP for a few years now.
I don't know if it's a good idea or not - people (coughmanagement*) seem to underestimate the amount of resources ops needs to maintain large farms of web servers in the enterprise.
On the other hand, for a few years I was responsible for a bar-code server, which had it's own client to install and that was a white-line nightmare, let me tell you. I don't miss it at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And much more expensive :-) and if you want 100% Office comapatability for work by a PC.
Could you show how a DELL or HP is much cheaper? I did a calculation in 2006, comparing a Lenovo T60p to a MacBook Pro, it was roughly the same. Things did not change since then to my knowledge. http://codemonkeyism.com/the-recent-lenovo-vs-apple-discussi...
The data presented in the article provides compelling evidence that the answer is yes -- i.e., the migration's recurring savings exceed its upfront costs:
* The city no longer has to pay for license upgrades, thereby eliminating a major recurring cost forever -- savings of nearly 3 million pounds every three to four years, according to the article. That's huge.
* The city no longer has to upgrade desktop software or hardware as frequently, reducing another recurring cost forever -- also huge.
* Most surprisingly, the city claims its IT department is fielding considerably fewer user complaints with Linux than with Windows, reducing another major cost forever. Labor-intensive IT support is always the costliest component of operating a corporate desktop, so that's also huge.
If the recurring cost savings claimed by the city of Munich are accurate, every budget-strapped city in the planet should be seriously considering this kind of migration to desktop Linux. It makes a lot of sense purely from a financial standpoint.
[UPDATE: I toned down the language and corrected key figures, which were off by an order of magnitude due to an incorrect reading of the article. I also materially changed the bullet point regarding support costs, as the article itself was slightly misleading on the matter. THANK YOU Xylakant and luser001 for pointing out my errors!]
"... and reduced user complaints" When I hear that metric I think of a homegrown app that was supposed to upload files from PeeCees to the company's mainframe. At the annual IT meeting ... "And since implementing change foo and bar in the system user complaints to the special helpdesk have declined 90% .." My boss stood up [1] "That's because the users got tired of calling and not having anything fixed. It's still br…
"... and reduced user complaints" When I hear that metric I think of a homegrown app that was supposed to upload files from PeeCees to the company's mainframe. At the annual IT meeting ... "And since implementing change foo and bar in the system user complaints to the special helpdesk have declined 90% .." My boss stood up [1] "That's because the users got tired of calling and not having anything fixed. It's still br…
It starts with 'Bobby in accounting told me to X when Y happens' and snowballs from there.
It's horrible on productivity and when IT finally does try to fix it, it's often much, much worse. (Though, when the user gets it right, IT doesn't have to fix it after all.)
It's also horrible on morale.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Frankly, I would say just the opposite. If your needs are minimal, go with windows. If you need more, linux is a good choice. You will never get a decent terminal in windows or good support for some programming languages (such as python). You are right with Excel although. However, much of the "power" of Excel is really just needed because people are overusing it. Stop making "databases" out of Excel sheets and imple…
I did state that Linux was appropriate for enthusiasts as well as those with minimal needs. The reason I feel Linux to be appropriate for novices with bare-minimal needs, is that when operating within very narrow constraints the most popular Linux distros are both efficient and safe. For basic functionality, the price can't be beat. However, hassles really do begin to manifest themselves once users begin to really en…
A number of these issues that you mention are only present with a lack of planning. If you go out and buy a computer with the intention of running Linux on it, you plan and you pick a computer with good compatibility. With each release of popular distros such as Ubuntu, compatibility improves massively. My Dad's laptop used to have issues with WiFi a few years back, now it connects fine (faster than Windows too) in Ubuntu 10.10.
External displays? I've never had an issue with this and I'm actually typing this on a dual-monitor Linux setup. If you have an Nvidia graphics card then this should be fine. Again though, if you plan this isn't an issue.
Software limitations, granted. Just like for OS X, there are professional wine layers which offer Windows software on Linux. But sure, that's not perfect. There is quite a bit of good quality software (plus, obviously, web applications work fine) and especially for development work. But this is definitely an area that needs improving.
Personally I'm waiting on Canonical to release their own computer (or partner up with a hardware provider) for then there will be no issues with hardware compatibility or many of the problems you mention, for that is the reason they exist: attempting to run Linux on a device that was not designed specifically for it.
Just my $0.02 anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you show how a DELL or HP is much cheaper? I did a calculation in 2006, comparing a Lenovo T60p to a MacBook Pro, it was roughly the same. Things did not change since then to my knowledge. http://codemonkeyism.com/the-recent-lenovo-vs-apple-discussi...
It isn't a matter of comparing like for like; that isn't the problem. The problem is that the single cheapest Mac laptop is $1000. If all you're doing is web and email, you may not need a Core i5 or SSD. You can get a PC laptop which is more than fast enough for Mom usage for less than half that price, especially if you put Ubuntu on it and don't have to run antivirus.
Never heard that in a discussion. I thought it was all about comparing like to like. The OP didn't say "for reading emails". Especially as he gave the example of 100% Office compatibility (Office 2011?).
Or you could compare live time value. I've broken several Thinkpads in a small amount of time, my wife uses a MacBook for more than 5 years with the newest operating system and applications.
Or, if you need email, only use a phone. Or if you only surf the web, buy a tablet. Or if you only do small amounts of web and email, don't buy anything at all and go to a free library. It depends.
But the argument was that a Mac laptop is much more expensive than a PC laptop for working with Office. Which it is not to my knowledge.
If you don't need it, don't buy it - no argument there.
I am all for open source, and cities like Munich getting into it is welcome news, and will influence improvement in apps, however I suspect there is a lot of negativity pushed under the rug here.