General IT ManagementDiscussion of challenges facing IT management including articles published throughout the Earthweb IT Management network at Datamation, eSecurityPlanet and CIO Update.
Why I Won't be Recommending Linux to Family this Holiday Season
Adrian Kingsley-Hughes opines that Linux is not for the casual, newbie user.
"Ubuntu is the easiest, best set-up Linux distro currently available. But for many home users, migrating a Windows system over to Linux would be a huge disaster."
I don't think his points in that article are really arguable at all. The average user wants to take the PC out-of-the-box, plug in the peripherals, hit the power button and go. Having to search down anything will very likely put them off. Can anyone really argue with this?
I don't agree with his reasoning at all. In my experience, especially for home users, Ubuntu is close to a slam dunk fit--with the notable exception of FPS gamers. Home computer usage generally breaks down along rough age group lines, and for the vast majority (leaving aside young males!), Ubuntu fits the bill nicely.
(Commercial users often have vertical market programs that aren't available on a Linux platform, and thus may be a different story.)
It is faster and easier to install Ubuntu than any flavor of Windows, and that install provides the user with nearly everything he'll need for use. For free. Folks who assume that what comes out of the box for free must be crapware simply haven't used Ubuntu recently.
Driver hassles are largely a thing of the past. (I haven't heard of anyone having a problem with cameras in a couple of years. All of them just "plug in and work.") Home users don't usually have esoteric hardware -- the kind that drivers are hard to come by.
This issue really boils down to inertia. Let's admit that. I have switched over at least ten people in my acquaintance. None of them, even after a couple of years, have hinted they want to switch back to windows. And, frankly, after a week or two, they require almost no support.
Everything "just works," and, as important, continues to do so.
I'm not a typical home user, but the rest of my relatives from around the country are. They have current model home computers, usually notebooks, most of which contain "esoteric" hardware including TPM, fingerprint readers, HDTV tuners, WI-FI, ...
The real issue is not the OS so much as the total lack of interoperability and compatibility with Windows applications used/required by K-12 students such as the Office 2007 applications such as Word, Power Point, Visio, Outlook, ...
To date the *nix office applications are stuck with 2003 or earlier file compatibility.
This is what my neighbor children encountered, so I gave them 2 licenses for Windows XP Pro and Office 2007 Professional.
To top that off many of the financial accounts I have require Internet Explorer 6 or above for server security purposes. I've tried spoofing IE with Firefox but they catch it every time and deny access.
I use Firefox sometimes for surfing non-secure servers.
I have a box running FreeBSD that started with BSD 4.x.
To date the *nix office applications are stuck with 2003 or earlier file compatibility.
Which hurts K-12 users exactly how? Even in business, uptake on the new formats has been very slow. There just isn't much incentive.
The arguments against Linux I see mainly revolve around two things: (1) outdated perceptions of how hard it is to use and (2) using it will make life difficult because you aren't in the Microsoft ecosystem.
It's not hard to use anymore, and one doesn't even need to install it to find out. Live CDs allow you to try it out on your own hardware without an install. I'm guessing most in this forum know that already.
I largely left the Microsoft ecosystem 5 years ago, and have saved a TON of money as a result. My life doesn't revolve around their products, but then neither does the life of any of my acquaintances (with the exception of a friend who makes a living selling software).
There is nothing wrong with people making a living supporting or selling Microsoft products. But it does taint impartiality (in this matter) significantly, at least without full disclosure. (A bit like insurance salesmen arguing for mandatory car insurance. They may be correct, but one cannot overlook their financial incentive in the argument.)
I've never had problems with financial websites -- mortgage companies, banks, utility companies, Verizon, TurboTax, you-name-it. Perhaps those sites put "Firefox atop Windows" users through additional hoops. I have no experience on that score. But Firefox on Linux "just works."
Which hurts K-12 users exactly how? Even in business, uptake on the new formats has been very slow. There just isn't much incentive.
Many of the K-12 schools require students to use Office 2007 applications and file formats to submit their assignments. They can't do that with *nix. If they can't they are forced to queue up to use limited library resources after school hours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by parma
The arguments against Linux I see mainly revolve around two things: (1) outdated perceptions of how hard it is to use and (2) using it will make life difficult because you aren't in the Microsoft ecosystem.
Not being in the Microsoft ecosystem as you put it is akin to using the wrong technology to accomplish a necessary task such as using a flat bladed screw driver on a Phillips head screw.
I've used many versions of Unix since the 70's. It is a user hostile OS even when wrapped with GUI conveniences. Unix has its functional place, but it is not appropriate when MS interoperability or collaboration is required as in education.
Quote:
Originally Posted by parma
I largely left the Microsoft ecosystem 5 years ago, and have saved a TON of money as a result. My life doesn't revolve around their products, but then neither does the life of any of my acquaintances (with the exception of a friend who makes a living selling software).
I'm happy for you. Your needs are obviously different. When it comes to Microsoft versus *nix, the model is really "you can pay me now or you can pay me later". Full featured commercial *nix applications and support cost many times what Microsoft applications cost. Student/Teacher pricing is about $10 per disk at their school's bookstore for Microsoft products.
Prior to my retirement, I was an independent IT director and a international network consultant for large banks and governments including the US Federal Reserve and Department of Justice. Unix consulting paid twice as much as Microsoft consulting at market rates. (My rates were higher due to security clearances.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by parma
There is nothing wrong with people making a living supporting or selling Microsoft products. But it does taint impartiality (in this matter) significantly, at least without full disclosure. (A bit like insurance salesmen arguing for mandatory car insurance. They may be correct, but one cannot overlook their financial incentive in the argument.)
That is a bad argument since virtually everything anyone does in a capitalist economy has a financial implication including your hype for Ubantu.
Quote:
Originally Posted by parma
I've never had problems with financial websites -- mortgage companies, banks, utility companies, Verizon, TurboTax, you-name-it. Perhaps those sites put "Firefox atop Windows" users through additional hoops. I have no experience on that score. But Firefox on Linux "just works."
The sites you mention are not what I would call "secure" websites since at most they rely on public certificates and the https protocol. With open source browsers and operating systems, the website and server security protocols can be easily exposed through recompilation of the client software accessing them. In addition, most of those public sites do not allow the use of long and complex passwords. I use a very long character password along with biometric input and/or a SecurCard to access a secure server.
The bottom line is that two of the largest US banks have had serious security breaches where their insurance reimbursed their losses due to connections from outside their data centers. I cannot give specifics because of non-disclosure agreements.
Most home users do not need the levels of security I've mentioned, but security is a lifelong habit that is best learned over time stating with first computer use. It is the same as teaching your children proper nutrition and healthy habits that will carry them throughout their life.
Many of the K-12 schools require students to use Office 2007 applications and file formats to submit their assignments.
Easy to allege. Where's the proof? Most of the school systems in my area have a hard time getting books to every child, let alone upgrading software that functioned as they needed to begin with.
Quote:
Not being in the Microsoft ecosystem as you put it is akin to using the wrong technology to accomplish a necessary task such as using a flat bladed screw driver on a Phillips head screw.
Now, that's a breathtaking statement. If I get what you are trying to say, Microsoft is the appropriate arbiter of all things related to computing. Wow. Everything necessary, they've given us. I really hope that is not what you meant, especially given your apparent career in network consulting.
Quote:
Full featured commercial *nix applications and support cost many times what Microsoft applications cost.
First, remember that we're talking about home usage here. So I'm not sure what apps you have in mind. I will say this: in my 5 years, I have personally spent a grand total of $40 on one app that had no acceptable free equivalent. My firm, which now runs 2 Linux servers and 5 Linux desktops (along with 3 Windows desktops), has spent $65 in FIVE YEARS on linux software and support. (All the updates are free.) I support the machines, just like I supported all of our windows machines before we switched. This, in addition to my normal duties at the firm.
I fully realize that one case does not a comprehensive argument make. But I speak having lived the experience, and I'm here to say that it was (and is) clearly cost effective.
Quote:
That is a bad argument since virtually everything anyone does in a capitalist economy has a financial implication including your hype for Ubantu.
Yes, but not everything benefits my pocket directly. If I were getting paid to argue this on behalf of Ubuntu, or if I sold Ubuntu for a living, readers of this thread would justifiably take my assertions with a grain of salt. Because, in that instance, the more converts I got (even by exaggerations) the more money I might deposit in my account at the end of the month. That's why "conflicts of interest" are required to be disclosed in many professional codes of ethics. But it's pointless to debate that -- everyone knows undisclosed monetary interests can color one's public statements. It's human nature.
Quote:
Most home users do not need the levels of security I've mentioned. . .
Looks like we agree on something. But I didn't notice your prefacing your earlier browser complaints with the fact that the websites you're talking about are not likely to be on the radar screen of home users. That's an important distinction. And this thread is about home users. Isn't it?
My local elementary school requires Office 2007. There is no free equivalent.
There is no free equivalent to Photoshop CS3 or Maya.
There is no free equivalent to Oracle.
The list is endless.
The route you take to a destination away from home benefits you economically, disclosed or not.
IMO computers are tools, not toys!
I keep 150 years of family history and photos, accounting and tax records, medical records and images, inventory, kitchen management and recipies, books and white papers, etc. in several database files. Why else have computers? They are tools to improve quality of life and much faster and more organized than dozens of 5 drawer file cabinets.
My bank requires IE or Netscape. FF is rejected.
My bank trust department requires IE.
My private equity broker requires IE.
My own secure server requires IE.
What home user does not have a school, employer, bank or broker?
Each and every server established their own rules for access and proper operation. One my be able to access a website with a non-IE browser, but the rendering may not be correct, especially the sound, since different html commands and scripting standards are used for different browsers.
It's easy throwing around wild generalizations, but it isn't necessarily accurate. And it doesn't go to the heart of the matter which is, why did the MS format have to change at all, other than to force a reason to upgrade? How were K-12 schools at risk two years ago by not having the "benefits" of the last format? What problem, exactly, got solved by the upgrade?
How many home users use Oracle?? IIRC, only very recently did Oracle start offering a free "starter" edition (or similar), widely viewed as a buffer against free Mysql gobbling up the soft underbelly of the database business. Yes, perhaps if I were running a credit card processing operation, I might opt for Oracle -- running on Oracle's own "Unbreakable Linux." (Hmmm, Larry Ellison doesn't seem to have the same misgivings about open-source code that you do.) You seem to have a difficult time sticking to what a home user would use a PC for.
The same for Photoshop or Maya. Free alternatives exist (at least for Photoshop). And if Maya does what I think it does, then for it too. However, there aren't too many home users who line up for the privilege of plunking down $600 for Photoshop, especially when many free programs do everything home users typically ask of a image manipulation program. Even on Windows. Let's see: Maya from Autodesk costs $1,995. The line forms over there. Home users up front.
The latest version of Ubuntu comes standard with 23,310 software packages, all available for free (and painless download/installation). We could both list packages for our respective platforms; but you'll stop naming yours before I stop reading mine off.
Quote:
The route you take to a destination away from home benefits you economically, disclosed or not.
Maybe someone else here can explain what that means, or how its relevant. I haven't any idea.
Quote:
IMO computers are tools, not toys!
We agree on something else.
Quote:
I keep 150 years of family history and photos, accounting and tax records, medical records and images, inventory, kitchen management and recipies, books and white papers, etc. in several database files. Why else have computers? They are tools to improve quality of life and much faster and more organized than dozens of 5 drawer file cabinets.
Good deal. I do similar things.
Quote:
My bank requires IE or Netscape. FF is rejected.
My bank trust department requires IE.
My private equity broker requires IE.
My own secure server requires IE.
Well, we must be living in parallel universes, because my experience is the opposite. I won't lecture you on monocultures, because I am sure you know the ramifications. But diversity attenuates risk. So if I had to choose between an institution that encouraged diverse clients versus one that didn't, I'd go with the former.
And, in my experience, those institutions are all over the place.
Schools upgrade software and equipment to teach their students using current tools containing current features. Otherwise, they would still be using typewriters and mechanical calculators. Higher education, trade schools and businesses want students and employees with current skill sets, not 5 or more year old skill sets.
BTW - Student pricing for Microsoft OS and Office products is ~$10 per disk at hundreds of school bookstores across the USA.
If open source software tried to stay within a 1 year time frame with the features and functionality of mainstream commercial software, I'm sure more people would try it. Until then don't try to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Open source just is not a good as commercial software no matter the platform on which it runs.
IMO institutions with a widely diverse clients are similar to a handyman. They do lots of things with marginal results rather than functionally specialize and be in the top tier of what they do. I attenuate my own risks by careful selection of those institutions with which I establish a relationship. I do not leave it up to others to do so.
It's become clear to me that you've not tried desktop Linux (at least not in the last two or three years). So your arguments have been uninformed, at least with respect to the original question, which was, "would migrating a Windows user over to Linux be a huge disaster?"
I've done that, a number of times, over several years, and with uniformly positive results. You have not attempted that, apparently, and therefore must merely guess at the outcome.
It's alright to be philosophically (or even politically) opposed to open-source desktops. But that doesn't equate to practical fingers-to-keyboard difficulties that a new user may encounter. As I see it, that was the question on the floor, and, so far, I'm the only one who has addressed it.
It would be a disaster from an interoperability and compatibility point of view regardless of how the OS performs. Compatible user applications are simply not available no matter the cost.
As you keep insisting, without any actual proof. A bit like convincing yourself that the water is freezing, without touching it, despite there being 50 people in the pool already.
Why don' t you post links to applications that are 100% feature and functionally compatible with MS Office 2007 Visio, ... that run on Ubuntu?
While your at it do the same for Photoshop CS3.
Partial compatibility does not cut it when it comes to interoperability and the necessity of submitting school assignments in specific file formats.
The burden of proof is on you since you are arguing that Ubuntu and open source applications running thereon can do everything and is fully compatible with Windows based commercial software.
I disagree
Linear Mode
