Posted on 01/06/2011 8:31:18 AM PST by ShadowAce
Why are you using Linux on your desktop?
Before answering this question, consider the advantages and disadvantages and then come back full circle to your own motivation for using Linux. Nearly every week, I find my news feeds filled with the usual generic articles describing rather vanilla reasons for using Linux on the desktop.
Why do I have a problem with this? Perhaps because the reasons often being shared are just echoes of other opinions that clearly aren't that of the author. Instead, we are reading the thoughts and ideas of many articles since past.
Great platform for the wrong reason
Take, for example, promoting Linux as the malware-proof OS. Sorry to break this to you, but this doesn't exist. Or my personal favorite, Linux means you never need to upgrade your hardware.
Again, despite claims to the contrary, you get what you put into it from a hardware point of view if the tasks needed are CPU intensive. While there are distributions available that make running old hardware smooth as butter, this doesn't mean that all desktop environments are going to make that old Pentium II machine hum like a new PC.
The biggest issue I have with many “switch to Linux” articles is the ongoing pitch that the Linux desktop is a way to escape paying for software titles. This bothers me and here's why. First, many open source software applications used on the Linux desktop are available on Windows as well. So that argument quickly goes right out the window. Second, I think there's more to switching to the Linux desktop than merely saving a buck. What about the control and freedom from vendor lock-in? Isn't this of value?
Enough with the free stuff mentality. Let's consider the bigger picture as outlined below.
Free ride or freedom?
So what is my concern about making the switch to Linux in order to save money? These are trying economic times -- wouldn't using a platform without licensing costs make a lot of sense?
Yes, I am a fan of the cost savings of using open source solutions, but only when coupled with other Linux advantages. Switching merely based on cost savings is almost always going to lead to a massive switch back to the previous platform. Why? Because any hurdles along the way will be seen as a big deal, thus sending those migrating running back to the familiar.
Instead I think there needs to be more focus on "control" over how things are running. This means no surprise updates despite disabling this feature, and no concern over lost software copies since the software is readily available from the software online repositories. It also means the benefit of a generally consistent experience regardless of the system the software is installed on.
You're your own IT dept
In a proprietary world, chances are reasonable that even with an in-house IT team working in your corner, some software titles will translate into making that dreaded call to outside support. What’s worse is when that title is no longer supported or the company is actually out of business. Unfortunately this happens all the time in the proprietary software world.
With open source software running on Linux, you're in the driver’s seat. Regardless of what the problem may be, you have the advantage of being able to hire someone to address the issue head-on with your own solution instead of relying on a fix handed down by some faceless software company.
For enterprise users needing things working right now, keeping this kind of control in-house is priceless.
Trust in software
The value of privacy. Think that "Big Brother Software" won't spy on your company? Think again. Windows Genuine Advantage reportedly has a notification tool that will "call home" to Microsoft periodically while a PC is turned on. I can't speak for most companies out there, but the fact that this is installed out of the box should be enough to have you looking for an alternative OS immediately.
The Russian government, for instance, is making the move away from Windows completely. I mean, if I was from another country, I wouldn't want foreign software running my critical systems! With passing time, I doubt that other non-NAFTA countries will continue shelling out license fees to Microsoft indefinitely. Foreign businesses and other countries are considering alternatives.
Extra revenue in a box
Earn as you learn. Assuming your company is among the first in your locale to overcome the usual speed bumps that take place during a large-scale OS migration, there is opportunity to sell the shortcut concepts discovered along the way.
This information could be as good as gold and could be sold in how-to scripts and documents. So this creates not only an extra revenue stream for the company involved, but also allows the company an opportunity for free local press by going against the norm. Trust me, the media eats this stuff up, especially at the local level.
No surprises
Know thy future. Using Linux on the desktop allows you to hedge your bets so that you won't find any software compatibility issues in the future.
There is nothing worse than legacy software suddenly becoming incompatible with the latest version of an operating system. It happens too often in the proprietary world, whereas it's much less likely when using Linux on the desktop.
There is also something to be said about the predictable means of creating backups and disk images without wondering if there is a rogue piece of software that might create a problem. This is not so much an issue for disk images per se, but it can be an issue with some backup software on other non-Linux operating systems. Well, at least based on my own personal experiences. Your mileage may vary.
Sending the wrong message
Some basic fundamentals bear repeating. Linux is free software as in freedom, not a free ride. All too often I see the stigma of its no-cost availability being a mixed blessing. It’s fantastic as it ensures free access to the OS for all who care to install it.
Yet on the flip-side, the issue of balking at the idea of spending money to get the OS working both at home and in the enterprise realm seems to continue. So when I hear people screaming about the cost of support, I cannot help but wonder what planet they're living on. It's about freedom folks, not just free stuff.
What freedom, you ask? Freedom to choose the tech support you prefer, not one that is software dictated. Freedom to make tweaks and changes so that the installations of the operating system run as needed. Freedom to know that if a company supporting Linux does something not compatible with your business’s vision, you can look elsewhere for assistance.
Why use Linux on the desktop in an enterprise setting? Freedom, control and the stewardship of your own company's destiny. Perhaps if this were the message sent forth by more individuals, we'd have less enterprise IT departments looking to merely shave off a few bucks from their budget. Sure, the cost savings are the frosting on the cake -- but it's the freedom to make use of this OS that makes up the cake itself.
Wouldn’t mind using Linux here, but there’s a problem. The world uses Windows, our customers use Windows, our development software runs on Windows, our executives are very much tied to Exchange, and I’m a big believer in eating your own dog food.
So we use Windows.
I’ve been thinking of making the move. Does Linux take advantage of multi-processor cores?
In fact, Linux comprises the vast majority of high-end machines, utilizing multi-core machines.
But I would try to introduce a variety into your backends if possible. Firewall, web site, etc could easily run a different OS without impacting the user experience. That diversity would hedge against any malware introduced into your system, as any malware cannot attack multiple different OSes.
Internet networking is very complex, having nothing to do with any particular os. I’m using CentOS (free download with red hat as the “upstream vendor”). It has gotten very nice and simple - Relatively. You will need to learn a little. With windows, everyone just runs it, but they should be learning also, since they have a nightmarishly vulnerable os. most people just don’t realize how bad windows is. But switching to any other os is not a no-brainer solution. there just is no easy answer for having a secure and efficient-to-use os. that being said, the biggest software category for the “compatibility” argument for running windows is office: spreadsheet, word processor, etc. Open Office is a wonderful free download that supports the basic file types you would email back and forth. I’ve sent people spreadsheets and docs and they opened them up fine in their “pay” counterparts. Open Office is VERY simple to install, runs on windows and linux (its written in java). centos comes with open office, no need to download.
as a 20-year software guy, i just gave up on paying big dollars for windows software developer tools which don’t get better every year, just more complex, expensive and “controlling”. i’m the most free-enterprise person you’ll Ever meet, but monopolies such as ms have zero creativity, just and endless search for revenue without providing value. with centos i’m on my own for support (which is not so bad with the existence of google), but I get the FULL toolset for free; a database server, email server, web server, many languages, the list goes on and on. the non-techie user, though, still has a bit of a task to get familiar with what “services” are running and how to turn them off if they just want a secure, single user machine.
I haven’t looked into it yet, but over the holidays another FReeper posted an article about Zorin Linux. It’s supposed to be designed to ease the transition for Windows users, runs faster than 7, and supposedly runs Windows apps faster than Windows.
If it does everything it’s supposed to, it might be an interesting product to use in your environment - the same one many of us are in.
I would just add that one of the cool things about Linux is the availability of "live" CDs. That is, you go to a Linux site (eg. ubuntu, pclinuxos, mepis, just search for "linux distros" etc.) and download an ISO image of a CD. (note, this'll be big, about 700 MB) Most CD burning programs make it easy to "burn" the ISO image onto a CD. If your machine's BIOS is set up correctly, you can then boot the machine from the CD and try Linux. No muss, no fuss, no commitment of installing it. Yes, it will boot and run significantly slower from the CD than from hard disk. But it is a good way to try it out. They are also handy to have around to "rescue" machines (or at least data from them) that will no-longer boot due to some damage to the OS installed on the hard disk.
Is Linux "the" answer for everyone? Of course not. I'm an admitted Linux fan. However, I also have Windows 7 available to dual boot for the couple of things I cannot do in Linux. (eg. iTunes and TomTom GPS updates) Linux works fine for what I use it for: email, web, photo management of pics from my digital camera, video management (digital video camera), occasional documents and spreadsheets. (open office - also available on windows and OS/X)
I got started using Linux 'cause it's cheap (free) and so am I. ;-) Also, yes, it does run just fine on lower-end machines. Note, now win 7 is pretty good at this too. They both boot and run about equally fast on the same dual-boot machine here. Yes, Linux is nearly immune to virus and other attacks. However, many of the applications you use on it may not be. (eg. FireFox, OpenOffice, etc.) Since I back up my data regularly, I can always just wipe and re-install if need be. So I don't run an anti-virus program on Linux. If you use windows on a regular basis, giving up some $, disk space, and CPU cycles to an anti-virus program is a must.
Anyway, Linux really isn't just for geeks anymore. It is a viable option depending on what your needs are. Maybe not even as your primary OS, but as something you set up just to fool around with and explore/experiment. (ok, that may be a bit geeky)
Great, now I have to clean coffee off my keyboard and monitor! Funniest thing I've read all week!
I figured it could, but I knew there would be some experts here, thanks. I am thinking of getting a new PC soon, so I am wondering if there is a preferred hardware for Linux?
The one thing that is holding me back from making the switch is actually software. I do a lot of GIS stuff and I use some Windows programs with no Linux versions. Are there any web sites that list Windows software and their Linux substitutes?
it also makes use of processor frequency scaling, and gives you a nice little toolbar applet to see it. if your pc processor supports it, when it’s not busy, it will run slower (like 99% of the time when your pc is not doing diddly). if gets busy, it will set the cpu speed faster.
i recently bought a dell optiplex 380 with windows on it: never ran it once, just turned it on and went into “setup” mode, changed boot to dvd, put in my bootable centos install dvd and rebooted, which put me right into centos install.
the centos desktop is very practical and efficient. the system monitor is like windows “task manager” and shows nice low cpu usage even when playing videos. one no longer has to know many unix commands (like top for that one) as there are graphical desktop apps for most everything, even configuration.
i also installed centos on my little dell mini laptop (i like it because the battery lasts many hours). didn’t take long to get my verizon um175 usb wireless modem going.
i can nicely (and securely) transfer files between them with a cruzer usb 32G memory stick; just plug it in and centos sees it and opens up a folder.
but unix is not for someone who wants an easy solution with “zero” effort; it’s not so difficult for me because i have a lengthy IT background.
A learning curve exists with everything different than what you are used to. Once one gets past the initial differences, I find Linux easier to stay comfortable with.
I find that with Windows, the tendency is to learn to navigate around by rote rather than by actually understanding the underlying functions you are using. When that is the case, even different versions of Windows can have a frustrating learning curve. With Linux, once you’ve got your head wrapped around things, it’s like riding a bicycle.
Now, I’m so used to Linux that I find the learning curve for Windows frustrating...lol
No preferred hardware. Once in a while, you’ll come across a wireless card or video card that is very new which will cause an install hiccup. However, with the live CD, you can spot this before you jump in to installing it. Usually, the answer is a google search away. If you run into that and need help, just drop me a FReepmail.
Many Windows programs, particularly old ones, will work with WINE, emulates a windows environment inside Linux. You can also run Windows on a Virtualbox Virtual Machine inside your Linux install. This is the method that I choose with things like Photoshop and the VMware Vsphere software that I use for work. With a powerful enough box, you can use just about anything you can think of in a VirtualBox, which is free and extremely easy to use.
This site has a lot of substitute programs:
Some of them actually are good substitutes and some are pretty lame. A quick perusal says that they’re a bit slow to add new pieces of software to that list as well. For instance, there’s an Evernote client called Nevernote that has been available for quite a few months now and it’s not on the list as an Evernote alternative. A few months in Linux time is like a lifetime.
I like the Linux rescue CD that I get with the Macrium backup software:
http://www.macrium.com/reflectfree.asp
It is very small and works very well.
Heh. Several years ago I bought a graphics card so that OpenOffice wouldn't require several minutes to start up. About the same time I installed D*mn Small Linux on my old (work) P90 (Win95) workstation -- horribly slow.
I’ll take the iPad. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.