Windows problems! STOP recommending Linux

asininity

Just wondering since I'm not the IT manager of a business but do work for a big public sector "business".

How will linux actually cost more money??

Training people isn't an argument because you have to train people to use windows as well and if I can remember into the distant past the ECDL was expensive to do. Assuming people will just be able to use windows isnt practical, half the things I need to do are messed up by licencing issues (ie not enough) and bad systems.

Training people is platform independent.

Not trying to start an argument as I actually am unaware of if what I'm saying isnt right, please explain.

kabayiri

isofa wrote: »

That's one way to look at it, but I assume you don't run a business........ There is a very good reason why many businesses today wouldn't consider Linux.

This is a total non-argument.

To consider a massive corporate as MS just "American" and therefore not worthy is really missing the point. It's just as daft as discounting Linux because it originates from Finland, or Apple because they have a fruit as a logo!

Tut.

You can't go making assumptions on the internet. You are in fact wrong about the business point!

You are right about the non-argument bit. It was actually a fact. I have indeed paid Microsoft too much in the past

I didn't use the words "not worthy". You really shouldn't misquote me. Of course the point about MS is a bit tongue in cheek. Microsoft have global reach. It is still a fact that at heart they are American.

Linus is indeed Finnish, but Linux is not.

It's pointless me trying to push Linux on here, or you arguing the opposite. It's just banter though isnt it.

Linux is a workable solution though. The European central and local governments aren't daft. They wouldn't adopt it if there was a risk of creating thousands of doorstop PCs.

It's a major change though isn't it? You have to measure the cost over a period of time. The change from XP to Vista was also a major change for big corporations.

[Deleted User]

kabayiri wrote: »

Microsoft have global reach. It is still a fact that at heart they are American.

Don't various Linux distributions, BSD derivatives and the Free Software Foundation/GNU (Including the basis of the GNU GPL) have their bases in the USA? What difference does it make?

BillScarab

I don't think that many businesses did move from XP to Vista. Our desktops at work still run XP Pro.

One thing to consider about the migrating to Linux is support costs. Alhough the OS is free most businesses buy it with a support package from companies like Red Hat. For our servers at work we currently moving from Solaris to Red Hat after just about completing the move from HP-UX to Solaris! :rolleyes:

I bleive the cost of support for Red Hat is actually more than the cost of Solaris support.

Eric_Pisch

You got to love fan boys

I use all 3 OS's at work, for me Macs are great for low IT skilled people or people with no interest in how technology works, you just turn it on and do stuff no hassle. There the most expensive option and personally I find the way they hide alot of the file system extremely restrictive, the desktop gets messy imo with lots of stuff open (i often have 20+ windows open), itunes is also the worst app ever written. (plug mp3 player into usb port, right click copy music folder, right click paste on player, job done )

Unix, especially ubuntu is great if you just want a more basic computer, its efficient, very secure and more importantly free :T, if you want to run office stuff, web surfing, social networking stuff its great, it is however limited on pro end software apps. Its biggest downside is installing software, 90% of the time its just far to complicated for the avg user. (and i still cant get it to duel boot of my stripped array, W7 had no issues plug n play)

Windoze, (will ignore the still birth Vista) Is the only OS that does it all, free stuff, pro apps (I use CS4 production premium) and importantly for me games that kick the butt of PS3 and Xbox (I have a PS3). Its the only OS I can sit at and do everything in one place. If your not a gamer then mac (i got my mum and sister Mac laptops for that very reason) and unix are worth a look imo especially if your not interested in how it works or on a budget. ( i am looking into putting ubuntu on my wifes netbook as its grinding abit with XP), windows is the least secure and needs more common sense when surfing but I am 5 years now without an infection, malware of any kind.

Eric_Pisch

BillScarab wrote: »

I don't think that many businesses did move from XP to Vista. Our desktops at work still run XP Pro. .

we evaluated vista, stuck it on 30 odd machines the other 500 odd are stayed on XP, its just to much of a resource hog.

we will role over to W7 next year sometime

isofa

Eric_Pisch wrote: »

You got to love fan boys

I use all 3 OS's at work, for me Macs are great for low IT skilled people or people with no interest in how technology works, you just turn it on and do stuff no hassle.

You've got to love people who make sweeping generalisations (people that use Macs are low IT skilled or with no interested in tech, goodness, what a archaic idea, I know people like that running really poor IT depts...) and still use the 80s term "fanboy", yawn.:p

kwikbreaks

uk_messer wrote: »

My first use of Linux was Ubuntu on my Asus EEEPC. Overall was quick and clean but had a serious problem connecting to wifi. Tried every fix but all to no avail.
Came back to XP after that.

My first use for real too other than setting up dualboot with Windows PC umpteen times and finally giving up after some problem or other. Things are a lot easier now that brodband connections are available and there are answers to just about any Linux conundrum out there on the web (including a very easy fix to the EEEPC WiFi issue which I found and installed quite easily).

What it really boils down to is whether you are using your computer to accomplish something or just amusing yourself with the computer itself. You can easily spend half your free time just installing programs or hardware and getting them running on a Linux machine but Windows is designed for duffers and most things just work without spending half the night on google to sort out problems.

isofa

kabayiri wrote: »

Tut. You can't go making assumptions on the internet. You are in fact wrong about the business point!

I assume correctly you don't run a large corporate and you are recommending they change to Linux to save money, as from an ROI perspective (you run a business so you'll understand this) you'll loose money certainly over the short to mid term, and it's not proven what will happen in the long term.

kabayiri wrote: »

I didn't use the words "not worthy". You really shouldn't misquote me. Of course the point about MS is a bit tongue in cheek. Microsoft have global reach. It is still a fact that at heart they are American.

Paraphasing is not misquoting, I wasn't quoting. No different from you now backtracking and saying Microsoft have a global reach.

It makes absolutely no difference to anything where MS are located as they are global.

kabayiri wrote: »

Linus is indeed Finnish, but Linux is not.

Exactly, the point is a ludicrous as yours about MS being American

kabayiri wrote: »

It's a major change though isn't it? You have to measure the cost over a period of time. The change from XP to Vista was also a major change for big corporations.

As mentioned earlier by Bill, I too don't know any significant corporate who have moved to Vista (not the ones I work with, nor the ones I read and review white papers for), and none are likely too, far more (as discussed earlier) are likely to shift to Win 7, many have only just recently migrated to XP from 2000, and that isn't a huge learning curve. Also the move to Win 7 is likely due to XP compat. for the millions of bespoke apps and back end systems which actual run large businesses.

isofa

kwikbreaks wrote: »

What it really boils down to is whether you are using your computer to accomplish something or just amusing yourself with the computer itself. You can easily spend half your free time just installing programs or hardware and getting them running on a Linux machine but Windows is designed for duffers and most things just work without spending half the night on google to sort out problems.

Exactly, just as my first post on this thread. People aren't really interested in the OSes (not personal users anyway), no one buys a computer to play with the OS. They buy and use computers to achieve tasks and create, and these are carried out in applications not OSes.