Shared publicly  - 
 
This was on Network World this morning, but I'm not completely agreeing with some of the 'facts' in the article from the consultants the author interviews.

It quotes Michael Silver who says You have to switch to the new version of Linux every year which is just not true.

Ubuntu releases LTS versions every two years and starting with 12.04 (released last week) it has 5 years of support. So no you do not have to reinstall Linux every year, though I'd say every 3-4 years is probably reasonable which isn't too dissimilar from Windows.

The article also quotes Patrick Gray who says While Linux is free, the cost of a large company to train users, and support these applications, will likely offset the software licensing expense [of Windows].

This argument often gets thrown around, but it's just not true. Both KDE and Gnome along with most windows managers can be setup (or are setup by default) to have the menu bar on the bottom, the Application (faux Start Menu) on the bottom left, clock on the bottom right, running apps listed along the bottom, etc, plus each window has the Close, Maximize, and Minimize buttons on the upper Right. This is just like Windows and requires no retraining. If anything going between different versions of Windows or MS Office will require huge amounts of training, more so than going from Windows to Linux, so this statement that the cost of training offsets the savings is just not true. Maybe 10 years ago it was, but not today.

But the article isn't all blah, it mentions Chester County Cat Hospital which rolled out Linux and they love it.
It's free, easier to use than ever, IT staffers know it and love it, and it has fewer viruses and Trojans than Windows.
1
Steven Vaughan-Nichols's profile photoSam Alexander's profile photoBram Schoenmakers's profile photo
5 comments
 
+Steven Vaughan-Nichols I agree...Also this same author posted this last week, which is equally as awful:
7 reasons why Linux is a desktop flop:
http://www.networkworld.com/slideshow/44616

So at first I thought maybe she was an MS fanboy until I saw this:
5 reasons Macs are gaining ground in the enterprise
http://www.networkworld.com/slideshow/25920
Funny, s/Mac/Linux on most of the slides and it still applies. So I'm thinking she just has a bias against Linux for some reason.
 
The article kicks in an open door, I believe it's common knowledge by now that Linux on the desktop has not gained the traction we hoped for. Year of the Linux desktop, anyone?
 
It's almost become a running joke each January to see which magazine or writer says "This is the year of Linux" or similar. I remember hearing this in the late 90's before the DotCom bubble, and back then with so many Linux companies starting to take shape it seemed like it could happen. But now, I think the market is just too diluted, and without some mainstream hardware manufacturer jumping on board to really put money behind Linux I don't see it happening.

It's a fact that Linux is ready for mainstream... it's mature, stable, and given Linux runs on 60+% of servers and 90% of the supercomputers out there it's proven itself time and time again. Now it's a marketing thing make consumers aware that it exists, which has never happened.

One big complaint is that many apps don't run on Linux, but part of that is due to the lack of mainstream userbase. I really think if Dell, HP, or a few of the other major hardware vendors got together and really pushed Linux it could break into the market. But I think Microsoft has so many of these companies by the huevos contractually that it just won't happen.
 
Or consumers know that it exists, but prefer the pre-installed Windows anyway because they just don't care. As long as they can do Facebook and Youtube. And granted, Windows 7 does this already quite well.
Add a comment...