The Linux Desktop - by a sceptic

[elija]

Opinion: Desktop Linux is ready for the mainstream

Phew that's a long URL thank goodness for copy and paste

[dijetlo]

I've never supported a linux user base, never suggested we convert the users on any project I've ever worked on, because I don't know how much the support of those users is going to cost. I know the OS is a bargain, but how many users to a help desk tech? How many to a site tech? The thing that irks me about "technology" journalists is that they spend a lot of time talking about their toys and what they like and don't like about thier slick new interface and never seem to get around to anything useful, like who much something like that is going to cost. What's the cost of maintaining a Linux shop?
I'm self employed, if I could figure a couple of those variables out, I'd start recruiting customers and users tommorrow, there is a huge market for businesses who want to get off the microsoft upgrade treadmill.
In fact, it's a large part of why I ghost this board so much, I'm trying to get a gauge on how difficult linux help desk support would be.
Thanks again, Elijah and if you come across anything else like this I'd appreciate you posting it.

[D-cat]

The author speaks highly of first impressions, but is unaware of some other solutions available, e.g. if IT really only wants to deal with a central server to keep updated, you can disallow internet access to the client computers and set up a server for Linux based Thin Client system. An X server and NX client is all that's really needed on each client, which doesn't need anything fancy for hardware; and security and matenance is a minial issue for them. Only the server(s) needs to be kept up to date. This can also solve several file sharing and locking issues. Of course it will not work for certain high intensity applications (like 3D cad), but for most office type needs, this could be a better way to go.

Also, if keeping the standard fat client model, IT can easily rlogin in each client and run an update script. (I don't say ssh because it can't be logged in via a script, which is by design... an IT staff managing hundreds of office clients may be very discouraged by that)

[GNU-Fan]

Also, if keeping the standard fat client model, IT can easily rlogin in each client and run an update script. (I don't say ssh because it can't be logged in via a script, which is by design... an IT staff managing hundreds of office clients may be very discouraged by that)

It seems that administrators of large networks prefer Public Key or "ssh-agent", which allows for non-interactive logins over SSH.

But wouldn't the "standard procedure" be to set up a central repository server from which all clients pull their updates periodically? I think even the Windows admins do it this way.

[GNU-Fan]

I've never supported a linux user base, never suggested we convert the users on any project I've ever worked on, because I don't know how much the support of those users is going to cost.

Not sure whether I understand you correctly but when I am at the receiving end, I usually get kind of a standard initial install. The support does only apply for this standard install. If for example I want to change my shell, I am welcomed to do so but support made it clear they can't help me with that if I run into trouble then. Same thing holds for desktop environment, browsers and so on.

I think this is fair.

[elija]

What I think is great about this article is that some one, who a mere year ago, thought Linux was a long way from ready is now saying it's ready for the big time. Which implies a huge improvement over that time.

Most of the shortcomings he highlights are actually solvable already but you wouldn't know that without having the knowledge there to *ahem* know that.

Mind you, any business that tries to install a new operating system without any knowledge on board is asking for trouble, so in theory at least, all those issues are non-issues.

[dijetlo]

Not sure whether I understand you correctly but when I am at the receiving end, I usually get kind of a standard initial install. The support does only apply for this standard install.

Exactly, do you know the name of the company that does that for you?

I think this is fair.

I think it'll make money...I haven't spent much time on the "fair" thing...I'll have to get back to you on it...

[MikeTbob]

In fact, it's a large part of why I ghost this board so much, I'm trying to get a gauge on how difficult linux help desk support would be.
Thanks again, Elijah and if you come across anything else like this I'd appreciate you posting it.

My guess is that it would be really tough to deal with all of the different distros, since none of them are configured exactly alike. I think you'd need a handful of people that know a lot about Linux and all that comes with it. Truthfully I think this is one of the major reasons why no one does it already.

[dijetlo]

Mind you, any business that tries to install a new operating system without any knowledge on board is asking for trouble,

Most small companies sub contract their support, there isn't a computer guy on board (or if there is it's the owners nephew or girlfriends son) at least in my experience. Whether they sub it to Microsoft or you or me is of no concern to them, they just want it fast and cheap, they don't generally have an axe to grind in OS war and they realize that even though they don't know much about linux, the same thing can honestly be said about their knowledge level on windows. Mostly, they just want the connectivity and office apps to work.

[dijetlo]

Hey Mike,
That's why you image them off a standard distro. Think two thousands clones of the same machine running identicle software except for a handful of oddballs that do specialized tasks (from the same platform).