Switching from Ubuntu

[Don]

If you like working the command line look up the command "screen" it's one of my favorite apps.

I use screen all the time. In fact when I worked at MIT and competed with Socrates we always used screen to connect to the program to protect the connection. It's annoying to lose the connection and have to restart the computer (which invariably was pondering Screen is great! It's stuff like this that blows away Windows.

[rreagan]

Actually, you have it pretty much backwards. Each version of Linux is more compatible with each other than Windows is with other versions of itself. The continuously deprecate their software - for example if you have really old doc files you probably cannot even read them. That is not true of latex (the rough equivalent of doc files for Linux) for example.

The next time someone pays me money to troubleshoot their Latex problem, will be the first

Where did you get the idea that Linux isn't backed up?

I didn't say it can't be backed up. Obviously it can be. I'm saying that in my experience, when I see a Linux server in a small business environment, it typically hasn't been touched in months or years, hasn't been backed up, etc.

Windows and Linux don't exist in a vacuum. They exist in a real world, where there are more people who know Windows than Linux, and where people look at Linux and end up with a little fear in their belly because they aren't familiar with it.

Obviously if we're talking about technical superiority, Linux wins, period.

From the point of view of small businesses...

That's pure nonsense. ... If they are of any serious size...

Hint: they're not of any serious size. They are small businesses

Windows also has servers but it's harder to administer, less capable, and way more expensive and any company of any real size is going to use the far more economical and superior Unix for their servers. Some companies have a mix of Unix and Linux servers to accommodate some Windows services.

Windows servers are not harder to administer. Linux clearly has a steeper learning curve. Windows is a dumbed down, canned solution. How could that possibly be harder to administer? At some point I'm sure Microsoft will come out with a version that's completely color coded, so you won't even have to be able to read to administer it. I'm sure it's harder to administer, for you, because it's not what you're familiar with. Not that there's anything wrong with that. If you're looking for someone to do brain surgery, I'm completely incompetent, and I'm not insecure about that

[Don]

Russell,

The backup issue has nothing to do with Linux or Windows or the mentality of users. I don't know what you have seen but it's certainly not a characteristic of Unix people not to back up. There have been backup solutions for Unix before Windows ever existed. It's just stupid not to back up and I would expect any well organized business to back up their systems regularly.

Counting the number of people who know about Linux or Windows is in general a recipe for self-sustaining mediocrity. There are more windows user, hence more windows experts hence we should try to increase that ratio even more to make sure it's always true?

I'm not saying that it should not be a consideration, if you can get cheap help that is definitely a consideration if you are willing to accept all the compromises that come with it. There are always trade-offs when you go for cheap and one must consider whether those trade-offs are worth it.

In small businesses I don't have a big argument against windows. However it's not clear to me you really come out ahead because when you have windows you pay for everything so you must determine if you really are going cheap or going stupid. Of course in "real life" many people steal software and that keeps it cheap - but do it legally and you will discover that Windows is not cheap. You populate your small business with machines, then pay for the operating system, then purchase a licence for each copy of open office, and then tell me how much for sql server and need we go on? The Microsoft way is to pay Microsoft for everything, otherwise you are not really a good little Microsoft boy standing under their safe umbrella.

It's anti-microsoft thinking to suggest that you investigate using all open source software (on a windows system?) in a windows world - you don't do that if you want all this cheap support you are talking about. Plus I don't believe the support is really as cheap as you say.

Actually, you have it pretty much backwards. Each version of Linux is more compatible with each other than Windows is with other versions of itself. The continuously deprecate their software - for example if you have really old doc files you probably cannot even read them. That is not true of latex (the rough equivalent of doc files for Linux) for example.

The next time someone pays me money to troubleshoot their Latex problem, will be the first

Where did you get the idea that Linux isn't backed up?

I didn't say it can't be backed up. Obviously it can be. I'm saying that in my experience, when I see a Linux server in a small business environment, it typically hasn't been touched in months or years, hasn't been backed up, etc.

Windows and Linux don't exist in a vacuum. They exist in a real world, where there are more people who know Windows than Linux, and where people look at Linux and end up with a little fear in their belly because they aren't familiar with it.

Obviously if we're talking about technical superiority, Linux wins, period.

From the point of view of small businesses...

That's pure nonsense. ... If they are of any serious size...

Hint: they're not of any serious size. They are small businesses

Windows also has servers but it's harder to administer, less capable, and way more expensive and any company of any real size is going to use the far more economical and superior Unix for their servers. Some companies have a mix of Unix and Linux servers to accommodate some Windows services.

Windows servers are not harder to administer. Linux clearly has a steeper learning curve. Windows is a dumbed down, canned solution. How could that possibly be harder to administer? At some point I'm sure Microsoft will come out with a version that's completely color coded, so you won't even have to be able to read to administer it. I'm sure it's harder to administer, for you, because it's not what you're familiar with. Not that there's anything wrong with that. If you're looking for someone to do brain surgery, I'm completely incompetent, and I'm not insecure about that

[rreagan]

Russell,

The backup issue has nothing to do with Linux or Windows or the mentality of users. I don't know what you have seen but it's certainly not a characteristic of Unix people not to back up. There have been backup solutions for Unix before Windows ever existed. It's just stupid not to back up and I would expect any well organized business to back up their systems regularly.

Counting the number of people who know about Linux or Windows is in general a recipe for self-sustaining mediocrity. There are more windows user, hence more windows experts hence we should try to increase that ratio even more to make sure it's always true?

I'm not saying that it should not be a consideration, if you can get cheap help that is definitely a consideration if you are willing to accept all the compromises that come with it. There are always trade-offs when you go for cheap and one must consider whether those trade-offs are worth it.

In small businesses I don't have a big argument against windows. However it's not clear to me you really come out ahead because when you have windows you pay for everything so you must determine if you really are going cheap or going stupid. Of course in "real life" many people steal software and that keeps it cheap - but do it legally and you will discover that Windows is not cheap. You populate your small business with machines, then pay for the operating system, then purchase a licence for each copy of open office, and then tell me how much for sql server and need we go on? The Microsoft way is to pay Microsoft for everything, otherwise you are not really a good little Microsoft boy standing under their safe umbrella.

It's anti-microsoft thinking to suggest that you investigate using all open source software (on a windows system?) in a windows world - you don't do that if you want all this cheap support you are talking about. Plus I don't believe the support is really as cheap as you say.

Most small businesses try to do their own IT. It goes like this:

Owner: "Who here knows Microsoft?"
Bob: "I play solitare..."
Owner: "Congratulations Bob, you're our new IT guy"
Bob: "uh..."

Small businesses know they need computers, so that means they go to Best Buy and buy whatever is on sale. Their main goal is "make payroll", so paying anyone for IT support, or looking into the benefits of Linux and free software is not in their top 1000 things to do.

At some point the "IT guy" leaves and a computer problem crops up, so they try to hire a person or company as cheaply as possible. A full time employee is not close to being an option. They don't see IT costs as an operating expense, it's just an annoyance to them like paying the plumber when something breaks.

I know IT outsourcing companies where you can get "unlimited support" for a 1 server, 5 user business, for around $500 per month. That will get you a guy who stops by once a week for 4 hours, regardless if anything is going on. Or if you like, you can pay $325 per month and they will go through a checkup on your server once per week, and everything else is hourly.

Those companies are staffed with mostly newbie IT guys and a handful of people who know what they are doing. There might be 1-2 people in the whole company that is competent with Linux.

This is the landscape for a lot of small businesses. They are scratching and clawing to stay in existence. Their IT budget is tiny, if it exists at all.

All they know is, they can go to Best Buy and get a computer for $300. What are you going to save them cost wise by using Linux? Can you get a computer for less if you get it without Windows? No, because all big computer makers have a deal with Microsoft, so that's part of why the computer is cheap. Even if it was cheaper to use Linux, the learning curve will cost them more in lost productivity over the life of that computer than dealing with Windows' warts.

Look, this is all completely insane, these businesses who do IT support for next to nothing. I don't know how they stay in business. Their employees are miserable, clients are miserable, good employees leave for better jobs, good clients leave for better support. I'm not saying this is good, of course it's not. All I'm saying is, this is reality.

In this situation I've just described, there is no way Linux needs to be involved in that mess. Competency is rarely in the picture. If it is, it's not there for long, then the next newbie slides over to be your new assigned IT person. Now you have someone who may be able to barely get by in a Windows environment. With Linux, the client's business will go under before the IT guy can get up to speed.

To the small business owner, it's not about best technology. It's about evaluating the risk of ruin. If the business is past the danger zone and the risk of ruin is small, then we can start evaluating better technologies and getting competent IT support. Until then, it's the wild west. Bottom line is, for a lot of small businesses, using Linux for anything mission critical increases the risk of ruin.

Given what I've shared, are you surprised that 9 out of 10 Linux/Unix servers I've encountered in small businesses have been neglected, never updated, never backed up?

[Michel]

I think Windows still remains popular in many companies because these companies depend on the collaborative features of Exchange/Outlook. A number of competing open source alternatives exist but for some reason they are not gaining much traction.

[Don]

Russell,

The backup issue has nothing to do with Linux or Windows or the mentality of users. I don't know what you have seen but it's certainly not a characteristic of Unix people not to back up. There have been backup solutions for Unix before Windows ever existed. It's just stupid not to back up and I would expect any well organized business to back up their systems regularly.

Counting the number of people who know about Linux or Windows is in general a recipe for self-sustaining mediocrity. There are more windows user, hence more windows experts hence we should try to increase that ratio even more to make sure it's always true?

I'm not saying that it should not be a consideration, if you can get cheap help that is definitely a consideration if you are willing to accept all the compromises that come with it. There are always trade-offs when you go for cheap and one must consider whether those trade-offs are worth it.

In small businesses I don't have a big argument against windows. However it's not clear to me you really come out ahead because when you have windows you pay for everything so you must determine if you really are going cheap or going stupid. Of course in "real life" many people steal software and that keeps it cheap - but do it legally and you will discover that Windows is not cheap. You populate your small business with machines, then pay for the operating system, then purchase a licence for each copy of open office, and then tell me how much for sql server and need we go on? The Microsoft way is to pay Microsoft for everything, otherwise you are not really a good little Microsoft boy standing under their safe umbrella.

It's anti-microsoft thinking to suggest that you investigate using all open source software (on a windows system?) in a windows world - you don't do that if you want all this cheap support you are talking about. Plus I don't believe the support is really as cheap as you say.

Most small businesses try to do their own IT. It goes like this:

Owner: "Who here knows Microsoft?"
Bob: "I play solitare..."
Owner: "Congratulations Bob, you're our new IT guy"
Bob: "uh..."

Small businesses know they need computers, so that means they go to Best Buy and buy whatever is on sale. Their main goal is "make payroll", so paying anyone for IT support, or looking into the benefits of Linux and free software is not in their top 1000 things to do.

At some point the "IT guy" leaves and a computer problem crops up, so they try to hire a person or company as cheaply as possible. A full time employee is not close to being an option. They don't see IT costs as an operating expense, it's just an annoyance to them like paying the plumber when something breaks.

I know IT outsourcing companies where you can get "unlimited support" for a 1 server, 5 user business, for around $500 per month. That will get you a guy who stops by once a week for 4 hours, regardless if anything is going on. Or if you like, you can pay $325 per month and they will go through a checkup on your server once per week, and everything else is hourly.

Those companies are staffed with mostly newbie IT guys and a handful of people who know what they are doing. There might be 1-2 people in the whole company that is competent with Linux.

This is the landscape for a lot of small businesses. They are scratching and clawing to stay in existence. Their IT budget is tiny, if it exists at all.

All they know is, they can go to Best Buy and get a computer for $300. What are you going to save them cost wise by using Linux? Can you get a computer for less if you get it without Windows? No, because all big computer makers have a deal with Microsoft, so that's part of why the computer is cheap. Even if it was cheaper to use Linux, the learning curve will cost them more in lost productivity over the life of that computer than dealing with Windows' warts.

Look, this is all completely insane, these businesses who do IT support for next to nothing. I don't know how they stay in business. Their employees are miserable, clients are miserable, good employees leave for better jobs, good clients leave for better support. I'm not saying this is good, of course it's not. All I'm saying is, this is reality.

In this situation I've just described, there is no way Linux needs to be involved in that mess. Competency is rarely in the picture. If it is, it's not there for long, then the next newbie slides over to be your new assigned IT person. Now you have someone who may be able to barely get by in a Windows environment. With Linux, the client's business will go under before the IT guy can get up to speed.

To the small business owner, it's not about best technology. It's about evaluating the risk of ruin. If the business is past the danger zone and the risk of ruin is small, then we can start evaluating better technologies and getting competent IT support. Until then, it's the wild west. Bottom line is, for a lot of small businesses, using Linux for anything mission critical increases the risk of ruin.

Given what I've shared, are you surprised that 9 out of 10 Linux/Unix servers I've encountered in small businesses have been neglected, never updated, never backed up?

You have creatively constructed a chain of reasoning without any proven facts. This is not even an interesting conversation - so forgive me if I bow out now.

[Don]

I think Windows still remains popular in many companies because these companies depend on the collaborative features of Exchange/Outlook. A number of competing open source alternatives exist but for some reason they are not gaining much traction.

I have actually seen Unix shops have ONE Windows server only to provide this function! It says a lot about Linux that even for a must have windows feature they still go out of their way to avoid using any other aspect of windows.

IN similar fashion a lot of linux uses have one windows machine or dual boot because they want to avoid windows but cannot completely avoid it. Every OS has SOMETHING that someone will want that you cannot get someone else - and it's the same with MAC.

[Modern Times]

I agree with Russell on this. If I was setting up a small business, or was advising anyone else, it would be Windows all the way. Support is more plentiful, it is more widely available and it is cheaper. And they are very good products these days.

[michiguel]

I agree with Russell on this. If I was setting up a small business, or was advising anyone else, it would be Windows all the way. Support is more plentiful, it is more widely available and it is cheaper. And they are very good products these days.

Last night was an example of the virtues and drawbacks of Linux for me. I was working late on the revisions of a manuscript for publication (not CC, it was Journal of Bacteriology). I had a table in LibreOffice Calc (Excel equivalent) and I cut and pasted it into a blank page of LibreOffice Writer (MS word equivalent). As soon as I did that simple task, the program hogged the computer, the disk started to spin like crazy (RAM memory was overflown and started to use the disk), and I could not do anything. I was trying to desperately access the system monitor (Task manager equivalent) to kill the program but it was so slow it never responded. I try several things but I just could not access anything. I did not want to turn off the computer and risk damaging something. Finally, I figured I could open a terminal (it took a while), run "top" figure what was the ID of the offending program, and kill it. That was not enough, but it left the computer slow, but I least after a short period of time I could access the monitor and kill the rest, restore the memory and get back to normal. I wasted half an hour probably.

The problem was, when I cut in the spread sheet, I selected the columns, which means the program thought I selected A, B, C, D, and assume almost infinite rows... I repeated the operation selecting just a squared area of spreadsheet and that worked. A very amateurish behavior of LibreOffice (which by the way, is slow as hell). For many things I use gnumeric, which is fantastic except that... the printout is messed up.

1) Many critical software for Linux are not ready for prime time. The office system is one of them.
2) BUT, as an operating system, Linux is SUPERB. The system resisted this aggressive evil software and did not crash!!! After that, it wen to normal without rebooting and I still did not reboot!

So, I think Linux is for
1) Grandpa and grandma, who only read email, pay bills, read news, write a letter.
2) programmers.
3) power users
4) computer illiterates with great curiosity. They will learn and learn and become power users. Everything you learn, you keep.

It is not for people who are very active with computers using them as tools but hate them. One of this problems will be a complete turnoff. One of the advantage of Windows over Linux is *SOME* of the auxiliary software, and it just happens that these is what these type of people use.

Having said that, I LOVE Linux and that is the reason I am willing to put up with this. For me, the advantages are overwhelming, but I totally understand the other side of the coin.

However, trying Linux pays off, A LOT.

Miguel
PS: BTW, I am using an old dual and still very functional. With Linux you end up saving in hardware! not only in software!

[Modern Times]

Agreed, Linux is good for power users, and at the other end of the spectrum, for people who just want to use the internet and type the odd letter and have a family member who knows Linux and can support it. Or, for running pre-release beta versions of Gaviota

I've tried Linux several times, but at the end of the day, Windows is just easier and runs everything I need it to run. Linux doesn't. I could not survive on Linux alone, but I can on Windows.

The virus thing is a non-issue on Windows, with free software like Microsoft security essentials. Or any number of other free products. I keep seeing this as a strong argument for Linux, it just isn't.