Post by Dan Espen Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 17:35:54 -0700, Peter Flass
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 12 Aug 2020 14:38:28 -0700, Peter Flass
Post by Charlie Gibbs Post by gareth evans
I do wonder whether Microsoft is intending to commit suicide by driving
users into the arms of other OSs such as Linux or Android.
Pissing off your customers is not the way to longevity.
Unless you're a monopoly.
But they're not, any more. Linux can handle 80-90% of all user
requirements, and 100% for typical users. I use either this iPad or my
Linux box for everything, and I can't recall the last time I felt the need
to use windows.
Can it handle 100 percent of corporate requirements though?
That's why I said 80-90%. Some places have custom apps that depend on some
windows features - like the APL interface we've discussed. Sure they could
be rewritten, but it would probably be pricy. OTOH, you could always keep a
legacy windows box or two around for those things and use Linux for the
rest. Heck, you could probably run windows in a VM on Linux. Isn't MSFT
developing something that lets you run windows or windows apps on Linux?
I would think moving to Linux would save lots of money, although a company
would still want to pay for support.
Just for openers how long will it take and what will it cost to
retrain thousands of users on Linux and Office 365?
No time at all.
Most users can't tell the difference.
I just read an article about how to make Linux act pretty much like W10.
I've had Windows users set down at my Linux desktop and just start
typing away without noticing anything odd. Even though I'm running
Fvwm with my own highly configured environment.
Can you use Office 365 on Linux?
Microsoft has ported its first ever Office 365 app to Linux and it chose
Teams to be the one. While still in public preview, Linux users
interested in giving it a go should go here. According to a blog post by
Microsoft's Marissa Salazar, the Linux port will support all of the core
capabilities of the app.
You so funny!
In another thread you decry diversity in human language and wish for an end to
the Tower of Babel, citing, among other arguments, the need for translators.
And in this thread you make the opposite argument, supporting diversity and a
"software Tower of Babel," apparently relying on the translation of different
document formats. It seems to me the same reasoning should apply in either
Apparently no one here has had extensive experience in corporate IT or doing a
lot of end-user support.
To begin with, Linux (and also Macintosh) do not have the tools necessary to
remotely support and manage hundreds or thousands of PCs and their access to
corporate network resources. While they may be subject to the same weaknesses
as other Microsoft products, at least Windows has those tools.
Also critical are programs from independent software vendors (ISV). An e-mail
client, a browser, and an office suite are not enough for many employees. Just
about every organization of sufficent size uses a handful of third-party
applications; a large company may have dozens. It simply isn't economically
feasible for most ISVs, which are often small firms serving a niche market, to
port and support versions for Linux and/or the Macintosh. They simply don't
have the customers for those platforms to generate the necessary revenue.
For one example, consider a medium-sized hospital where I worked on an IT
contract a few years back. The phone operators had a custom program to answer
the phone and another to look up phone numbers, not only for departments and
employees, but also for an ever-shifting roster of patients. The medical
records department had one application to track patient diagnosis and treatment,
and another to aid in the coding of same for insurance billing purposes. The
accounting department had general ledger software and other programs for
dealing with the insurance companies. The cafeteria used an application to plan
patient menus and keep track of their food inventory. One of the most
complicated programs was for scheduling nurses. Nurses are not generally
interchangeable. Certifications, training, years of experience, and preferred
shifts must all be taken into account. Oncology, cardiology, radiology... just
about every department had at least one application specific to their needs. A
similar situation exists in large corporations.
Even if an ISV wanted to offer a Linux version of their software, there would be
significant support issues. Which Linux distribution? What version? Which
shell, which windows manager? Some of these make a difference in the
programming, and some in being able to offer end-user support, especially
remotely. Imagine walking a novice user through editing an .rc file with vi
over the phone. Imagine having to be able to do that for any combination of
Linux distribution and shell.
There's also the training issue. Simply put, companies don't want to train
employees. If they are using Linux and OpenOffice, where will they find
qualified employees knowledgeable in that software? Saying that those programs
are "pretty much like" Windows and Office isn't good enough. Currently the
baseline in computer ability is competency with Windows and Office. Any
organization using Microsoft products is assured of a large pool of potential
employees with experience using the same.
To be clear, I am not a fan of Microsoft. I think its dangerous to be dependent
on a software monoculture, and my opinion is confirmed with every story about
virus infections, data exfiltrations, and ransomware attacks. Like most people
in alt.folklore.computers, I am technically savvy enough not to be beholden to
Microsoft products should I chose. I also recognize that that is a very small
minority of people, and that there are compelling economic reasons why most
companies are Microsoft shops.