securitybreach Posted November 8, 2010 Author Share Posted November 8, 2010 Good idea, Striker. Done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChipDoc Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 Finally, the growth of Linux may be slow but so is a lava flow. And you 'aint gon'na stop either one.Oh you're preaching to the choir on this one. Just because I work in corporate IT and most of my experience is in Windows doesn't mean I'm not sold on Linux. That really does make a great sigline too! I guess it is natural for you to think that the PC world revolves around "corporate" because that's your bailiwick. I don't think that's true, but for the sake of this discussion, let's assume it's true.It may or may not be true, but I can explain my reasoning. Almost every person who works in an office environment uses a computer. Almost all of those are Windows setups. They don't use Windows because they prefer it; they use it because it's sitting on their desk. When they go home to their own computers, those are Windows machines too because that's what they're used to. If their corporate desktop was Linux, a lot of them would use Linux at home too. They're not "sold" on one or the other; they're just used to using it.The "suits" might (probably do at this point in time) distrust anything that purports to be free. But the people offering "Linux Desktop Solutions for Your Enterprise", aren't offering it for free. The underlying OS might be free, but the "expertise" to put it to use in the corporate environment certainly isn't. And "suits" don't care whether they are paying for "licenses" or for "expertise". They only care about the "bottom line".They're not JUST looking at dollar cost when checking out the bottom line. There's also the liability issue. Since Microsoft is the default standard, if a liability issue crops up, they might be in an awkward position in explaining why they deviated from that standard. It surprised me to discover how intense litigation is in the corporate world.Secondly, the "suits" are all already quite familiar with Linux. Most of them are already using it on their servers.Most of them are managing the people who are supervising the people who are using it on their servers. They haven't actually gotten their hands dirty in it since the days when Linux was a CLI that ran the Apache servers, also in CLI. And even then, they were probably just doing maintainence tasks rather than any heavy thinking. The heavy thinkers became experts rather than managers.And, IBM's own belief in the phrase that "Nobody ever got fired for recommending IBM", is what made them a "second-tier performer". They just couldn't believe a pipsqueak like MS was any danger.And once again, we are in complete agreement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lewmur Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 (edited) They're not JUST looking at dollar cost when checking out the bottom line. There's also the liability issue. Since Microsoft is the default standard, if a liability issue crops up, they might be in an awkward position in explaining why they deviated from that standard. It surprised me to discover how intense litigation is in the corporate world.I just flat don't believe this. There might be some namby pambies that have swallowed the MS BS that Linux is violating MS's patents but liability for not using Window's?? Much more likely to get sued for exposing client's data to the notoriously vulnerable Window's OS. Edited November 8, 2010 by lewmur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChipDoc Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 I just flat don't believe this. There might be some namby pambies that have swallowed the MS BS that Linux is violating MS's patents but liability for not using Window's?? Much more likely to get sued for exposing client's data to the notoriously vulnerable Window's OS.No, I didn't mean it that way. I meant that if I, as an engineering firm, sell you plans and something bad happens to your project, I'm going to be one of the people you sue. If your attorneys choose to pursue the fact that I'm using non-standard software to create those plans, then I have to defend it. If I'm just using Windows, that issue doesn't arise.Sorry, I was married to a CFO for years. This kind of thinking blew me away too at first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lewmur Posted November 8, 2010 Share Posted November 8, 2010 No, I didn't mean it that way. I meant that if I, as an engineering firm, sell you plans and something bad happens to your project, I'm going to be one of the people you sue. If your attorneys choose to pursue the fact that I'm using non-standard software to create those plans, then I have to defend it. If I'm just using Windows, that issue doesn't arise.Sorry, I was married to a CFO for years. This kind of thinking blew me away too at first.Again, I just don't believe it. They would have to prove the software was actually defective. Not just that it wasn't the most popular. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChipDoc Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 Again, I just don't believe it. They would have to prove the software was actually defective. Not just that it wasn't the most popular.Those are the rules in a criminal case. This would be a civil one. They only need to get a jury to believe that you had not done your due diligence, and that's a lot easier when you deviate from the norm. Besides, you'd probably be off the hook if the software was defective - they'd go after the software developer at that point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lewmur Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 (edited) Those are the rules in a criminal case. This would be a civil one. They only need to get a jury to believe that you had not done your due diligence, and that's a lot easier when you deviate from the norm. Besides, you'd probably be off the hook if the software was defective - they'd go after the software developer at that point.Nope. Even in a Civil case you have to prove your case by "a preponderance of the evidence." You can't win by innuendo. I'll spot you your one CFO. But I have three brothers and a sister who are attorneys. And a sister-in-law who is a Judge. Not to mention all of the nieces and nephews. No jury in the world is going to award damages based on the fact that a company used Linux as its OS.edit: My end of this discussion will be on hold for awhile. I'm leaving for the hospital in about ten minutes for major surgery and it will be at least a couple of days till I'm allowed my laptop. Edited November 9, 2010 by lewmur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
securitybreach Posted November 9, 2010 Author Share Posted November 9, 2010 My end of this discussion will be on hold for awhile. I'm leaving for the hospital in about ten minutes for major surgery and it will be at least a couple of days till I'm allowed my laptop. I hope everything goes fine Lewmur!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChipDoc Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 I'm leaving for the hospital in about ten minutes for major surgery and it will be at least a couple of days till I'm allowed my laptop. Geez, you take care of yourself, lewmur. I mostly argue for the simple pleasure of pitting one mind against another in any case. Hope you're ok at the end of this road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peachy Posted November 26, 2010 Share Posted November 26, 2010 I read this week that Fedora plans to move to Wayland in upcoming releases (as early as Fedora 15). They will have backwards-compatibility with X by running X as a nested server like in Mac OS X. I think the whole worrying about dumping X is moot; it's going to happen because Wayland will be a better protocol for the future. http://blogs.computerworld.com/17351/fedor...p_x_for_wayland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
securitybreach Posted November 26, 2010 Author Share Posted November 26, 2010 Thanks for the article Peachy!! :thumbsup:It sounds nice but those users with older hardware will have some issues: - We lose support for older hardware! Yep. Here's a nickel. We have sufficient kernel support for this for the big three hardware vendors, and we're probably going to see more ports to the marginal hardware in the next year or two. Losing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peachy Posted December 11, 2010 Share Posted December 11, 2010 Jono Bacon, Ubuntu's Community Manager just posted a video demonstrating the current state of Unity in Natty: http://jonobacon.blip.tv/file/4481516/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChipDoc Posted December 11, 2010 Share Posted December 11, 2010 (edited) Very cool, Peachy - that last link points out that the new Unity Demo can be installed on and booted from a "keyring drive" so perhaps I'll nab it and play with it right now!Wow, i didn't realize that was a 4 gig download! I haven't actually run 11.04 yet, but I did run across this bit:Once you install ubuntu 11.04 natty, you might face this problem- missing windows boders, title, close minimize maximize buttons. to fix this:Open a terminal type “gconf-editor”navigate to desktop>gnome>applications>window_manager and change the value of default from (I presume) /usr/bin/compiz to /usr/bin/metacity .Or you can open synaptic package manager and reinstall compiz .Exit -logout -login and your good to go!Have fun!It came from here: http://zeeis.me/upgrade-to-ubuntu-11-04/ Edited December 11, 2010 by V.T. Eric Layton Edited to consolidate posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.