The gap to a successful corporate desktop system.

[James Wilkinson]

Magnus Therning wrote:
> - Why this obsession with corporate desktops? If we just get the average
>   users interested in running Linux at home it'll end up on the
>   corporate desks sooner or later anyway.

Corporate desktops are a better fit for current Linux than the home
desktop.

 * They are bought to run a limited set of applications (Office, e-mail,
   web access, various in-house programs). We can't do much about the
   in-house programs (although that varies: at work we telnet or SSH
   into AIX machines). The rest of the applications are there on Linux,
   are pretty core functionality for a desktop, and have been well
   polished.

 * Home users have a much wider range of programs that they expect to
   run. Linux doesn't have nearly the spread of games Windows has, and a
   lot of the less-common software doesn't have Linux equivalents. (I
   can't stand them, personally, but there isn't a good Linux equivalent
   to most of the Dorling Kindersley range, for example).

   Some corporate users may need to run CD-ROMs produced by suppliers,
   for example, but this is less usual (and being replaced by web sites
   in any case).

 * These days, a simple GNOME desktop is probably *more* accessible than
   Windows. When either OS breaks, you're in trouble. Linux breaks a lot
   less often, but probably requires more knowledge to fix (on the other
   hand, at least you *can* fix it). So a trained and knowledgeable
   technician can support more Linux desktops (= reduced staff costs).

 * Linux is a lot easier to script and automate. Too often, you have to
   treat Windows desktops as individual computers, whereas you can
   easily script something to be run on every computer in the company.
   On Windows, a job may well take ten times as long on one hundred PCs
   as it will on ten. On Linux, it will take the same amount of time.

 * It's a lot easier to tie down a Linux distribution. That means less
   "unauthorised" programs, saving on lost staff time and corporate
   liability (too many "unauthorised" programs are illegal copies. At
   least in the UK, company directors have a legal liability to make
   sure that the software they use is legitimate).

 * Similarly, checking that you're really in compliance with proprietary
   licenses is a real headache and a considerable expense. The GPL is a
   *lot* clearer about what it allows (and the lines are a *lot* further
   away from what an end-user company might do). The other licenses are
   similar.

   Even if you buy a Linux distro with corporate support, it's still
   likely to be based on "which computers we'll support". Otherwise, you
   just have to check "we can use this software".

   (You don't have to worry about the technical measures designed to
   stop unauthorised use of the software from keeping you out, either.)

 * Companies are much more likely to pay Linux distributors for support,
   and this support is much more likely to mean something. Generally,
   the company will have its own in-house front-line support, and the
   questions that get forwarded to Canonical / Red Hat / SuSE / Mandriva
   will be the ones where it *isn't* obvious from the FAQ, and it's
   worth getting test cases together.

   So naturally Canonical, Red Hat, SuSE, Mandriva and the rest are
   paying attention to this market.

 * Home users expect to buy something, and then not pay anything else.
   Companies are a lot more used to the idea that when they start using
   a product, they will want to keep using it, and this will mean future
   expenses.

   And with Linux you can switch suppliers. And that means you can
   keep them on their toes.

   This article intrigued me: http://theinquirer.net/?article=23194 .
   Respondents said they switched to Linux for a number of reasons,
   but the most popular was "reduced dependence on software vendors".

   In other words, they value "free as in freedom".

> - What operating system IS ready for the corporate desktop? (Personally
>   I have to do more tinkering with Windows to use it at work than I have
>   to with my Linux boxen.)

The question is whether you can get it to do what you want it to do for
a reasonable cost. If there's a corporate need to run externally
produced software over which you have little control, then this might
mean that you have to run Windows somewhere.

On the other hand, with the sheer amount of malware around, I'm
increasingly convinced that Windows is no longer ready for the Internet
unless it's looked after by a competent administrator. In other words,
it really isn't ready for the home desktop...

James.

-- 
E-mail address: james | Fengor the Mauve could never figure out why the other
@westexe.demon.co.uk  | wizards didn't take him seriously, but he knew all
                      | that would change once he managed to extract gold from
                      | a chicken.  -- Ursula Vernon, on www.metalandmagic.com