Here we go again.....



http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6112306.html




A snippet!!!



"The next stage of the project was to be a Linux migration on the desktop.
The suspension of this project has been reported by analysts as evidence
that open-source software isn't ready for mass deployment on the desktop."

"Over the last few years, several cities have announced plans to test or
deploy open-source software. Recently, though, some of these plans have
hit problems. Munich was forced to push back its desktop Linux rollout by
a year, and the London borough of Newham stuck with Microsoft after a
trial test of open-source software."





This guy should come to comp.os.linux.advocacy and observe the COLA gang
who have been claiming Linux has been ready for the desktop for years now.

It's interesting to see these projects start off all gung ho for Linux and
then after they actually try to migrate the project tanks because the
people doing it discover that Linux just isn't what they thought it was.

..."open-source software isn't ready for mass deployment on the desktop."

That has to be the understatement of the year.

On 2006-09-06, flatfish+++ <flatfish@linuxmail.org> wrote:
> Here we go again.....

No.  Here *you* go again.

> .."open-source software isn't ready for mass deployment on the desktop."
>
> That has to be the understatement of the year.

Strange, it's been my desktop for years already.

As for "mass deployment", Linux, just like Apple, is not ready for
enterprise level deployment because M$ still has a stranglehold on the
de facto standard for inter corporate operability *at the desktop
level*.  At least Linux is making inroads and progress, unlike Apple
which already had a foothold in the corporate environment, but was
long ago dumped.  It's funny how people that are M$ zealots seem to
ignore the fact that computer networks existed prior to M$ and
Windows.

nb

notbob wrote:
> On 2006-09-06, flatfish+++ <flatfish@linuxmail.org> wrote:
>> Here we go again.....
>
> No.  Here *you* go again.
>
>> .."open-source software isn't ready for mass deployment on the
>> desktop."
>>
>> That has to be the understatement of the year.
>
> Strange, it's been my desktop for years already.

That's good, but most of us need to be productive occasionally.

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 12:48:17 -0400, flatfish+++ wrote:

> Here we go again.....
> 
> 
> 
> http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6112306.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A snippet!!!
> 
> 
> 
> "The next stage of the project was to be a Linux migration on the desktop.
> The suspension of this project has been reported by analysts as evidence
> that open-source software isn't ready for mass deployment on the desktop."
> 
> "Over the last few years, several cities have announced plans to test or
> deploy open-source software. Recently, though, some of these plans have
> hit problems. Munich was forced to push back its desktop Linux rollout by
> a year, and the London borough of Newham stuck with Microsoft after a
> trial test of open-source software."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This guy should come to comp.os.linux.advocacy and observe the COLA gang
> who have been claiming Linux has been ready for the desktop for years now.
> 
> It's interesting to see these projects start off all gung ho for Linux and
> then after they actually try to migrate the project tanks because the
> people doing it discover that Linux just isn't what they thought it was.
> 
> .."open-source software isn't ready for mass deployment on the desktop."
> 
> That has to be the understatement of the year.

I what happens is that they start listening to all the nay sayers -
anticipating all kinds of problems. In January 2005 I installed Mandrake
Linux on the public access internet computers at the local library. To
date there have been zero complaints - everyone adjusted very easily. A
few months ago we added a four head Userful station which runs RHEL -
still no problems. A customer satisfaction survey a few months ago showed
universal acceptance. Granted all they are used for are web surfing and
office stuff, but that's all most people need anyway. It really is not
that damned complicated. I maintain that Linux is no harder to install
from scratch than MS - in many ways easier - you don't have to go look for
all the damned driver disks. And once installed, Linux is no harder to use
than MS - just a little different.

some idiot forging chrisv wrote:

>(snip)

Ignore the forger.

On 2006-09-06, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> That's good, but most of us need to be productive occasionally.

Not with responses like that.

nb

notbob <notbob@nothome.com> writes:

> On 2006-09-06, flatfish+++ <flatfish@linuxmail.org> wrote:
>> Here we go again.....
>
> No.  Here *you* go again.
>
>> .."open-source software isn't ready for mass deployment on the desktop."
>>
>> That has to be the understatement of the year.
>
> Strange, it's been my desktop for years already.

"works for me". LOL. Clearly it didnt work in Munich or Bergen.

>
> As for "mass deployment", Linux, just like Apple, is not ready for
> enterprise level deployment because M$ still has a stranglehold on the
> de facto standard for inter corporate operability *at the desktop
> level*.  At least Linux is making inroads and progress, unlike Apple
> which already had a foothold in the corporate environment, but was
> long ago dumped.  It's funny how people that are M$ zealots seem to
> ignore the fact that computer networks existed prior to M$ and
> Windows.
>
> nb

-- 
Rule of Open-Source Programming #11:

When a developer says he will work on something, he or she means
"maybe".

Hadron Quark wrote:
> notbob <notbob@nothome.com> writes:
>
>> On 2006-09-06, flatfish+++ <flatfish@linuxmail.org> wrote:
>>> Here we go again.....
>>
>> No.  Here *you* go again.
>>
>>> .."open-source software isn't ready for mass deployment on the
>>> desktop."
>>>
>>> That has to be the understatement of the year.
>>
>> Strange, it's been my desktop for years already.
>
> "works for me". LOL. Clearly it didnt work in Munich or Bergen.
>

Anybody that doesn't bow down to the linux god is, is, IS FLATFISH!

notbob wrote:
> On 2006-09-06, flatfish+++ <flatfish@linuxmail.org> wrote:
>> Here we go again.....
> 
> No.  Here *you* go again.
> 
>> .."open-source software isn't ready for mass deployment on the desktop."
>>
>> That has to be the understatement of the year.
> 
> Strange, it's been my desktop for years already.

Good for you...

> 
> As for "mass deployment", Linux, just like Apple, is not ready for
> enterprise level deployment because M$ still has a stranglehold on the
> de facto standard for inter corporate operability *at the desktop
> level*.  

That's arguable at best. The chances are that corporation do not want to 
spend money on re-training current and new employees; be that Apple 
and/or Linux. They don't need to do it now for Windows and the 
applications running on it for the most part.

At least Linux is making inroads and progress, unlike Apple
> which already had a foothold in the corporate environment, but was
> long ago dumped.  It's funny how people that are M$ zealots seem to
> ignore the fact that computer networks existed prior to M$ and
> Windows.

Apple lost to Windows on cost and so did Novell with they IPX/SPX. . 
Keep in mind that if the corporations can buy computers that full fills 
their needs at 30-40% discount comparing to Apple, they will not spend 
the extra money. You can blame M$ as much as you want, it won't change 
that.

Linux might replace Windows on the desktop sometimes in the future; 
Ubuntu is a step in the right direction in my opinion. There are still a 
number of things such as, uniformity, end users' acceptance, 
productivity software, etc, that need to be in place. Interestingly the 
industry switching back to the client-server model with browser based 
clients is actually helping this process. The Linux is making progress 
in the end users' acceptance area and once the productivity software 
catches up, the temptation (a.i. cost savings) for IT managers will be 
hard to ignore. Some impatient IT managers want to do it now, but it is 
cost prohibitive at the current time, not to mention some of the 
technical difficulties.

Cr00zng...

Cr00zng wrote:
> notbob wrote:
>> On 2006-09-06, flatfish+++ <flatfish@linuxmail.org> wrote:
>>> Here we go again.....
>>
>> No.  Here *you* go again.
>>
>>> .."open-source software isn't ready for mass deployment on the
>>> desktop." That has to be the understatement of the year.
>>
>> Strange, it's been my desktop for years already.
>
> Good for you...
>
>>
>> As for "mass deployment", Linux, just like Apple, is not ready for
>> enterprise level deployment because M$ still has a stranglehold on
>> the de facto standard for inter corporate operability *at the desktop
>> level*.
>
> That's arguable at best. The chances are that corporation do not want
> to spend money on re-training current and new employees; be that Apple
> and/or Linux. They don't need to do it now for Windows and the
> applications running on it for the most part.
>
> At least Linux is making inroads and progress, unlike Apple
>> which already had a foothold in the corporate environment, but was
>> long ago dumped.  It's funny how people that are M$ zealots seem to
>> ignore the fact that computer networks existed prior to M$ and
>> Windows.
>
> Apple lost to Windows on cost and so did Novell with they IPX/SPX. .
> Keep in mind that if the corporations can buy computers that full
> fills their needs at 30-40% discount comparing to Apple, they will
> not spend the extra money. You can blame M$ as much as you want, it
> won't change that.
>
> Linux might replace Windows on the desktop sometimes in the future;

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAH!, you fucking technotard!

> Ubuntu is a step in the right direction in my opinion.

Ubuntu is a buggy piece of shite!
https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+bugs

> There are
> still a number of things such as, uniformity, end users' acceptance,
> productivity software, etc, that need to be in place. Interestingly
> the industry switching back to the client-server model with browser
> based clients is actually helping this process. The Linux is making
> progress in the end users' acceptance area and once the productivity
> software catches up, the temptation (a.i. cost savings) for IT
> managers will be hard to ignore. Some impatient IT managers want to
> do it now, but it is cost prohibitive at the current time, not to
> mention some of the technical difficulties.
>
> Cr00zng...