Discussion on:

Why the Linux desktop doesn't shine in business: A perspective

Quick books? That's a software for SMB. It is not something big companies use. Read: SAP. Is there any SAP GUI client for Linux? Sure, it is. But it is officially supported for very limited set of OSes. Given the spectrum of Linux distributions, the choice is limited.
Second, SAP also has analytical tool, call it BI, BW or anything you like. Unfortunately, this tool only has a decent client based on... MS Excel! Do you want to use Linux? Good buy, BW and BEx Analyzer!

And, as for Exchange, there is a number of replacements...
http://linuxblog.darkduck.com/2012/03/8-free-open-source-alternatives-to.html

Sure, there are hundreds of distributions but they are not all focused on use as a desktop or business workstation. Of the distributions that do have that focus, the list becomes shorter based on "business needs" like support contracts; Red Hat, Suse, Ubuntu.. anyone else doing big business desktop distro and support?

Really, if they got it working with Debian and Red Hat then all the child distributions could inherit support. The trick is not to target every little obscure distribution or claim "too many, we can't do it" but simply target the top few parent distributions.

I'm actually surprised that SAP's client isn't a browser front end. Good on them for having a native client though I guess a german company had better have one given the increased popularity of open source options versus around here.

There is a web client for both ERP GUI and BI reports, but they're not so advanced as standalone applications. Especially because quite a big chunk of [BI] reporting is done with Visual Basic. There's no VB in Open Source applications, is it?

SAP GUI for Linux exists as SAP GUI for Java. It is officially supported for different releases of OpenSuSE, Ubuntu, Fedora. http://scn.sap.com/docs/DOC-8199
So, it's close to your list. 8-)

You only have to sign off once on an Exchange server purchase to start dreaming of any alternative you could possibly get past the user base. The hardware to run it was nothing compared to the cost of the freaking software.

Sadly, the two off your linked list that I have worked with where fine as groupware options but where no where near Exchange replacements for non-techie users. Citadel is a fantastic option; well contained, database driven. In the end, it's not quite there.

eGroupware takes Citadel's fiddly to an extreme. If you want adress books, clendars and the sheeebang.. eGroupware is probably one of the strongest contenders. I just dread the thought of introduing my Outlook/Exchange non-tech users too it. the interface is a little too raw; exposes enough to average users that they can easily get in trouble. Users should not need to understand how the database links appointments/meetings/tasks/ticket-system/time-tracking just to use the software without creating a mess.

Now, I loved how Citadel manages users. Creating user aliases and alternate email addresses is simple.. simple like doing the same on Exchange takes a university degree by comparison. The old school split screen chat window between users.. fantastic.

My ideal libre option would actually be using Citadel for IT admin's area and managing database hosted user email accounts. Then using eGroupware as the user front end for all of eGroupware's functionality plus the Citadel imap back end.

Not all Imap servers speak the same Imap and it seems eGroupware Imap client is not compatible with Citadel Imap server. WTF guys.. why on earth is the Imap server/client interface not standardized. To make matters worse, eGroupware supports about three different proprietary Imap implementations.. but not Citadel's.

Sadly, if the other groupware server options are competitive with eGroupware or Citadel, they're not going to pull anyone away from Exchange and that's even with the insane price tag Microsoft manages to hock the bytes for.

I think the most expensive part of the Exchange price tag is the human you have to buy. To get competent Exchange administration in the enterprise, you basically need to hire a whole new person just for that job. There are people out there whose entire career is "MS Exchange Specialist".

I think most places don't even realize they have an extra body for Exchange, because they split up the Exchange administrative duties between multiple people -- whose workloads are high enough that the company eventually ends up hiring another person to pick up some of the work. Thus, you get another person as a requirement for keeping things running smoothly, and don't realize that MS Exchange is what made that person necessary.

You're a bit late to this party, but it's always good to see you.

Blame the speed of TR's notification system.

The shadow of ms is too deeply buried in the minds of the corporate/business culture. Fear of no support, no regular updates, or not doing what the other guy is doing keeps Linux out of the loop. Shame because it could save alot of money and headaches, while keeping things stable.

as a "free lunch"!

While I understand the argument about free Linux, a) the business world is demanding more than QuickBook and Outlook - take AutoCAD and Adobe range of products for example and b) you'd need to teach all the employees a new OS and you need to teach the tech-staff Linux also. And You still need some kind of support, in case something goes really wrong. Just to mention some issues.

However, You might be able to save (substantial) amount of money on replacing the desktop,

Don't get me wrong, I use Linux (Slackware & Ubuntu) and Windows my self; They have their strength and weaknesses alike, but I use their strongest sides.

The moment you'll be able to access most of the applications available to Win/Mac AND manageability of Linux Desktop and installed Applications, you are probably closer to a greater Linux acceptance than is the case now.

AutoCAD and the Adobe creation apps are going to be a sticking point for jobs that require those tools. Outlook and Quickbooks probably rank higher on the list - everybody got email and accounting - but AutoCAD and Adobe Suite fit on the list for positions that require them.

I think the other points are becoming very weak though:

- user training - yeah, you usually do have to provide some user training.. even changing versions of Windows gives you that grief.. this should be on the application level where applications have changed though. Icons on a desktop don't behave differently. Granted, you may want to tune your chosen distribution desktop to look similar to the old desktop but that's a trick common to any OS change.

- IT staff training - chances are you probably have someone on staff already familiar with Linux based distributions or someone who could learn it easily enough. If your that big then this is probably a managed migration project so your contractor should be getting your IT team trained. IT is a learning profession; go learn.

- support - If you require contracted support then that really reduces your selection process to a few Enterprise focused distributions or what distributions service providers will support. If you want to pay for support and feel like you actually have someone to point fingers at then you can certainly get paid support. The option is to self-support but it's not a requirement.

The OS itself is really the least of our concerns here. It would solve or simplify a number of tasks. What I need is those three or four different application titles that my users can't live without. (the moment I can walk into my boss' office claiming to save us software licensing costs though.. the very moment I can do that honestly.. )

If you want to administer Linux you need intensive Terminal training.
You have to know a huge number of command names.
Once you know the name, you can try to use the "man" pages to work out how to use it (or do an Internet search).

IMO, the GUI tools that I've used are generally only 50% finished.
Compare Nautilus to Windows Explorer.
Nautilus has some good features (tabs, multi-level copy/cut/delete ability) but its screen tips are poor and it didn't want to sort files unless I was in "List" view.
Windows Explorer's screen tips are better (even though MS purged some info from them - comparing W7 to XP) and it sorts and groups in the views I use ("Details" and "Large Icons")

I had an update problem last week (open office email merge) on my Ubuntu VM (my actual Ubuntu install didn't have any problems though).
The update wouldn't install, stalling the update process (after an hour, it still hadn't installed the 10KB update).
I don't use OO anyway, so I thought I'd remove the email merge section.
I couldn't purge it either (using Synaptic, apt-get or dpkg).

The problem was only solved, because my friend knew about a command called "fuser" (I'd never heard of it).

If you're afraid of the terminal, you shouldn't be a Windows Server administrator. Any serious network operating system administrator needs to be familiar with the terminal. It's not that big a leap from a Windows terminal to a Linux one, except that Bash is a lot more powerful than the default interpreter and batch language in Windows. Of course, now with Windows there is Power Shell to fix those deficiencies.

There's a difference between being afraid of it and being ignorant of its full capabilities.

Thanks for noticing.

The point was, if you don't know the "name", you can't use the tool!

If you don't know that:
- "ls" lists directory contents, you can't do it from the Terminal.
- "cd" changes to a new directory, you can't do it from the Terminal.
- "grep" lets you search for specific items, you can't do it from the Terminal.
- etc.

I'd never heard of "fuser", so why would I:
- Randomly type it into the Terminal?
- Look for its "man" page?
- Do an Internet search for it?

BTW, this also applies to the Windows Command Prompt and PowerShell.

so I can check if I don't remember. The same about don't knowing the name applies to Windows as well..

$ man -k file | grep process

fuser comes up second.

If you didn't know about fuser then perhaps you don't know about lsof either. Not exactly the same thing, but along similar lines. lsof is a good command to know about too. Although my man command wouldn't have found it for you. So I'll throw it in as a freebie.

UN*X OSes, it is what the D&D crowd does when we get computers.

I'd never heard of that command either ("lsof") until you mentioned it.
Thanks for that tip.

"$ man -k file | grep process"
I would never had thought of trying that (I'm surprised my friend didn't think of it though).
I think that actually supports my earlier statement about "intensive Terminal training".
Intensive "grep" training at a minimum.

Some one claimed that there GUI tools "for all everyday tasks".
As I mentioned earlier most of the GUI tools I've tried, aren't actually advanced far enough to replace the Terminal.

If the Gnome System Monitor was actually useful (like Process Explorer), I wouldn't have had to use the Terminal or "fuser".

As for the topic at hand.
I spend ~95% of my computer time in Windows 7.
I can complete >95% of the tasks I undertake using the GUI tools.

I spend ~5% of my computer time in Ubuntu.
I can complete ~60% of the tasks I undertake using the GUI tools.

IMO, that GUI Task % has to increase, before Ubuntu (for example) can replace Windows in the office.
You can't expect the average MS Office user to use the Terminal.

The problem that approach is it assumes those tools have been installed on the system you need to work on. That approach works in a closed shop, where you can install them as part of a routine server installation procedure. It doesn't work for a contractor accessing systems he has no daily control over. You KNOW the CLI is always there.

@Palmetto_CharlieSpencer
The "Terminal is always there", is another point that my Linux instructors stressed.

For almost all cases, servers should not have GUIs installed on them anyway. The Unix command line tools are far more flexible than any GUI tools, either on Unix-like systems or on MS Windows. Any supposed sysadmin who is not comfortable and skilled when it comes to the command line interface is not, in my opinion, a "real" sysadmin. This includes understanding how to find tools to accomplish the tasks you need to accomplish, because I don't think anyone has all the available tools on a typical Unix-like system memorized -- but if you know how to find what you need, you don't have to have them all memorized, so it's not a problem.

By the way, paulfx1 . . . that D&D comment struck a chord with me.

Even on windows, if you want the most effective and powerful administration tool, you learn the applicable terminal prompt.

no, you don't.

There are graphical tools for all everyday tasks such as creating and modifying users, installing software, managing files, managing LDAP servers etc.

What about the "once in a blue moon" tasks?

We were specifically instructed not to rely on the CentOS firewall GUI tool, when creating/modifying firewall rules.
In fact that warning was issued for all of the server features we worked on (Apache, Samba, NFS, IPTables, etc.).

Editing the config files is a more certain and precise way of adjusting settings.

Here's the situation:

On Unix-like systems, there are GUI tools for many common sysadmin tasks, but they are deficient relative to the command line tools you have available.

On MS Windows systems, there are GUI tools for many common sysadmin tools, and the command line interface there is deficient in many ways relative to the GUI tools because Microsoft has treated the command line interface as a second-class citizen (at best) for decades. The MS Windows GUI tools are still deficient relative to the command line tools you have available on a Unix-like system, but the fact those tools aren't available on MS Windows just means that your sysadmin toolset is going to be deficient, period.

Don't think of the importance of using command line interface tools on Unix-like systems as a problem. Think of it as an impressively useful set of facilities that you simply do not get in the MS Windows world -- because that's what it is.

I'm not sure that the article was referring to System Administrators though (I thought that it was about general office duties).

Upon reflection, I think that our Linux intro training should have actually focussed on how to discover the required commands (as mentioned by Paulfx1 above) rather than concentrating on memorizing the basic commands.

"Don't think of the importance of using command line interface tools on Unix-like systems as a problem."
It's not a problem, it's a necessity.

The Terminal, Command Prompt and/or PowerShell shouldn't present any problems, to those who are being paid to work as System Administrators.

I'm not an office worker (or System Administrator).
I've only used "man -k " once in ~3 years of using Ubuntu (I'd forgotten all about the -k option/switch).

My statement about GUIs was about office workers.
Office workers shouldn't have to open the CLIs to do their work.

QUOTE: I'm not sure that the article was referring to System Administrators though (I thought that it was about general office duties).

Yeah, it was, but this subthread was more about GUI vs. CLI, so I commented on that. Ultimately, "regular" users should probably learn the CLI as well, because otherwise they're missing out on a lot of functionality -- regardless of OS, or the completeness of the GUI by modern standards.

QUOTE: My statement about GUIs was about office workers.
Office workers shouldn't have to open the CLIs to do their work.

Your most recent statement was about editing firewall rules. I responded to that.

"Your most recent statement was about editing firewall rules. I responded to that."
Fair enough.
My bad, I should have been clearer.
That GUI statement was in response to another post that listed some server tasks.

I meant the post further up (GUI & office workers not GUI & server):
"IMO, that GUI Task % has to increase, before Ubuntu (for example) can replace Windows in the office.
You can't expect the average MS Office user to use the Terminal."
http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-393325-3687354

" Ultimately, "regular" users should probably learn the CLI as well, ..."
Agreed.
OTOH, is it wise to let regular users have access to that sort of power?

You can give users access to the command line without giving them privileges to run amok. I confess to not remembering exactly how, but it can indeed be done.

But I question the value of the command line to 'normal' users in the first place. If the system was properly configured before being deployed, why would they need it?

"You can give users access to the command line without giving them privileges to run amok. I confess to not remembering exactly how, but it can indeed be done."

I know that in W7, there is a "Run as administrator" option in the context menu (I have mine set to open as administrator by default).
I assume you can remove that using Group Policies.

I was responding to apotheon's post:
"Ultimately, "regular" users should probably learn the CLI as well, because otherwise they're missing out on a lot of functionality ..."

I personally think that regular users should be able to perform all of their tasks using simple GUI tools.

That said, there is probably some value in showing people how to use "ping" to test their network connectivity (for example) since MS didn't provide a simple GUI tool for it.

My Sys Tray network icon seems to have no idea about the actual network status (when I run VMware Workstation, it indicates that the network has failed).

The Windows "Network and Sharing Center" doesn't show any useful information on it's default page (you have to burrow into it, to find out the basic information that "ipconfig" would show you).

Why doesn't "Network Connections" show that information by default?
Who needs room to display >50 network adapters on an home/office PC?

Why isn't there a simple, easy to access GUI tool for that?
It could show you the default "ipconfig" information.
The "ping" section would only need a few buttons (e.g. "Local Host - your PC", "Gateway", etc.) and a field to enter network/website names.

The Gnome Network Manager (in Ubuntu 10.04) trumps W7 in this case.
It has a "Connection Information" option in its context menu, which displays the basic information.

when I said I didn't remember how to throttle back user rights. In Windows it can be done with GP for network users, or in the local groups settings. In a conflict, GP will override the local settings.

Yeah, ping would probably be useful. I agree regarding the Windows networking GUI; it's very cumbersome and the W7 version is the worst. (One of the few bad things I have to say about W7.) I bet there are some free third-party tools that do a better job.

"lehnerus, I was referring to Linux"

You normally don't get any rights when you use the Terminal.
You have to elevate yourself.

I suspect that all that is required is to disable "sudo".
Then, if you don't know the root password, you can't really do anything.

Since most of them have smartphones, they are probably quite capable of learning a similar interface on their own.

Quickbooks and Outlook really are the two block buster titles that are going to hinder a migration away from Windows. I'd actually add the rest of Office along side Outlook. I need to open the same spreadsheet in Excel and Calc without any app fingerprints left behind. Currently, a spreadsheet saved in Calc breaks when opened in Excel because Excel does not like to see the worksheet name in a reference to a cell on the same worksheet but Calc does. I can live with that as a power user but average users are not going to accept it when exchanging documents with other organizations. My users are also not going to be able to produce a publication or presentation in Open/Libre; we have enough support questions just with MS Office and it's entire claim to fame is "drag this from there to here".

as to the general usage of Libre Office, what sort of publication are you referring to - I know many authors who use Libre Office to create print ready files for the printers and publishers. I know people who use LO for doing catalogues and brochures, too.

I just can't take an office full of older Word/Powerpoint/Excel users, suspend work for the amount of training that would be needed, justify the upheavel and claim with a strait face that OOo/Libre is going to look and produce just like MS Office has.

My more tech savvy users and the IT team.. sure.. I could probably do that but not the user's who get disoriented by a desktop theme change.

If they're used to a version of MS Office prior to Office 2007 with the ribbons and xhtml, then you'll find the current version of Libre Office is so close to what they're using that it'll be an easy transition - a damn sight easier than going over to Office 2010 and the ribbons of hell.

The ribbon UI changes are not the only concern; especially with users that have 2007 and 2010 at home already so they are familiar with it. With an Office 2010 upgrade looming, I've done all I can to try and justify not spending the obscene amount of money Microsoft demands and it's just not there yet this update cycle. Baud how I hope I can't shift the users in the next upgrade cycle.

Actually my family did the transition from OO to 2010 . . . not a single squeal. In fact, they had been complaining about OO because it didn't handle conversion well enough (for high school presentations etc.). What would that mean in a business environment? Of course you can just turn the ribbons off if you don't like them.

You have too much inertia to get moving? If a team is only as fast as the slowest horses it might be time to replace a few in the string. Either that or someday you all might end up out to pasture, or worse at the glue factory!

Inertia does play a large part in why companies continue to use Microsoft apps. However, I question a policy of replacing employees simply because they have trouble adapting to an change that doesn't provide any benefits.

Does potentially saving enough money to save those people's jobs in the first place qualify as "any benefits"? Saving money helps sometimes.

I got my discussions mixed up. I thought I was responding over in one of the W8 discussions. Try re-reading my comment assuming I'm talking about switching from W7 or XP to W8 and it might make some sense.

Of course, that isn't what we were discussing. Obviously there is a potential to save some money replacing ongoing licensing costs with software available at no charge.

I'm gonna plead 'Senior Moment'.

It is very simple. Most PC users, do not have the education to use the Linux operating system. Most people cannot use Windows properly either. Effective business computer users can barely do the basic minimum to maintain their computer systems. Just like most people that drive have absolutely no idea how to maintain their car. Windows and Linux seriously need to rethink the GUI and all the thousands of settings and the enormous plethora of folders. People are not capable of dealing with much information on average. People will always be lost and ineffective. This is why smart-phones and Macs are so effective, because they hide the underlying operating system from the user. It is unfortunate that about 90% of people are not truly capable at their jobs, maintaining their homes, their health and other systems and technology that they use. That is why IT consultants, doctors, mechanics, and other professionals have jobs.

Users do not need to know anything beyond the start menu, desktop icons and used programs on Windows. I'm not sure why it would be different on a Gnome, KDE or similar desktop. They are not digging through the system wide directory three, they can live within ~/Documents, ~/Media, ~/Desktop just like that currently live inside %userprofile%\desktop and %userprofile%\My Documents.

If we're talking about business end users then we're talking about a managed solution. Just like a smartphone, it should arrive on the user's desk hardened then configured for the intended use. Why would a managed workstation not hide just as much as a managed smartphone? That really indicates a failure in the IT department not the chosen solution.

It will always come down to applications for me. Various specialized software I use for my business, web site management, shipping, etc. They will never be on Linux. Of course having installed Linux on a few systems, I like it, but it's also suffers from the Apple syndrome, people ignore the faults, and over dramatize the strengths.