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.