Discussion on:

Piling on: More reasons why the Linux desktop doesn't shine in business

Honestly, using ubuntu in the enterprise can be accomplished if companies started using google apps for their companies. Mail + Drive access is a nice replacement. Lack of project is a downside but there will always be alternatives. People just need to stop being so afraid of change.

Adam,
strictly speaking, what you say is true, but I don't think it is really applicable in this case. First because many companies, not to mention non-USA public administrations, will NOT put their data on any platform owned by one (foreign) private company. Secondly, because... this wouldn't change the fact that there is no microsoft project or, more important, that those companies (feel that) they must keep using all their all preexisting docs without any compatibility issue.

Many countries have privacy laws that currently block companies from storing some times of information on a third-party service like Google. Medical and financial records are at the top of the list.

Hardware,plain and simple hardware compatibility and the ability to make hardware work all the time every time without a lot of BS. Its why Android has been so successful because the hardware is built around the OS and not the other way. Put out canned hardware built for Linux and you will find better results. Such as the case of Dell and its small but steady showing of Linux PC's. The other case for Linux is in Tablets where developers are responsible for making things work and not the end user. Another example of building hardware around a OS. Apple basically does this same thing as it build OS X and IOS around the hardware and limits what hardware it works on. Makes supporting it a whole lot easier. I think end users could better enjoy Linux if and only if the devices were built around it rather then users downloading a distro and hoping it supports all of the hardware.

Linux is compatible with at least as many personal computer components as Windows, and with far more embedded controllers and single-function devices.

I do agree that Linux would achieve a greater slice of the desktop / laptop market if major hardware vendors offered more models with Linux pre-installed. But as to building hardware around the OS like Apple does, Apple only has around 5% of the PC market.

hardware manufacturers make Linux specific hardware, you just need to have them STOP making Windows specific hardware. There are Internationally agreed Industry Standard command sets for the operating of hardware, at one time Microsoft used those standards in their Operating Systems, then they walked away from those standards and started pressuring hardware manufacturers to make hardware that came with the MS Windows Command Sets built in so you didn't need to install device drivers to run on THAT version of Windows. This started with Win 95, then a new set of Command Sets for Win 2000 / XP, and then another set for Win Vista / Win 7. Which is why you need different device drivers for Win NT, Win 9x, Win 2000/XP, and Win Vista/7, and anything else that does NOT use the same command sets as the current version of Windows of the time the hardware was being made.

Linux is designed to the Industry Standard Command Sets and thus any version of Linux or Unix that has not been doctored to another Command Set (like Mac OS) will work with any hardware designed to the Industry Standards. Thus all you need to do is convince the hardware manufacturers to stop kowtowing to Microsoft - some already do make to the Industry Standards and then make Windows drivers.

"Put out canned hardware built for Linux and you will find better results"

I really don't think so. Put out hardware built for Linux and people will find themselves with boxes that run Linux without a hitch, but are still useless in the sense I explained in the articles, that is they have trouble handling pre-existing documents

while it is the job of the operating system to take that code and convert it to what is needed for the hardware to process it, as that's not the job of the hardware. A classic example of that is documents created in MS Word for Windows 2a can NOT be viewed properly in MS Word 2003 or MS Word 2007 or MS Word 2010 despite having the same extension, this is due to the command set information for the formatting has been changed in the application and the operating system, and thus not compatible, but however it comes up on the screen is how the hardware was told by the operating system and the same instructions will be sued when it's sent to printing - side note: Open Office and Libre Office have no trouble displaying and printing these older documents properly in either Linux or Windows.

The reason the International Body set a set of International Industry Command Sets back in the early 1990s was to do away with the need for hardware drivers because having the one set of commands used for the operating system and the hardware made the hardware OS independent. For a little while Microsoft went along, then they stopped using the Industry Standards set to use their own and make their operating system incompatible with the standards, then they applied economic pressure on the hardware manufacturers to make the hardware compatible with Windows and not the Industry Standard, that has caused the current situation with the need for drivers for different versions of Windows or any OS other than the one the manufacturer made the gear compatible with. However, not all manufacturers went along with Microsoft so some hardware is still made to the Industry Standards and needs drivers to work with Windows.

Sorry, I really fail to see how this last comments is related to my previous one, or what is meaning is anyway

"I really don't think so. Put out hardware built for Linux and people will find themselves with boxes that run Linux without a hitch, but are still useless in the sense I explained in the articles, that is they have trouble handling pre-existing documents. "

You're saying that Linux compatible hardware is not capable of handling pre-existing documents due to the file formats. My reply is the details of why the file format is totally independent of the hardware, the file format is software code that needs to be interpreted by the operating system, and the hardware requires commands on what to do from the operating system. In short, it matters not what the document file format is as it has NOTHING to do with the hardware itself, that's all up to the operating system that interprets the code between the two.

Further proof of that is the fact I've many old documents created in Word for Windows on Win 3.11 and Win 95/98 that display and print perfectly in my copy of Libre Office on Zorin OS 5 Linux, ditto with some old Excel files from the early 1990s. The file formats are irrelevant to the hardware, it's all in the hardware command sets and the operating system command sets.

"You're saying that Linux compatible hardware is not capable of handling pre-existing documents due to the file formats"

No, I didn't say that. I said that boxes that run Linux are not capable etc etc. Because they run Linux, ie software issues period, regardless whether their hardware specs had been written for Linux or not. I really thought it was obvious. Sorry that you went off a tangent.

issue and not a hardware issue as it's the file formats.

Which specific formats are you talking about? This is important as it then comes down to the apps on the system and NOT the operating system itself.

For example, last Saturday I was given a USB drive with a file to check the information on it was right before the local government body had the document printed and distributed - the file had been given to the go between on Friday. I went to the computer of the organisation the information was about - the system is a few months old Dell with Win 7 Enterprise Edition. The file would NOT open as it was a .pub file and you needed MS Publisher to view. MS Publisher does NOT come with any edition of MS Office, so it's a separate purchase of A$300.00 to get. I'd have had this same problem if I viewed the file on my Linux system.

Now, my Linux system has Libre Office installed, and that app has no trouble reading and accurately displaying documents made on MS Word or MS Excel as .doc, .docx, or .xls files. I have VLC and Xine installed, I have no troubles displaying and playing files with the extensions .avi and .wmv and .mpg.

In short, the file formats are all application dependent and not operating dependent or hardware dependent. With the exception of the hardware and application drivers made for a specific operating system, thus drivers for Win XP will only work with Win XP, the same for any OS specific dynamic link library files - but they are OS files not normal file formats.

This is an answer to the comment made yesterday by "Deadly Ernest". I am writing it here because, for some reason, the system won't let me reply directly to that comment.

"Which specific formats are you talking about?"

I am talking of proprietary file formats. This includes both:

- MS Office files, because they have plenty of "traps" that make them not completely compatible with LibreOffice/OOo etc. When you say that those apps have "no trouble reading and accurately displaying documents made on MS Word or MS Excel" you are wrong. You should say, instead "PERSONALLY, AS OF TODAY, I have never come across through MS Office files that LO/OOo could not render without any glitch" There are thousands of people online complaining that this is the case. I am the first to agree (heck, I did write it plainly in the article, didn't I?) that this is often a dumb issue caused by people unable to use any word processor, but it exists nonetheless

- lots of other files for specific applications: MS Project, Autocad, Electronic CAD, GIS...

"This is important as it then comes down to the apps on the system and NOT the operating system itself... the file formats are all application dependent and not operating dependent or hardware dependent"

Of course, but so what? The topic here is "why Linux isn't on business desktops". If on my job I must deal with the .dwg format by autocad, which (both the file format and the software) are not usable on Linux, I can't use Linux for business. Not so much because AutoCad won't run on Linux, but because the .dwg format isn't open, so it isn't possible to write software for Linux that can use it fully.

Especially for new and legacy devices. How many times has an Exec wanted the latest new toy? And there is no such thing as a Linux driver for it. And how many companies still use older, specialized input devices (think scanners, for one) that have no Linux drivers, but still work just great? I have tried to move the OS of my primary desktop to Linux several times, but drivers always get in the way.

I was a believer, I hung in there from Red Hat 6.1 through Ubuntu 10.2, all the while searching for a stable 'Nix desktop that would have both app and game support. All those years and it never really happened. In the server room it was a God, even the Gnome desktop did what it had to do.

Finally, I wanted a 'Nix desktop that is supported and stable. Well, after years I just bought a Mac desktop. It was easy, except for the totally propriety hardware and the attempt by Apple to force me into their eco-system, I have an attractive, stable, working 'Nix desktop. I know it's a union of Open Darwin and BSD and I'm okay with it. I never liked BSD that much, but I got used to it. Now I have a working 'Nix desktop that is supported and evolves the old fashioned way, by spending money.

As soon ad I see a .docx file attachment in my in-box in I know I'm in for trouble.

Libre-Office is pretty good but there is still a lot of collateral damage on very new M$ format trnslations

People is getting used to Android (wich is Linux, remember ) and other net centered systems. In the end people is going to demand something familiar, and for the vast majority that will mean Android and iOS. Consoles with heavy operating systems are going to be used by professionals in the CAD, arts and development industries.

Linux is not supposed to replace Windows, it's an alternative to Windows and the distinction is clear. Linux doesn't have to be on every desktop to be successful, by just being there as an alternative and a good one at that it has caused changes in everything around it.
It has been very well accepted in the server room and has driven Windows to become compatible in a lot of ways. It has also driven development of other types of software and enabled all kinds of other alternatives to proprietary software. But it was never intended as a Windows killer but a Windows alternative and it has been very successful at that.
Open Source is not about attacking closed source but about offering alternatives and sharing. I don't care that other people use one OS or the other but I do care about that people know they have an alternative and that they can make the choice, in an educated manner, on their own.
Now if someone requires Office but wants to run Linux there are ways to do that, VMs and Wine or like some companies have done, one person in each group has Windows to do the final port to the office format and do all of the formatting. (Why do people think that the author of a document should be the editor and publisher of the document anyway? making a scientist or engineer format and layout a word doc is just asking for trouble anyway.)
And if you want it to look the same to everyone PDF the thing. Never give people the word or libre office doc, use PDF or similar and your formatting on Linux problem is solved.
Email, sorry there you have this problem, either switch to something else or use the web interface with Evolution.

But it's posts like this from the other side of the community that weaken it overall:

http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-393325-3686644?tag=discussion-thread

Can you really imagine someone like that fitting into a "community"?

On the other hand, there are definitely some pathological sub-communities out there, including within the Linux community.

" Linux doesn't have to be on every desktop to be successful,"

What I did was to explain why, in my opinion, it is not successful. That's different than arguing that it MUST be succesful

"And if you want it to look the same to everyone PDF the thing. Never give people the word or libre office doc, use PDF or similar and your formatting on Linux problem is solved."

this attitude is exactly the reason why we are in such a mess. To begin with, this is only doable when people need a read-only version of some document. Second, it does nothing to solve the problem of proprietary file formats. Solving that problem is one of the necessary preconditions to have Linux on the desktop, IF one cares, but is also necessary for many other reasons.

also have different internal format instructions you often get messed up files when opening them in a different version of MS Word to the one it was made in, you can also end up with a different display to what you wanted if the recipient's default MS Word settings are different to those you used as they will often override the settings within the document. Thus the only way to be sure it displays the same is to send it as a pdf file.

That doesn't seem to actually address the statement you quoted. You seem to think sysop-dr said "Being on every desktop is success, but Linux doesn't have to be successful." What sysop-dr actually said was "Linux doesn't have to be on every desktop to be successful." The point is that Linux can be successful without measuring up to *your* standards of success -- because success is a matter of reaching one's own goals, and not of reaching someone else's (i.e. Microsoft's) goals.

I'm not so sure that sysop-dr's idea of what constitutes success for Linux-based systems is exactly right, but a good point was made nonetheless -- and you seem to have blown right past it.

"having open file formats and standards is success. No, it's a necessity. Way before, and regardless, of the success of Linux itself, however you measure it"

I have, indeed, blown right past "sysop-dr's idea of what constitutes success for Linux-based systems" because he concluded with a partially unrelated, but very superficial statement "And if you want it to look the same to everyone PDF the thing".

I've already explained why I think it's superficial, no need to rewrite it. I'll only specify that the mess I referred to is the general one the current world is in wrt digitization, nothing specific to Linux.

I'm talking about the fact that you are basing your entire argument on notions of "success", where your arguments suggest that "success" must necessarily mean market domination. That is an unwarranted assumption.

success=market domination is the argument (not mine) from which I started replying by writing the post.

Later on, answering that other comment, I replied that dumb statement like that one about PDFs being enough, are what prevents ANOTHER, really different type of success, which has nothing to do with market domination of any given software or sw development model, or markets in general. The success, that is, that society achieves as a whole, from a civil rights point of view, when open digital standards become the default.

I agree that the two things didn't come out very well separated in the flow of discussion. Thanks for helping me to explain this.

Linux IS a success, despite not being popular on desktops. It's the OS of choice in so many other applications, far more than Windows. I'd like to see all those products that run Linux display a Tux logo, similar to how foods used to have the 'Nutrasweet' logo. Maybe then people would realize how wide-spread it is.

. . . but to some people, "computer" means "desktop", which means that to them Linux is not a "success" until it is ubiquitous on the desktop. It doesn't help that many of these people think that to succeed one must make others fail, as well -- which is why the only "successful" product is the one doing better than all its competitors.

TR's brokenness now has me posting stuff in the wrong discussion. Great.