STUDY: Linux Desktop Myths Exploded
By James Maguire NewsFactor Network May 05, 2003 http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/21431.html
Hype about Linux on the desktop is increasing, according to Gartner's recent study, "Myths of Linux on the Desktop." The goal of the research was to enable enterprises to be objective in understanding the benefits of the Linux OS on the desktop, separating open-source fact from fiction.
"I want to stress that I didn't mean to be negative about Linux," Gartner analyst Michael Silver, the report's author, told NewsFactor. Linux's appropriateness for any given population has a lot to do with the specifics of each business' environment and its architectures of applications in use, he said.
To understand the real benefits, enterprises need to realize that some common assertions will prove to be myths, Silver says.
=================================================================== "Supported versions of Linux are not free," Gartner analyst Michael Silver notes. Consumer versions of Linux are basically free, but "enterprises that require vendor support for their client OS will need to pay for it." ===================================================================
Myth: Linux Will Be Less Expensive
Many Linux proponents argue that using Linux instead of Windows saves a substantial chunk of change because StarOffice/OpenOffice.org then can be used instead of Microsoft Office.
"This is a bad argument," says Silver, because "StarOffice and OpenOffice.org can run fine on Windows." He noted that if users believe they will save money running StarOffice instead of Microsoft Office, they can run it on their current version of Windows without spending a fortune to migrate all of their applications to a new platform.
Myth: Linux Is Free
"Supported versions of Linux are not free," Silver notes. Consumer versions of Linux are basically free, but "enterprises that require vendor support for their client OS will need to pay for it." While these costs may work out to be less than the cost of a Windows license and support, they need to be understood.
Many free, open-source applications ship with Linux distributions, but Silver raises this question: Are they the applications the enterprise needs? "Thus far, we have not heard of open-source movements to replace large enterprise resource planning systems ... and most current vendors do not charge less for a Linux user than a Windows user."
Myth: Linux Means No Forced Upgrades
"Many users complain that Microsoft forces them to upgrade to newer releases of Windows," Silver wrote. "However, we believe that things will not be that much different in a Linux environment."
Linux vendors only support their consumer releases (and free distributions) for a maximum of two years, Silver noted.
"Linux independent software vendors realize that they cannot support their products on every version of Linux that has or will ever ship," the report says. "So while there will always be the option of support from the open source community ... we believe Linux users will feel forced to move to newer releases of Linux just as Windows users feel forced to upgrade to new versions of Windows."
Myth: Linux Management Is Easier
Significant reductions in staffing are not likely to be achieved "simply by switching OSes without changing policies, lockdown or the degree of management tool implementation," according to Silver.
He notes that from a software break/fix perspective, many support calls are due to users doing something that misconfigures their system.
He expects Linux to have a slight edge over Windows for three reasons: 1) the existence of fewer viruses targeting Linux desktops; 2) fewer problems caused by conflicting applications; and 3) difficulty of understanding and repairing the Window registry. Since Linux is purely file-based, administrators may be able to troubleshoot application problems more easily.
Myth: Linux Has a Lower TCO
Management tools have been available for Windows for years, Silver observed, but many enterprises still have not been able to manage their Windows environment. This has often been due to too much complexity, lack of sufficient policies or standards, or cultural and political issues, according to Silver.
If this is true with Windows, "we see little reason to believe that the cultural or political issues will change just because the enterprise is now using Linux," he observes.
Myth: Linux Means Longer Hardware Life
"It is true that a three- or four-year-old PC that is not powerful enough to run Windows XP and Office XP may be able to run Linux and StarOffice," Silver says. "However, enterprises need to budget for some additional costs to maintain older PCs."
He points out that a new PC bought with Linux today with a goal of a six- to eight-year lifespan likely will require an expenditure for at least one OS upgrade during that time.
Furthermore, "enterprises should realize that if they buy two different model notebooks and two different model desktops and keep their PCs for four years, they will have 16 different varieties of hardware to manage," the report says, and more varieties of hardware and software will be more difficult and expensive to manage.
Myth: Skills Are Transferable
"Although Unix skills are transferable to Linux, Windows skills are not as similar," Silver observes, noting that "most enterprises' Unix skills today exist in a server-oriented department in the IT reporting structure, which is usually separate from the desktop support group."
Enterprises should consider whether their current structure will prevent them from leveraging skills across desktops and servers, Silver advises.
Bottom Line
The bottom line is that Silver sees some cost savings in migrating to the Linux desktop but says the move "will probably not eliminate all of the costs the enterprises expects."
But there is undisputedly healthy market interest in this migration. Significant sales growth is expected within a three- to five-year time frame, according to Forrester analyst Ted Schadler.
There are a number of market segments for the Linux desktop, he told NewsFactor, including Asian and Eastern European governments that want an alternative to Microsoft; direct point-of-sale Linux PCs -- what Schadler calls "the dedicated desktop"; and small enterprises.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- © Copyright 1998-2003 NewsFactor Network. All rights reserved.
Dear friend, You would have done us a great favour had you brought out the linkage between the Gartner analyst Michael Silver and Microsoft Inc. Loooking at the entire arguments, one can only see the conclusions of Silver, based on 'assumptions' rather than doing any concrete study.
On issues like 'cost', the information in our domain was that Microsoft's spokesmen used to initially argue that 'with peanuts, you get monkeys'. When this argument got few takers, they changed the argument to 'a free puppy would need a dog's food later'. Studying the failure of this argument, it appears that Microsoft has finally decided to argue that 'this OS is more costly'. How does one draw a bottom line then ?
Surveys at http://www.netcraft.com/survey show a different curve for Free Software or other open source products, when compared to the proprietary ones. Why does Silver avoid such results ?
I had done a research on the usage of GNU Linux and other non-Microsoft OSes by Microsoft Inc, itself and found that at least 44 portals of Microsoft Inc, of various languages, were using them. This was in August 2001. A portion of this picture, that was available then at the Netcraft's site was captured and published in a handbook that was later widely circulated amongst the local bodies of Kerala.
Silver might be forced to 'dream' after being paid to bring out a convincing article, but sadly it misses the target.
I have studied at least one such case in history, where Thomas Edison had brought out similar arguments about the ill effects of 'alternating current', in a bid to promote his 'direct current' (through his corporate venture), when the usages of electricity for domestic purposes was setting off course in US. What happened eventually is before all of us to see. Perhaps Bill Gates and his men, could become more wiser learning from the fate of Thomas Edison, than going in for such cheap tricks. These tricks would get exploded as time flies by, as with each 'flawed attempts at exposure', the entire exercise of 'duping' would be unearthed and less and less people would give an ear to it.
CK Raju
On Tuesday 06 May 2003 09:11 am, searchlight@sancharnet.in wrote:
STUDY: Linux Desktop Myths Exploded
By James Maguire NewsFactor Network May 05, 2003 http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/21431.html
----- © Copyright 1998-2003 NewsFactor Network. All rights reserved.
CK Raju wrote:
Dear friend, You would have done us a great favour had you brought out the linkage between the Gartner analyst Michael Silver and Microsoft Inc. Loooking at the entire arguments, one can only see the conclusions of Silver, based on 'assumptions' rather than doing any concrete study.
A public letter to the newspapers and magazines would be more impactful, however remeber that it would be better to quote established sources in the newspapers.
Regards Raj Shekhar
-
CK Raju -
raj -
searchlight＠sancharnet.in