On Sun, 09 May 1999, Mike Cropper - Parkside wrote:
> ...for anyone but geeks.
>
> I'm evaluating Linux as an alternative to Windows NT in a large organization
> (more than one million seats), but so far I am completely unconvinced that
> this OS has any chance of upsetting the market equation. Users won't use it
> because it takes a geek to implement the most minor user interface change.
> Administrators (with any sense) will shy away from it for that reason and
> the FACT that they will have to sacrifice sleep to live on these list
> servers to resolve the simplest of problems.
I'm not sure what kind of organization you work for, but in most organizations,
it's IT that worries about details like these. With more than one million seats
(what kind of org is this?!?) you can definitely afford to hire a knowledgabe
Unix or Linux administrator.
First piece of advice is to set up a couple of Linux systems to try it out. Use
them for print servers or something. Let IT get used to them.
First off, don't think Linux, think Unix. Large corps have been using
Unix for decades. In any case...
> For example, a user cannot install productive software for Linux (if they
> can even find such a thing) and expect it to work without extensive work by
> the already overworked administrative staff.
A user in an organization should not have to install any software. That's IT's
job. Perhaps I'm confused about what org this is. Are these users employees? In
the company I work for (a mere 1900 people), we have 95/NT/Mac/Unix (sun)/Linux
all on the network. We get along fine.
There are several great productivity apps for Unix/Linux. If of course, the
secretaries go on strike when you take MS Office away, you've got another
problem. You've got WordPerfect, StarOffice, Wingz, Oracle, etc. SAP R/3 is
being ported as I type this.
> How do they add an icon for
> the program to their work environment? How do they install the latest video
> driver? My experience is that they must download several megabytes of
> files, follow poorly written and cryptic instructions, and then run
> XF86Setup to configure their system. The latter step requires them to know
> every technical detail about their configuration such as the video card
> BIOS, clock settings, and maximum resolution plus the horizontal refresh
> rate of their monitor! I'm sorry, but NT drivers are much more
> user-friendly: load it, reboot (sometimes) and go.
This is something that the user should not be allowed to do. It's IT's job.
Only the people who take responsibility for the computer should be allowed to
touch its hardware. If the user touches it, they should not expect IT to fix
stuff.
But this sounds as if you've already made up your mind...
> My latest expedition into the chaotic world of Linux video support was to
> install a user's machine to use the Creative Labs Graphics Blaster RivaTNT.
> I downloaded and installed XFree86 3.3.3.1 (no mean task). This update
> allowed XF86Setup to recognize the full capabilities of the graphics
> adapter, but disabled (or hid) the user's normal window manager (AfterStep).
> The result was a lame and unusable "windows manager" that does nothing - no
> ability to access productivity programs. The display looks great, but my
> user cannot work! Hardly a smart upgrade.
What distribution are you using? How did you install? XFree86 doesn't disable
anything. I'm not trying to sound picky or anything, but why would you want to
install a top of the line graphics card on a million machines! That's a lot of
money! Surely, last years model would work just as well. Do you employees
really need the latest 3D card?
> In contrast, my NT users can download and install graphic driver updates
> without administrator intervention. They are productive within five minutes
> of the update.
Sometimes they can. I can do the same with Linux, but probably be quicker at
it. But why should they be installing drivers? If I were an administrator I
would be s****ing my pants if my users were installing drivers.
> Anybody have some advice on how to get a new X driver running? How do we
> get the updated X-manager to load the previously configured windows manager?
> How do we get the windows manager to recognize (with an icon) newly
> installed software?
The window manager doesn't care what "drivers" you have. Whatever it is that's
installing the driver is the problem, which makes me ask what distribution you
are using, since I have never heard of this behavior before.
--
Arandir...
_______________________________
<http://www.meer.net/~arandir/>
