Bryan Sant wrote:
My department at work is moving to Linux (SUSE 10) on the desktop.
All of our laptops are being upgraded, and the new ones are coming
with SUSE 10 installed. I'd say that only about 10% of the engineers
here were running Linux on their old laptop, but everyone will be
running Linux now.
All in all, this is a major landmark accomplishment and I applaud the
company. Who is the company?
I'm curious why the company chose SUSE over other distributions. How much
control will the IT team have over what is installed on these systems and
whether or not software updates are applied?
1) This is the first real first-hand case of an organization adopting
and pushing desktop Linux that I've experienced. I am very proud that
we are not adopting for
religious/political/counter-culture/I'm-a-way-31337-H4X04 purposes,
but because it is genuinely better for our needs. I'm glad that we're
switching for "capitalistic" reasons instead of "socialistic" reasons.
Right. It's easy to use the communistic argument for open source when you're
talking about a school or a non-profit organization, but it's more practical
to talk about cost savings, productivity improvements, and considerable
security benefits when dealing with for-profit organizations.
2) I find myself about as resistant to a forced distro of Linux as I
am to forcing the use of Windows. I've been running the pre-installed
SUSE 10 on my new laptop, but I don't like it that much. I used to
like KDE -- then I ran Ubuntu with the later releases of Gnome -- now
I don't like KDE. SUSE has the Novell Desktop (Gnome) but GTK/Gnome
is an afterthought in the SUSE world. Anyway, I'll be rebuilding my
system with breezy soon. All of the former Windows people seem to
really Like SUSE/KDE though, so I'm an exception. I know that I'm
out-of-line here. It makes perfect business sense to standardize on a
single distro/vendor to reduce support costs and increase the overall
knowledge-base with that flavor of Linux. I support the approach...
But I think it's great for *everyone else*... Just not me :-)
I'm sure the decision to do it this way is rooted in IT management - people
who don't want to deal with managing a diversified heterogeneous network. In
the past, whenever I've wanted to run Linux on my desktop at a company, the
IT people have always been quick to say, "Do what you want... but don't
expect any support from us!"
3) I'm one of the biggest Linux proponents here, but I still find it
unsettling that we are FORCING the engineers here to run Linux even if
they don't want to. Some (a surprising minority) would rather run
Windows because that's what they are most effective with. Frankly I
agree that they should have a choice. Am I a freak for not stoning
those who don't want to run Linux?
Again, I think it all comes back to resource management. The IT department
probably does not want the responsibility of maintaining lots of different
machines running different operating systems.
All of these guys and gals moving over are engineers (read technical),
but I was surprised at how trivial the transition was for most (and I
work with some SERIOUS Windows-weenies). But even the biggest
Microsofties, were able to adapt in just about no time.
This is precisely why most Linux vendors are excited about the corporate
desktop. For what _most_ people do, Linux works well and it's definitely
easier to manage from an IT perspective.
Thanks for the note. It's great to know.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is Doran L. Barton, president, Iodynamics LLC
Iodynamics: Linux solutions - Web development - Business connectivity
"Dresses for street walking."
-- Seen outside a Paris dress shop
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the penguin.
*/
