Article has roles reversed
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| slippery Jan 30, 2006 3:19 AM EDT |
The author thinks the best way to run Linux and Windows together is the use Windows as the host and Linux as the guest OS. I find it ironic that an "Information Security Manager" would choose Windows to be his main interface to the hostile Internet. For security and trust reasons, it seems Linux should be the host and Windows the guest. VMWare works perfectly well with the roles reversed. At home, I use Win4Lin to run Windows 98 for tax software. Lots of other good VM software to choose as well. |
| mvermeer Jan 30, 2006 8:01 AM EDT |
Could the reason be that Windows knows best how to drive all that weird and wonderful -- and of course undocumented -- hardware on that laptop? Windows makes a passable compatibility layer, as long as you don't try using it as an operating system ;-) |
| ecowper Jan 30, 2006 10:45 PM EDT |
Actually, I don't have the roles reversed. In this particular case, due to specific software I must use on my laptop, I have to have a "real" Windows XP installation. Since I have little choice but to have Windows XP on the bare metal, but actually use Linux for about 90% of my work computing needs, a Linux VM on top of Windows is a good approach. Now, my son, who has a bunch of Windows games he loves, is going to be getting a Debian desktop with a Windows VM for his games to replace his dual-boot system. He does all of his school work, websurfing, email, etc. in Linux and only boots to Windows to play games. And, this is the last in a series of articles I've been writing for a friend who is going to be moving to Linux, giving her advice on how best to make the transition. Along the way I found that there was interest in Linux VM's running on Windows. If you read the article, you'll pick up on the fact that my advice to the newbie is to just take the plunge and get rid of Windows. |
| ecowper Jan 31, 2006 10:12 AM EDT |
Another issue to consider, and one I will probably write some new content on as well, is the many people who would benefit in their workplace from Linux, but have constraints that mean they have to run Windows on their desktop/laptop. |
| tadelste Jan 31, 2006 2:05 PM EDT |
ecowper: I acknowledge your points and your contribution. I just have a difficult time visualizing using Linux 90% of time and having to have a virus on ones bare metal. (Excuse me, I should have used the proper name eColi.XP). I venture to say that the basis of any argument for or against using Microsoft or whatever deals with selective perception. I didn't have a strong aversion to Windows and Microsoft until I worked on government projects and discovered how evil I consider Microsoft's tactics. Suddenly, something I felt mildly annoyed about caused an aversion. I don't know if much of the nattering about Microsoft is caused by people's transference issues or direct experience. But, I know some people who literally hate anything Microsoft. I also know some people who would consider meeting Bill Gates the equivalent of meeting the Beatles or President Kennedy. I wouldn't even shake hands with the guy. It's very personal - how people deal with Windows. I understand you want to take an objective approach and put forth an argument with logic and reason. From your point of view, it all seems very reasonable. From my point of view, I want them put out of business, closed down, broken up and sent to jail. That's a sensible, reasonable basis on my part, isn't it? I just want to really say, it doesn't matter. In two hundred years, who will care? Where's Satre when we need him, anyway? "Hell is other people." [Suggests that man, being a subjective creature can only see in terms of his own convictions, and thus only be seen in terms of other people's convictions. Therefore, the reality of his nature is the reality seen by others, since he couldn't possibly see himself in any objective fashion.] -- Any freedom in that? |
| ecowper Jan 31, 2006 6:15 PM EDT |
tadelste, let me explain why I, and many others I work with, must have XP on the bare metal of our machine. We must encrypt our hard drives (not just selected files), which is related to the type of data we work with and California law (google SB1386 to find out more). The encryption software that our company uses only has a Windows version. If we don't do things the "right way" then we are putting our company, our customers and ourselves at risk. That's one scenario. That's my own, personal scenario. Here's another scenario. You work for IBM or EDS or HP or Accenture (or one of the other big integrators). You are a UNIX system administrator, and you do your system administration from a Linux desktop. Your company mandates Windows XP as your desktop operating system, and you are jeopardizing your job to use a different O/S. Or maybe you are a java developer, or a DBA. It's easy to argue that the company should allow you to use Linux since you are more productive in it and could load a Windows VM for the things you need Windows for (Visio & Outlook, for example). But, that isn't how the corporate world works (or the government world, as you note). Many of us are working within our organizations, be they corporate or government, to effect change around this, but it takes time and won't always succeed. You might also note, I'm not really "objective" about Windows, or trying to be "fair and balanced". See this article, for example. Rather, I'm trying to provide an alternative to people who are stuck between a rock and a hard place, and I'm trying to provide options to people who want to wean themselves off the M$ heroin. |
| tadelste Jan 31, 2006 6:53 PM EDT |
ecowper: I'm going to be diplomatic about this. You might be selling it but I'm not buying. |
| ecowper Jan 31, 2006 7:07 PM EDT |
I'm giving you real world scenarios. Believe me, or not. You don't have to buy, that doesn't change what reality is. Please provide me with a way around the scenario that I outlined above. Show me why the scenarios I provided aren't valid, and why they don't address a large number of people. It's easy to say "I'm not buying", show me why they're inaccurate. The article (of mine) I was saying to read is at http://www.ericsgrumbles.net/archives/153799.php. Apparently you can't actually put links in the forum, which is silly. |
| tadelste Jan 31, 2006 8:22 PM EDT |
To me, diplomacy means subtly skillful handling of a situation. Now you're a reader here at Lxer and you also contribute to the community by writing and spending time trying to make a difference. My job, as editor-in-chief requires me to bolster the people who participate. So, I naturally want to do a good job. At the same time, I'm also a reader at Lxer and a writer of articles, etc. I also have a significant amount of real world experience in the workplace, in the executive suite, on WallStreet, as a consultant to people like IBM, EDS, Ericsson, Merrill, to governments, etc. So, I don't mind cleaning the restrooms and I didn't mind being a managing partner, CEO, designated principal, etc. In 1998, I consulted for Cap Gemini. They tried that Microsoft only thing with me. They even took my Linux box and hid it in a storage facility. I found it and put it back to work. You know what, one of their gurus recently wrote me and said that could not have happened. So, I found his address in the global directory and wrote him in France. He said that kind of thing doesn't happen any more. He also wrote a scathing French comment on one of my articles at O'Reilly and didn't apologize. He finally said after exchange of email, that he didn't want people to have the wrong impression about Cap Gemini. Fine. So, I orchestrated the development of a Outlook clone that ran on Linux and UNIX. My sponsors and clients included everybody. When I say everybody, I mean everybody - Intel, Boeing, Ericsson, EDS, IBM, etc. I also orchestrated the development of a Linux replacement for Exchange and once again my clients were everybody. And I do mean everybody. My problem with Cap Gemini was interesting because they backed off. No one else ever gave me a problem and I found Linux used in all the big firms, medium size firms, governments, etc. If people, especially technologists in big companies want to use Linux or UNIX or whatever, people will let them. On more than one occasion, I helped fill out request forms with the typical justification clause when people wanted to use Linux. In several situations, the people didn't even know they had procedures to by-pass administrators. Little people seem to have a desire in the workplace to tell you what you can and can't do. I saw a system admin get so hot at a Linux guy at AIC that he got himself fired for telling the Linux guy he could not plug his box into the network. The Linux guy did it anyway and so the admin went to his manager with a "him or me" demand. They walked that guy out the door, took his keys, badge, etc. I sold a company and retired when I was thirty nine. I was a CEO of a Fortune 500 sub. I got a three year golden parachute and went to live on the beach. During that time I wrote and published eight books. I eventually got antsy and went back into the work place by signing up for a temp job as a programmer. Having been an executive for so long and a highly paid consultant and corporate board member, I was used to people kissing up to me. What a surprise to go into a workplace where no one knew me and observe the viciousness. I hadn't seen it. Hell, I was the managing partner of a big CPA firm when I was 29. So, I understand the viciousness. I also found out that if I used the chain of command appropriately, I could get whatever I wanted. The best way to do that is to have patience and be valuable - or better yet, indispensable. So, while your scenarios seem reasonable, they don't fit with my experience. That doesn't mean they're bad or wrong or people don't suffer from that sort of thing. I just think that you can have your reasons or you can have results. What you advocate seems like a case of rationalizations, excuses, justifications, beliefs and other stuff. Like I said, you can have your reasons or you can have results. I prefer results. Like the Nike advertisements say, go for it. |
| ecowper Jan 31, 2006 9:54 PM EDT |
I'll argue on the people side of this that you mistake your atypical results for the results that will be experienced by a more typical unix sys admin, for example. Whether Cap Gemini wants to admit it, or not, I'm quite confident that your story is either true, or representative of a true environment. I've been in and around the Fortune 500 IT world long enough to know the deal. Further, my scenarios are not only reasonable, they are drawn from real life experience around me on a daily basis in a Fortune 500 company. I am also an advocate for open source within the organization. But, it takes patience, as you said. It takes being valuable to the org. It takes being willing to give in one place in order to advance in another. It takes a recognition that this is not a revolution to be won in single sweeping cataclysm. Instead it is an incremental fight. Ironically, the war is already won, in my opinion, we just have a lot of back and forth battles ahead of us to deal with. Open Source operating systems and software has already reached the point of no return, it's just a matter of time, now You call the things I say rationalizations and justifications. Then again, perhaps my goals and yours are not the same. The goals of those other people, perhaps, are not as well. I don't mean to be undiplomatic, but people who achieve atypical results often find it difficult to appreciate the typical environment and results other people face. I certainly do. I don't understand it when people can't see the things I see. Naturally enough, that is frustrating me in this conversation as well. :-) Hopefully what I'm saying makes sense. There is a vast world of folks out there who are average joes. Many of those average joes think Linux is great. But find themselves in situations that don't allow them to use it in the workplace. They don't have the ability to effect change in an organization with 100,000 employees in the way that someone further up the food chain does. Aside from that, I probably don't care as passionately about destroying Microsoft as you do. It's funny, there are plenty of people I know who think I'm way over the top in my position on Microsoft, which is that their software sucks (for a lot of reasons) and their business practices are predatory and monopolistic. And yet I'm fairly mild compared to many in the FOSS community. I don't really care if MS is destroyed, their dominance is breathing its last gasps now and they can't even see it. Their destruction will come about through the inability to understand the sea change that has occurred. It's not so much that Linux will intrude into the customer base that MS already has, as the fact that the remaining customer base that will need and want computers is so much larger, and most of them will adopt Linux, that MS will simply be left behind. |
| tadelste Feb 01, 2006 6:17 AM EDT |
ecowper: I appreciate your response a lot. It really makes sense to me at this point. I also agree with your assessment of Microsft's position in the market. I also believe they will be left begin economically as they have been technologically. It's just a matter of time before the fall. Keep fighting the good fight and take care not to rattle too many cages. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!