How can Linux/BSD make inroads on office desktops?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Steven_Rosenber Oct 20, 2008 5:15 PM EDT |
Clearly the first thing you need in order to bring GNU/Linux and/or BSD onto the desktops of workers accustomed to Windows is IT staff or management committed to the idea in the first place. You'll never get there any other way. If said IT staff can clearly state what those desktops should — and will — be doing, a FOSS solution can be crafted, trained for, implemented and supported. And if the true, real job tasks can be easily accomplished with FOSS operating systems and/or applications, if money can be saved, security increased and user productivity raised, it could — and should — be happening. The problems that I've seen, especially in my shop, are huge, expensive specialized proprietary apps that require Windows or Mac OS. Replacing MS Office with OpenOffice and not using Exchange is easy; we've already done that. But that backbone publishing system, not to mention Photoshop (I don't use it, but I'm probably a minority of one) and the rest of the Adobe CS, especially Flash? That's a bigger hurdle. I think the company would be happy not to have its users running things like iTunes. For other companies, this might be more doable, especially with more apps in the enterprise being accessed entirely through Web browsers. (And yes, I think Google will crush MS in the office-suite space in the next 10 years.) Why developers of Web-based apps don't cast IE off into the wilderness and at the very least centralize on a browser that's supported on ALL major platforms instead of only one (albeit the most popular one ...), I don't know. Laziness, I suppose. But if Linux really has game in this instance, it should start happening. In my case, it's a major proprietary specialty application that keeps Windows dominant -- it even pushed Mac OS 9/OS X out of the picture in this shop. What's keeping it from happening where you are? |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 20, 2008 5:31 PM EDT |
Quoting:What's keeping it from happening where you are? The company I now work for isn't that interesting in this regard. It's already a mixed OS environment. There's about 30 people on Windows, 5 on Linux and 5 on Mac. You can run whatever you please. My previous company is much more interesting. Big, big enterprise with a gazillion of apps, some of which you will never get on Linux. I think for big enterprise to start on Linux desktops it needs far better integration with systems like Citrix. Yes, I know Citrix is the spawn of the devil but big enterprises use it a *lot*. What's needed is a better Linux client and a decent Linux server. There is a Linux client but there's one thing it doesn't do that the WIndows client does: Run a remote app outside the remote desktop and on your own desktop, as if it were a local app: i.e, no remote desktop in front of you. Just the remote application. There also needs to be a Linux Citrix server. Something that can serve remote applications to Linux and Windows clients. Currently Citrix only has Windows servers. So, at the moment you can switch the client to a Linux thin-client but you're still running Windows apps on the application server. With a Linux server you could start moving apps to Linux. I.e. move the OpenOffice.org application server to Linux and offer OOo on Linux instead of OOo on Windows. For users this is totally transparent. They wouldn't notice a *thing*. This way you can move all your application servers to Linux, keep your legacy apps on Windows and offer them transparently to any Citrix client. You could log in to your desktop and run Windows and Linux apps at the same time, totally transparent. At that point you can change all the clients and all desktop servers to Linux and the only thing that users would notice is that their wallpaper changed :-) |
| jhansonxi Oct 20, 2008 6:55 PM EDT |
What's wrong with VMware, Wine, and RDC? |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 20, 2008 7:28 PM EDT |
Quoting:What's wrong with VMware, Wine, and RDC? Those are something completely different. Citrix is about centralised management and deployment of applications and thin client desktops. Think LTSP but with each application running on a separate server. |
| d0nk3y Oct 20, 2008 7:38 PM EDT |
How about the 2X server? That would at least give you seamless Windows apps inside a linux desktop. They may even have something that will give you the functionality of a 'linux citrix server'.... |
| jdixon Oct 20, 2008 11:36 PM EDT |
> There is a Linux client but there's one thing it doesn't do that the WIndows client does: Run a remote app outside the remote desktop and on your own desktop, as if it were a local app: i.e, no remote desktop in front of you. AFAIK, the Linux Citrix client does this. Have you looked at it recently? I'll have to test at work to be certain, but the last time I tested it, it seemed to work the same as the Windows client. The only problem I found was that there were issues with printing. Codeweavers used to offer something I believe they called Crossover server, which was pretty much a replacement for Citrix for Crossover supported apps, but it's no longer mentioned on their website. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 21, 2008 12:53 AM EDT |
Quoting:AFAIK, the Linux Citrix client does this. Have you looked at it recently? It's been about a year and a half. I see from the Citrix Client feature matrix on the website that seamless windows are now supported, so that's a new feature I think. It didn't work with the ICA client I used 18 months ago. But they're still short a Linux application server. Quoting:How about the 2X server? That would at least give you seamless Windows apps inside a linux desktop. They may even have something that will give you the functionality of a 'linux citrix server'.... There's two problems with 2X: 1) It doesn't have a Linux application server either. Only WIndows 2008. 2) It's not Citrix. So, there is no easy migration path for the vast bulk of large enterprises that currently have Citrix deployed. You need something that works inside the currently deployed Citrix rollouts. The 2X Desktop server seems to be able to access application deployed with a Citrix application server, but I found nothing that said that an application hosted on 2X application server can be used by clients who use a Citrix desktop or Citrix ICA clients. |
| tuxchick Oct 21, 2008 1:14 AM EDT |
Seems to me the end result will always be the same-- savvy users will learn their shiny new Linux systems quickly, and whiny old blockheads who hate computers and hate to learn anything will complain. So admins might as go for it and set up whatever backend they prefer.Quoting: Clearly the first thing you need in order to bring GNU/Linux and/or BSD onto the desktops of workers accustomed to Windows is IT staff or management committed to the idea in the first place. Very true. |
| jdixon Oct 21, 2008 6:37 AM EDT |
> But they're still short a Linux application server. Yes, but I suspect there are technical reasons for that. As Codeweavers can tell you, running Windows applications on Linux isn't a simple task. But which is better, a dozen or so Windows servers (which can be controlled by IT) or 100's of Windows desktops under control of the individual users? |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 21, 2008 10:31 AM EDT |
Quoting:As Codeweavers can tell you, running Windows applications on Linux isn't a simple task. You miss my point jdixon: I want a Linux application server that can serve Linux applications to ICA clients. Citrix Application Server is already used to serve the Windows applications. |
| NoDough Oct 21, 2008 11:32 AM EDT |
Steven, Same story here. In my shop I have... * an ERP application that is Windows only and integrates with MSOffice and Outlook (Citrix enabled) * a graphical construction estimating package that is Windows only and integrates with MSOffice (non-Citrix) * AutoCAD All three are major barriers for Linux (or, for that matter, Macs, BSDs, Sun, anything non-Windows.) |
| number6x Oct 21, 2008 12:58 PM EDT |
The quickest way to get companies to switch from Windows to Linux or BSD might be to have the BSA and some Federal Marshalls kick in their doors and do a anti-piracy raid.
http://news.cnet.com/2008-1082_3-5065859.html
http://www.ernietheattorney.net/ernie_the_attorney/2003/09/m... Happy anti-piracy day! |
| gus3 Oct 21, 2008 1:41 PM EDT |
On a similar note (pun intended): http://www.xkcd.com/488/ |
| jdixon Oct 21, 2008 2:26 PM EDT |
> You miss my point jdixon... You're correct, I did miss your point. However, when you're running Linux servers, why do you need the ICA client? X already lets you run server apps seamlessly on your local machine. And for Windows you can use Cygwin. Am I missing something else? Or is it just that you want to run the apps in Windows the same way you're currently doing so as to not confuse the users? |
| rijelkentaurus Oct 21, 2008 3:32 PM EDT |
I think we'd just be talking about a shell script or batch file to run an app over X seamlessly, much like most people click on a Citrix shortcut to run a desktop or application. Citrix is largely accomplishing for Windows what X natively does for Linux. For heavy apps, however...and I mean graphically heavy...X can be rather slow over a slow connection, or over a connection where a multitude of users are on it. This is the one place where Citrix shines, it compresses nicely and displays graphics nicely. We use a .NET app (ConnectWise), which paints slowly over RDP, but runs perfectly over Citrix. Any way to effectively compress the X traffic better? |
| phsolide Oct 21, 2008 5:07 PM EDT |
A lot of the *stated* reason that corporations force users to Windows comes from two things: 1. Outright control freakery by the morons that run the "unified helpdesk" or whatever your big company calls it. They want to have the ability to "staff" the "help" desk with simians, and that means a single script to follow. If they let people run Linux, there'd be hell to pay when Joe Lemur "mans" the helpdesk and has to deal with an unusually configured desktop. 2. Bribes and payoffs to middle managers to put Windows in place. It doesn't take much to get someone who managers grunts to agree to a particular vendor, sometimes as little as a couple of hundred bucks. I often forget about the control freakery aspect. Sometimes I bring up how little I can configure my work "Windows" desktop relative to my carefully tuned X configuration. Doesn't matter. The control freakery aspect means that configuration is anathema. I'm an "information worker" and Word+Access+PowerPoint+Toad ought to be enough to make anyone happy. What do you mean you like "implicit copy" when highlighting? What do you mean by "focus follows mouse?" Never heard of it. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 21, 2008 5:33 PM EDT |
Quoting:Am I missing something else? Or is it just that you want to run the apps in Windows the same way you're currently doing so as to not confuse the users? I am thinking about the current 98% of big multinationals that run on Citrix. They have vast arrays of Windows Citrix servers that serve Windows apps to Citrix clients. These clients are mixed. Many people use Windows or Linux powered thin clients. Some people have a use for fat clients (photoshop, autocad) so they use a full Windows computer with ICA client installed. Geeks like me simply throw corporate policy to the wind, install Linux on their laptop and install the ICA Linux client. So, the client side is mixed but the server side is 100% Citrix-on-Windows. There's huuuge gains to be had there since many applications could be replaced by similar apps (or even the same app) running on Linux. But there is no way to serve a Linux application to the ICA clients. |
| Steven_Rosenber Oct 21, 2008 7:14 PM EDT |
P.S. I'm pricing desktops right now, and in the "home" portion of the Dell site, an Inspiron 530 or 530s with monitor is $469 with Windows Vista, while an Inspiron 530n with monitor is only $428 with Ubuntu. What I'd really like is the smaller case of the 530s but with Ubuntu ... but still, that's a $41 savings for choosing Ubuntu instead of Vista |
| Steven_Rosenber Oct 21, 2008 7:24 PM EDT |
Maybe the growth market for FOSS operating systems and applications is in smaller businesses that are using non-customized proprietary apps right now. Aside from the huge apps, my company doesn't buy MS Office; we use OpenOffice. We have a Web portal interface for e-mail. Both of these apps can run on any platform. Quite a few of us use Google Apps (Docs, Gmail ...). So from that perspective, we could be using any platform. Are there instances where from the perspectives of hardware cost (and life expectancy) and support cost where a GNU/Linux desktop makes more sense? I don't know a lot about remote management of desktops, but I imagine that tools in Red Hat and Ubuntu (and perhaps others) can be very helpful in this regard. Things like centrally managed repositories to control installs and updates come into play as well. I know our XP desktop situation, in which any user can add any number of Windows applications pretty much at will, is a continual disaster. |
| jdixon Oct 21, 2008 8:41 PM EDT |
> But there is no way to serve a Linux application to the ICA clients. OK. That makes sense. Hmm. You can run the Linux applications directly on your Linux clients. You can run Cygwin on the Windows boxes and do the same thing. But neither of those uses the existing infrastructure. Silly questions, which probably no one knows the answers to: Will Cygwin install/run on a Citrix server or will KDE 4 install on one? Cygwin only gives you limited options, but I know compiling under Windows was one of the lesser goals of KDE 4. If it works on Windows, it may well work on a Citrix server. If so, that opens up a lot of possibilities. I agree that having the ability to serve Linux apps to your ICA client would be a good thing though. How open are the Citrix protocols, I wonder. Reverse engineering may be a possibility. |
| tracyanne Oct 21, 2008 10:09 PM EDT |
One of the blokes here is jumping through the usual Microsoft generated hoops, attempting make a copy of a running Windows system. One of the problems he has is that because Microsoft tend to cripple software to make it non functional in siruations they don't approve of, he can only do this on Windows XP professional and Windows Server 2003. How easy, or difficult is it to make a functioning copy of a running Linux server or desktop? |
| rijelkentaurus Oct 21, 2008 10:16 PM EDT |
Existing infrastructure becomes legacy quickly. Depending on how quickly Citrix removes versions from support, and how quickly Server 2008 catches on, your infrastructure might become obsolete in short order. Server 2008 will publish applications without the aid of Citrix...which still leaves us with Windows-based apps, of course. However, since Server 2008 will require more and more powerful hardware to run (being essentially Vistar Server), the argument could be made to switch over to Linux-based applications to reuse the hardware already in place. Is it possible to use Cygwin on the Citrix server to tunnel X apps, and then publish that as a Citrix app? A lot of tunneling, but doable? That way Citrix is really just a frontend to your Linux server. |
| techiem2 Oct 21, 2008 10:18 PM EDT |
Quoting:How easy, or difficult is it to make a functioning copy of a running Linux server or desktop? hmm.. Plug drive into host box externally. Partition same as host and mount the partitions. Copy everything over from host. Put drive in new server. Boot from CD. Reinstall grub (actually you could probably do this from the host machine). Tweak any desired settings in /etc or wherever. Boot. I'm guessing that would work. :) |
| tracyanne Oct 21, 2008 10:25 PM EDT |
No it's got to while running. |
| techiem2 Oct 21, 2008 10:50 PM EDT |
That's what I was aiming for.
Copying the currently running machine to a disk to make a cloned machine. :) Host = running machine you want to copy. |
| tracyanne Oct 22, 2008 12:05 AM EDT |
I could also do this into a virtual machine too, I suppose. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 22, 2008 2:13 AM EDT |
Quoting:Will Cygwin install/run on a Citrix server or will KDE 4 install on one? Given that they're normal Windows Server 2008 boxes, yes. However, I don't think that Citrix App server will serve Cygwin applications since they're not Windows applications. Citrix probably hooks into the window manager an ui toolkit of Windows. KDE4 apps may or may not work. It depends on how Qt4 works on Windows. If Qt4 uses the standard WinForms or MFC to draw widgets, it probably will work. Quoting:How open are the Citrix protocols, I wonder. Reverse engineering may be a possibility. Well, the protocols are at least partly figured out. The 2X desktop server gives thin clients a desktop on which you can run ICA applications served from both Citrix app servers and their own 2X app server. Also, gnome's "tsclient" terminal service client claims to be an ICA client (though I never got it to work when I used Citrix). Quoting:Depending on how quickly Citrix removes versions from support... Not very fast. It would be corporate suicide if they did, because large enterprises have invested heavily in their existing infrastructure. I know that my former company still has Citrix 4.0 and 4.5 on Windows 2000. |
| rijelkentaurus Oct 22, 2008 8:59 AM EDT |
4.0 ends in a year, 4.5 in 2011. Unless they get purchased by Microsoft, at which point all bets are off. |
| jdixon Oct 22, 2008 12:50 PM EDT |
> The 2X desktop server gives thin clients a desktop on which you can run ICA applications ... Also, gnome's "tsclient" terminal service client claims to be an ICA client... Those are going the wrong way. You want something which will "encode" a running Linux app into an ICA stream which can be accepted by any ICA client. That should be doable if we have open source ICA clients. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 22, 2008 5:50 PM EDT |
Exactly. Somebody just needs to do it already. I think this could be a big win for FOSS. |
| jdixon Oct 22, 2008 6:44 PM EDT |
> Somebody just needs to do it already. Somebody who's a programmer, which lets me out. :( |
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!