I'm supposed to be happy?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| SFN Apr 28, 2006 6:14 AM EDT |
This is the second time this has been suggested to me this month. The other time it was suggested by our core vendor. They proudly tout that all of their software runs on either Linux or Windows. After attending a session at this company's user conference, I was able to get the presenter to state what is meant by "runs on Linux". It turns out that it means you can run Linux on the desktop and connect via Citrix. So you still have to run Windows on the server. You have to pay for the server licenses plus client access licenses for everyone that connects to that server. Plus you have to pay for Citrix server licenses and Citrix client access licenses for everyone that connects to Citrix. So I get to have all of the insecurities and instabilities on my servers and pay most of the costs of running Windows plus the extra costs of running Citrix but get to say "at least I'm not paying the extra $100 per unit on the desktops". I assume everyone will forgive me if I don't jump for joy. |
| Skapare Apr 28, 2006 8:59 AM EDT |
There are problems with migration to Linux that many organizations will have, some more than others. Usually, most people can be migrated over with little difficulty. The issue is a few people for whom that migration is particularly difficult. Usually this is the result of a few special things those people need to do which is not readily doable under Linux. They could be left behind on Windows. But this creates problems because non-special stuff they do, such as creating documents that could just as well be created in either Microsoft Office or Open Office, will introduce compatibility issues. It also keeps tech support costs higher because it is necessary to support the full suite of Windows applications for these people just because they need one application that can only be run in Windows. Another option is to let them dual boot and switch between Windows for the special application, and Linux for the routine office applications. But I'll quickly rule that one out as a tech support nightmare ... and it annoys the user, too. Another option (and I've used at a couple businesses before) is to simply have 2 computers (though the situation was actually reversed ... the special application required Unix whereas all the routine office applications were on Windows). In most companies, a 2nd computer wouldn't be an option, though. There are 2 remaining major options. What you get out of these options is least-cost (though not zero cost) ability to let special people run special applications on Windows, while everyone uses Linux and Open Office for all the routine office stuff. This lets you get the migration to Linux done and over with quickly, without being held up by migrating the special applications (which could take months, years, or not even be possible). Later on you can then work on slowly moving the special applications over one by one in the order of easiest first. Those 2 remaining major options are using Citrix as the article suggested, or using virtualization on the user's Linux computer with something like VMware. The only reason I see for not making much of a jump for joy is that IMHO, VMware would be an adequate solution. OTOH, maybe CItrix would cost less (I've never worked with it). |
| jdixon Apr 28, 2006 10:13 AM EDT |
> Plus you have to pay for Citrix server licenses and Citrix client access licenses for everyone that connects to Citrix. I've never looked at it, but may be Win4Lin's Terminal server would be an option? http://www.win4lin.com/content/view/195/206/ for the Pro version http://www.win4lin.com/content/view/62/99/ for the 9x version. I suspect the 9x version will go away once the Pro version is officially released. With an option such as this, I'd think you could only run the number of seats needed at one time, not a seat for everyone. Of course, that's true for Citrix too. |
| grouch Apr 28, 2006 7:41 PM EDT |
I just can't work up any sympathy for any business which is still ultimately dependent on Microsoft for their survival. How stupid can you get? Any business unaware of the multitude of lawsuits lost or bought out by MS over its history is at best negligent. Any business that is aware of MS underhandedness throughout the years and still places itself at the mercy and whim of the predator is damn near criminally irresponsible. "Appeasement, said Winston Churchill, consists of being nice to a crocodile in the hope that he will eat you last. At the moment, the biggest crocodile in the world is Microsoft, and everybody is busy sucking up to it." --JOHN NAUGHTON, Columnist, London Observer "There won't be anything we won't say to people to try and convince them that our way is the way to go." --BILL GATES |
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!