Time Is Right For Linux Desktops
Joseph Marton
--
Joe
"Those of you who think you know everything are annoying to those of us who do."
Chupacabra
"Joseph Marton" <jmar...@SPAMhsemuni.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.04.02....@SPAMhsemuni.com...
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080401/ap_on_hi_te/linux_pcs_4
I think we've heard this for at least 10 years now. Every year is going to
be the "Year of the Linux Desktop", yet it never seems to happen. I know
that 8 years ago our CIO was proclaiming that Linux was going to soon take
over the desktop here, but that never happened either.
I have no doubt that Linux desktops will continue to grow their market share
(which won't be hard to do since it's near zero), but I don't think 2008
will be the "YOTLD" either.
Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong :)
KeN Etter
<jmar...@SPAMhsemuni.com> wrote:
>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080401/ap_on_hi_te/linux_pcs_4
I wish...
It isn't even an option here until it will run the
Architectural/Engineering applications that we use.
Novell....it does a server good!
Brad Averbeck
of customer demand. That's huge.
With all the negative press that Vista is getting, it is certainly
helping the MAC and Linux community. The problem with Linux on the
desktop is that the majority of people don't care about what OS they are
running. They want it to be like a cell phone and run the apps that are
cool or that they need and they don't want to have to "configure"
anything whether it's Windows, MAC or Linux.
Brad
Matthew
I think most people forget that its not really the OS, but the
applications. If the applications you want to use or have to use aren't
on Linux then you have very little reason to move to it. The same goes
for Servers. There's not much point in having Linux servers if the
software you need to use aren't available on it.
--
Matthew - The Great System Tyrant
--------------------------------------
http://www.mattography.net/
http://www.matthewdgood.com/
http://www.systemtyrant.com/
Chupacabra
"Matthew" <"system[remove]tyrant"@g[ee]mail.com> wrote in message
news:iWRIj.2809$fC5....@kovat.provo.novell.com...
> I think most people forget that its not really the OS, but the
> applications. If the applications you want to use or have to use aren't
> on Linux then you have very little reason to move to it. The same goes
Couldn't agree more. There's nothing "wrong" with Linux keeping it off the
desktop, but the inability to run line of business Windows applications that
don't have a Linux equivalent is a huge deterrent IMHO.
Matthew
One of the biggest ones is Microsoft Office for the desktop and SQL and
Exchange for the Server. Then you get into specialized software which
will not have any equivalent open source or Linux version. And lastly
you have the software that people just want to use.
Here's the kickers for me.
OpenOffice != WordPerfect.
MySQL != SQL Server (at least in the eyes of developers and neither is
PostgreSQL)
GIMP != Photoshop
Apples != Oranges
Mary Wood
thought the office could benefit from more citrus. Organic, open-source
citrus, of course.
dan c.
got. Is that mixing apples and oranges?
Joseph Marton
> I think we've heard this for at least 10 years now. Every year is going
> to be the "Year of the Linux Desktop", yet it never seems to happen.
From the article:
"Of course, prognosticators perennially say Linux is on the verge."
"This time, though, there's actually evidence of momentum."
Joseph Marton
> Couldn't agree more. There's nothing "wrong" with Linux keeping it off
> the desktop, but the inability to run line of business Windows
> applications that don't have a Linux equivalent is a huge deterrent IMHO.
Alex Inman has presented the past few years at Brainshare about how his
school district switched from Windows to SLED on the desktop, used
Citrix for Windows apps that had no Linux equivalent, and *still* saved
money.
No reason to run Windows on the desktop if that's the case.
Joseph Marton
> Except that vendors are actually preloading Linux on boxes now because
> of customer demand. That's huge.
It sho' is. You can now buy a PC from Dell preloaded with Linux and
save cash vs. the corresponding Windows model.
Matthew
> Chupacabra wrote:
>
>> Couldn't agree more. There's nothing "wrong" with Linux keeping it
>> off the desktop, but the inability to run line of business Windows
>> applications that don't have a Linux equivalent is a huge deterrent IMHO.
>
> Alex Inman has presented the past few years at Brainshare about how his
> school district switched from Windows to SLED on the desktop, used
> Citrix for Windows apps that had no Linux equivalent, and *still* saved
> money.
>
> No reason to run Windows on the desktop if that's the case.
>
Our application list:
TitleSearch (specialized software for our business; windows only)
SoftPro (specialized software for our business; Windows Only)
WordPerfect (OpenOffice isn't even close imho; Windows Only)
Symantec Q&A (Crappy legacy program that will never die; DOS baby)
The only other programs we use regularly are Thunderbird and Firefox.
Of course we are forced to revert to IE occasionally because some
developers think IE is the best browser ever. :P
I don't know much about Citrix environments, but given that we only have
19 workstations and one IT guy (me) I'm not really thinking that would
be a proper solution for us. That's really my feelings about a lot of
companies, but I'm probably making a wrong assumption about that.
Susan
Actually, this GIMP hack is pretty darn close to being Photoshop:
http://plasticbugs.com/?page_id=294 : )
--
Susan
Novell Community Chat Moderator
http://support.novell.com/forums/faq_rules.html
http://www.ncci.org NCCIrregulars Web Site
Mary Wood
Joseph Marton
> OpenOffice != WordPerfect.
It will never = WordPerfect, nor will it ever = M$ Office. It's not
supposed to be the exact equivalent. That doesn't mean it's not an
adequate replacement.
> MySQL != SQL Server (at least in the eyes of developers and neither is
> PostgreSQL)
I guess it depends on your application people. We are using MySQL here
for our mission-critical production database. If it's not working I've
got a number of traders who are DOWN. M$ SQL was never even considered.
> GIMP != Photoshop
I dunno, I like the thing that Susan posted.
Joseph Marton
> WordPerfect
> (OpenOffice isn't even close imho; Windows Only)
Interesting... I haven't used WordPerfect in years, but OpenOffice does a
good job at replacing M$ Office at least.
> I don't know much about Citrix environments, but given that we only have
> 19 workstations and one IT guy (me) I'm not really thinking that would
> be a proper solution for us. That's really my feelings about a lot of
> companies, but I'm probably making a wrong assumption about that.
We only have about 45 employees and one IT guy (me) yet we use Citrix.
It's not *that* expensive, especially if you get their most "basic"
edition (now called Advanced), and it's not too difficult to manage at
all. I've got a number of users who can't live without it now.
At this point I'm using it for both internal and external access to apps.
Instead of installing QuickBooks on PCs of the few people who use it I've
found it's easier to install it on one machine (the Citrix server) and
then use ZEN to give people access to the Citrix published app. QB is
such a pain in the rear to install I'm sure glad I only have to install it
once.
Joseph Marton
> Other than the huge cost of Citrix
Again, that school district *saved* money even though they implemented
Citrix. So yes in that case there's no need to run Windows on the desktop.
> and the extra administration required.
I guess it depends on how complex the environment is. We've got Citrix
running here and it really doesn't require that much additional
administration.
> Putting Linux on the desktop just to use Citrix to still run all your
> Windows apps seems a bit silly to me, but whatever works...
It depends on how many Windows apps you have, how many users need Windows
apps, how much you have to pay for your Citrix & SLED licensing, etc. If
every user needs access to Windows apps it probably doesn't make sense,
but in many environments not *every* user needs apps that are only
available on Windows with no Linux alternative.
Chupacabra
"Joseph Marton" <jmar...@SPAMhsemuni.com> wrote in message
news:24XIj.93$Dh...@kovat.provo.novell.com...
> Alex Inman has presented the past few years at Brainshare about how his
> school district switched from Windows to SLED on the desktop, used Citrix
> for Windows apps that had no Linux equivalent, and *still* saved money.
>
> No reason to run Windows on the desktop if that's the case.
Other than the huge cost of Citrix and the extra administration required.
You do gain the benefit of controlling the environment pretty well that way
though.
KittyNoLegs
jmar...@SPAMhsemuni.com says...
> Chupacabra wrote:
>
> > Couldn't agree more. There's nothing "wrong" with Linux keeping it off
> > the desktop, but the inability to run line of business Windows
> > applications that don't have a Linux equivalent is a huge deterrent IMHO.
>
> Alex Inman has presented the past few years at Brainshare about how his
> school district switched from Windows to SLED on the desktop, used
> Citrix for Windows apps that had no Linux equivalent, and *still* saved
> money.
>
> No reason to run Windows on the desktop if that's the case.
>
>
I'm surprised about the Citrix thing to be honest. We ran a cost
analysis here and the cost PER USER PER YEAR for doing Citrix (with all
licenses involved) was somewhere around $400/user/year
Much cheaper to just keep the existing Windows OS on the existing
desktop, IMO.
And if you go to Windows 2003 server, the cost of Citrix just went up
some more.
MS changed the licensing model so that you DO have to buy a Windows
desktop CAL now (unless you purchased your copies of XP prior to April
something of 2003 I believe).
So Citrix now costs you:
1) Windows 2003 server license
2) Windows 2003 Server CAL
3) Windows 2003 TS Device/User CAL
4) Citrix license
Add all those up with "maintenance" (ie; SA from MS And whatever Citrix
calls their upgrade protection nowadays) and it's about $400/user/year
NOT saying Citrix is bad (hey, we use it), but it's not always
"better/cheaper".
KittyNoLegs
<"system[remove]tyrant"@g[ee]mail.com> says...
> Chupacabra wrote:
> >
> >
> > "Matthew" <"system[remove]tyrant"@g[ee]mail.com> wrote in message
> > news:iWRIj.2809$fC5....@kovat.provo.novell.com...
> >
> >> I think most people forget that its not really the OS, but the
> >> applications. If the applications you want to use or have to use
> >> aren't on Linux then you have very little reason to move to it. The
> >> same goes
> >
> > Couldn't agree more. There's nothing "wrong" with Linux keeping it off
> > the desktop, but the inability to run line of business Windows
> > applications that don't have a Linux equivalent is a huge deterrent IMHO.
> >
> >
>
> One of the biggest ones is Microsoft Office for the desktop and SQL and
> Exchange for the Server. Then you get into specialized software which
> will not have any equivalent open source or Linux version. And lastly
> you have the software that people just want to use.
>
> Here's the kickers for me.
> OpenOffice != WordPerfect.
> MySQL != SQL Server (at least in the eyes of developers and neither is
> PostgreSQL)
> GIMP != Photoshop
> Apples != Oranges
>
>
>
And let's not forget all the VB apps that people made to front-end MS
Access, and Quicken (yes, I know you can use WINE and run like Quicken
2005 just barely in Linux), and of course, lovely IE. (pew pew)
Chupacabra
"Joseph Marton" <jmar...@SPAMhsemuni.com> wrote in message
news:S4XIj.95$Dh4...@kovat.provo.novell.com...
> From the article:
> "Of course, prognosticators perennially say Linux is on the verge."
> "This time, though, there's actually evidence of momentum."
Yep, same thing we've been hearing for the last 10 years :)
Joseph Marton
>> "This time, though, there's actually evidence of momentum."
>
> Yep, same thing we've been hearing for the last 10 years :)
What momentum has there been for Linux on the desktop the last 10 years?
Who has been saying that the momentum is there? I've not heard it. Yes,
people have been saying "Linux is the next big thing" for many years but
there haven't been signs of change. You couldn't buy desktops/laptops
preloaded with Linux. People were (relatively) happy with Windows.
Both of those things have changed over the past year, year and a half.
Chupacabra
"Joseph Marton" <jmar...@SPAMhsemuni.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.04.03....@SPAMhsemuni.com...
> It depends on how many Windows apps you have, how many users need Windows
> apps, how much you have to pay for your Citrix & SLED licensing, etc. If
> every user needs access to Windows apps it probably doesn't make sense,
> but in many environments not *every* user needs apps that are only
> available on Windows with no Linux alternative.
Agreed. Depending on your environment, it could definitely make sense.
It just killed me here at work a few years ago when some of the Linux
die-hards all wanted to run Linux desktops. They were all so proud of
themselves for being "Microsoft Free". It was interesting to note that they
always had multiple Terminal Server sessions running in order to actually do
most of their work, which required a Windows box :)
Chupacabra
"Joseph Marton" <jmar...@SPAMhsemuni.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.04.03....@SPAMhsemuni.com...
> What momentum has there been for Linux on the desktop the last 10 years?
> Who has been saying that the momentum is there? I've not heard it. Yes,
Not much, same as today. Every year there are proclamations that this will
be the "Year of the Linux Desktop", yet it never comes to pass. I predict
that this year will be much the same as the previous 10.
Linux will continue to make inroads on the desktop, but not in any
significant amount - at least in the US.
Matthew
> On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 20:52:09 +0000, Matthew wrote:
>
>> OpenOffice != WordPerfect.
>
> It will never = WordPerfect, nor will it ever = M$ Office. It's not
> supposed to be the exact equivalent. That doesn't mean it's not an
> adequate replacement.
OpenOffice would have been better off to mimic WordPerfect in many way
instead of MS Office, but I assume they did it because MS Office has
more users.
>
>> MySQL != SQL Server (at least in the eyes of developers and neither is
>> PostgreSQL)
>
> I guess it depends on your application people. We are using MySQL here
> for our mission-critical production database. If it's not working I've
> got a number of traders who are DOWN. M$ SQL was never even considered.
I read some article the other day comparing MySQL and MS SQL. They
still claim MySQL isn't Enterprise ready, but personally I think it
probably is. Even if it's not I read a few articles about how
PostgreSQL is. That's why I make mention of the fact that developers
don't use it and not that it's not a suitable replacement.
>
>> GIMP != Photoshop
>
> I dunno, I like the thing that Susan posted.
I've used GIMP a lot and it's just not as good as Photoshop in my
opinion. I've even used the hacked up version (which made it a tad
easier to use). GIMP isn't crap. Don't think I'm saying that, but it's
just not as good as Photoshop.
>
With that said please keep in mind that these are just my opinions based
on my needs or my office needs. Of course the point I was making was
that it wouldn't be worth it to me to switch to Linux on the desktop and
then run Citrix for our Windows applications since most of the
applications we use or want to use are Windows based only.
Matthew
So, so tird. :D
Joseph Marton
> I read some article the other day comparing MySQL and MS SQL. They still
> claim MySQL isn't Enterprise ready, but personally I think it probably is.
I'd be curious to ready why people claim it's not enterprise ready. It
sure seems here that it is. It's fast and reliable. The replication
works like a champ. And on top of that, the support (we pay for platinum
support from MySQL AB, now Sun) is awesome. Their support easily beats
support I've received from Novell, Microsoft, Cisco, etc. Those guys at
MySQL AB now their stuff inside and out, and they are very quick to
respond.
Joseph Marton
> Not much, same as today.
No momentum today? Only if you ignore the fact that more and more
desktops and laptops offer Linux as a preload option. Or if you ignore
the great wave of discontent with Vista.
Joseph Marton
> I'm surprised about the Citrix thing to be honest.
I was, too. I've never sat in his session so I don't know the specifics.
I'm assuming that Citrix does some pretty heavy academic discounting.
> We ran a cost analysis
> here and the cost PER USER PER YEAR for doing Citrix (with all licenses
> involved) was somewhere around $400/user/year
Hmm... that sounds really high. I can see the initial purchase being
$400/user, but I don't know about having to pay that each year. Here we
only pay about $40/year for our continued subscription.
> Add all those up with "maintenance" (ie; SA from MS And whatever Citrix
> calls their upgrade protection nowadays) and it's about $400/user/year
Oh... that's how you arrive at that figure. We don't buy SA from M$, but
we *do* buy the subscription from Citrix. With M$ coming out with new
versions of the OS only once every few years it's a complete waste of
money to buy SA from them. However as quickly as Citrix comes out with
updates paying for their subscription thing makes a lot of sense.
Chupacabra
"Joseph Marton" <jmar...@SPAMhsemuni.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.04.03....@SPAMhsemuni.com...
>> Not much, same as today.
> No momentum today? Only if you ignore the fact that more and more
> desktops and laptops offer Linux as a preload option. Or if you ignore
> the great wave of discontent with Vista.
I didn't say no momentum, I said "not much" momentum. Even with the preload
options, I don't expect Linux to make much of a dent in the overall desktop
market. That's just my guess though, I could certainly be wrong...
Matthew
> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:31:49 +0000, Matthew wrote:
>
>> I read some article the other day comparing MySQL and MS SQL. They still
>> claim MySQL isn't Enterprise ready, but personally I think it probably is.
>
> I'd be curious to ready why people claim it's not enterprise ready. It
> sure seems here that it is. It's fast and reliable. The replication
> works like a champ. And on top of that, the support (we pay for platinum
> support from MySQL AB, now Sun) is awesome. Their support easily beats
> support I've received from Novell, Microsoft, Cisco, etc. Those guys at
> MySQL AB now their stuff inside and out, and they are very quick to
> respond.
>
The reports I read claimed data corruption is still a problem (talking
about version 5). If they talked about which database they used I don't
remember it (prolly MyISAM).
Now as for developers. I've never had any come right out and say MySQL
(or any other database system) is crap. It's usually either they claim
to have never heard of MySQL or that it's only for web sites or they
claim that it's cheaper to support MS SQL Server. I'm sure some of it
also is that they started with MS SQL Server.
Matthew
> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:05:46 +0000, Chupacabra wrote:
>
>> Not much, same as today.
>
> No momentum today? Only if you ignore the fact that more and more
> desktops and laptops offer Linux as a preload option. Or if you ignore
> the great wave of discontent with Vista.
>
Of course I remember when you could buy Linux at Best Buy and remember
even seeing a few computers with Linux preinstalled back in the day (ten
years ago). Of course to be fair Linux has made a lot of progress since
then and is a much better OS now.
Joseph Marton
> Of course I remember when you could buy Linux at Best Buy and remember
> even seeing a few computers with Linux preinstalled back in the day (ten
> years ago). Of course to be fair Linux has made a lot of progress since
> then and is a much better OS now.
I remember being able to buy Linux in the store, specifically Red Hat. I
don't remember any machines with Linux preloaded though. Still now you
have major OEMs offering it preloaded such as Dell, IBM, and Fujitsu or
you have others that support it even though it's not preloaded like HP.
And even Wal-Mart has offered Linux PCs in its stores, and I guess now
they are going to move to offering them online. That's a lot more support
than there's been in the past.
G of Borg
> Citrix. So yes in that case there's no need to run Windows on the
> desktop.
FWIW, you are running Windows on the desktop...via Citrix.
You're still paying for Windows so why administer Linux as well?
Joseph Marton
> The reports I read claimed data corruption is still a problem (talking
> about version 5). If they talked about which database they used I don't
> remember it (prolly MyISAM).
Ah, I bet you're right and they were talking about MyISAM. We use InnoDB
here since we need transactions. I wonder how this new Falcon engine is
going to work. It's supposed to also support transactions, and my guess
is that they want it to work well since its an in-house solution as
opposed to InnoDB which is actually owned by Oracle. That's a scary
thought.
> Now as for developers. I've never had any come right out and say MySQL
> (or any other database system) is crap. It's usually either they claim
> to have never heard of MySQL or that it's only for web sites or they
> claim that it's cheaper to support MS SQL Server. I'm sure some of it
> also is that they started with MS SQL Server.
It's probably just because they are on the M$ bandwagon. Heck I could
probably setup a box running M$ SQL and I know nothing about the product.
G of Borg
> preload options, I don't expect Linux to make much of a dent in the
> overall desktop
> market. That's just my guess though,
I agree with you actually. I see more inroads in the corporate world
desktops by Apple than Linux. Linux has a strong presence in the server
room, but on the desktop it's still a no show. I've had a test Linux box
in a public area of the office for about two years. My observation
has been everyone complains about it because 'it's not windows' (Digression:
Yes I've made it look and feel as closely to windows as possible and I've
tried numerous variations to the desktop to see if I could change the
perception. The best result I could get was, Nice wallpaper or Nice
screensaver...Can I get that on my Windows box?) and it requires
proportionately more effort to keep it updated...especially
if you are running virtualization software such as VMware where every
kernel update requires recompiling the software. I use Linux on my desktop
but there's no way I'd recommend it for deployment in the general populace.
I'd just as soon suffer Vista annoyances right now. There's way too much
push back. Sorry that's my .02. I'll keep introducing it and when someone
says, 'Hey I want to use that!'...then I'll proclaim it's the year of the
Linux desktop.
Joseph Marton
> I agree with you actually. I see more inroads in the corporate world
> desktops by Apple than Linux. Linux has a strong presence in the server
> room, but on the desktop it's still a no show.
Other than in the graphics arts industry Macs are pretty much a no-show in
the corporate world, too. I see Apple expanding the Mac consumer market
thanks to devices such as the iPod, but I really don't see the Mac making
that much headway into the corporate world.
> I've had a test Linux box
> in a public area of the office for about two years. My observation has
> been everyone complains about it because 'it's not windows'
Well the same holds true of Macs. If people are upset that something
"isn't Windows" it doesn't matter if it's Linux or Mac. It's still going
to be different.
> I'd just
> as soon suffer Vista annoyances right now.
Whenever someone asks me what to do, I simply tell them to buy a business
model PC from HP or Dell and get it with either XP preloaded or with
included XP downgrade media. That's a better choice than going to Vista.
Matthew
> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 16:26:19 +0000, G of Borg wrote:
>
>> FWIW, you are running Windows on the desktop...via Citrix. You're still
>> paying for Windows so why administer Linux as well?
>
> again, just to find out. His entire session is about the advantages of
> this configuration and apparently there are advantages beyond simply
> saving money.
>
Well, I could see one scenario. Take just one class room for example.
30 student computers and one teacher computer. Maybe the students don't
use any Windows based products, but the teacher needs access to some
form of teacher software that only runs on Windows. One Windows license
vs 31. That is where the savings could be coming into play. Of course
now multiply that by the number of class rooms and savings could be good.
With that same scenario you can imagine if you have Windows software
that only a handful of people are going to use at the same time. That
could save money.
Now if 99% of the software you use is Windows only and 99% of your
employees have to use it then I don't think you are really gonna benefit
from a Citrix environment like that (other benefits I don't know about).
Joseph Marton
> FWIW, you are running Windows on the desktop...via Citrix. You're still
> paying for Windows so why administer Linux as well?
I guess I'll have to attend his session next year, assuming he gives it
again, just to find out. His entire session is about the advantages of
this configuration and apparently there are advantages beyond simply
saving money.
--
KittyNoLegs
says...
Yes, I noticed at Brainshare that all but maybe ONE of the companies on
those little videos were in Europe or Japan.
Of course, the US *LOVES* Microsoft.
KittyNoLegs
jmar...@SPAMhsemuni.com says...
> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:31:49 +0000, Matthew wrote:
>
> > I read some article the other day comparing MySQL and MS SQL. They still
> > claim MySQL isn't Enterprise ready, but personally I think it probably is.
>
> I'd be curious to ready why people claim it's not enterprise ready. It
> sure seems here that it is. It's fast and reliable. The replication
> works like a champ. And on top of that, the support (we pay for platinum
> support from MySQL AB, now Sun) is awesome. Their support easily beats
> support I've received from Novell, Microsoft, Cisco, etc. Those guys at
> MySQL AB now their stuff inside and out, and they are very quick to
> respond.
>
>
Perhaps the new version is better, but it's been my experience that if
the host server crashes, you run a very high risk of corruption and
having to repair MySQL is terrible. Had many SR's open with Novell with
Audit and we never were able to repair the database, so I had to scratch
it and start all over.
Same thing with my MythTV box. If it crashed, there was about a 50-70%
chance that MySQL would never work again and I'd have to redo the
database (or restore from backup).
Again, the latest version may be better, but IMO, MS SQL and Oracle are
much better for surviving crashes.
Joseph Marton
> Yes, I noticed at Brainshare that all but maybe ONE of the companies on
> those little videos were in Europe or Japan.
>
> Of course, the US *LOVES* Microsoft.
Either that, or Novell has some large customers in the US but because
those companies fear M$ they won't agree to giving their testimonials.
Joseph Marton
> Well, I could see one scenario. Take just one class room for example. 30
> student computers and one teacher computer. Maybe the students don't use
> any Windows based products, but the teacher needs access to some form of
> teacher software that only runs on Windows. One Windows license vs 31.
> That is where the savings could be coming into play. Of course now
> multiply that by the number of class rooms and savings could be good.
That is one possibility. However in Alex's case I think they're deployed
things a little wider than just one lab.
http://www.novell.com/success/whitfield_school.html
Joseph Marton
> Perhaps the new version is better, but it's been my experience that if the
> host server crashes, you run a very high risk of corruption and having to
> repair MySQL is terrible. Had many SR's open with Novell with Audit and
> we never were able to repair the database, so I had to scratch it and
> start all over.
We actually had two occasions where the filesystem containing the database
suddenly went read-only due to a bug in the Linux kernel involving SCSI
I/O in virtualized environments. Normally you would think if the db fs
suddenly went read-only while users were actively using the db that you'd
get corruption. However in both cases MySQL recovered quite nicely after
rebooting the VM. This is using MySQL 5 and InnoDB.
> Again, the latest version may be better, but IMO, MS SQL and Oracle are
> much better for surviving crashes.
Perhaps when compared with MySQL 4.1, but MySQL 5 sure seems pretty darn
reliable. At least that's how it's been for the past year that we've been
using it.
Matthew
> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 16:54:59 +0000, Matthew wrote:
>
>> Well, I could see one scenario. Take just one class room for example. 30
>> student computers and one teacher computer. Maybe the students don't use
>> any Windows based products, but the teacher needs access to some form of
>> teacher software that only runs on Windows. One Windows license vs 31.
>> That is where the savings could be coming into play. Of course now
>> multiply that by the number of class rooms and savings could be good.
>
> That is one possibility. However in Alex's case I think they're deployed
> things a little wider than just one lab.
>
> http://www.novell.com/success/whitfield_school.html
>
I figured that. I was just using the one classroom example. :P
dan c.
Mary Wood wrote:
> Harmonic convergence!
>
> dan c. wrote:
>> I'm getting an Apple Mac with an orange case, like the one my sister
>> got. Is that mixing apples and oranges?
>>
>> Mary Wood wrote:
>>> Maybe someday we'll be able to compute with oranges. I've always
>>> thought the office could benefit from more citrus. Organic,
>>> open-source citrus, of course.
>>>
Jim Henderson
> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 17:06:12 +0000, KittyNoLegs wrote:
>
>> Yes, I noticed at Brainshare that all but maybe ONE of the companies on
>> those little videos were in Europe or Japan.
>>
>> Of course, the US *LOVES* Microsoft.
>
> Either that, or Novell has some large customers in the US but because
> those companies fear M$ they won't agree to giving their testimonials.
Well, there's that as well as (I have heard rumours) some that don't want
to admit that switching to MS was a mistake - shareholders being what
they are....
Jim
--
Jim Henderson, CNA6, CDE, CNI, LPIC-1
Novell Training Services
Joseph Marton
> Well, there's that as well as (I have heard rumours) some that don't want
> to admit that switching to MS was a mistake - shareholders being what
> they are....
I could totally see that.
Jim Henderson
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> Well, there's that as well as (I have heard rumours) some that don't
>> want to admit that switching to MS was a mistake - shareholders being
>> what they are....
>
> I could totally see that.
I could as well. It's a shame, but it does make sense.
G of Borg
>
> Actually, this GIMP hack is pretty darn close to being Photoshop:
> http://plasticbugs.com/?page_id=294 : )
>
Personally I like GIMP, I even use it on my Windows box...although
it seems a bit less stable on Windows.
brain
> It's the same color as an orange Lifesaver candy! :)
mmmm, lifesavers
--
brain.c
dan c.
The GIMP install is probably okay, but the OS is wobbly... You think? ;)
Brad Averbeck
They didn't pay for Windows. They are only running the app and not a
full windows session. Alex helped write the code that integrates the
Citrix apps into the Gnome menu seamlessly.
They ordered their laptops without Windows on them, saving I believe
around $50 a laptop and then installed SLED images. Due to their
licensing agreement with Novell the SLED cost was minimal. The cost
savings with Citrix is they only had to pay for MS licenses that were
concurrently in use. As people got more familiar with Open Office and
other native linux apps, the number of people using the Citrix Windows
app dropped significantly and they didn't need as many licenses.
Here is his blog:
http://linuxlaptops.blogspot.com/
Brad
Brad Averbeck
and running so the cost of Citrix doesn't really come into play as it
was already part of the infrastructure.
Brad
Lee Garner
> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:31:49 +0000, Matthew wrote:
>
>> I read some article the other day comparing MySQL and MS SQL. They still
>> claim MySQL isn't Enterprise ready, but personally I think it probably is.
>
> I'd be curious to ready why people claim it's not enterprise ready. It
> sure seems here that it is. It's fast and reliable. The replication
> works like a champ. And on top of that, the support (we pay for platinum
> support from MySQL AB, now Sun) is awesome. Their support easily beats
> support I've received from Novell, Microsoft, Cisco, etc. Those guys at
> MySQL AB now their stuff inside and out, and they are very quick to
> respond.
>
You just have to be careful with replication, and be aware that MySQL
doesn't replicate records. There can be issues with this, but if you
work around them the replication works quite well.
Joseph Marton
> You just have to be careful with replication, and be aware that MySQL
> doesn't replicate records.
Yeah it replicates individual SQL statements. What's wrong with that?
Lee Garner
> On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 22:39:54 +0000, Lee Garner wrote:
>
>> You just have to be careful with replication, and be aware that MySQL
>> doesn't replicate records.
>
> Yeah it replicates individual SQL statements. What's wrong with that?
>
Good question. I didn't imply that there is. Like anything else, you
have to be aware of how it works.
Some queries can result in different updates on the slave than they do
on the master. Probably wouldn't happen often, but any updates just
have to be non-ambiguous.
I'm hoping that they come out with a good cluster arrangement. I
haven't looked at anything about version 6 yet.
Joseph Marton
> Some queries can result in different updates on the slave than they do on
> the master. Probably wouldn't happen often, but any updates just have to
> be non-ambiguous.
Oh... I know what you're talking about now. I remember this being
mentioned in the MySQL class I took. IIRC correctly if you do this one
type of column, maybe it was identity, then that could result in the data
on the slave being different than the data on the master. Yeah from that
standpoint it's not perfect but by golly you can't beat the price. :-)
> I'm hoping that they come out with a good cluster arrangement. I
> haven't looked at anything about version 6 yet.
Yeah I haven't messed with it either. I'm curious how that new Falcon
engine works. It's supposed to be a replacement for InnoDB, isn't it?
G of Borg
I think GIMP isn't yet fully optimized to run on Windows. :)
dan c.
that M$ *doesn't* play nice with!!! ;)