C
Canuck57
Guest
Re: Linux and Why Nobody Seems To Care.........
"Mike P" <privacy@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:69o5njF349gvlU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "the wharf rat" <wrat@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:g165ig$epr$1@reader2.panix.com...
>> In article <69ng8mF33j2j8U1@mid.individual.net>,
>> Mike P <privacy@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>I don't think he is. All the points made in this article are valid.
>>>
>>
>> Oh, horseshit. "Wobbly windows" ? "Afraid to upgrade"? Give
>> me a break...
>>
>>>to rebuild all those machines with Linux on them?
>>
>> And the IT manager for one of the biggest companies in the world
>> has never heard of an incremental rollout?
>
> Support manager please, there's three more tiers of bloody managers above
> me before the IT director! Yes, I have organised many incremental
> rollouts, but in the heavily audited and regulated world of
> pharmaceuticals, all our departments worldwide share data, everything has
> to be compatible at all times. That won't happen if we rollout Linux to
> the business slowly now will it? When we went from Win95>2000, we had no
> problems. Win2k>XP no problems. If we now have machines running Linux and
> throw them into the mix, we'd have nothing but problems (solvable yes) but
> we don't *need* these problems and the extra expense.
>
>>>Who's going to pay to retrain all my support staff to use a totally new
>>>OS?
>>
>> Just a guess, mind you, but perhaps the same executives who
>> considered the cost of retraining when they decided that moving to a new
>> platform was a cost effective solution to having their business held
>> hostage to Redmond?
>
> yes, they'd love to give me millions of dollars to waste on something we
> don't need, make it essential to train all our staff on a load of new apps
> (do you know how much IT training costs here in the UK?) . Wed;
>
>
>> In the cases where I've seen Linux make significant inroads on the
>> desktop it's uniformly been a "grassroots" movement. Typically a few
>> of the more technical employees will switch, and their success convinces
>> others. It's possible only in an organization that encourages its
>> employees
>> to think and gives them permission to innovate. That's probably why you
>> don't see it happen often.
>
> I think you'll find the company I work for one of the most innovative in
> it's field. Free thinking is encouraged, however making a decision to
> switch to Linux would be corporate suicide, certainley at present anyway.
> With Micro$ofts licencing, the prices of Windows on new machine being
> negligble, it just makes no sense whatsoever.
>
> Mike P
The reasons you are likely having Linux problems is that you do not have at
least one experienced Linux mentor. Same thing happened with Mainframers
doing Windows and UNIX. A mess. For example, you don't need to rebuild a
desktop to run wobbly windows unless it is an old release pre Compiz. Took
me 20 minutes and Compiz was working great.
My experience in such conversions is that there are 25% of the admin/support
staff that will not change. And use every opportunity to sabotage change.
Solution, lay them off and replace them. They are usually also the ones
that are not team players and a poor understanding of what they do.
And you get the same kind of problems on MS upgrades too. Unless of course
you are flush with cash burning a hole in your pocket, to update every PC at
once and have mastered Vista skills in advance.
I recommend you start easy. Load FireFox and Open Office on to the
MS-Windows machines and give it 6 months to a year. This allows the users
to adapt. There is not any more learning to do going from IE 6 to IE 7 than
there is from IE 6 to Firefox. Once they know these two apps, the change to
Linux is more natural.
If you are already using Vista, you are in for hurt. MS designed Vista not
to interoperate with non-Microsoft. Lock-in. But fortunately, they too can
be overcome.
"Mike P" <privacy@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:69o5njF349gvlU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "the wharf rat" <wrat@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:g165ig$epr$1@reader2.panix.com...
>> In article <69ng8mF33j2j8U1@mid.individual.net>,
>> Mike P <privacy@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>I don't think he is. All the points made in this article are valid.
>>>
>>
>> Oh, horseshit. "Wobbly windows" ? "Afraid to upgrade"? Give
>> me a break...
>>
>>>to rebuild all those machines with Linux on them?
>>
>> And the IT manager for one of the biggest companies in the world
>> has never heard of an incremental rollout?
>
> Support manager please, there's three more tiers of bloody managers above
> me before the IT director! Yes, I have organised many incremental
> rollouts, but in the heavily audited and regulated world of
> pharmaceuticals, all our departments worldwide share data, everything has
> to be compatible at all times. That won't happen if we rollout Linux to
> the business slowly now will it? When we went from Win95>2000, we had no
> problems. Win2k>XP no problems. If we now have machines running Linux and
> throw them into the mix, we'd have nothing but problems (solvable yes) but
> we don't *need* these problems and the extra expense.
>
>>>Who's going to pay to retrain all my support staff to use a totally new
>>>OS?
>>
>> Just a guess, mind you, but perhaps the same executives who
>> considered the cost of retraining when they decided that moving to a new
>> platform was a cost effective solution to having their business held
>> hostage to Redmond?
>
> yes, they'd love to give me millions of dollars to waste on something we
> don't need, make it essential to train all our staff on a load of new apps
> (do you know how much IT training costs here in the UK?) . Wed;
>
>
>> In the cases where I've seen Linux make significant inroads on the
>> desktop it's uniformly been a "grassroots" movement. Typically a few
>> of the more technical employees will switch, and their success convinces
>> others. It's possible only in an organization that encourages its
>> employees
>> to think and gives them permission to innovate. That's probably why you
>> don't see it happen often.
>
> I think you'll find the company I work for one of the most innovative in
> it's field. Free thinking is encouraged, however making a decision to
> switch to Linux would be corporate suicide, certainley at present anyway.
> With Micro$ofts licencing, the prices of Windows on new machine being
> negligble, it just makes no sense whatsoever.
>
> Mike P
The reasons you are likely having Linux problems is that you do not have at
least one experienced Linux mentor. Same thing happened with Mainframers
doing Windows and UNIX. A mess. For example, you don't need to rebuild a
desktop to run wobbly windows unless it is an old release pre Compiz. Took
me 20 minutes and Compiz was working great.
My experience in such conversions is that there are 25% of the admin/support
staff that will not change. And use every opportunity to sabotage change.
Solution, lay them off and replace them. They are usually also the ones
that are not team players and a poor understanding of what they do.
And you get the same kind of problems on MS upgrades too. Unless of course
you are flush with cash burning a hole in your pocket, to update every PC at
once and have mastered Vista skills in advance.
I recommend you start easy. Load FireFox and Open Office on to the
MS-Windows machines and give it 6 months to a year. This allows the users
to adapt. There is not any more learning to do going from IE 6 to IE 7 than
there is from IE 6 to Firefox. Once they know these two apps, the change to
Linux is more natural.
If you are already using Vista, you are in for hurt. MS designed Vista not
to interoperate with non-Microsoft. Lock-in. But fortunately, they too can
be overcome.
