Sunday, September 21
''Review'' of Sun Java Desktop
Well, this "review" has been posted on Newsforge. Since Newsforge is pro Open Source, I wasn't surprised that it was a positive review. Unfortunately, it's a fluff piece. It has this, it has that. Guess what Chris Gulker, so does pretty much every modern Linux distribution out there, as well as the *BSDs. It sounds like Sun has tweaked the SuSE distro, and added StarOffice 7. It sounds like a nice distro. But this is supposed to be replacing Windows. What kind of comparisons were made to Windows? Nada. Nice talk about the Documents folder, of which I haven't a clue as to what he was raving about.
This Computer opened with a view of everything on my system that could store data including Linux and other hard drive partitions, CD ROM, floppy, Network Places and my own desktop Documents folder. Presumably this would be configured on production systems to restrict access to just local storage and the user's permitted LAN shares.
Emphasis mine. Has this reviewer ever done anything with Windows? Or is he a complete network newbie? Does he really understand why he'll see those shares?
A review I want to see is at least three fold.
First, how does the system install? How does the default install compare with Windows install? How hard is it to configure the install to be hands off compared to Windows? How much configuration is there after the installation between the two? A user can usually get Windows reinstalled by themselves, if not configured correctly. Can this same user do the same with this distro?
Second, how does that average user get around in this distro? How much retraining is needed? Is he comfortable with all the applications, word processing, spreadsheet, e-mail, calendaring, web browsing? What other applications does he use in his work, even if it's only once a year, are they available under Linux? Mainframe access? What about databases, are they available through a web interface, or are they using FoxPro or Delphi? Dial-up access? Is the printer they use even supported? An old OkiData Microline computer that produces labels might give considerable grief in trying to get it to work.
Third, how does the power or development user that really uses their PC to the max? Are they comfortable with it? Do they have all the applications available under Linux?
Fourth, Microsoft equivalents are good, but document exchange has to be tested. Losing formatting going in either direction is not a good thing. If creating large spreadsheets is part of your job (like The_Rose's), then you'd better make sure that both the Sun and the Microsoft versions can handle each other's big size. If you have a spreadsheet with lots of different functions, you'd better make sure that they come up with the same answers every time on both systems. One rounding error can cause all sorts of pain. On function returning too many or too few digits can cause problems as well. If there are problems, they probably be worked around. But if this is a replacement for Windows, there had better not be many to make. Ideally, there shouldn't be any.
And fifth, how much training is it going to take to make the Windows capable IT staff and move them to the Linux world?
Dollars and sense
I find it interesting that the $50 per seat per year is only if you are already Sun's Enterprise software, which is an extra $100 per seat. Which means for a transition of how much more hardware?
And why are you then tied into their server software?
If you have a bunch of seats, it sounds to me like you're better off hiring a Linux guru to take an existing distro and modify it your needs. If you have over 500 seats, then I'd say that would be your choice. Fixed cost, and you are more liable to have everything exactly the way you want it.
The big question
Is Linux ready to hit the desktop big time? In my (not so?) humble opinion, the answer is still no. It's getting a lot closer, closer than what Sun and Oracle were try to push at us 5 or so years ago. Linux currently has a market share of 2%, possibly bigger than Apple's Macintosh, if not very close to it. And the big problem with that market share is that most of those machines are servers, especially in the corporate environment. Even if there are more Linux server's than Microsoft servers (an issue that can truly never be proven one way or another), there are a helluva lot more desktop machines than servers, and for better or worse, Microsoft has the vast majority of those.
A personal note
I will state for the record that I as far as operating systems go, I am agnostic. What job are you trying to do on a computer? Pick the software that does that job, and then let that decide your operating system and/or hardware. But if you are talking about generic computing, word processing, spreadsheets, web browsing, e-mail, and stuff like that, I'm going to go with an Intel processor running Windows (probably 2000) every time. Yeah, I'm a geek, but even I don't run Linux on a permanent basis on my own personal computer. I've booted Knoppix off of CD ROM, and I played with Linux several years ago when you booted with a floppy. I cannot believe that my Windows box doesn't run like any other Linux geek's box. I'm even running on crappy hardware, a pitiful 450MHZ P3 with 384 megs of RAM (the max this box will take). My next box will be.... another entry, some other time. Permanent link posted by bytehead @ 9/21/2003 12:57:00 AM
Links to this post
