Will Linux Finally Become The Alternative Desktop Operating System?

[urandom]

Not to sound like a typical Linux nerd but you guys do realize that all the various Linux distributions are basically the same right? The most annoying thing for me is directory structure. That seems to vary quite a bit. I wish all the linux distributions could agree on a standard directory structure. That will probably never happen now this far down the road.

[--------snip--------]

Think about that next time someone says something dumb like "Ubuntu is more stable than...SUSE" or other such nonsense. One is just as stable as the next because they are both essentially the same.

Next time think about the fact that vendors:

1/ Do patch upstream sources, all of them with their own patchsets, for example:

fedora kernel

http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/kernel.git/tree/

arch kernel

https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/tree/trunk?h=packages/linux

Do you really think this is "essentially the same" ?

2/ Use a different toolchain (glibc+binutils+gcc)

A binary built with gcc 4.6.4 is not the same as one built with 4.8.0

More aggressive optimization can trigger bugs from exactly the same code that seemed to be bugfree

3/ Use different configure options at build time, this means:

they may ship software with different functionality

binary may be linked against some extra library

eb:~$ readelf -d /usr/bin/mplayer |grep -i needed |wc -l

40

[eb@drama ~]$ readelf -d /usr/bin/mplayer |grep -i needed |wc -l

58

In conclusion, what you call "nonsense" is in fact a perfectly valid point

Last thing, about the directory tree, more and more vendors are considering simplifying it:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove

[NeverSure]

I don't like Microsoft, its business practices, its prices...

But something like 90% of all computer users have learned Windows. Generations of them us. There are so many power users, so many more things you can do with it because of third party development, so much more that's about networking including Server, so many small and large enterprises that have adopted Server and clients, so many people who effectively have college degrees in it, so many VP's of IT who know it, so many programmers...

Think of Silicon Valley that's so robust that it didn't even have a housing crash or a recession.

I think it will take both a major developing advance and a brand new generation of people to truly put Microsoft on the back burner. People are resistant to change enough as it is, without asking them to abandon years of immersion in a technology to save 3,000 baht.

If it makes anyone feel good, Google runs 100% Unix in all of its server farms. Imagine what they'd have to pay for that many licenses for Windows. I say 100%, but they do use Server and Windows in the "office" to do internal and external work that doesn't become part of the information we see. All of their employee desks have Windows as clients of Server. Linux can't match that. Even if it could, where would they hire the expertise to run it when all of the experts in enterprise computing are Microsoft adherents?

I'm MCSE/MCSA, MCP, A+, Net+ and Project Manager+. I have ZERO interest, as a baby boomer who started with DOS, starting over and learning a new OS. Heck, I am far from mastering my smartphone because of it.

I read a post above from a guy who I think said he spent 3 days or something trying to get linux running and gave up? That would be me. Why should I when I can make Windows and Server and Active Directory dance in my sleep?

I'm too old for that chit, hahaha, and so are most of the people running the computer and internet show today.

I admire you folks that are getting linux up and running. Some day it will be the "people's" OS and Billy P. Gates will be six feet under. It ain't happened yet.

[urandom]

If it makes anyone feel good, Google runs 100% Unix in all of its server farms. Imagine what they'd have to pay for that many licenses for Windows. I say 100%, but they do use Server and Windows in the "office" to do internal and external work that doesn't become part of the information we see. All of their employee desks have Windows as clients of Server. Linux can't match that. Even if it could, where would they hire the expertise to run it when all of the experts in enterprise computing are Microsoft adherents?

This post was brought to you by the 1990's

Do you think poor Google can't afford licences? I'd guess their primary benefit in using linux is open source code, they can implement whatever they need and whatever they want, they have their own filesystem [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_File_System ], they can easily work on improving TCP stack, think TFO, PRR [ http://googlecode.blogspot.com/2012/01/lets-make-tcp-faster.html ] and I'm sure there are countless other examples. As a side note, there must be some reason Goldman Sachs is using linux for their HFT systems and hired Ulrich Drepper. If you still think linux is only about getting a free OS (i.e. with no cost), you're missing the point entirely. Last thing about your comment WRT google employees, half of them are running linux and that includes desktop users [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goobuntu ]

Edited April 15, 2013 by urandom

[ITGabs]

If it makes anyone feel good, Google runs 100% Unix in all of its server farms. Imagine what they'd have to pay for that many licenses for Windows. I say 100%, but they do use Server and Windows in the "office" to do internal and external work that doesn't become part of the information we see. All of their employee desks have Windows as clients of Server. Linux can't match that. Even if it could, where would they hire the expertise to run it when all of the experts in enterprise computing are Microsoft adherents?

This post was brought to you by the 1990's

Do you think poor Google can't afford licences? I'd guess their primary benefit in using linux is open source code, they can implement whatever they need and whatever they want, they have their own filesystem [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_File_System ], they can easily work on improving TCP stack, think TFO, PRR [ http://googlecode.blogspot.com/2012/01/lets-make-tcp-faster.html ] and I'm sure there are countless other examples. As a side note, there must be some reason Goldman Sachs is using linux for their HFT systems and hired Ulrich Drepper. If you still think linux is only about getting a free OS (i.e. with no cost), you're missing the point entirely. Last thing about your comment WRT google employees, half of them are running linux and that includes desktop users [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goobuntu ]

But the thread is about Linux as Desktop... In a laptop the best option is to have Linux installed as a virtual machine in Windows, since the power energy optimization in all the current distros are very poor, and that need so much work in closed drivers (not open source) and stuff like that.

[NeverSure]

If it makes anyone feel good, Google runs 100% Unix in all of its server farms. Imagine what they'd have to pay for that many licenses for Windows. I say 100%, but they do use Server and Windows in the "office" to do internal and external work that doesn't become part of the information we see. All of their employee desks have Windows as clients of Server. Linux can't match that. Even if it could, where would they hire the expertise to run it when all of the experts in enterprise computing are Microsoft adherents?

This post was brought to you by the 1990's

Do you think poor Google can't afford licences? I'd guess their primary benefit in using linux is open source code, they can implement whatever they need and whatever they want, they have their own filesystem [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_File_System ], they can easily work on improving TCP stack, think TFO, PRR [ http://googlecode.blogspot.com/2012/01/lets-make-tcp-faster.html ] and I'm sure there are countless other examples. As a side note, there must be some reason Goldman Sachs is using linux for their HFT systems and hired Ulrich Drepper. If you still think linux is only about getting a free OS (i.e. with no cost), you're missing the point entirely. Last thing about your comment WRT google employees, half of them are running linux and that includes desktop users [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goobuntu ]

Anyone can contribute to Wikipedia.

Have you been in a Google server farm? It damn hard to get into one, believe me. My son is in management at their newest one in The Dalles, Oregon and I've had a tour. I'm also MCSE/MCSA etc. etc. and I knew what I was seeing.

The main plant is rows and rows of tall server racks filled with Unix machines for providing what we see as Google. The offices have Windows desktops, and the IT room for the enterprise has 6 Microsoft Servers with the desktops as clients. They are effectively their own ISP too, with their own gateway to the internet which uses Unix servers for the DMZ. The DNS, DHCP and Domain Controllers are all Microsoft Server.

That is their newest setup. Again, I've seen it.

The Dalles Server Farm. Link

[ITGabs]

If it makes anyone feel good, Google runs 100% Unix in all of its server farms. Imagine what they'd have to pay for that many licenses for Windows. I say 100%, but they do use Server and Windows in the "office" to do internal and external work that doesn't become part of the information we see. All of their employee desks have Windows as clients of Server. Linux can't match that. Even if it could, where would they hire the expertise to run it when all of the experts in enterprise computing are Microsoft adherents?

This post was brought to you by the 1990's

Do you think poor Google can't afford licences? I'd guess their primary benefit in using linux is open source code, they can implement whatever they need and whatever they want, they have their own filesystem [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_File_System ], they can easily work on improving TCP stack, think TFO, PRR [ http://googlecode.blogspot.com/2012/01/lets-make-tcp-faster.html ] and I'm sure there are countless other examples. As a side note, there must be some reason Goldman Sachs is using linux for their HFT systems and hired Ulrich Drepper. If you still think linux is only about getting a free OS (i.e. with no cost), you're missing the point entirely. Last thing about your comment WRT google employees, half of them are running linux and that includes desktop users [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goobuntu ]

Anyone can contribute to Wikipedia.

Have you been in a Google server farm? It damn hard to get into one, believe me. My son is in management at their newest one in The Dalles, Oregon and I've had a tour. I'm also MCSE/MCSA etc. etc. and I knew what I was seeing.

The main plant is rows and rows of tall server racks filled with Unix machines for providing what we see as Google. The offices have Windows desktops, and the IT room for the enterprise has 6 Microsoft Servers with the desktops as clients. They are effectively their own ISP too, with their own gateway to the internet which uses Unix servers for the DMZ. The DNS, DHCP and Domain Controllers are all Microsoft Server.

That is their newest setup. Again, I've seen it.

The Dalles Server Farm. Link

There is so much religious stuff about Linux and really who cares what OS they use in that datacenter to work, is not about being married with open source or with box software, there are good stuff everywhere, really I like linux as servers since windows are jokes! who real need mouse or windows to management a server and power shell or wherever kind of scripting provided by Microsoft, they will never be close to the Linux in performance, as we said in the office Microsoft make the easy things easy and the difficult one impossible.

[urandom]

If it makes anyone feel good, Google runs 100% Unix in all of its server farms. Imagine what they'd have to pay for that many licenses for Windows. I say 100%, but they do use Server and Windows in the "office" to do internal and external work that doesn't become part of the information we see. All of their employee desks have Windows as clients of Server. Linux can't match that. Even if it could, where would they hire the expertise to run it when all of the experts in enterprise computing are Microsoft adherents?

This post was brought to you by the 1990's

Do you think poor Google can't afford licences? I'd guess their primary benefit in using linux is open source code, they can implement whatever they need and whatever they want, they have their own filesystem [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_File_System ], they can easily work on improving TCP stack, think TFO, PRR [ http://googlecode.blogspot.com/2012/01/lets-make-tcp-faster.html ] and I'm sure there are countless other examples. As a side note, there must be some reason Goldman Sachs is using linux for their HFT systems and hired Ulrich Drepper. If you still think linux is only about getting a free OS (i.e. with no cost), you're missing the point entirely. Last thing about your comment WRT google employees, half of them are running linux and that includes desktop users [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goobuntu ]

Anyone can contribute to Wikipedia.

Please, there is a "References" section in wikipedia articles...

[NeverSure]

If it makes anyone feel good, Google runs 100% Unix in all of its server farms. Imagine what they'd have to pay for that many licenses for Windows. I say 100%, but they do use Server and Windows in the "office" to do internal and external work that doesn't become part of the information we see. All of their employee desks have Windows as clients of Server. Linux can't match that. Even if it could, where would they hire the expertise to run it when all of the experts in enterprise computing are Microsoft adherents?

This post was brought to you by the 1990's

Do you think poor Google can't afford licences? I'd guess their primary benefit in using linux is open source code, they can implement whatever they need and whatever they want, they have their own filesystem [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_File_System ], they can easily work on improving TCP stack, think TFO, PRR [ http://googlecode.blogspot.com/2012/01/lets-make-tcp-faster.html ] and I'm sure there are countless other examples. As a side note, there must be some reason Goldman Sachs is using linux for their HFT systems and hired Ulrich Drepper. If you still think linux is only about getting a free OS (i.e. with no cost), you're missing the point entirely. Last thing about your comment WRT google employees, half of them are running linux and that includes desktop users [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goobuntu ]

Anyone can contribute to Wikipedia.

Please, there is a "References" section in wikipedia articles...

I asked a question. Have you actually had a tour of a Google data center? I have been completely through the newest one, guided by my son who works there. It's almost impossible to get a pass to see inside a Google data center. They are downright paranoid secretive.

I told you what I saw, and don't give a damn what wiki says. I saw it.

Am I supposed to believe wiki, or instead my own lying eyes? I'm MCSE/MCSA etc. etc. and know a Microsoft client-server setup when I see it, and stand there and am told that's what they have as I look at it running.

Linux and not even Samba has no viable replacement yet for Active Directory. It's coming, but it's hard to operate and it isn't ready for prime time.

Even if it was, where do you find the admins to run it? Almost every current IT admin is trained in Server and has been for more than ten years. It's hard enough to find a good IT director for Microsoft products, let alone linux. Do you think that all of these people who for years, starting with university training, have run in a Server environment are interested in tossing all of that knowledge and learning a linux enterprise system? The answer would be "No."

And who makes the decision in a corporation as to what to buy and what to run? The IT department. And what are they comfortable with? Server.

This is getting ridiculous.

[urandom]

I asked a question. Have you actually had a tour of a Google data center? I have been completely through the newest one, guided by my son who works there. It's almost impossible to get a pass to see inside a Google data center. They are downright paranoid secretive.

if they let anyone's relative come inside and visit, they're nothing like paranoid secretive

I told you what I saw, and don't give a damn what wiki says. I saw it.

Am I supposed to believe wiki, or instead my own lying eyes? I'm MCSE/MCSA etc. etc. and know a Microsoft client-server setup when I see it, and stand there and am told that's what they have as I look at it running.

Linux and not even Samba has no viable replacement yet for Active Directory. It's coming, but it's hard to operate and it isn't ready for prime time.

Even if it was, where do you find the admins to run it? Almost every current IT admin is trained in Server and has been for more than ten years. It's hard enough to find a good IT director for Microsoft products, let alone linux. Do you think that all of these people who for years, starting with university training, have run in a Server environment are interested in tossing all of that knowledge and learning a linux enterprise system? The answer would be "No."

And who makes the decision in a corporation as to what to buy and what to run? The IT department. And what are they comfortable with? Server.

This is getting ridiculous.

seriously, you're living in the past. i'll stop here, this is boring. nothing personal.

[OxfordWill]

I believe him that he went around inside, but the thing about admins is debatable.

[NeverSure]

"seriously, you're living in the past. i'll stop here, this is boring. nothing personal."

"I believe him that he went around inside, but the thing about admins is debatable."

Think about it. The heads of IT are mostly middle aged or close to retirement. They grew up on DOS, saw the first incarnation of Windows, and studied Microsoft products in college because that's all there was. Mac did and does have a tiny market share and never developed a Server for enterprise use. Neither did anyone else. Unix was always around for file storage and sharing.

Almost anyone who has progressed to VP of IT is at least middle aged or more, and has his life learning in DOS to Server and Windows clients. He calls the shots when new hardware or software is deployed. Windows alone has about 90% of the market anyway, even outside the enterprise environment.

But inside the enterprise, there really is little to compare with Server. Yes, Unix is perfect for file sharing, even on the internet. It is also very good for a DMZ. But I have never seen Linux used in such an environment.

Even my laptop logs into server to get its files and even some programs. Without the connection to Server, even when in another country, it is basically a shell. That is very good in case someone steals it. There's little on it but the OS, drivers and some utilities. This is a very common enterprise solution.

Not only is there no actual replacement for Server, but people are resistant to change when they have their whole lives invested in something. The current batch of IT directors have their lives including their college invested in DOS to Server. They have enough trouble migrating to the latest iteration of Server if they decide to, and run it parallel to the older ones until they are confident with it. The new ones are just replicating the existing ones and acting as a lab until the head team decides to take it live.

For all the naysayers, I seriously doubt there's anyone here who can explain to me how to give an enterprise linux boxes, and then somehow start giving permissions to the various ones to be in the group that can access personnel files but not accounting files and vice versa, or push software to 100 new linux boxes with an MSI file, or push a requirement to change passwords to the everyone group and so on.

I don't think I'm discussing this with people who use Active Directory in an enterprise system.

[innerspace]

What percentage of enterprise web servers run windows? The expertise, demand and actual current usage is here already. Just because you cant do it doesnt mean everyone else cant!

[NeverSure]

What percentage of enterprise web servers run windows? The expertise, demand and actual current usage is here already. Just because you cant do it doesnt mean everyone else cant!

You just want to argue a moot point and I have no idea why.

Almost all of the heads of IT, and almost all of the other people involved in IT today are immersed in Windows and Server and have been using Microsoft operating systems for decades. It is very hard to find someone with that level of expertise for Linux.

I don't argue that things are changing and will change. Today, the people in the age group that are heads of IT know Server and Windows and you won't change them. It will take their retirements, and a new generation to make any significant migration away from MS products.

Not counting Android or iOS, MS still has 90% market share in laptop, desktop and Server. Linux is so small the number is unknown. Apple has about 2%.

Someone needs to get real about what's happening today.

[manarak]

I use debian on my servers, Win 7 on my workstations, because I am creative and like to be sidetracked. There is just so much more stuff out for Windows than for Linux.

If I was running a non-creative company, where employees just need an office suite, email and a browser, I would install linux on their boxes... and still have a Windows box in my office in addition to linux.

[NeverSure]

Apparently the are no Server domain controller admins on this thread. Apparently there is none who uses Active Directory to create groups and permissions, or to push software and rules. Maybe no one in this thread even knows what I'm talking about.

I certainly get that feeling.

[sustento]

Novell introduced Netware Directory Services 6 years before Active Directory was unleashed on the world. In fact Netware was selling server software in the mid 80s. One place I worked we had a Netware 2.12 server that ran for 4 years without a reboot. The only reason it was rebooted was that we needed to fit more memory. Microsoft came very late to the server party.

Edited April 16, 2013 by sustento

[manarak]

Apparently the are no Server domain controller admins on this thread. Apparently there is none who uses Active Directory to create groups and permissions, or to push software and rules. Maybe no one in this thread even knows what I'm talking about.

I certainly get that feeling.

I never used it other than hooking up some LDAP authentication facility to a PHP framework.

I don't really know what the advantages of AD are. Maybe big organizations have use for it.

Maybe it was also supportive in the "thin clients" hype?

Personally, I hate thin clients - they are good for the base bureaucrat grunts and for management.

Luckily, my work always required very fat clients with local admin

And I think linux has alternatives for all the uses you mentioned, but linux experts are needed to run them, and in the face of training costs, MS licensing costs are almost meaningless.

Plus, it is reassuring for management to know that someone can be sued if something goes wrong.

I totally understand why MS is dominant on corporate networks.

Edited April 16, 2013 by manarak

[dharmabm]

I had this conversation recently with urandom and played devil's advocate - AD brings together all aspects of enterprise domain management into one simple pretty package, but what I didn't say then (E) was that all that really accomplishes is to make it easy for people who don't know what the <deleted> they are doing to be system administrators. With all due respect for the time and effort it takes to get Microsoft certified, it doesn't really mean shit in the real world. I started with Novell and have managed ms domains for many, many years - but whenever I need some real work done, I ALWAYS turn to a Linux (or BSD) solution

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[NeverSure]

Novell introduced Netware Directory Services 6 years before Active Directory was unleashed on the world. In fact Netware was selling server software in the mid 80s. One place I worked we had a Netware 2.12 server that ran for 4 years without a reboot. The only reason it was rebooted was that we needed to fit more memory. Microsoft came very late to the server party.

Gee, about ten years ago I actually remember someone using Novell Netware (eDirectory.) I still know the guy. He works for a large enterprise using Server now.

You can't run Server for 4 years because you have to reboot for service packs, security fixes, etc. If I ran for 4 years straight I'd wonder why there had been no improvements to the system.

One issue is that there is so much 3rd party software available for Server both in management tools, and in user programs. For instance, there isn't an equivalent of Citrix available for Novell. There are several for Server.

Enough. Server has almost all of the enterprise market, and you are shouting into a vacuum.

I'm outta here. No hard feelings; I've just said enough.

[dharmabm]

Apparently the are no Server domain controller admins on this thread. Apparently there is none who uses Active Directory to create groups and permissions, or to push software and rules. Maybe no one in this thread even knows what I'm talking about.

I certainly get that feeling.

We're here, we just haven't yet decided if replying is worth the effort!

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[NeverSure]

I had this conversation recently with urandom and played devil's advocate - AD brings together all aspects of enterprise domain management into one simple pretty package, but what I didn't say then (E) was that all that really accomplishes is to make it easy for people who don't know what the <deleted> they are doing to be system administrators. With all due respect for the time and effort it takes to get Microsoft certified, it doesn't really mean shit in the real world. I started with Novell and have managed ms domains for many, many years - but whenever I need some real work done, I ALWAYS turn to a Linux (or BSD) solution Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I would say that your main limitation is the lack of 3rd party software compared to Server. Even if you honestly prefer, and are right that Novell is better, it still doesn't have the third party tools available, some of which are used by most enterprises.

And only those who haven't sat for the 7 four hour exams to get an MCSE knock it. Even the lowly A+ and net+ are worth the study. You always learn something, and those aren't Microsoft specific.

[NeverSure]

Apparently the are no Server domain controller admins on this thread. Apparently there is none who uses Active Directory to create groups and permissions, or to push software and rules. Maybe no one in this thread even knows what I'm talking about.

I certainly get that feeling.

We're here, we just haven't yet decided if replying is worth the effort!

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Or alternatively, you're afraid you'll get your ass kicked.

Seriously, I'm now outta here. I've said my piece.

[dharmabm]

I had this conversation recently with urandom and played devil's advocate - AD brings together all aspects of enterprise domain management into one simple pretty package, but what I didn't say then (E) was that all that really accomplishes is to make it easy for people who don't know what the <deleted> they are doing to be system administrators. With all due respect for the time and effort it takes to get Microsoft certified, it doesn't really mean shit in the real world. I started with Novell and have managed ms domains for many, many years - but whenever I need some real work done, I ALWAYS turn to a Linux (or BSD) solution Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I would say that your main limitation is the lack of 3rd party software compared to Server. Even if you honestly prefer, and are right that Novell is better, it still doesn't have the third party tools available, some of which are used by most enterprises.

examples please?

[dharmabm]

Novell introduced Netware Directory Services 6 years before Active Directory was unleashed on the world. In fact Netware was selling server software in the mid 80s. One place I worked we had a Netware 2.12 server that ran for 4 years without a reboot. The only reason it was rebooted was that we needed to fit more memory. Microsoft came very late to the server party.

Gee, about ten years ago I actually remember someone using Novell Netware (eDirectory.) I still know the guy. He works for a large enterprise using Server now.

You can't run Server for 4 years because you have to reboot for service packs, security fixes, etc. If I ran for 4 years straight I'd wonder why there had been no improvements to the system.

One issue is that there is so much 3rd party software available for Server both in management tools, and in user programs. For instance, there isn't an equivalent of Citrix available for Novell. There are several for Server.

Enough. Server has almost all of the enterprise market, and you are shouting into a vacuum.

I'm outta here. No hard feelings; I've just said enough.

i composed a brilliantly witty and verbose response to this in my head, but ultimately decided it wasn't worth the effort to type out. just out of curiosity though, have you completed 30 spins around that shiny thing in the sky yet? and do you drink coke, or pepsi?

[manarak]

For instance, there isn't an equivalent of Citrix

yuckerz.

They tried to put me on citrix once, that's the thing where everything is dead slow and nothing works besides the standard stuff.

nightmare!

[sustento]

I had this conversation recently with urandom and played devil's advocate - AD brings together all aspects of enterprise domain management into one simple pretty package, but what I didn't say then (E) was that all that really accomplishes is to make it easy for people who don't know what the <deleted> they are doing to be system administrators. With all due respect for the time and effort it takes to get Microsoft certified, it doesn't really mean shit in the real world. I started with Novell and have managed ms domains for many, many years - but whenever I need some real work done, I ALWAYS turn to a Linux (or BSD) solution Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I would say that your main limitation is the lack of 3rd party software compared to Server. Even if you honestly prefer, and are right that Novell is better, it still doesn't have the third party tools available, some of which are used by most enterprises.

And only those who haven't sat for the 7 four hour exams to get an MCSE knock it.

I got mine in 1999

[OxfordWill]

Apparently the are no Server domain controller admins on this thread. Apparently there is none who uses Active Directory to create groups and permissions, or to push software and rules. Maybe no one in this thread even knows what I'm talking about.

I certainly get that feeling.

I have used AD for a global company with 18 offices. I've used Samba for a local company with 3 offices. Not saying the two are equivalent. But it seems like we are talking about two things here. 1 is the web, and datacentres, and the other is companies/corportations. Or, serving versus sharing.

In both cases and both ways, it is not right to claim that because a single part of the whole does one job better, then that whole side is better than the other, or vice versa. Any IT setup that is worth anything at all is specifically responding to a certain set of needs. I think the OP meant "desktop" as in single user, at home, what will be used? Or, maybe he meant "offices". I think the two yield different conclusions, but not consistent ones, because offices have differing needs as do home users.

Edited April 17, 2013 by OxfordWill

[lapd]

MS is losing a bit of the desktop market but still dominates and probably always will. What seems to be more likely is that the desktop market itself is losing ground to new categories like tablets and smartphones. Both areas that M$ will probably never be able to gain ground over Linux.

[OldChinaHam]

"I would think that China will be quite important getting Linux more popularity. This is part of information protection."

If most users in China were required to purchase legal Windows products, everyone would be on linux. This is a reason to hope Microsoft will enforce locking of pirated software, which they dare not do, unfortunately. Microsoft will do anything to keep the China market, and the Indian market. There are two or more prices for software sold in the west developed countries, and the developing countries such as China and India. There should be one price for the same software in the US, Europe, and China and India.

[lapd]

Not to sound like a typical Linux nerd but you guys do realize that all the various Linux distributions are basically the same right? The most annoying thing for me is directory structure. That seems to vary quite a bit. I wish all the linux distributions could agree on a standard directory structure. That will probably never happen now this far down the road.

[--------snip--------]

Think about that next time someone says something dumb like "Ubuntu is more stable than...SUSE" or other such nonsense. One is just as stable as the next because they are both essentially the same.

Next time think about the fact that vendors:

1/ Do patch upstream sources, all of them with their own patchsets, for example:

fedora kernel

http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/kernel.git/tree/

arch kernel

https://projects.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/tree/trunk?h=packages/linux

Do you really think this is "essentially the same" ?

2/ Use a different toolchain (glibc+binutils+gcc)

A binary built with gcc 4.6.4 is not the same as one built with 4.8.0

More aggressive optimization can trigger bugs from exactly the same code that seemed to be bugfree

3/ Use different configure options at build time, this means:

they may ship software with different functionality

binary may be linked against some extra library

eb:~$ readelf -d /usr/bin/mplayer |grep -i needed |wc -l

40

[eb@drama ~]$ readelf -d /usr/bin/mplayer |grep -i needed |wc -l

58

In conclusion, what you call "nonsense" is in fact a perfectly valid point

Last thing, about the directory tree, more and more vendors are considering simplifying it:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove

Uhhh you are pointing out that different versions of a package are....ahhh...different. And that patching a package changes it. Gee, thanks for enlightening me. What about that other package they all use. I think it's called the Kernel. Not sure if it's important for stability or defining differences between them though....probably just 'nonsense' eh?

Edited May 25, 2013 by lapd