Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
From Windows to Linux - and back again
itwire.com — Seven years ago, Strathcona Baptist Girls Grammar School, which is situated in a suburb of Melbourne, took a step that made it stand out from other educational institutions. he school decided to adopt Linux on the desktop on a fairly large scale, with about 350 workstations being installed with the free operating system.
- 1071 diggs
- digg it
-
Great article. In summary, people were asking for windows machines at work since that is what they had at home, but the reason why the school switched is that Windows and office came pre-installed on new hardware and this was not negotiable. The school administrator is disappointed since he found that Linux boxes were more stable and easier to maintain than previous Win98 boxes. Right now people are finding it difficult to switch from Linux, and people who had the most problems with Linux now have the most problems with Vista.
-
This is what I got out of it.
1. The school wanted low overhead, so they move to linux.
2. Users complained 'cause it wasn't Windows.
3. They switch to Vista/Office '07.
4. Users complain 'cause it's Vista.
5. The school now spends 4x as much on IT and still gets 100% of the complaints.
Moral of the story: tell the users to STFU and GBTW.
(I work in tech support and I approve of this message.) -
The school's IT department has no backbone. They never really switched over to linux anyway, as they kept some dual boot machines around. Also, the didn't take the time to research alternatives to their MS programs. Shame on their IT department for being so short sighted. So now they're stuck with Vista. People will still complain that it's not like the traditional windows and now they're paying a pretty penny for it. That's just too bad. Btw, wine can run Adobe products now, so we won't have to use windows to run Adobe software.
-
So basically, people don't like change?
-
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. They should have kept the Linux machines. Also if a school wants to create students who are competent with computers, the students need to learn to adept to whatever OS is running. Personally, as a personnel officer, I would be reluctant to hire somebody for an IT company if they can't switch between OSes easily.
-
***** me, If people find the UI changes difficult using Vista from XP, try switching XP to Linux, or XP to Mac.
-
This is interesting. I really think that Linux is ideal for schools, because of the cost and amount of freely available educational software. Further, what are these teachers doing on their work computers? Further, I really think that support is overrated. I would rather just Google the answer any day of the week than sit on the phone.
-
This school is in Victoria......I don't know what it is like in other states, but using Linux now days would have no financial benefit anymore as Microsoft Windows and Office is volume licensed to all Victorian schools by the Department of Education. All staff PC laptops (IBM/Lenovo Thinkpads) come pre-installed with everything, and MacBooks come pre-installed with office for Mac AND boot camp is setup with a DE&T image XP and Office.
There is a common ISO image of XP and Office that all schools use. I believe Vista is also available, but our school hasn't received the media yet (I think they've been waiting for SP1 which came out a couple of days ago). -
The school in question is a private school, so I doubt it would get the same volume licensing benefit as the state schools from the Victorian Government.
-
I don't care what the system is, the UI should be a simple dashboard with a launchpad of very limited numbers of applications. It shouldn't look like Windows OR Linux. It should simply launch programs from giant buttons on the middle of the screen. People should not be able to see any folder other than their folder. This is a school. And they should run MS Office on some machines or have virtualisation on the Linux boxes if it's really that important.
What they've done is idiocy. It wastes money. Money that should have gone to other IT costs, like more computers. -
you should have gone ith mac dude, linux windows please mac is weere it is right now.
once you go mac you'll never go back -
I'll gladly digg up any Linux article that doesn't soley consist of the same old:
"I switched to Linux. It was hard to use at first, then I used the forum. After a month or two, I got really used to it. I tired to get someone else to try out Linux, but they just 'didn't get it' or haven't gotten around to it yet. I wish there was more compatibility with Linux distro's!"
It's nice to know that people are willing to try out a new operating system every now and again (I'm personally excited to try out Red Hat on my campus for one of my classes), but it gets a tad stale reading the same thing over and over again; although I guess that's what digg is all about :P -
Vista is *****. The whole world knows it. This is inescapable.
There are ***** cars around, some people still choose to drive them. Same thing here. -
FROM THE ARTICLE:
> Perkins decided to standardise on StarOffice...The move ended up saving a lot of money in licensing costs...The money saved was used to upgrade hardware at the school and also to provide for more PCs.
Staff has Linux desktops. 12 XP laptops available to staff were "rarely borrowed".
> Complaints about Vista had now started surfacing (*****, no surprise there!)
> he found some real plus points with the Linux systems. Administration work was much less, there was very little downtime, and there were no viruses.
AND most importantly of all:
> He did not wish to put a figure on the cost of migrating to Vista; all he said was that the school's IT budget had now increased four-fold or more.
So, in summary - Vista is both ***** and expensive, Linux is great, and cheap. Nice. -
With the technology we have today there is no reason you can't run Windows and Linux at the same time. Hell, even put a GDM session in that automatically logs into a Windows session. Virtualization is pretty amazing. And it's only going to get better with AMD working on video card virtualization, all games should work flawlessly in a virtualized machine as well.
-
Switching over to Linux 7 years ago was the mistake.
Depending on just what you users are doing really depends on if you can switch to Linux without retooling all your users. If users have a complex list of apps they use, Linux is a bad choice, especially 7 years ago.
As it stands today, there is little reason to use Linux as a desktop unless your desktop needs are very simply. The cost differences are minimal and hiring Linux admins cost a lot more than Windows admins, so the little bit of savings in software costs are easily offset, especially with only a medium sized network.
If you were replacing a couple hundred or more computers that say, ran a warehouse app and that's all, Linux is a good candidate, but in the end so is XP. In most ways Linux is overkill for the simple tasks that it's best at.
It does make sense to keep home users on the same OS and that's always been an advantage for MS. As OS's get more and more complex and so do their respective apps, this argument becomes more and more true.
You just don't save much with Linux, so DON'T switch to Linux for savings unless your desktops are more like appliances such as time clocks, or a web browser.
IF your users multitask, it means your asking them to learn a host of new applications for the mere sake that your IT department gets a woody over Linux.
In reality, most IT departments do very little, so the argument that they need Linux so they can do even less or save 50 bucks per computers was just never valid to begin with.
The only reason to use Linux is because it's the right solution, such as for security and stability, otherwise XP is easier, it's interface is more reliable, vastly more people know how to use it and it's stable and secure enough.
What more important to your company. What OS you use or you ability to hire users and get them into their job quickly. You're asking them to learn a platform that they will likely ONLY ever use at this one job and they aren't get paid extra.
Making employees unhappy for the sake of slightly lower IT costs is just stupid. Your business's success is primarily in it's employees not it's OS's choices.
So, you have to know WHEN it make sense to use Linux. If you users do a variety of work at their desktops, stay away from Linux until their is better cross platform support or you may back yourself into a corner for no good reason. These days XP is more secure than in the raging days of spyware and that was almost certainly IT's biggest reason to move to Linux in a true desktop setting were users have internet access and use their desktop for a variety of purposes.
I used to get questions from IT directors all the time, how do I stop spyware. Fortunately firefox came around and for most departments it was the most reliable way to greatly reduce spyware infestation. Better browser security and better real time malware scanning has helped also.
Unless it runs one app all the time like an appliance I still see Linux as a bad investment for most businesses. Chances are your emlpoyees are the weak point in production, not the OS. Making them learn Linux will only make things worse because chances are this is not a PC oriented job, but rather a variety of small jobs that require a variety of apps. These employees will not be highly proficient and will not like the Linux learning curse.
If you want Linux, then forget about saving money and replace it with Mac, it's all NIX so you may as well go with Mac for the better hardware/software support and ease of use.
You can't really cut corners on hardware, so the OS cost should be considered negligible. Even windows terminal server comes out to be a pretty good deal for most companies and you have a MUCH wider selection of admins to hire, which means you can pay them less.
Switching to Linux 7 years ago was an idiotic idea for any but the most simple IT department. Windows market share is going strong and Vista is only bad if you have a slow PC with low ram beside that it's more secure easily than XP.
In the big scheme of things what's switching to Linux really going to save you maybe 20% IF that. Most of the costs are for hardware, not software and you can't avoid that. The current state of Linux office suites is fairly bad, but 7 years ago it was a lot worse, and so was hardware support. So, you bet IT paid the price for Linux in increased setup and man hours AND then they gave in a and went back to Windows.
It probably wasn't just the users. It seems to me this IT is pretty stupid.
First they adopt Linux WAY too early, then as a means to fix this transition, they switch to Vista.
Do these guys even read anything about IT departments hating Vista ? They could have spent the same amount for a nice shiny Mac network.
Seems to me their choice in Vista shows their proficiency level. -
can somebody tell me why this is news worthy...I read the article thinking there might be something of importance. clearly i was mistaken. although I have to agree with scorn for Sega. Vista sucks all sorts of ass.
-
wow I feel like I'm at Slashdot. :P
-
I'm waiting for Haiku to take off. I'm sick of distro hopping and need a standard unix desktop to rely on.
-
What a waste of time. No support for the Linux system? Probably they don't have a clue about the internet or search engines.
-
long live vista
-
Tux, take it easy bro. I swear, I didn't mean to. I swear.
http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/tux_machine_gun.jpg -
I took great effort to migrate my wife to using programs on her windows system that were also available under linux in preparation to switching her over.
We switched and for the most part it was great. The reason she is back on XP now though is google took the cheap way out of making Picasa work on linux. Its simply run under wine and not all the functionality we need is there. Namely the video support.
I found it frustrating that linux was ready, but some of the software was not. -
As a GNU/Linux user since 1995 and a Solaris user for 8 years before that, a friend of mine asked me to help install Windows XP. He didn't want to cough up $200 for an OS for a $400 computer. I had access to a disk so I shared it with him to advance the common good. His system was rooted and zombied by some dickheads from Russia within a week. I never had a Linux machine crash. I have never had one rooted. I run Gentoo because I like the flexibility. It just works.
-
Most schools who switch it to Linux will switch it back to windows as MS volume licences for schools are next to noting, and can hire any idiot to manage a windows network.
-
I have to say that I have been very disappointed with Linux. I WANT to like it, but I can't get the damn thing to load! My first attempt was to put Ubuntu 7.10 on my laptop. Only after it locked up on install a few times did I discover that you need 256MB to install (but not run apparently) Ubuntu. That was annoying, but I tried Xubuntu 7.1 instead. It loaded, which was nice, but connecting to the internet is extremely slow, despite not having the same problem under windows or on other machines.
The laptop is very old (Gateway Solo 9300) though, and I figured I would not let it stop me. So when I rebuilt my desktop last weekend, I tried to install Ubuntu 7.10. Everything is brand new, including an Intel Core-Duo E8400. I downloaded the 64bit iso, burned it to disc and was ready to go.
Until it wouldn't get past the screen where you select how to run the LiveCD. Just gets to the this "Linux Kernal" thing on the screen and reboots. Tried about half a dozen modifications to the boot command, as found on the Ubuntu forums. No dice. Tried the alternate install CD, same problem.
To say I am disillusioned would be a massive understatement. I'm sure that once you get the OS installed and all the hardware properly configured (if there are even drivers for them) it's great. However, if this is supposedly the Windows Killer we all hear about, shouldn't it install fairly easy on a state of the art PC? -
"The reason for the switch back to Microsoft operating systems? A lack of support from some of the teachers, says Perkins"
There's your problem - expecting profession computer support from grammar school teachers! Ah duh! Wake up! -
Woo hoo! Go Windows!
-
Wow. So you mean to tell me that clueless users complained about Linux to get Vista and still couldn't use the computer. Shocking.
-
I used to work as an IT manager of a Catholic school in the UK. We at one time tried to push forward a change to migrate towards a linux based system (everyone apart from the account's department due to old accounting software).
The biggest challange to all this was not the logistics, it was the bloody teachers. Teachers are quite frankly the worse people to instigate change to, they moaned about having to re-learn everything, even though we had practical counter arguments that actually showed them that in fact everything would be quicker with less down time and minimal re-training. They where having non of it, constantly putting up a barrier at every turn. So it didn't happen in the end, we carried on renewing the Microsoft Licences and plodded on. ***** teachers. Also another thing, in the UK the County Councils provide software that the schools have to use for registrations, pupils records etc. County Councils are notorius for getting in ***** contractors to write ***** applications that are ,,,well *****.. and dont run nativly on anything apart from Windows, and if your not running it on Windows, your not getting any support.
Believe me , moving to another OS in a school, is not as easy as it sounds. -
I'll buy Vista when they steal a decent network stack.
-
switching from xp to linux to vista is like switching from american english to latin to ***** rhyming slang.
-
obviously this school didn't have computer with the VIA UniChrome video chip. If they were, they would never tried Linux at all. Shame on you hardware designer that can't deliver decent linux drivers.
-
I guess kudos to MS for managing to subliminally hypnotize these people into really believing they need inferior MS products only to have them ultimately realize that MS products suck?
-
Ouch, four times the budget? That must have been a true zen master to sell that ROI for a grammar school.
-
I have all the respect for Linux, but it is not user friendly and there are too many problems with it, at a workplace you need productivity and Linux does not provide that.
-
This is just another example how corporations and the government are one in the same. The consumer is afraid of change so then we pay the taxes that go to buying the licenses and puts more money or fuel in M$'s totalitarian machine.
-
You change the color of the grass, the user starves.
-
FTA: "And the constant repetition of the question 'Is Linux ready for the desktop?' does not help. Linux, in my view, has been ready for the desktop for at least the last five years."
Any time some one says linux is ready for the desktop market it is a clear sign they ether have no idea what the average computer novice is capable of or they don't care. I got the impression from most of this article that he was looking down on the staff who didn't adjust to linux even though it was his job to make sure they were able to adjust ether through seminars or hands on teaching. Same thing for the move to Vista and Office 2007.
Office 2007 DOES have a new interface that is VERY different from old office programs. Yet, despite initial resistance from the clients who migrated (for whatever reason), I have had little trouble explaining the new interface and getting them to accept it. I help one of them price out and purchase a new computer and when he saw Office 2007 he demanded that I get him a copy of Office 2003. I managed to convince him to give it a try and by the time I was done showing it to him he agreed that the interface was much more well organized, even if it was very different. Vista has much less different from XP than Office 2007 does from Office 2003.
Even though Linux wouldn't be my first choice for an environment such as this I know that users could have learned it well enough to do what they needed to do. It can work and work very well if there is an administrator to take care of the occasional idiosyncrasies and overly complicated issues linux brings about from time to time. That considered I can only chalk this up to an admin on an ego trip. Getting ***** off that the users are unable to do the things that are easy for him, never mind that the gap between his knowledge and theirs is similar to the gap between Mount Everest and Olympus Mons. -
"After the move back, Perkins said he had noticed that the people who had been least comfortable with Linux were also among the least comfortable on Windows."
DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! We have a winner!!! It doesn't matter WHAT operating system you provide. People who don't understand how to use a computer are going to complain that it doesn't do what they expect it to do. Which is something that baffles me. How can they have any expectation about how a device should work if they don't understand what the device is or how it does what it does?
Also, classes that teach kids how to use computers should teach kids HOW TO USE COMPUTERS. Not how to use Word or how to use Photoshop. You've got a decent budget now? Great. Fill up your labs with iMacs that randomly triple-boot OSX, 'doze, or Linux. With each OS choice, randomize the applications as much as possible. Drill it into the kids that "I need to type a paper" doesn't mean they have to use Word under Windows. Maybe today it fires up AbiWord under Linux. Or AppleWorks under OSX. Or Word Perfect under Windows. Each kid's computer fires up the random configuration and they have to understand what they're doing and learn how accomplish their tasks using whatever tools are at hand.
If the teachers can't handle that, screw 'em. Are they there to collect a paycheck or prepare kids to thrive in the real world? The real world includes computers. And, while Microsoft has a significant monopoly in the desktop arena, even that desktop is going to change from version to version. If kids aren't taught how to evaluate and adapt to new computing environments, they'll be lost. -
The story was interesting, but the writing sucked.
-
Fact is, the world uses Microsoft products. Having kids around Linux or Macs is just stupid. They're not learning anything that will help them in the real world. I learned how to use Linux because I wanted to, not because it was forced onto me. And yet despite seeing advantages in it, I only use it on servers, because I just want a desktop PC that works without the fuss.
-
350 desktops it really doesn't matter what you use. Once you get to 1000+, you face the fact that every big company already knows: Linux's enterprise desktop management is 10 years behind Microsoft. It's about par with NT4.
-
"There are Macs at the school running both OS X and Windows Vista."
Am I the only one that noticed this line? -
I am currently in the process of the same thing. I installed Linux and now switching back to XP.
-
What's sad is that Asus had only *just* released dirt-cheap Ubuntu laptops which had hit stores in Melbourne. I reckon they should've stuck with Linux, and held out a little before being forced to purchase laptops with Windows pre-installed. I must admit that after going through 16 years of education in Melbourne, I had not once had the opportunity to work on a Linux desktop. I had to make the switch myself at home, and I really wish I were exposed to it a tad earlier, as I now feel my Windows knowledge is a dead waste.
-
So what this story tells us is that most people preferred to run Linux, given a choice, and that the complaints came from people least able to use any computer be it Windows or Linux. Then down from above came a 4X budget increase and a non-negotiable "thou shalt replace all your machines and use Windows" dictum and that was the end of the story. I read scant evidence that there ever was a well reasoned usability or cost-benefit basis for switching back to Windows, hence my take is this is a very positive story about using Linux for 6 years with few problems and a lot of benefits.
-
Linux is overrated and with a market share of 0.67% there's no REAL third party development by major companies supporting this. I tried Ubuntu 3 times and it sucked 3 times. Too bad the guy went from Windows to Linux and back to Windows. He should have just went to Mac OS X, the most advanced Operating System on the planet.
-
Weird... wasn't expecting to this school to hit the front page.
Me and my brother we responsible for setting up a large number of the Mac's that are mentioned in the article.... I don't pretend to know squat about the school's decision thou. They should have stayed with fedora...
Go Digg!
by 
by 
by 
by 
by 
by 
by 
by 
by 
by 
by 
by 
by 
by 
by 
by 
by 
by 
by 
by 
by 
by 
by 
by 
- All About Digg
- About Us & Contact
- Take a Tour
- How Digg Works
- Frequent Questions
- The Digg Blog
- Jobs at Digg
- Diggnation Podcast
- Digg Tools & API
- Check out Digg Tools that let you integrate Digg into your site and add Google features.
- Develop your own tools with the Digg API.
- UPDATED! Add Digg to Google
- Digg Store
- Get hats, shirts, hoodies, and more at the Digg Store.
- Advertise
- You can buy advertising on Digg through our advertising partner Microsoft.
- Digg Labs
- Get a real-time look beneath the surface in the digg labs with our tools arc, swarm, stack and bigspy. Also see Digg Spy, our original real-time tracking system.
- Digg the Candidates
- Check out Digg the Candidates, where you can Digg and watch the activity of your favorite Presidential candidates.
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by
Digg users
is
dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.