Microsoft will stop security support for Windows XP this coming April, meaning that more than a few remaining users of the long-standing OS need to come up with an alternative plan. Almost a third of desktop computers still run Windows XP, according to Net Applications. Perhaps even more concerning, more than 15 percent of midsize and large enterprises will still have Windows XP running on at least 10 percent of their PCs after Microsoft support ends, Gartner estimates.
Nope, hello Windows 7 or Mac. I did open source for years and years. Still great choice for servers but for the desktop, its adoption will remain flat. Too much bickering on the open source front. No unification of standards, tools & apps as they still look/feel disjointed.
The more web solutions from thick client apps, the more I see Mac making huge strides.
My company supports Windows, Linux, and Mac OS. We have never had a problem supporting other rare operating systems, since there is usually a manual; and if you know how computers work, the type of OS installed is of little consequence to the administration of the system.
The issue of switching to GNU/Linux hinges on the skills available at the company that is switching; or the question of what they are willing to pay for. Most of the support staff at small to mid-sized companies don't know anything outside the Windows World (sad). So they have quite a bit of catching up to do if they are going to support any Unix like deployment.
As far as applications are concerned: You can either install a Open Source version of the Windows software that is being used. In the small amount of cases that you need the windows version, you can create a server and emulate the windows system on it; link it to the desktop, and run the VM seamlessly, so the user doesn't notice anything different. There should be a plan from the start to migrate the functionality to a Open Source application/database - so that this is not a future concern. In dream world a system admin would be able to do the development (scripting) to handle such a project; though realistically you are not going to find a lot of people in these positions that have any such skills or aspirations. In this way you are basically creating a terminal system for the employee to use, and taking the need to work within the limitations of the OS out of the picture.
I don't understand the issue of distro differences (other than those that have been previously stated): Since it really doesn't matter what distro you are using as far as compatibility between machines/applications go. The only reason you want to have a cohesive distro choice would relate to general administration; ie. it is much easier to use the same package manager across the board (though you could use a program like salt and the salt stack, and then it ceases to matter.)
Familiarity will always be an issue as long as people really don't understand how a computer works, or understand how programs work that are outside of the Windows ecosystem. Though GNU/Linux now has more GUI options than it has ever had, practicality suggests that you should administrate the system though the command line and by directly typing your own custom version of config files; it is no longer necessary and should lend itself nicely to the quiche eating Windows system administrators that would have to support it for most companies.
I am not sure why it is seen as acceptable for one applying for a job as a System_Administrator/IT_Manger to not know basic and built in Unix commands and system structure. This seems like a basic computing skill that anyone at such a level should posses. So I guess I would say that the main thing holding back the spread of the GNU/Linux desktop operating system is lack of skills in the computing community overall. The skilled person that wants to get work done uses nothing but GNU/Linux or other Unix like operating systems; the quiche eaters will continue to use anything that spoon feeds their small brains.
Many businesses providing IT support have already moved their internal support personnel to a gnu/linux desk... IBM is one of those.
In the future more "apps" are going to be hardware and platform independent. Cloud apps and cloud data storage accessed through web interfaces mean that more of the user skills required have nothing whatsoever to do with the platform.
BYOD is becoming more popular with employers. This has of course already happened on college campuses... where most machines are mac notebooks, or gnu/linux notebooks / netbooks. Most younger folks today are not struggling to "learn" new skills... gnu/linux comes very naturally to them.
There is no reason not to switch to gnu/linux /infact, its the best solution at the present time.
On the other hand... if your XP machine is patched, and the hardware keeps running, there is NO reason to stop using it. Keep it behind a fire wall, never trust it, and just use it...
On the other hand... if you want to join the rest of us in the 21st century, then by all means switch to gnu/linux.
Loading ...
Goodbye, Win XP - Hello, Linux?
Posted by: Jack M. Germain December 11, 2013 05:00 AMMicrosoft will stop security support for Windows XP this coming April, meaning that more than a few remaining users of the long-standing OS need to come up with an alternative plan. Almost a third of desktop computers still run Windows XP, according to Net Applications. Perhaps even more concerning, more than 15 percent of midsize and large enterprises will still have Windows XP running on at least 10 percent of their PCs after Microsoft support ends, Gartner estimates.
The more web solutions from thick client apps, the more I see Mac making huge strides.
The issue of switching to GNU/Linux hinges on the skills available at the company that is switching; or the question of what they are willing to pay for. Most of the support staff at small to mid-sized companies don't know anything outside the Windows World (sad). So they have quite a bit of catching up to do if they are going to support any Unix like deployment.
As far as applications are concerned: You can either install a Open Source version of the Windows software that is being used. In the small amount of cases that you need the windows version, you can create a server and emulate the windows system on it; link it to the desktop, and run the VM seamlessly, so the user doesn't notice anything different. There should be a plan from the start to migrate the functionality to a Open Source application/database - so that this is not a future concern. In dream world a system admin would be able to do the development (scripting) to handle such a project; though realistically you are not going to find a lot of people in these positions that have any such skills or aspirations. In this way you are basically creating a terminal system for the employee to use, and taking the need to work within the limitations of the OS out of the picture.
I don't understand the issue of distro differences (other than those that have been previously stated): Since it really doesn't matter what distro you are using as far as compatibility between machines/applications go. The only reason you want to have a cohesive distro choice would relate to general administration; ie. it is much easier to use the same package manager across the board (though you could use a program like salt and the salt stack, and then it ceases to matter.)
Familiarity will always be an issue as long as people really don't understand how a computer works, or understand how programs work that are outside of the Windows ecosystem. Though GNU/Linux now has more GUI options than it has ever had, practicality suggests that you should administrate the system though the command line and by directly typing your own custom version of config files; it is no longer necessary and should lend itself nicely to the quiche eating Windows system administrators that would have to support it for most companies.
I am not sure why it is seen as acceptable for one applying for a job as a System_Administrator/IT_Manger to not know basic and built in Unix commands and system structure. This seems like a basic computing skill that anyone at such a level should posses. So I guess I would say that the main thing holding back the spread of the GNU/Linux desktop operating system is lack of skills in the computing community overall. The skilled person that wants to get work done uses nothing but GNU/Linux or other Unix like operating systems; the quiche eaters will continue to use anything that spoon feeds their small brains.
In the future more "apps" are going to be hardware and platform independent. Cloud apps and cloud data storage accessed through web interfaces mean that more of the user skills required have nothing whatsoever to do with the platform.
BYOD is becoming more popular with employers. This has of course already happened on college campuses... where most machines are mac notebooks, or gnu/linux notebooks / netbooks. Most younger folks today are not struggling to "learn" new skills... gnu/linux comes very naturally to them.
There is no reason not to switch to gnu/linux /infact, its the best solution at the present time.
On the other hand... if your XP machine is patched, and the hardware keeps running, there is NO reason to stop using it. Keep it behind a fire wall, never trust it, and just use it...
On the other hand... if you want to join the rest of us in the 21st century, then by all means switch to gnu/linux.
Cheers