I am much more optimistic about corporate Linux adoption, than adoption
by clueless individual users. Corporations, at least, are receptive to
the profit, cost and security motive.

As Windows jobs decline 8% from the beginning of the year, Linux
postings grew 6%.

http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid39_gci1373285,00.html

What this essentially says, is that corporations are not nearly
averse to Linux as various research studies seem to show.

If you ask me, the writing is on the wall.

I am much more optimistic about corporate Linux adoption, than
adoption by clueless individual users. Corporations, at least, are
receptive to the profit, cost and security motive.

i

If you ask me, the writing is on the wall.

Ignoramus13931 wrote:
As Windows jobs decline 8% from the beginning of the year, Linux
postings grew 6%.

http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid39_gci1373285,00.html

What this essentially says, is that corporations are not nearly
averse to Linux as various research studies seem to show.

If you ask me, the writing is on the wall.

I am much more optimistic about corporate Linux adoption, than
adoption by clueless individual users. Corporations, at least, are
receptive to the profit, cost and security motive.

i


I strongly agree with your last paragraph above. It generalizes to any
large organization, because they have the economies of scale to learn to
administer Linux efficiently and to finance the migration. Best is
schools, as there is little or no data to migrate.

Advocate to the guy next to you for practice and support.

If you want things to change, advocate to the guy who has the power to
change things.

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:43:37 -0600, Ignoramus13931 wrote:


I am much more optimistic about corporate Linux adoption, than adoption
by clueless individual users. Corporations, at least, are receptive to
the profit, cost and security motive.

Users are receptive to the idea of being left up a creek without a paddle
in a foreign OS. When was the last time you helped someone install, learn
and use Linux?

My post doesn't go quite full circle, my point is that companies that
gradually adopt into Linux need to start with a single installation -
"that first box". Eventually this leads to companies with a huge
installed base of Linux that really like it but initially it's lots of
machines running some other operating system and one running Linux.

On 2009-11-04, smr <stevie.rice at (no spam) googlemail.com> wrote:

My post doesn't go quite full circle, my point is that companies that
gradually adopt into Linux need to start with a single installation -
"that first box". Eventually this leads to companies with a huge
installed base of Linux that really like it but initially it's lots of
machines running some other operating system and one running Linux.

And what really helps is if there is someone at that company, who
knows Linux and wants to make it work.

i

Ignoramus13931 wrote:
On 2009-11-03, Matt <matt at (no spam) themattfella.xxxyyz.com> wrote:
Ignoramus13931 wrote:
As Windows jobs decline 8% from the beginning of the year, Linux
postings grew 6%.

http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid39_gci1373285,00.html

What this essentially says, is that corporations are not nearly
averse to Linux as various research studies seem to show.

If you ask me, the writing is on the wall.

I am much more optimistic about corporate Linux adoption, than
adoption by clueless individual users. Corporations, at least, are
receptive to the profit, cost and security motive.

i

I strongly agree with your last paragraph above. It generalizes to any
large organization, because they have the economies of scale to learn to
administer Linux efficiently and to finance the migration. Best is
schools, as there is little or no data to migrate.

Economies of scale is where Linux shows its excellence, as you can
automate most system related things in Linux in a straightforward
manner.

So you can have one Linux system admin who knows scripting, administer
many more machines than a comparably intelligent Windows admin.

Advocate to the guy next to you for practice and support.

If you want things to change, advocate to the guy who has the power to
change things.

I think that what happens in corporations, such as some I have
observed, that Linux appears and begins to metastacize,


It attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it
touches.

When one organization adopts Linux (or about any technology for that
matter) the individuals in the organization become accustomed to it so
that when they go home for the day or move to a different organization,
they bring Linux with them.

Not as much as some think.

Example: I have a "DVR" at home. This is a video recorder box supplied
to me by a satellite TV company. It is completely proprietary, at
least as far as the video technology is concerned. (that is, they may
have put up some trivial source code like busybox on their website,
but not anything video related).

I had a hunch that it ran Linux. (because what else could it run)

The only way to find out that it was Linux based, was to open it up,
take out the hard drive, and insert it into my Linux PC. Even then,
the hard drive contained only data and not executables.

I believe that what the TV company did (provifing a DRMed product
based on open source) was distasteful, but it probably did not violate
any Linux intellectual property.

Robert Heller wrote:
At Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:51:21 +0000 smr <stevie.rice at (no spam) googlemail.com> wrote:

Matt wrote:
Ignoramus13931 wrote:
On 2009-11-03, Matt <matt at (no spam) themattfella.xxxyyz.com> wrote:
Ignoramus13931 wrote:
As Windows jobs decline 8% from the beginning of the year, Linux
postings grew 6%.
http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid39_gci1373285,00.html


What this essentially says, is that corporations are not nearly
averse to Linux as various research studies seem to show.

If you ask me, the writing is on the wall.

I am much more optimistic about corporate Linux adoption, than
adoption by clueless individual users. Corporations, at least, are
receptive to the profit, cost and security motive.

i
I strongly agree with your last paragraph above. It generalizes to
any large organization, because they have the economies of scale to
learn to administer Linux efficiently and to finance the migration.
Best is schools, as there is little or no data to migrate.
Economies of scale is where Linux shows its excellence, as you can
automate most system related things in Linux in a straightforward
manner.
So you can have one Linux system admin who knows scripting, administer
many more machines than a comparably intelligent Windows admin.

Advocate to the guy next to you for practice and support.

If you want things to change, advocate to the guy who has the power
to change things.
I think that what happens in corporations, such as some I have
observed, that Linux appears and begins to metastacize,
It attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it
touches.

When one organization adopts Linux (or about any technology for that
matter) the individuals in the organization become accustomed to it so
that when they go home for the day or move to a different organization,
they bring Linux with them.


slowly at
first and faster later.
This is possibly a safer route to successful Linux migration than top
to bottom pronoucements such as "move everything to Linx next month".
The metastasizing that you mention prepares the ground, to mix a couple
of metaphors.


The downside is that the Microsoft tax is stil being paid this way,
but I consider this minor.

i
It's always better to slowly shift people's perceptions of things -
"this is something we've been using to do some jobs in the company" as
opposed to "this is the new thing head office forced on us." But that
first box is a difficult issue - somebody needs to administrate that
single CUPS server.
Which brings us full circle: Linux jobs outpacing Windows jobs. Somebody
is hiring *new* Linux Admins and NOT hiring new Windows Admins...

My post doesn't go quite full circle, my point is that companies that
gradually adopt into Linux need to start with a single installation -
"that first box". Eventually this leads to companies with a huge
installed base of Linux that really like it but initially it's lots of
machines running some other operating system and one running Linux.

I would*n't* say that they would hire a new Linux admin at *that* point,
I think that's something the existing staff would handle. I'm saying
that at that point the existing staff need to administrate all of the
systems they had before as well as this new box that runs an entirely
new system - so what you're left with is relying on the current staff to
learn to professionally administrate a new operating system for a single
machine while doing their normal jobs at the same time. I'm saying
that's off putting to administrators. It's great once you start moving
lots of machines over to Linux and you can set up scripts that handle
lots of machines at once and that's where it really shines but it's
dealing with the hassle of the test machine that's a stumbling block.

On 2009-11-03, Matt <matt at (no spam) themattfella.xxxyyz.com> wrote:
Ignoramus13931 wrote:
On 2009-11-03, Matt <matt at (no spam) themattfella.xxxyyz.com> wrote:
Ignoramus13931 wrote:
As Windows jobs decline 8% from the beginning of the year, Linux
postings grew 6%.

http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid39_gci1373285,00.html

What this essentially says, is that corporations are not nearly
averse to Linux as various research studies seem to show.

If you ask me, the writing is on the wall.

I am much more optimistic about corporate Linux adoption, than
adoption by clueless individual users. Corporations, at least, are
receptive to the profit, cost and security motive.

i
I strongly agree with your last paragraph above. It generalizes to any
large organization, because they have the economies of scale to learn to
administer Linux efficiently and to finance the migration. Best is
schools, as there is little or no data to migrate.
Economies of scale is where Linux shows its excellence, as you can
automate most system related things in Linux in a straightforward
manner.

So you can have one Linux system admin who knows scripting, administer
many more machines than a comparably intelligent Windows admin.

Advocate to the guy next to you for practice and support.

If you want things to change, advocate to the guy who has the power to
change things.
I think that what happens in corporations, such as some I have
observed, that Linux appears and begins to metastacize,

It attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it
touches.

Not as much as some think.

smr wrote:
Robert Heller wrote:
At Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:51:21 +0000 smr <stevie.rice at (no spam) googlemail.com
wrote:

Matt wrote:
Ignoramus13931 wrote:
On 2009-11-03, Matt <matt at (no spam) themattfella.xxxyyz.com> wrote:
Ignoramus13931 wrote:
As Windows jobs decline 8% from the beginning of the year, Linux
postings grew 6%.
http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid39_gci1373285,00.html



What this essentially says, is that corporations are not nearly
averse to Linux as various research studies seem to show.

If you ask me, the writing is on the wall.

I am much more optimistic about corporate Linux adoption, than
adoption by clueless individual users. Corporations, at least, are
receptive to the profit, cost and security motive.

i
I strongly agree with your last paragraph above. It generalizes to
any large organization, because they have the economies of scale to
learn to administer Linux efficiently and to finance the
migration. Best is schools, as there is little or no data to
migrate.
Economies of scale is where Linux shows its excellence, as you can
automate most system related things in Linux in a straightforward
manner.
So you can have one Linux system admin who knows scripting,
administer
many more machines than a comparably intelligent Windows admin.

Advocate to the guy next to you for practice and support.

If you want things to change, advocate to the guy who has the power
to change things.
I think that what happens in corporations, such as some I have
observed, that Linux appears and begins to metastacize,
It attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it
touches.

When one organization adopts Linux (or about any technology for that
matter) the individuals in the organization become accustomed to it so
that when they go home for the day or move to a different
organization,
they bring Linux with them.


slowly at
first and faster later.
This is possibly a safer route to successful Linux migration than top
to bottom pronoucements such as "move everything to Linx next month".
The metastasizing that you mention prepares the ground, to mix a
couple
of metaphors.


The downside is that the Microsoft tax is stil being paid this way,
but I consider this minor.

i
It's always better to slowly shift people's perceptions of things -
"this is something we've been using to do some jobs in the company" as
opposed to "this is the new thing head office forced on us." But that
first box is a difficult issue - somebody needs to administrate that
single CUPS server.
Which brings us full circle: Linux jobs outpacing Windows jobs.
Somebody
is hiring *new* Linux Admins and NOT hiring new Windows Admins...

My post doesn't go quite full circle, my point is that companies that
gradually adopt into Linux need to start with a single installation -
"that first box". Eventually this leads to companies with a huge
installed base of Linux that really like it but initially it's lots of
machines running some other operating system and one running Linux.

I would*n't* say that they would hire a new Linux admin at *that* point,
I think that's something the existing staff would handle. I'm saying
that at that point the existing staff need to administrate all of the
systems they had before as well as this new box that runs an entirely
new system - so what you're left with is relying on the current staff to
learn to professionally administrate a new operating system for a single
machine while doing their normal jobs at the same time. I'm saying
that's off putting to administrators. It's great once you start moving
lots of machines over to Linux and you can set up scripts that handle
lots of machines at once and that's where it really shines but it's
dealing with the hassle of the test machine that's a stumbling block.


I'm thinking that more often, that first Linux box is being maintained
mainly by whoever is using it, If that first user is not mainly a
sysadmin, he asks permission to use Linux, and they say okay, but you
have to maintain it yourself. Same thing happens if he is mainly a
sysadmin, but then it might be that the guy was hired specifically as
somebody who knows Linux and as somebody who can expose the other admins
and their bosses to the practice of running Linux. That would be
followed by incremental steps toward Linux by the company, stuff like:
migrating the servers, switching some users to cross-platform FOSS apps
such as OpenOffice, migrating one department as an experiment, and
hiring more admins and other workers who have experience in both worlds.

On Wednesday 04 November 2009 10:25 in comp.os.linux.misc, somebody
identifying as dennis at (no spam) home wrote...

Of course there is another explanation..
windows is getting easier to administer so you need less admin staff.
Blame M$ for making it too easy. ;-)

This is true. Botnets are very easy to administer. You can control
hundreds of thousands or even millions of Windows PCs from a single
other Windows PC these days. <grin

Matt wrote:
smr wrote:

It's always better to slowly shift people's perceptions of things -
"this is something we've been using to do some jobs in the company" as
opposed to "this is the new thing head office forced on us." But that
first box is a difficult issue - somebody needs to administrate that
single CUPS server.
Which brings us full circle: Linux jobs outpacing Windows jobs.
Somebody
is hiring *new* Linux Admins and NOT hiring new Windows Admins...

My post doesn't go quite full circle, my point is that companies that
gradually adopt into Linux need to start with a single installation -
"that first box". Eventually this leads to companies with a huge
installed base of Linux that really like it but initially it's lots of
machines running some other operating system and one running Linux.

I would*n't* say that they would hire a new Linux admin at *that* point,
I think that's something the existing staff would handle. I'm saying
that at that point the existing staff need to administrate all of the
systems they had before as well as this new box that runs an entirely
new system - so what you're left with is relying on the current staff to
learn to professionally administrate a new operating system for a single
machine while doing their normal jobs at the same time. I'm saying
that's off putting to administrators. It's great once you start moving
lots of machines over to Linux and you can set up scripts that handle
lots of machines at once and that's where it really shines but it's
dealing with the hassle of the test machine that's a stumbling block.


I'm thinking that more often, that first Linux box is being maintained
mainly by whoever is using it, If that first user is not mainly a
sysadmin, he asks permission to use Linux, and they say okay, but you
have to maintain it yourself. Same thing happens if he is mainly a
sysadmin, but then it might be that the guy was hired specifically as
somebody who knows Linux and as somebody who can expose the other
admins and their bosses to the practice of running Linux. That would
be followed by incremental steps toward Linux by the company, stuff like:
migrating the servers, switching some users to cross-platform FOSS
apps such as OpenOffice, migrating one department as an experiment,
and hiring more admins and other workers who have experience in both
worlds.

LOL, it's obvious no one here has been through any conversion effort
from one platform to another in any shape form or fashion.

This is some kind of a total joke here, and it's two home users
conversing with each other.