A technological safety net
It's important for companies to realise that installing Linux a desktop does not mean a company must go cold turkey on Windows. Even if half of a company's desktops were changed to Linux, lower ongoing management costs could well support an adequate business case to justify making the switch; over time, advanced users' needs, such as process-specific macros and niche Windows-only applications, can be addressed individually.
However, such applications are becoming fewer and fewer with the exception of Microsoft Office; most commonly-used enterprise applications now have a Web interface that renders perfectly well on a Linux desktop. Furthermore, it's worth remembering that even those applications that simply must run under Windows can still be offered to Linux users using time-tested thin-client technology that runs the applications on a Windows server for access from remote desktops.
This approach has proved quite successful for BGC, which despite its open-source conversion realised that many users would still require advanced functionality. Six dedicated servers deliver Microsoft Office and several other applications to users using the X terminal capabilities built into Solaris. Windows applications run in a window alongside the Solaris-hosted tools, giving users the advantages of a stable desktop that also provides access to the applications they need.
"The biggest benefit of this platform is the ability to deploy a much more robust operating environment to users, which translates to a better service level for users without an increase in IT staff," says Buckeridge. "There is some reduction in administration, and we have been able to contain our costs and support many more users [than with Windows]. If we were to do it with Linux, it would be much easier to do today."
The process was not without its troubles: although Microsoft applications are generally written to work well using thin-client software, not all third-party applications are so forgiving. Buckeridge says a few of the company's third-party Windows applications didn't take well to thin-client delivery, with one of the company's Windows 2000 servers "dying".
A coming upgrade to a pair of 64-bit Windows Server 2003 systems is expected to improve the situation but BGC's experience highlights the importance of testing: "It's important that if you're moving to a terminal server environment, you drastically limit which applications are in that environment," Buckeridge warns.
Virtualisation is another way of bridging the gap between Linux and Windows, with products such as VMWare and Xen allowing the installation of Windows under Linux; since those Windows instances are virtual and can be destroyed and recreated at any time, it's possible to carefully manage them to prevent bad behaviour. This approach was used by the NSW Judicial Commission, which recently built its 600,000-page JIRS document management system around Linux desktops and used VMWare to deliver Windows applications to the users.
Linux vendors recognise the potential use of thin-client technology to ease migration from Windows to Linux, and most major distributions include thin-client software. Novell's SuSE Linux Desktop even has two: an open-source client that connects to open-source VNC, Microsoft RDP and Citrix ICA thin-client servers, and Citrix Systems' own ICA client itself. For companies concerned about application availability under Linux, this broad support means setting up thin-client servers is a viable and practical option to maintain backwards compatibility.
3%
5%
The article described: "Furthermore, Linux's lower resource requirements may allow it to run on existing desktops that will need replacement for any upgrade to Windows Vista."
I believe that this is the only characteristic that Linux may get the go ahead. Most PC's (Greater than 500MHz) generally run todays business applications with little or no problems. If you get a Pentium III-500 with 256MB of RAM, you are set when it comes to Windows XP, Office 2003, Microsoft .NET 2003 etc...
When Windows Vista's requirements are beyond that of what "standard" onboard video cards provided in Motherboards (ie 32/64MB shared with RAM), and the fact that an AGP video card (starting from $80RRP), wouldn't the IT departments be having fun arguing their case that the general workstation needs a new 128MB Video Card, another stick of 512MB of RAM, just to boot Windows Vista. Take into account that Office 2005 is also completely changed (GUI wise) and there goes the 2006 ICT budget.
Although I am a linux supporter, in the business workplace, you need to be able to rely on proven technology, and Microsoft is proven, reliable technology. When Office 2003 and Windows XP Service Pack 2 came out, I really thought how good Microsoft actually is. I can't think of a more easier, more productive combination of software. To change that is only going to worsen people's views.
Anyway, Linux will NEVER dominate the PC market, Microsoft just has too many fingers in too many pies to lose their dominant position