Hi,

Goodbye, Win XP - Hello, Linux?
Windows XP;
Some food for thought;

After twelve years and several service packs MS Windows XP expires on April 2014. Or does it? Gnu/Linux ready to fill that void or not? Look at the issue from a cooperate perspective. As Gnu/Linux users the easy answer is 'YES' but from the managers point. Gnu/Linux hardware support has been moving ahead even without major manufacture support. Once XP has expired, will the manufactures release the choke hold on device information? Unsure! IBM and several major companies have supported Linux over the years. Will that be enough?

Once the corporate user has selected a solid Gnu/Linux that will migrate without major fall over, will OpenOffice/LibreOffice be enough for a suite move for corporate? Support for Print/Scan, network or other services can be issues for the User base. Will the same be true for Gnu/Linux at the corporate/enterprise level?

I am sure everyone will shout 'Red Hat'! Really?

Some countries already think so.

http://www.linuxtoday.com/it_managem...-system-z.html

http://www.wired.com/insights/2013/0...ransformation/

Funny how the USA can lag on certain things.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3645927.html

I still haven't done a thing to get ready.

At home I have a Linux system, but I use it for very different things than I use my main computer at work.

At work I access many Linux systems via putty, but I use them for very different things than I use my main computer at work.

At work, my newer desktop is Win 7 and I use it exclusively for build and test operations. Despite having plenty of cores and plenty of ram and despite anything I might try with adjusting priority, the insane anti virus software we are forced to use destroys 50% of the productivity of build and test operations but destroys 100% of the productivity of any interactive operations I attempt to run in the foreground while build or test operations are in the background. I don't know how to do my ordinary activities on win 7 (rather than XP) but more importantly, the anti virus won't let me.

My main computer at work (used for all interactive activities) is old hardware running 64-bit XP. I would be permitted to convert it to Win 7, including a bunch of background processes and anti-virus required by IT policy that together add up to 100% of the capacity of this hardware leaving zero for actual use. Or I can unplug it and give it back to IT. Or I can convert it to Linux.

The last choice is the only actual choice, but despite years of Linux use, there is next to nothing I use this computer for that I know how to do in Linux. I do know I can use ssh in Linux instead of (probably better than) putty in XP, which is one of the uses of my interactive computer. But that is about it. I hate all text editors in Linux. Text editors (including Visual Studio) in XP are so much easier. Most other activities, I don't even know what Linux "equivalents" I'm going to need to learn to hate.

I would shout SLED or RHEL, but be happy if business and people would take the small step and move to odf.

If you're really concerned about resource usage, I might suggest Lubuntu. It's a very light desktop interface over an Ubuntu core. You could use LibreOffice or OpenOffice for word processing / spreadsheets (and maybe presentations, I can't remember). I have a Dell Dimension 2400 that someone else was about to throw out. I reinstalled WinXP and found it rather laggy, most likely because of the old Celeron processor. I then tried Lubuntu, and it was an improvement. I won't lie, Lubuntu was slow too, but it was better than the WinXP. For one, the startup and shutdown were HORRIBLE (3-4 mins) with XP, but Lubuntu cut it down to about one minute. Shutdown is a matter of seconds. 12.04 could do it in less than 5 seconds, but with newer versions it slowed down a bit (20~30 secs).

We have an XP computer that my mom and little sister use. I use my Win7 laptop, but had no trouble adjusting to Lubunto while I was using it (the computer is now a file server, I have no idea how the original owner got it to load any GUI without waiting forever)

I should tell you that Lubuntu is the only Linux OS that I've ever used, so keep that in mind when judging OSes based off this post.

Places where there is heavy investment in Sharepoint, MS Exchange or proprietary Windows software won't be moving any time soon.
An ex-colleague once looked for document management systems for Linux and found two -- one of which was not fit for purpose and the other was under development wit ha release date of "sometime". There's no way that place could move to Linux desktops for the next decade.
I think most of the UK's government departments are committing to a Windows 7 rollout now. I'm not sure why as I think most things would work under Linux but I'm guessing it's because of the enormous cost they would face to train their various in-house and outsourced IT support teams to use Linux.

So many and you hate them all?

Just every one I have tried. I expect there are some that will be OK, I just haven't found out which.

BTW, I'm now using Centos 5.9 at home. I have been using a copy of Mepis old enough that I can't even install software anymore, which made trying new things much harder.

I think I need to learn Linux GUI activities (including text editing) at home first. At work, I could select from several distributions for Linux GUI workstation, but the servers (that I use via putty) are mostly Centos, and the co worker who is ahead of me in using Linux for a workstation is using Centos 6, so I think I will end up with Centos 6 at work. 5.9 was handy and I expect close enough for the level of learning I am doing.

Having worked in the civil service and seen the level of their computer expertise, I'd explain it by ignorance and inertia: commodities they have an endless supply of!

Compare this:
http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/...ed-complaints/
http://apcmag.com/french-police-swit...s-to-linux.htm
http://news.cnet.com/2008-1082_3-5065859.html
And, of course Google is a M$-free zone:
http://www.zdnet.com/the-truth-about...ux-7000003462/

It depends...If the users just use the basics of office suites, than Libreoffice should suffice. If advance users use features only found in MS office suites than they will gripe.

Well, I really don't think that this will have much impact in the corporate world - maybe, a little amongst the more cash-strapped SME, but the droids amongst the genuine corporates will already have hardware that post-dates XP (even if they are still actually running XP), an IT department (corporate droid: 'My computer doesn't have a supported operating system any more', IT droid 'Have you tried switching it of and on again?') and so they will just update to something still supported, in most cases.

Home users are a different case. A lot of them are still running XP era hardware, particularly laptops; some will carry on using XP unsupported, some will go to a newer product from the evil empire, some will go elsewhere, whether they want to, or not. I expect to see a fair few who really want a zero cost and supported version of XP making lots of noise about Linux not being it, but let's hope I'm wrong there, because otherwise there are going to be a lot of bad tempered posts going nowhere, apart from going over ground that has already been covered repeatedly.

The in-between cases are SME users and home workers.

Hi,

I really think there will be an impact.
Ubuntu Might Replace Windows XP in South Korea;
S. Korea is just a small country that will likely use a Gnu/Linux instead of MS Win/XP. I think the change will be done by many who do not want to reinvest for a useable Desktop OS. Upgrade costs for Microsoft OS will be a factor for the XP user, be it corporate, civil or personal.

"Changing to a completely new operating-system" is a tremendously radical step that's rarely done, and (with virtualization technology) rarely necessary.

Microsoft's real problem is that millions of users won't budge from Windows XP, despite Microsoft's many attempts to crown its successor. The XP systems are (still) moving the freight, as they were bought and equipped to do, and none of the "successors" are actually what users want: a 64-bit XP.

In the end, Microsoft's going to be obliged (post Ballmer) to give people what they've been asking-for for all these years: a 64-bit Windows XP. They didn't buy Vista, or 7, or 8, or ...

If you're entrenched in the Windows world and basically "doing what you need to do" in that environment, but want to learn/use Linux, my flat suggestion to you is this, and only this: virtual machines. An upgraded (64-bit) Windows will act as a just-fine host under which one-or-more VMs can be very efficiently deployed (since Intel-compatible chips now have hardware support for virtualization). Use these VMs to run Linux, and even your old Windows-XP. External firewire-attached drives are cheap, fast, and capacious. Forget "dual booting," and don't seriously contemplate throwing out your baby with the bathwater. "Goodbye <X>, hello <Y>" isn't a choice that you have to make anymore.

I having been running what Microsoft says is 64-bit XP for many years and so far as I'm concerned it IS 64-bit XP and it is the best (least bad) OS Microsoft has ever produced.

So I'm very confused at your idea that people have been asking for 64-bit XP for years and Microsoft will need to provide it.

People have been using 64-bit XP for years and Microsoft is about to take it away (continue releasing security flaw exploits to hackers to make it unsafe to keep your OS without updates, but stop providing those updates).

I have seen posts in this forum saying that what I call 64-bit XP isn't really XP. In the deep under the hood details it is a different (I think better) basic platform. But in the UI and in the way the registry works and in the relationships among programs/drivers/OS it is XP and it is better than anything Microsoft did before or after XP for exactly the same reasons XP is better than all those things.

A virtual machine just doesn't solve any of the issues here. I don't know why you think it is relevant. All the reasons I can't run XP on my bare hardware (starting in a few months) mean I can't run XP inside a virtual machine then either. All the reasons I can't switch to Windows 7 on that bare hardware make much much stronger reasons I can't run Win 7 inside a virtual machine on that hardware, nor run anything at all inside a virtual machine on top of Win 7.

Meanwhile, I recently installed both Centos 5.9 and Centos 6 (in different partitions) on my home computer (also running a very obsolete copy of Mepis). Home system has 16GB ram, while my under powered system at work has only 8GB. Home system has a very old AMD dual core CPU compared to a same age but faster Intel dual cure at work. Very very slow old motherboard graphics at home compared to old moderately slow graphics cards at work.

Centos 5.9 is painfully slow on that home system compared to obsolete Mepis (both running KDE 3). Centos 6 (tried both KDE 4 and Gnome) is beyond painfully slow. It is pretty much hopeless. I'm used to really rotten performance like that being the result of too little ram, but 16GB is plenty. I'm guessing (maybe hoping) the rotten performance is caused by the motherboard graphics (maybe newer versions of X have become too dependent on the graphics card doing all the work, compared to older versions). I'm just doing ordinary desktop activities (not viewing videos nor playing games, etc. that need extra graphics power). I hope the slightly faster CPU and graphics cards at work would make Centos 6 fast enough to use. Otherwise I breaking more new ground than I have time to learn. Meanwhile, I still find KDE 4 totally incomprehensible. I have always hated Gnome and preferred KDE 3. Figuring out what to replace my work XP system with is proving even harder than expected.

I don't see how that visualization would help anyone looking for a path out of XP. Switching to either newer Windows or Linux is hard, so instead switch to both !?

In this office, local (helpful) IT is looking at the reverse of that virtualization to mitigate the damage done to Win 7 systems by corporate IT policies. For new systems (much more hardware than even my better system, which is win 7) we are trying a Centos 6 install with Win 7 running in a VM. Most of the storage is set up in the host Centos system as Samba shares that are mounted by the Win 7 system.

1) The IT policy overheads abuse local storage more than mounted shares (assuming the host of the share is responsible for its security). So a Samba share on the Centos host might run be accessible faster than direct storage on a non VM Windows on the same hardware.

2) Many key activities can be run either Windows or Linux. Most of our staff know only the Windows way and don't have time to relearn everything in Linux. But only a few activities are really badly maimed (on Windows) by the corporate IT policies. So it should be possible to switch to the base Linux system to run the few activities that would have severe problems on Windows, while staying on Windows for the bulk of activities that you haven't learned yet on Linux. The key is all the relevant files are both natively present in the base system and mounted through Samba to Windows. So different activities on the same files can occur in different OS's.

I won't get one of those system till late next year. Meanwhile I have to manage with much less hardware.