Are you truly a M$ desktop alternative?

[Jorn Argelo]

> Hi,
>  
> This email is going to any Linux house whom has pitched themselves via
> their websites and reviews, from my research as being possible
> alternatives to XP at this stage. Depends on your Google hit and
> thereafter (if found within 2 pages) site FAQ's I suppose.
>  
> As a currently dedicated M$ house (apart from Oracle Databases),  we
> question the move to a XP desktop amid the Linux hype in recent times.
> Any IT department trying to save company money is only doing the right
> thing and ask the question, what can Linux do for us?

As mentioned before, FreeBSD is NOT Linux. Keep that in mind.

> I've flipped through your FAQ's and over forums but result in no answer
> for Active Directory 2K3 and Exchange 2K3 server client connectivity,
> integration and functionality? Note that we have not moved to these
> product versions yet. Hence this email.

KDE's Kmail can connect to Exchange servers, I believe. As for logging
into active directory ... That doesn't exist AFAIK. Perhaps there are
programs that allow such things, but I wouldn't count on that. Windows
is an excellent OS for integration with Active Directory.

> I ask because I cannot see a server based centralised authentication and
> administrative option in Linux. If there were, say a "centralised server
> option" for Linux, this would be seriously considered. Is there a User
> Manager equivalent (NT4 domain for example) or Exchange Administrator
> equivalent (Exchange 5.5) "functional" alternative? More importantly,
> 2K3 Server and Exchange integration?
>

Not AFAIK.

> Failing that, connecting clients as above to M$ servers would be
> sufficient. Stay with M$ in servers, go with Linux in desktops. I've
> seen enough "glossy brochures" and want to know the facts.

Again, you can't do this when you want centralised server option. 

> The cost difference is obvious. The functional difference is not. I've
> still no reason to choose your Linux over Windows XP Pro at this stage.
> Cost is not enough. Any sane IT department doesn't need screaming users
> due to lack of pure functionality. Experience suggests most find it
> difficult enough getting around the OS to even perform basic functions,
> let alone usability.
>  
> Assuming aforementioned functionality, where does your Linux stand with
> converting between M$ Office 97/2K/2K3? Will our accounts department be
> able to work with their previous 40Mb Excel files full of VLookups and
> Formulas straightup, or is it going to be bigger than a Lotus 4.1 to
> Excel 5 conversion debacle?
> Of course Word,PowerPoint,Publisher and Access are questioned also.

OpenOffice.org can do the job there, but a file created with OOo will be
rather misshapen when opened with Excel and vica versa. So it's not
advicable.

> I'm talking up to 500 user desktops to be upgraded. Upgraded need not be
> a literal word. Installing Linux from scratch would be expected.
> Anything "upgrade wise" extra would be a bonus.
>  
> Outside of M$ Office, current application functionality would have to be
> trialed. This is expected. A list of currently supported M$ applications
> would be helpful.
>  
> Your detailed reply appreciated
>  

So, for your needs, upgrading to Linux or BSD or whatever is a BAD idea,
IMHO. Your employees and your desktops simply don't have any use of it,
with the desires mentioned above. As long as you wish for integration
with Active Directory, then an Microsoft OS is still the best for you.

Cheers,

Jorn.

BTW, why don't you just write MS instead of M$? Most people here aren't
extremely anti-MS like the Linux folks.