PDA

View Full Version : Ubuntu in a large office. . .



Bright_View
May 10th, 2010, 02:52 AM
I just had a conversation with a friend who works at a large office, and to my surprise she informed me that the entire office uses Ubuntu. I was impressed and excited, since I'd never heard of a large office using Ubuntu before, but when I asked her how it was working out she said that her entire office hates the software due to daily crashes and all sorts of other problems. She said her IT department has said that they have to live with this since they have free software, and unless they decide to "upgrade" to Microsoft then they're out of luck.

I was shocked.

I work in a scientific environment, and linux in general is highly regarded for its stability, security, etc. among people I work with. There are other complaints of course, but never about stability.

I was just wondering if any of you have experience with Ubuntu in large office environments (as opposed to home use) and if the IT department's claim in this case is correct, or more due to their (possible) lack of knowledge of Ubuntu. Would I be correct in assuming that the majority of IT personnel are not familiar with linux, and would not be overly useful in an environment where linux was used?

I defended Ubuntu to the best of my ability, but for all I know it's not stable in large networks (although this seems unlikely to me). I've only ever used it at home on my PC.

I'd love to hear what you all have to say, especially those of you using it at work in large networks. Cheers.

ssj6akshat
May 10th, 2010, 03:02 AM
shouldn't this belong to T&E?

Bright_View
May 10th, 2010, 03:07 AM
shouldn't this belong to T&E?

Yeah, probably. Didn't see the "Other Community Discussions" options in the forum (had only posted here before when I needed help). Sorry for the confusion. . .

FirstByté
May 10th, 2010, 03:17 AM
Well, while I don't use Ubuntu in a corporate domain yet, I wouldn't want to say all OSs are free of bugs. But carrying out my thesis on Open Source Software tells me that OSS is much reliable than Closed source counter-part (in many accounts).
This eBook (http://guide.flossmetrics.org/smeguide.pdf) can surely be of better help

That said, an understanding of what apps they are having issues with will also do them some good. Not all [commercial] apps in Window/OSX for example are flawless either. If they think they require support, they could opt for Canonical Corporate support.

And in my opinion, Ubuntu and Linux gets better with each release.

Can you please be specific, which sort of "issues" are they having? Security? Compatibility? Connectivity? Reliability?



an excerpt from "Getting Started with Ubuntu 10.04" says

"Is Ubuntu right for you?

New users to Ubuntu may find that it takes some time to feel comfortable with the operating system. You will no doubt notice many similarities to both Microsoft Windows and Mac OS X, as well as some things that work very
differently. Users coming from Mac OS X are more likely to notice similarities due to the fact that both Mac OS X and Ubuntu originated from Unix.
Before you decide whether or not Ubuntu is right for you, we suggest giving yourself some time to grow accustomed to the way things are done —and expect to find that some things are different to what you are used to."

Bright_View
May 10th, 2010, 03:50 AM
Well, while I don't use Ubuntu in a corporate domain yet, I wouldn't want to say all OSs are free of bugs. But carrying out my thesis on Open Source Software tells me that OSS is much reliable than Closed source counter-part (in many accounts).
This eBook (http://guide.flossmetrics.org/smeguide.pdf) can surely be of better help

That said, an understanding of what apps they are having issues with will also do them some good. Not all [commercial] apps in Window/OSX for example are flawless either. If they think they require support, they could opt for Canonical Corporate support.

And in my opinion, Ubuntu and Linux gets better with each release.

Can you please be specific, which sort of "issues" are they having? Security? Compatibility? Connectivity? Reliability?



an excerpt from "Getting Started with Ubuntu 10.04" says

From what I heard, they are having to reboot their systems daily (which doesn't make sense to me as when an app crashes at home only the app needs to be restarted). What I'm wondering about is the support they're getting. I'm aware of canonical support, and mentioned it, but am wondering what solutions others have used in a corporate environment.

I also wrote my thesis in OpenOffice and found it to be fantastic (especially the built in bibliography tools). It sounds to me like the IT department may not be overly familiar with Ubuntu and are unfairly blaming Ubuntu for their problems, but I'm no expert and have not seen any of their problems myself to report specifics to more knowledgeable people here. I just want to know if anybody works in large office environment with Ubuntu and have had a positive experience.

Old *ix Geek
May 10th, 2010, 04:59 AM
her entire office hates the software due to daily crashes and all sorts of other problems.

She said her IT department has said that they have to live with this since they have free software, and unless they decide to "upgrade" to Microsoft then they're out of luck.This actually made me laugh. It sounds like it came straight from a Microsoft shill.

Her so-called IT department sounds like a bunch of morons. If they have a Ubuntu network so screwed up that its individual users are experiencing daily crashes and other problems, they need to figure out what THEY'RE doing wrong. :rolleyes:

ranch hand
May 10th, 2010, 05:05 AM
It sounds to me that their so called IT department is where the problem is. They could probably get this straight quite easily by firing the whole bunch and hiring some folks that know how to run large systems, most of which run on Linux servers, even if using MS on the desk.

These, many times, use MS from the servers in virtual box as added security.

What you have here is a bunch of MS ill trained techs at work.

Bright_View
May 10th, 2010, 05:13 AM
Yeah, it was like talking to somebody from Bizarro world.

"Linux is cool and all, great apps and everything, but it's so unstable"

She's going to look into it and fill me in with more details. I'll post more info when I get it.

FootySr
May 10th, 2010, 05:24 AM
I'll post more info when I get it.

I'm on the hook... I can't wait to hear this. :)

v1ad
May 10th, 2010, 05:27 AM
yea looks like their it dept is a bunch of idiots.

satish_j
May 10th, 2010, 07:08 AM
No doubt,it takes some time for users new to Linux to adapt to new OS environment..
But,frequent re-booting of systems because of application crashes is what should be handled by their IT team seriously..seems that they are not skilled enough for Linux.
On the other hand,we cannot rule out that Linux(Ubuntu to be precise)also has some serious bugs waiting to be fixed..And,in my opinion,ubuntu developers does not care to fix these bugs..they are more focussed on releasing new releases..
It is like there are 2 facets of the same coin..good and bad..

LoneWolfJack
May 10th, 2010, 07:43 AM
it would be interesting to know how many guys of their IT department are microsoft certified... ;)

mcooke1
May 10th, 2010, 07:47 AM
Those IT guys should start posting here in the support forums.

Drenriza
May 10th, 2010, 07:49 AM
I do not believe that ubuntu is the problem.

The problem is probably.

The IT-department-lack-of-experience, bad-network-setup, badly-supported-hardware (read HCL). Bad custom scripts/programs.

Does your friends office, even have an experienced linux administrator to maintain the systems, network, with more??

EDIT: What version of ubuntu are she running. Now if she says 10.04 then im gona laugh.

It's a shame to hear that your friend has so meny problems, and probably not a decent administrator. I would love to be
a administrator for such ubuntu-setup,s instead of what i do now. Get her to pull that bunch together and solve some problems.

FirstByté
May 10th, 2010, 08:04 AM
[...]
On the other hand,we cannot rule out that Linux(Ubuntu to be precise)also has some serious bugs waiting to be fixed..And,in my opinion,ubuntu developers does not care to fix these bugs..they are more focussed on releasing new releases..
It is like there are 2 facets of the same coin..good and bad..

Do you hold facts on these or are these presuppositions? (**No flaming intended though**)

I believe enterprise-centric (and security bugs) related issues are constantly addressed in the Ubuntu LaunchPad (https://bugs.launchpad.net)


While I can recall that Linus Torvalds initially build his Linux as a Unix-clone (a server of systems IMO), Linux and Ubuntu should be seen as such. It has attracted great audience primarily because it has stood a greater test of time of diverse software engineering methodologies and phases.


IMO: Critical bugs are often addressed quick. and even those that can be costly in the enterprise domains. Which IT admin would deploy cutting edge release in a Mission-Critical arena in the first 2weeks of release?

I don't work for Canonical but I bet they are doing their fair job. And also leaving open the options to MAKE our own modifications to our pleasure not like some greater corporations who prefer to sell ONLY usage rights

:)

earthpigg
May 10th, 2010, 08:15 AM
Those IT guys should start posting here in the support forums.

+5000 to this. there is nothing unprofessional about seeking professional advice. point your friend to this thread, and encourage her & her colleagues to seek help here. remind her that there is no shame in seeking help from folks that know more than you about one small and very specific subject.

hell, suggest to your friend that she point out to her friends the times/dates/locations of local LUG meetings.

ranch hand
May 10th, 2010, 08:15 AM
It might be good to let someone in management know that there is service available from Canonical.

http://www.ubuntu.com/support/services

Yes they do charge for it. Might help if they talked to those foks and maybe got some training that didn't come from a company that won't let you actually work on the system.

howefield
May 10th, 2010, 08:19 AM
Do you hold facts on these or are these presuppositions?

Read his words.... :)


And,in my opinion,...

Seems he hasn't got facts.

Drenriza
May 10th, 2010, 08:23 AM
+5000 to this. there is nothing unprofessional about seeking professional advice. point your friend to this thread, and encourage her & her colleagues to seek help here. remind her that there is no shame in seeking help from folks that know more than you about one small and very specific subject.

hell, suggest to your friend that she point out to her friends the times/dates/locations of local LUG meetings.

Might be a good idea. But they need to face the facts. If it as bad ad it sounds. Then their needs to be an skilled linux administrator, that sits down and checks the systems/servers one by one. To get a real fix. In a short time frame.

FirstByté
May 10th, 2010, 08:56 AM
[...]
..And,in my opinion,ubuntu developers does not care to fix these bugs..they are more focussed on releasing new releases..

That caught my fancy


Read his words.... :)



Seems he hasn't got facts.

Wonderful to 'read' :)

Fingers crossed.

lavinog
May 10th, 2010, 09:27 AM
... her entire office hates the software due to daily crashes and all sorts of other problems. She said her IT department has said that they have to live with this since they have free software, and unless they decide to "upgrade" to Microsoft then they're out of luck.


I have a couple of guesses:
Proprietary video drivers are out dated: I have experienced a version of fglrx where the system would hang for a couple of mins (looked like a system crash.) The next version fixed it though.

Flash issues: Users are playing their online flash games with multiple sites open full of flash ads.

Wine: Users are using apps meant for windows.

SSH: IT guys are having fun making the users freak out.

The Real Dave
May 10th, 2010, 09:40 AM
This actually made me laugh. It sounds like it came straight from a Microsoft shill.

Her so-called IT department sounds like a bunch of morons. If they have a Ubuntu network so screwed up that its individual users are experiencing daily crashes and other problems, they need to figure out what THEY'RE doing wrong. :rolleyes:

+1. A bad workman blames his tools ;)

Drenriza
May 10th, 2010, 09:41 AM
SSH: IT guys are having fun making the users freak out.

Anyone who would do stuff like that, should be fired. Imediately.

ranch hand
May 10th, 2010, 09:56 AM
Anyone who would do stuff like that, should be fired. Imediately.
Anybody that thinks MS is an upgrade for stabilty should too. Even I, a person that will not let MS products in the house, can see reasons for an office to use MS products.

Being reliable is not one of them.

ibuclaw
May 10th, 2010, 10:13 AM
Not a support thread. Moved to Cafe.

Phrea
May 10th, 2010, 10:28 AM
What about Goobuntu. :)

satish_j
May 10th, 2010, 10:31 AM
Do you hold facts on these or are these presuppositions? (**No flaming intended though**)

I believe enterprise-centric (and security bugs) related issues are constantly addressed in the Ubuntu LaunchPad (https://bugs.launchpad.net)

IMO: Critical bugs are often addressed quick. and even those that can be costly in the enterprise domains. Which IT admin would deploy cutting edge release in a Mission-Critical arena in the first 2weeks of release?
:)

Ok,if not critical(or security related),atleast the bugs relate to common features should be handled by them.
For eg:
In Nautilus,when the visible window is full,one cannot right-click and paste new files in the folder..This is a common features that the MS users are used to,but ubuntu team do not care to fix this issue in new versions as well...
A visit to Launchpad will reveal the number of bugs reported by users,BUT NOT EVEN ANSWERED by developers.If they do not intend to solve those bugs,it should be informed to the users so that any new user should be informed prior to using such version.
Inability to inform such things leads to situation like this thread.. when the new users starts hating the software..
Moreover,Ubuntu has this EOL period(iam sure for most users,this is a headache)for every version..Once EOL is over,users has to download and install the latest version,which i think is not suitable at enterprise level..
Why cant they develop fewer versions and work for making that versions as bug-free as possible...

ronnielsen1
May 10th, 2010, 11:29 AM
Lowes Home Improvement uses some kind of minimalistic linux on their systems that isn't very well liked according to a friend of mine that works there. I said I wasn't sure what they were running but it gets better

Khakilang
May 10th, 2010, 11:58 AM
I believe they have electric power stability problem. Those power surge, spike, brown out, static electricity, etc. can cause the computer to crash or hang. I have tested it out with a automatic voltage regulator and the computer could go on for day without any problem. One example is my computer. I am a die hard fan of AVR. So no blaming the software except if its infected by virus, spware or malware but than Ubuntu do not have any of them.

FirstByté
May 10th, 2010, 01:12 PM
[...]
She said her IT department has said that they have to live with this since they have free software, and unless they decide to "upgrade" to Microsoft then they're out of luck.
[...]

One starts to wonder how they [IT guys] came about a copy of Ubuntu without even venturing to 'google' up issues in such a way that might lead them to Ubuntuforums or ubuntu.com itself.

If they had the official CDs something somewhere should at least be pointing to Ubuntuforums or www.ubuntu.com.


There's hope though, this community is all about helping and sharing --Ubuntu Spirit

Bright_View
May 10th, 2010, 02:07 PM
Thanks guys for all the replies. You're all echoing the sentiment that I had when she told me (incredulity, confusion, etc.)

Before everybody starts flaming the IT department there, I have no idea how it's actually set up. For all I know, the office was warned that if they got Ubuntu then IT would have a hard time supporting them, and did it anyways because of the price.

My friend asked me not to say where she worked, but I can say that it is not a corporation, it is a public office doing very important work in the public interest with limited funds, and is exactly the type of place I always thought that Ubuntu could be used to great advantage.

I'll forward her this thread and see what she says. . .

Drenriza
May 10th, 2010, 03:13 PM
Ubuntu is a good tool.

But as with any other tool. If you don't know how to use them, then they wont be any good.

But hey, the it-guys can go to the forums and get some

tips & tricks, guides, and support. So aslong as they are willing to learn, i would guess their is hope.

But still, this sounds like a rushed decision without thinking.

"uhmmmmmmm can something go wrong? and can we fix it if it does?"

Doctor Mike
May 10th, 2010, 05:05 PM
Thanks guys for all the replies. You're all echoing the sentiment that I had when she told me (incredulity, confusion, etc.)

Before everybody starts flaming the IT department there, I have no idea how it's actually set up. For all I know, the office was warned that if they got Ubuntu then IT would have a hard time supporting them, and did it anyways because of the price.

My friend asked me not to say where she worked, but I can say that it is not a corporation, it is a public office doing very important work in the public interest with limited funds, and is exactly the type of place I always thought that Ubuntu could be used to great advantage.

I'll forward her this thread and see what she says. . .

Funny, I was just about to post that this sounded like a municipal GOV office.

The money for software is part of the IT budget. That means the IT budget has been cut or is expected to be cut in the future.

Once the basic changeover issues are addressed and the staff becomes use to the software there will likely be a drop in IT support requests. More cut to the IT budget.

It is just as likely that the IT staff see this as a potential loss of employment and power (in terms of budget allocation).

It is also possible that the head of the IT dept. was just told to do it without consideration of the need for any IT staff certification.

In either case there's a lot more going on here than questions about the abilities of the IT staff.

Another important point is that when using MS products the lay perception is that these products are unstable (when properly setup, not true). When there are system failures it could be convenient to have a handy whipping boy like MS to shift the blame onto.

Even if the IT staff are just trying to cover the fleshiest parts of their collective anatomy, in some offices this is the most intelligent thing to do (public interest aside).

v1ad
May 10th, 2010, 05:12 PM
give those IT guys a link to this thread.

clanky
May 10th, 2010, 06:09 PM
I love the way everyone knows enough about the situation, based on a single post in a forum, to pronounce a bunch of IT qualified people (yeah, people who actually do this stuff day in and day out) to be a bunch of idiots.

As for the suggestions that they come here for advice, if you were working with Ubuntu and someone directed you here to find the kind of pathetic bile that has been spewed in this thread would you read on much further?

It saddens me that for some people using Linux is just a way to make themselves feel 1337 and bitch about Microsoft.

98cwitr
May 10th, 2010, 06:16 PM
I love the way everyone knows enough about the situation, based on a single post in a forum, to pronounce a bunch of IT qualified people (yeah, people who actually do this stuff day in and day out) to be a bunch of idiots.

As for the suggestions that they come here for advice, if you were working with Ubuntu and someone directed you here to find the kind of pathetic bile that has been spewed in this thread would you read on much further?

It saddens me that for some people using Linux is just a way to make themselves feel 1337 and bitch about Microsoft.

Im a systems analyst with the state, work in Windows all day long and still bitch about MS on a daily basis...

It's like being a ghetto pimp and going home to your woman. Even though she might be a prostitute herself, she's a lot better than what you manage.

RiceMonster
May 10th, 2010, 06:21 PM
Im a systems analyst with the state, work in Windows all day long and still bitch about MS on a daily basis...

It's like being a ghetto pimp and going home to your woman. Even though she might be a prostitute herself, but she's a lot better than what you manage.

How constructive.

joshua.rh
May 10th, 2010, 06:22 PM
I love the way everyone knows enough about the situation, based on a single post in a forum, to pronounce a bunch of IT qualified people (yeah, people who actually do this stuff day in and day out) to be a bunch of idiots.

As for the suggestions that they come here for advice, if you were working with Ubuntu and someone directed you here to find the kind of pathetic bile that has been spewed in this thread would you read on much further?

It saddens me that for some people using Linux is just a way to make themselves feel 1337 and bitch about Microsoft.
+1 to this...

What gives anyone the right to flame these guys/gals? In my experience it can simply come down to how the OSs are organised. It took me a bit to get used to OSX, and a friend of mine a little while to get used to ubuntu, they're laid out differently. I'd say shoot them some tools like the ubuntu pocket guide, maybe look into some canonical stuff. There is a package manager I heard of once... can't remember the name, but it sounds slick to ensure the same software's on each system and updated. It's a service provided by canonical, so it costs money, but what doesn't for a business.

Pocket guide: http://www.ubuntupocketguide.com/index_main.html
Another web admin tool: http://www.webmin.com/

NCLI
May 10th, 2010, 06:31 PM
+1 to this...

What gives anyone the right to flame these guys/gals? In my experience it can simply come down to how the OSs are organised. It took me a bit to get used to OSX, and a friend of mine a little while to get used to ubuntu, they're laid out differently. I'd say shoot them some tools like the ubuntu pocket guide, maybe look into some canonical stuff. There is a package manager I heard of once... can't remember the name, but it sounds slick to ensure the same software's on each system and updated. It's a service provided by canonical, so it costs money, but what doesn't for a business.

Pocket guide: http://www.ubuntupocketguide.com/index_main.html
Another web admin tool: http://www.webmin.com/

It's crashing. Every day. If you're an IT-professional, no matter what OS you've set up, it should never crash that frequently.

dca
May 10th, 2010, 06:33 PM
Sorry folks, I call BS on the whole thing... THAT is my opinion... I mean, look at the OP, there's nothing there to go on besides 'it crashes and all workstations need to be re-booted everyday'. Geez, you couldn't go to an MS support forum and post something like that and not be questioned.

Diluted
May 10th, 2010, 06:45 PM
I love the way everyone knows enough about the situation, based on a single post in a forum, to pronounce a bunch of IT qualified people (yeah, people who actually do this stuff day in and day out) to be a bunch of idiots.

As for the suggestions that they come here for advice, if you were working with Ubuntu and someone directed you here to find the kind of pathetic bile that has been spewed in this thread would you read on much further?

It saddens me that for some people using Linux is just a way to make themselves feel 1337 and bitch about Microsoft.
+1.

There is not enough information on the situation to start dishing out blame. What if the hardware has gone wrong? What if the IT department didn't support Linux at all and left the users to do the administration?

joshua.rh
May 10th, 2010, 06:47 PM
It's crashing. Every day. If you're an IT-professional, no matter what OS you've set up, it should never crash that frequently.

You're citing a software problem then?

aysiu
May 10th, 2010, 07:04 PM
I can believe it. I've seen a lot of crashes on Ubuntu first-hand. But at work I see crashes on Windows and Mac also. Computers are human-made tools that are fallible. There is no perfect system.

Linux servers run well because they have no GUI.

Ubuntu as a workstation introduces all sorts of complications that can result in usability bugs and program crashes or dropped wireless connections.

No matter what operating system you use, your tech support department at work will not be twiddling its thumbs, especially if you don't empower users to learn how to maintain their own computers well.

mickie.kext
May 10th, 2010, 07:09 PM
I just had a conversation with a friend who works at a large office, and to my surprise she informed me that the entire office uses Ubuntu. I was impressed and excited, since I'd never heard of a large office using Ubuntu before, but when I asked her how it was working out she said that her entire office hates the software due to daily crashes and all sorts of other problems. She said her IT department has said that they have to live with this since they have free software, and unless they decide to "upgrade" to Microsoft then they're out of luck.


They need this (http://www.ubuntu.com/training/certificationcourses) and this (https://shop.canonical.com/index.php?cPath=31). Put "MS certified" to administer Linux servers and systems and you got yourself a disaster.

themarker0
May 10th, 2010, 07:15 PM
They need this (http://www.ubuntu.com/training/certificationcourses) and this (https://shop.canonical.com/index.php?cPath=31). Put "MS certified" to administer Linux servers and systems and you got yourself a disaster.

Actually i take offense to that. I was hired as a temp student worker, and recently my term ended. I was hired to manage windows and Linux servers. I to this day know nothing about windows servers. Nada. The person who is working in my position now is a certified Microsoft/Cisco/Novell dude. Want to know what he is working with 90% of the time? Linux servers, virtualization, among others. All things (In my employers mind) I wouldn't known better. Do i? Not a clue, never messed with VMware on that scale. Though his certifications don't say anything for his skills on that level. They show that he can learn and adapt to situations.

mickie.kext
May 10th, 2010, 07:26 PM
Actually i take offense to that. I was hired as a temp student worker, and recently my term ended. I was hired to manage windows and Linux servers. I to this day know nothing about windows servers. Nada. The person who is working in my position now is a certified Microsoft/Cisco/Novell dude. Want to know what he is working with 90% of the time? Linux servers, virtualization, among others. All things (In my employers mind) I wouldn't known better. Do i? Not a clue, never messed with VMware on that scale. Though his certifications don't say anything for his skills on that level. They show that he can learn and adapt to situations.

I am not sure why you are offended, but anyway I think you misunderstood me. I meant on those who have Microsoft certifications only, great majority of those (99% of those i know in particular)know nothing about Linux and think that is some kind of hacker OS with questionable legality. When I read OP, I fugured that "IT department" in question is probably full of those.

vaiocomputer
May 10th, 2010, 07:46 PM
Well, back a few years ago when I used to do some more 'software experiments' than I do now, I found that Ubuntu would crash more often and have more issues than Windows, which worked near perfectly hardwarewise on my 2 computers. I had to reinstall Ubuntu maybe 3 times, twice because due to some problem on my desktop (don't remember what), I had to shut Ubuntu down, and when I rebooted there were some disk errors on the faster JFS home partition (never used JFS again after all the errors), needing a reinstallation. And once because of running Google Earth in Compiz would flicker and make the entire OS unresponsive after running it for a few seconds and break the system, and I am no expert in terminal to know how to fix it.

Windows would have problems too, such as leftover registry and program data entries that didn't completely uninstall (fixed with CCleaner/Revo Uninstaller), conflicting programs that would break the system after (un)installation (Revo, System Restore/Last Known Good Configuration), sluggishness on especially Vista (Revo, editing Services, Advanced Systemcare, and clearing out files by a deleting extraneous ones through a directory structure that is much much less efficient than the web of libraries and nearly incomprehensible shorthand in linux, but more user-comprehensible for someone who only dabbles in computers), undeleteable folders/files (still have one that I can't delete even in Ubuntu that always prompts a fsck at the beginning of Vista bootup every time, which never detects any problems if I do let it run), Windows Updates that would break Vista (System Restore, then reinstalling updates), tens of hard disk gigabytes that would disappear for no apparent reason (delete excessive cache and temp files in AppData, delete excessive System Restores in Disk Cleanup, CCleaner, Advanced Systemcare), the mystery of the graphics card that would only install correctly in safe mode, and other minor problems not listed, but none of these required the enormous data salvation and tediousness of a reinstallation;

which is mainly because of how not once did the Windows GUI completely break and how its more dependent on GUI than Ubuntu, which is basically, as I understand it, a GNOME shell over Linux, a command line based OS, as well as having numerous additional GUI tools for system configuration and maintenance (which adds considerable 'bloat' to the OS).

There are certain problems that an average user just can't fix in Ubuntu and there aren't as many backups and failsafes built-in the OS that I'm aware of that could help fix them. Ubuntu relies on the stability of the packages themselves, but if they break, problems become extremely difficult for the computer un-initiate to fix.

98cwitr
May 10th, 2010, 08:04 PM
i havent found a single piece of software that doesn't leave stuff in the registry. The point to realize is, this is the design of the software uninstaller and not a Windows issue. Same thing with Ubuntu when I tried to remove Vuze and SimpleBackup, it uninstalled the program, but didnt uninstall the leftovers...I then had to run a purge && autoremove to get everything to uninstall completely. They both do it.

lavinog
May 10th, 2010, 08:24 PM
i havent found a single piece of software that doesn't leave stuff in the registry. The point to realize is, this is the design of the software uninstaller and not a Windows issue.
...
+1
It is really messy when the trial AV software is uninstalled, but continues to run in the background.
Kudos to MS for releasing a AV program that isn't bloated and nag free.

KiwiNZ
May 10th, 2010, 08:42 PM
I am amazed at this this thread so many conclusions jumped to.

No idea of the configurations , hardware in use , type of use, software used , .................

Assumptions (huge assumptions ) as to the technical skills/qualifications of the IT staff concerned.

No idea when and why the decision to deploy Ubuntu was made and how long it has been implemented.

But we see a lot of name calling etc . Maybe just maybe its a new deployment, or , shock horror Ubuntu is just not working for them. It happens .

aysiu
May 10th, 2010, 08:54 PM
Maybe just maybe its a new deployment, or , shock horror Ubuntu is just not working for them. It happens . Maybe it's because I've never worked in corporate (only in schools), but regardless of the operating systems, I have seen daily problems at every workplace I've been in. I don't know how you could make it so people are happy with their computers. I'm happy with mine, but I don't think I'm representative of the general populace in that regard.

KiwiNZ
May 10th, 2010, 08:59 PM
Maybe it's because I've never worked in corporate (only in schools), but regardless of the operating systems, I have seen daily problems at every workplace I've been in. I don't know how you could make it so people are happy with their computers. I'm happy with mine, but I don't think I'm representative of the general populace in that regard.

I Managed a very large IT Department ( large on NZ standards 10,000 desktops, 270 servers, 700 printers, 1200 laptops, 2 Clearpath Main Frames and a Cisco Voip Network) and we had a 97% satisfaction rating. I was very proud of that rating.

the8thstar
May 10th, 2010, 09:01 PM
My friend asked me not to say where she worked, but I can say that it is not a corporation, it is a public office doing very important work in the public interest with limited funds, and is exactly the type of place I always thought that Ubuntu could be used to great advantage.

The French Parliament uses Ubuntu. So does the Gendarmerie (it's a branch of the military with Police duties)... they don't experience crashes to my knowledge.

RiceMonster
May 10th, 2010, 09:04 PM
The French Parliament uses Ubuntu. So does the Gendarmerie (it's a branch of the military with Police duties)... they don't experience crashes to my knowledge.

Maybe if you said "they rarely experience crashes" I would believe that. I don't buy it that you're never going to have any issues with your computer systems, regardless of platform.

But regardless, just because one group of people has a good experience with something does not mean the next group will.

98cwitr
May 10th, 2010, 09:05 PM
I Managed a very large IT Department ( large on NZ standards 10,000 desktops, 270 servers, 700 printers, 1200 laptops, 2 Clearpath Main Frames and a Cisco Voip Network) and we had a 97% satisfaction rating. I was very proud of that rating.

sounds like us...how many users?

KiwiNZ
May 10th, 2010, 09:13 PM
sounds like us...how many users?

10,000 should have made it clear this was not an open source house. We used Unix back end and Windows desktop.

Sun Blade / IBM Blade servers
HP/Sun File and Print servers
HP Super Dome Servers
Unisys Clearpath Mainframes
Cisco Voip Servers etc

Dell Desktops
HP Laser Printers
Dell Laptops

We did trial Open Office but dropped it . Considered a move to Linux on the Desktop but the cost of migration was prohibitive.

Mark Phelps
May 10th, 2010, 09:24 PM
She said her IT department has said that they have to live with this since they have free software, and unless they decide to "upgrade" to Microsoft then they're out of luck.

IT departments have the responsibility to SUPPORT the organization. If the department manager won't hire people with the necessary skills, or won't get the people trained ... then FIRE the manager and hire someone who will.

And don't whine about this being a "government" position -- where folks can't be "fired". They can be re-assigned and someone else can be brought in to fill the vacancy.


I was just wondering if any of you have experience with Ubuntu in large office environments...

Not Ubuntu specifically, but work in a very large environment where enterprise-level Linux is used on a daily basis. No crashes. No complaints.

But then, we have folks specifically trained to support the 50+ servers that we have networked and running on a daily basis.

Bluesan
May 10th, 2010, 09:27 PM
Posted in wrong thread, sorry.

Radicc
May 10th, 2010, 09:43 PM
Back right before I graduated my school's computer science department was setting up a computer lab using ubuntu. It went pretty bad too, but not due to ubuntu. It was because they deployed all wrong. First of all the started with whatever the latest testing release of ubuntu was (9.04? maybe), and not an LTS version. Secondly instead of setting up the server and one client and making sure everything worked, they set up the server and installed the client on the entire lab and then tried to make it work by remote administering them all. At any rate four months of being stuck using that lab where you didn't know if you were even going to be able to log in made me sorry for the students that didn't have their own laptop/netbook.

I guess what I'm trying to say is if your office network sucks on ubuntu its most likely going to suck on windows too because your admins don't know what they are doing. The money would be better spent hiring good network admins vs replacing everything with windows.

chillicampari
May 10th, 2010, 09:45 PM
I am amazed at this this thread so many conclusions jumped to.
(snip)


But it's so darn easy and fun to evaluate and judge a situation and other people's competence based on second and third hand information! :P

--------------

I worked in IT for a medium to large office for a few years. From an end user standpoint I'm sure many things looked more unstable than it actually was but in addition to bona fide crashes/lockups it was common to have things reported as "crashes" when it was actually something like the print queue running a couple of minutes slow, or an unexpected dialog box, so yeah, who knows what's actually going on there.

But then again Ubuntu may not be the best fit for that particular office or maybe it really is an IT training issue, have no idea since we don't know enough.

KiwiNZ
May 10th, 2010, 09:46 PM
Back right before I graduated my school's computer science department was setting up a computer lab using ubuntu. It went pretty bad too, but not due to ubuntu. It was because they deployed all wrong. First of all the started with whatever the latest testing release of ubuntu was (9.04? maybe), and not an LTS version. Secondly instead of setting up the server and one client and making sure everything worked, they set up the server and installed the client on the entire lab and then tried to make it work by remote administering them all. At any rate four months of being stuck using that lab where you didn't know if you were even going to be able to log in made me sorry for the students that didn't have their own laptop/netbook.

I guess what I'm trying to say is if your office network sucks on ubuntu its most likely going to suck on windows too because your admins don't know what they are doing. The money would be better spent hiring good network admins vs replacing everything with windows.

Your last paragraph is so wrong. But then again so are most sweeping statements.

Bright_View
May 11th, 2010, 01:35 AM
The French Parliament uses Ubuntu. So does the Gendarmerie (it's a branch of the military with Police duties)... they don't experience crashes to my knowledge.



Not Ubuntu specifically, but work in a very large environment where enterprise-level Linux is used on a daily basis. No crashes. No complaints.

But then, we have folks specifically trained to support the 50+ servers that we have networked and running on a daily basis.

Thanks guys, this is what I was looking for - evidence that large organizations have used Ubuntu/linux successfully in other places.


Sorry folks, I call BS on the whole thing... THAT is my opinion... I mean, look at the OP, there's nothing there to go on besides 'it crashes and all workstations need to be re-booted everyday'. Geez, you couldn't go to an MS support forum and post something like that and not be questioned.

I can't give you any more because I don't work there. My information is second hand from somebody who is not a computer expert, which makes it really difficult to post any specifics. I'm not looking for technical support or answers which would require far more information for all of you, I just wanted to know of other places that use Ubuntu and have done so successfully. I told her that her experience sounded fishy to me, and some good counter examples would back that statement up. I want to make sure that I'm not inflaming the situation by creating unrealistic expectations of what Ubuntu can do in that environment.

I've forwarded her the thread link, so we'll see what happens.

Turned out to be a very passionate thread. Wasn't expecting that. Interesting.

chappajar
May 11th, 2010, 01:52 AM
Thanks guys, this is what I was looking for - evidence that large organizations have used Ubuntu/linux successfully in other places.



Then you should have just asked! :D
http://www.focus.com/fyi/information-technology/50-places-linux-running-you-might-not-expect/
http://www.aaxnet.com/design/linux2.html

kaldor
May 11th, 2010, 02:10 AM
and unless they decide to "upgrade" to Microsoft then they're out of luck.



Some person at a local business said the exact same thing to my surprise. Their computers all run a very very VERY old version of Linux and use firefox 1.x.. they say they are going to upgrade to Windows 7 in the office. When I mentioned they could upgrade their Linux systems instead of using something that looked like it was from the 90's, they said that it wouldn't be possible to do.

I don't get why people say that Linux is so difficult. Ubuntu/Mint are sooo easy to set up for anyone who can read. I run OpenSUSE on two computers and Ubuntu Server on an older one. I never have any stability issues or crashes at all. The only time I rebooted my Ubuntu server was when I upgraded from Hardy to Lucid.

Bright_View
May 11th, 2010, 04:53 AM
Then you should have just asked! :D
http://www.focus.com/fyi/information-technology/50-places-linux-running-you-might-not-expect/
http://www.aaxnet.com/design/linux2.html

Wow, excellent articles. I'll be forwarding these on for sure.

earthpigg
May 12th, 2010, 12:07 AM
Wow, excellent articles. I'll be forwarding these on for sure.

don't spend to much time on proving it can be done.

hit on that, don't spend a lot of time debating it (there will always be people who simply refuse to believe that the world is round), and then move to how it's done.

Bright_View
May 12th, 2010, 02:29 AM
Vindication!

So my friend, armed with the articles and testimonials that you all gave me. asked her IT head today to explain exactly what was causing all of the problems with the computers. Some of you won't be surprised by this, but it turns out the whole thing is a giant misunderstanding. The Ubuntu systems themselves are fine, but many of the important programs that the office uses are remote services and the link between their office and head office is currently overloaded (has to do with their ISP). They've just obtained the green light to upgrade to a fibre link, and they've done some other work to try to minimize the problems in the meantime. When the link goes down, staff cannot even log in to their computers, which made many of them think that Ubuntu had crashed.

The IT guy she spoke to actually sounds like a linux fan, and an Ubuntu fan in particular. He even told her to try dual booting at home.

So in summary, some combination of a bad link, ignorance on the part of the staff as to what services were being run where, flippant remarks made by some of the IT staff (probably Microsoft fans), and possibly some assumptions made on the part of the staff about free software had the whole office thinking that Ubuntu was garbage.

Thanks guys, you've probably assisted in making scores more people open to trying Ubuntu in the future. I'll make sure my friend passes along what she learned to her co-workers. She was emboldened and highly entertained by the responses that were posted here (I'm positive she never would have actually asked about this without seeing this thread).

Oh yeah, before I forget - everyone who wanted to string up the IT department there, you can set your phasers to stun.

Cheers!

Dave.

Drenriza
May 12th, 2010, 07:27 AM
Is it just me that thinks it's strange. That because of an ethernet link fail, then the computers locks op?

Even if the online services crash. The desktop should still be avaliable, so they for example could continue using open office. Unless they done something strange to it?


The Ubuntu systems themselves are fine, but many of the important programs that the office uses are remote services and the link between their office and head office is currently overloaded (has to do with their ISP). They've just obtained the green light to upgrade to a fibre link, and they've done some other work to try to minimize the problems in the meantime. When the link goes down, staff cannot even log in to their computers, which made many of them think that Ubuntu had crashed.

But if the problem is that the ethernet connection gets overloaded, then why not limit the traffic at a time on the link? So it won't crash.

chillicampari
May 12th, 2010, 07:45 AM
Is it just me that thinks it's strange. That because of an ethernet link fail, then the computers locks op?

Even if the online services crash. The desktop should still be avaliable, so they for example could continue using open office. Unless they done something strange to it?



But if the problem is that the ethernet connection gets overloaded, then why not limit the traffic at a time on the link? So it won't crash.

It's really hard to say. It depends on how their network is set up. If the remote office is running in a thin configuration network problems could totally kick everyone out of their sessions and since thin clients (or pc's set to connect as thin clients with session management done by the server) need to validate with the server, it could create locks and dead clients.

chessnerd
May 12th, 2010, 07:45 AM
Is it just me that thinks it's strange. That because of an ethernet link fail, then the computers locks op?

Even if the online services crash. The desktop should still be avaliable, so they for example could continue using open office. Unless they done something strange to it?

But if the problem is that the ethernet connection gets overloaded, then why not limit the traffic at a time on the link? So it won't crash.

My father, who works as a branch manager for a credit union, is having similar issues. His company "upgraded" to, what sound like, thin clients. The things are evidently slow, buggy, and constantly crashing because of the slow connection speeds.

If this office has a set-up where certain programs are running over the network then they could experience similar problems with those programs. OpenOffice probably works fine, the issues likely involve the applications running over the network.

A "crash" means different things to different people. My mother is constantly claiming the computer "crashed" when really it was only the web browser.

Software was not meant to be run over a network. I am a firm believer of this, but cloud computing still is called the "future" by many...

ibuclaw
May 12th, 2010, 08:01 AM
Oh yeah, before I forget - everyone who wanted to string up the IT department there, you can set your phasers to stun.

Cheers!

Dave.

And the moral of the story is...

Don't go making an argument from a half baked tale.

earthpigg
May 12th, 2010, 08:55 AM
A "crash" means different things to different people. My mother is constantly claiming the computer "crashed" when really it was only the web browser.


true story.

my friend told me she thought her laptop had a virus. she had to bang the display to get it to, um, display.

apparently, viruses can cause laptops to fall off the desk and onto the floor without any human intervention...

ibuclaw
May 12th, 2010, 08:58 AM
apparently, viruses can cause laptops to fall off the desk and onto the floor without any human intervention...

Viruses can cause laptops to accidentally fall out of 5 storey buildings *with* human intervention too, but that is another matter. ;)

Old *ix Geek
May 14th, 2010, 12:39 AM
I love the way everyone knows enough about the situation, based on a single post in a forum, to pronounce a bunch of IT qualified people (yeah, people who actually do this stuff day in and day out) to be a bunch of idiots.Well, *I* am an IT qualified person who did this stuff day in and day out for 20+ years [until illness struck], starting back when UNIX servers and terminals were 100% character based. You know, no GUIs. :eek: I installed, programmed and administered multi-location UNIX systems and supported the end users. So, yeah, I think I'm qualified to call these morons morons, and it's not just because they're obviously Micro$oft drones. It's because Ubuntu desktops are about as easy to administer as is possible. They're also as easy to use as is possible. My elderly mother needed no instruction--zip, zilch, zero--when I set her new computer up with Kubuntu (after wiping windoze off the drive :D) early this year, and she'd never used anything but windows. She's had no problems at all using word processors, e-mail clients, games (lots of games!), image software, etc. HER computer has yet to crash due to tons of software problems--or any OTHER problems. It's only been shut down TWICE since January--last month when we had some electrical work done and the power was on and off all day! So it strikes me as VERY odd that this so-called IT department is inundated with Ubuntu computers wildly crashing day in and day out...

As for the suggestions that they come here for advice, if you were working with Ubuntu and someone directed you here to find the kind of pathetic bile that has been spewed in this thread would you read on much further?I'd say to myself, "hmmmm..., people who actually KNOW Ubuntu think it's easy to use, and that it's much more stable than windows...maybe I should look that last part up...oh, wow, maybe THAT'S why the Internet runs on Linux!" Then I'd start reading, asking questions, and figuring out what I've screwed up to make my Ubuntu boxes so unstable.

chillicampari
May 14th, 2010, 03:27 AM
... So, yeah, I think I'm qualified to call these morons morons, and it's not just because they're obviously Micro$oft drones. It's because Ubuntu desktops are about as easy to administer as is possible. They're also as easy to use as is possible. My elderly mother needed no instruction--zip, zilch, zero--when I set her new computer up with Kubuntu (after wiping windoze off the drive :D) early this year, and she'd never used anything but windows....

That's pretty cool Ubuntu works great for your mom. Did you happen to see the update in post 67?