Migration from Windows to Linux

[David Ecklein]

Ed-

I understand your perspective. and share your appreciation for viewing
computer systems as just black boxes that help you get your work done.  And
maybe in spades, since I am a stereotypical grandpa, not an operating system
aficionado.

My perspective is somewhat different.  As a "winding-down" small business
activity (not fully retired yet from a computer career - mostly software -
extending as far back as the 1950s) I assemble and upgrade PC clones here in
Rumney NH.  I have no extensive personal interest in Windows or Linux at
this point, other than as part of a "black box" to do the few things I need
to do that can't be done with DOS (!).  Yes, all of my business records are
on a dos system, including taxes (in the years up until the last few where
TurboTax  is available only in a Windows version).  Dos is quite adequate
for all but a few things I need to do, such as burn CDs or go on the net.
If you don't need the GUI, internet, or multitasking (somewhat risky anyway
with most versions of Windows), why change to some high-cholesterol OS?
Frankly, I have been the beneficiary of the downhill progression, since most
of my business now consists in upgrades so computer users can run the latest
but not necessarily the greatest.  My internet is on Win98se, and I would
have moved it to Linux (currently have RH9 on another HD) in a heartbeat if
it wasn't so daunting.  Thanks to the feedback from you folks, I might just
now do it "when I get around to it".

That being said, I am otherwise affected.  In addition to bugs and security
flaws in Windows and associated problems posed by digital terrorism on the
internet (spyware, virii, intrusive hacking), much of my somewhat less
appealing business activity has been bailing people out of periodic messes,
with or without prophylactic software (which itself is a performance hit).
Sometimes I am successful, sometimes not, and I have to blow away their disk
and reload the system, whatever it is.  I have expressed the hope that Linux
might solve their problems.  The experience I have is limited to Red Hat
installs, and the progress from 5.1 to 7.2 to 9.0 has been dramatic.  A
generic distribution (perhaps a Debian variant) would eliminate the one most
costly item in putting together a clone (at least on the low end), an
obvious business advantage.  Before I would dare offer this, I will need
more support skills and tools.  Which is why I raised the migration
question.

I will load Linux on request for new systems.  Only once has this happened,
and that was RH7.2 for a physicist in MA some time ago.  One local business
client has expressed considerable interest in Linux servers to replace the
outrageously priced M$ Win2000 versions.  I can see this happening sometime
soon, even without migration occurring at the actual workstations.

Hope I haven't bored you all with my rambling "perspective".

Dave Ecklein
dba Diacad Associates
www.diacad.com


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ed Lawson" <elawson at laconialaw.com>
To: "David Ecklein" <dave at diacad.com>
Cc: "GNHLUG" <gnhlug-discuss at mail.gnhlug.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: Migration from Windows to Linux


> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 09:07:46 -0400
> "David Ecklein" <dave at diacad.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Thanks for the leads.  This is indeed a big subject, an elephant is in
> > the room, and there has been so little discussion of it.
>
>
> I have lurked on this thread, but will give a few thoughts.  First, I am
> not a technically astute or knowledgeable person.  I use only Linux at
> home and I use Linux extensively at work.  So I guess I have gone
> through the migration process even though I did not think a great deal
> about it.  I would be happy to discuss issues and address questions here
> or privately.  For me computers are almost exclusively "black boxes" by
> which I accomplish work.  I do not enjoy dealing with hardware and
> basically just want things to work and work in a way that lets me get
> tasks done as quickly and as easily as possible.
> >
>
> > As I see it, there are two purely objective parts to the migration.
> > The first objective is identifying parallel features and executables
> > in the two OS worlds
>
> I look at this differently.  The issue is not finding similar or
> duplicate programs.  It issue is identifying what you need/want to do
> and then selecting the applications to do them.  If you start out
> thinking, I need a program that does what Access does and it needs to do
> it the same way; then you will encounter problems/disappointments. I
> often tell people Linux is not a replacement for a Windows environment,
> it is an alternative.  One of the things I miss in the windows world is
> the variety of software and the ability to select software that works
> they way I like software to work/look.  Of course the uniformity in the
> windows world is a strength from a different perspective.  As an
> example, I don't care for KDE even though I can recognize its value.  I
> just prefer Gnome.
>
>
> >
> > I was not addressing the third, somewhat subjective, part of  the
> > migration - that of the migrating user's necessity to deal with all
> > the system trivia and steep learning curve of the "paradigm shift",
> > but this is obviously important.
>
> I agree this is a big issue.  While it is easy to claim the average
> computer appliance user would not necessarily notice all that big a
> difference, there are fundamental differences and there is no way to
> avoid taking the time and effort to learn how things work in Linux.
> I frankly never noticed a steep learning curve and consider the system
> trivia just a natural part of learning how to use an operating system.
> this may have been due to the fact that I had used several
> operating systems in the past.
>
> I agree with the suggestion of setting up a computer with Linux and
> avoiding a dual boot system.  I also have definite preferences regarding
> distributions, but so do we all and that is for another time and place.
>
> Ed Lawson