Citrix has announced plans to develop a Linux version of its ICA Client to address concerns about Windows security. This client will allow companies to deploy Windows applications (such as MS Office) to any PC running Linux.
Granted, it's not as ideal as a native Linux/FOSS solution, but it does provide an additional foothold for Linux in the corporation, as well as cede even more credibility to Linux as a reliable, secure operating system.
The latest article on O'Reilly Network discusses one of the very few remaining enterprise components missing from Linux. In particular, the author discusses Linux's inability to interact with Microsoft's Active Directory services, as well as the lack of a good, uniform set of directory services available for Linux in general.
Now, I know most Linux advocates will say "Big deal, I can do everything I need with OpenLDAP." Well, the sad truth is, while you may be able to do everything you need with it, OpenLDAP, unfortunately, does not provide all of the features a business needs. My own company, for example, uses Active Directory to control all user authentication, permissions, remote shares, and much more. Being the good little Linux advocate that I am, I've been trying to get Linux in the door at my company. However, being able to logon and authorize against the directory service is an absolute must, and so far I've been unable to do so. Now, how in can I push for Linux on the desktop when I can't even login properly?
This is something that I really hope gets rectified soon. I'm sure the capability is there (for Active Directory authentication, at the very least), but it needs to be made much more accessible to the end user before it's useful to anyone. I know I'm anxiously looking forward to that day.
For more information, please read the full article.
In a very nice contrast to the SCO story posted earlier, IBM has announced that its Linux business is growing at a rate of 65% per year. Eat that, SCO!
This 30 page document analyzes many of the differences between the GNU GPL and Microsft's current EULA, represented by the Windows XP EULA.
As you read through it, there does seems to be a bias towards the GPL, however I'd have to say that the facts speak for themselves. The GPL is very simply less restrictive than any Microsoft EULA.
To quickly summarize:
... the majority of the Microsoft EULA appears to protect Microsoft and limit the choices, options and actions taken by the users... In contrast, the majority of the GPL is designed to apportion rights to the users ... with a secondary emphasis on protecting the originating developers of that software... In all, a marked contrast to the EULA.
A marked contrast, indeed.
Read the full .pdf
Earlier today I came across this interesting interview with SCO CEO Darl McBride, in which he quite righteously defends his company's lawsuite against IBM. Honestly, not since the last interview with Steve Balmer did I here such nonsense. There are several choice quotes in the interview, but this one is probably my favorite:
Everyone just says we're a company going out of business, and throwing a Hail Mary pass, but once we get to court, those who say that will look as strange as the Iraqi information minister on TV saying the infidels are defeated and did not get into Baghdad.
Riiiiiight. In the middle of all that, he also threatened other Linux-friendly companies, including Red Hat and SuSE by name.
Darl, do the world a favor and get a life. And a real name.
The author of this article makes the case that there's no longer any question of whether Linux is ready for the corporate desktop (it is), but whether corporations are ready for Linux. The author brings up some valid points, and while there are not revelations, it does counter some of the many arguments agains Linux on the desktop.
To sum up: The only area Linux may not yet be mature enough in is application and document format compatability. I reluctantly have to agree with this. While OpenOffice, as an example, may be fine for anything a company has to do from this point on, it may not be compatable with all existing documents, especially those with complicated templates, macros, etc. Reimplmenting all of these templates and macros in OpenOffice would be possible, of course, but the prospect of doing it is certainly discouraging.
It looks like the Trusted Computing Platform Alliance (TCPA) is no more, although that's not necessarily a good thing. The new Trusted Computing Group is basically composed of the same members of the TCPA, but now instead of focusing on the design and specifications of "trusted computing" (AKA Palladium), they're now focused on bringing it to market as soon as possible.
"TCG is a more formal group with licensing policy, a marketing budget, and a mission to push the trusted computing technology into a variety of devices."
Okay, now let's summerize: