For a number of days I have struggled with getting my newly hatched Linux machine to print. What I could not figure out was why I had no problem printing when I was running Linux off of a DVD yet I felt like I was banging my head into a brick wall once I tried to get printing running when I started running off my hard drive. The Print Manager kept looking for a userid, yet no matter what I supplied it failed.
So I started checking the system configuration and to my surprise the firewall had automatically been turned on when I checked that I was connected to a network. As soon as I turned off the firewall, and went back to printmanager, everything was visible, my network printer and the CUPS server running off of my Mac.
It is nice to have a victory once in a while. So now I have just one problem left, getting my Windows hard drive to boot again. Perhaps I will give the MS disk one more shot and stay around to figure out what it is actually doing this time. It took so long the last time, I wandered off to watch television and when I came back, it was done whatever it was doing, but the system still could not boot into Windows.
My lack of Windows knowledge is clear in this case, I know how to get OSX and Linux to boot off of CDs but even after over twenty years in the computer world and more than a few operating systems, the Windows XP Professional solution seems to ellude me. Perhaps I should try to find a local MCSE.
The good news is that now that my printing is fixed, my Linux box and my Mac are doing very well together. Using the OpenOffice word processor, I have been writing the first few pages of my book from "From Mayberry To Nova Scotia and Back." I have managed to move the files over to the Mac and work on them in TexEdit, Nisus Writer (my favorite), and MS Word. I have moved the files by networking and by using my USB Memory Stick.
Everything seems to work fine. The interesting thing is that in doing all of this, I now feel some IT pain and understand why CIOs might be resistant to other operating systems despite the fact that there would be significant benefits.
Getting three serious operating systems to cooperate and stay secure on one network is a significant challenge. Why bother if you can accomplish 98% of what you need to do by staying with what you are already using? The first thought when you get all this working is, "do not touch anything, and please no more updates." Yet it doesn't take long to remember setting up my Windows box. It seemed that I was spending more time on security than I was on getting work done. Obviously you can lock all of this down on a homogeneous network and have few problems.
You train your work force on MS Office and Outlook and all your problems are minimized. Perhaps that is the simple solution, but I am a creative person and I can honestly say that having used OpenOffice and Nisus Writer, the prospect of doing my writing in Word on Windows is not very appealing. It is not the tool that I would choose to do my work.
To me it is a question of productivity. I can pick up a small hammer to drive in a large nail or I can pick up a sixteen ounce hammer and do it more easily. Both tools will get the job done, but one tool fits the job better and makes it more likely that I will approach the second, third and perhaps the one thousandth nail with a better attitude. I will also get there a lot quicker if the nail goes after two or three strikes instead of ten. If I have to do a security update on my hammer before I strike each third nail, that is a significant loss in productivity.
To be training the whole workforce on Windows, MS Office, and Outlook is no different than making certain that all our factory workers only use the Acme Machine Tool 101 while the world is exploring a number of different tools to get the job, faster and better. A well known Federal CIO once told me that his biggest problem was that his aging workforce would revolt if it tried to put a new office suite in front of them. Another Federal CIO told me that managed diversity in operating systems had great value in his organization. He felt that people who got to choose their own tools were more productive and creative in getting their jobs done.
Which type of work force would you like to run, the one that will revolt if they need to change or the one that finds success in looking for new ways to get their jobs done. So we are back to the environment that is the most effective in an organization.
Certainly if you want everyone to do everything the same way with the same tools and potentially the same mistakes, I would go with a homogeneous Windows network. Administration will be simpler, but if something breaks, a worm or virus gets on the network, you face the potential of being out of business. I guess we could hope that whatever business it is, it isn't critical to the safety of the nation.
If you want to create an environment where people can pick their hammer, there is nothing wrong with putting Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X all on one network.
If one former sales manager, can make it all work and even come close to making Linux and Windows work on the same machine in less than a couple of weeks, it should not be much of a challenge to a trained IT organization. Certainly if a former Mac person can pick up enough Windows and Linux networking to make it work, I would suspect that your average MCSE ought to be able to make this happen smoothly. It is not like I have been able to find a lot of support in this. So far the only manuals I have tackled are the ones on installing a hard drive in the Dell and installing the SATA PCI card.
The benefits in productivity, security, creativity, and intellectual stimulation far outweigh the alleged cost savings. No one can tell me that all the virus and worm patches are getting done for free in the Windows world.
To me, the rigid embrace of the Windows world that we see in the United States is no less a threat than what our car manufacturers witnessed when the Japanese adopted quality production techniques that left American cars with a second class quality reputation that has yet to disappear. As I remember many of the techniques the Japanese adopted had their roots in the US but were not seriously considered here until there was serious dislocation and layoffs in the auto industry.
We are not going to beat the rest of the world by being cheaper. We have to be smarter. Forcing everyone to use the same tool or operating system, just makes us dumber from the start and reduces the chance of breakthroughs in productivity because we have made the collective decision that MS will define how we do things. We are putting change in the hands of a few people in one company. I would rather trust the worldwide open source community to come up with that new breakthrough.
Perhaps a disabling Word virus or a fatal Outlook worm which stops work from getting done will cause a change, but likely the real wake up call will come when someone in China using an IBM labelled PC figures out a new and better way to get work done and the US once again loses its competitive advantage
For more of my life after Apple, you can visit my homepage.
