Hi Todd,
I've found, in two institutions I have now worked for, that the
tradeoff is between IT support and the hardware/software you want to
use. When our group moved institutions recently our new IT department
told us that they would only support managed desktops on windows
machines. We told them that wasn't good enough so they said "fine run
your own network" which we now do. The downside is that we have to fix
all problems ourselves, but the upside is that we have almost complete
freedom. This is slowly leading to people getting apple laptops
(through the apple educational store) and then configuring the
crystallography software themselves. The bottom line is that Linux is
just slightly too complicated for someone who is only a part time
computer geek whereas both the flexibility and ease of use offsets the
price penalty of using OSX. Mind you the only money we have for
computers is from grants which probably gives us a bit more
flexibility than any arrangement where the institution provides the
machines. But again, I am not certain that a "free" $500 Linux box
from my university would convince me to spend hours battling with
dependencies!
Simon
On 1 May 2009, at 17:50, mjvdwo...@netscape.net wrote:
Todd,
Once upon a time I studied at an institution of higher learning. Its
specialty is (and was) the education of and participation in medical
sciences (I guess that could be an oxymoron, sorry). With that comes
the securely keeping and sharing (as needed) of patient data. The
institutional bureaucrats decided that Novell token ring networks
were the best suited for that purpose and that, on the other hand,
TCP/IP was inherently insecure, so they were going to "do away with
TCP/IP networks". Shock was on the face of the workers. All academic
and scientific networks need TCP/IP.
The same thing was done as Bill says: we had to go in and argue that
we didn't work for the computer and network people, but they worked
for us. I can't remember if we did this - this was long before the
time of ssh and sftp- long ago, but today I would bring up the
argument of how much grant money and overhead money (which pays for
the computer and network people) scientists bring in and that
without the proper tools, these things cannot be perpetuated.
It would seem to me that you cannot run crystallography efficiently
(!) on one platform alone (no matter which one you choose). Some
tasks, like grant writing, are easily done on some platforms
(windows or Mac, but not Unix/Linux) etc. So the driving force
should be "what needs to be done" and "how to best do it". With that
should come the realization that making you as a scientist less
efficient will translate into less ability to attract funds (because
funds are competitive), which does not affect only you, but the
entire institution.
Things should not be and are not all about money, but that argument
always works - hit them in the pocket book and they will reconsider.
There are ways of cutting costs without doing away with
capabilities. You can have groups of people who use Windows and have
support for that. At the same time you can have other groups of
people who use Macs with support for that. And you can make a rule
that if you want to be different from everyone in your group, you
will belong (for computing needs only) to the other group. That is
how our University tries to run things.
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: William G. Scott <wgsc...@chemistry.ucsc.edu>
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Sent: Fri, 1 May 2009 9:39 am
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Computer hardware and OS "survey"
Hi Todd:
One option on Windows is to install Ubuntu in a mode that lets it
run nested as a guest in a window within the host operating system.
This is now one of the options on the (free) Ubuntu install CD. I've
actually not tried it, so I can't tell you how good it is, but my
guess is that it works in a way that is very similar to VMware of
Parallels on OS X.
But if you already have made the investment in OS X hardware, I
really would recommend standing your ground on this. The main
arguments to make, I believe, are the following:
1. Scientists really need to have ready access to unix-based
operating systems. OS X and Linux are two such variants, but the
main arguments in favor of each are the same. I'm flattered you
liked my website, but frankly I don't think its existence is a
compelling argument. (In fact, I made the thing originally as a
publicly accessible log/whine of my trials and tribulations in a do-
it-yourself sys admin environment. You could point out that if an
idiot like me can do this, anyone can.) You could probably get by
with work-around solutions on Windows, but why should you be forced
to hobble yourself.
2. Your institutional bureaucrats should not, as a matter of
principle, dictate to you what your computer or other equipment
needs are. They are supposed to work for you, not vice-versa. As
pointed out, you probably only really need their IT support to give
you network access. You should be able to work with whatever
operating system your needs, tastes and ethics dictate. (The idea
that the institution would force you to use an operating system that
has been the subject of US Department of Justice litigation and
would simultaneously discourage you from using Linux, a Free
Software alternative, is particularly troubling).
Happy May Day. Time to raise the black flag and start slitting
throats.
Bill
On May 1, 2009, at 7:40 AM, Link,Todd M wrote:
> My home institution, in effort to cut costs, is making an effort
to > push those of us on Macs onto PCs. Up till now they have been
very > generous via a lease program for computer hardware, but that
is > changing given the current economics. The institution currently
> does not support Linux so we are limited to Mac and Windows OS.
>
> We certainly make use of William Scotts crystallography on OS X >
(thanks so much!) so our main argument is that we would have far >
more support "out there" for crystallography on the Mac than we >
would have for on Windows. But to be fair (and hopefully bolster >
our argument) I should find out if that is true. I did not find an >
equal web support page for Windows.
>
> A volunteer survey will be distorted (probably by Mac fanboys like
> me) so I am asking for peoples best guesstimate as to what % use
of > Mac, Windows, or Linux is out there for data processing and
model > building. Our core programs are coot, o, pymol, cns, and
ccp4 but > we certainly make occasional use of other crystallography
programs > out there (solve, epmr...)
>
> Also what are the relative crystallography support for Mac vs. >
Windows.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Todd
>
>
> --
> Todd M. Link
> Assistant Professor
> MD Anderson Cancer Center
> Univ. of Texas
>
> (713) 834-6394
>
Can't afford a new spring wardrobe? Go shopping in your closet
instead!
