Slashdot Mirror
A Case for Linux in the Corporation
_UnderTow_ writes: "Saw this over at Anandtech. It's a pretty descriptive account of a reasonably large corporation (7000+ employees) transitioning their network infrastructure over to Red Hat Linux. Has details of the company's initial move to NT, and their eventual move to Linux as the cost of licensing gets out of control."
Yes absolutely. I got the same impression. The author claimed that the company in question had their servers going down at least once every 10 days.
What the HELL were they doing to these servers? Mine has been up for 140+ days at home (I have run NT Stress Test on it for a week as well), and at work here we have a 2K server up for 80+ days right now, and it's used a lot, it has 2 printers on it, a stack of hard disks and email as well, and we've had no problems.
And if this company was so proud of the change, why didn't they let us know their name?
If God gave us curiosity
While this analysis details very niceley what MS charged for service, the writer completely left out what RedHat charges, in this case or even generally.
Could someone with experience post some figures?
How long will RedHat be involved in providing service for a company they have switched to Linux. If all goes so smooth, why not hire an experienced sysadmin inside, why outsorcing?
What version of windows are you running though? From what I've heard (and experienced) win2k is a lot more stable than NT4 was, but in this article they state that they never made the switch to win2k due to the costs, and not wanting to use Active Directory.
I could easily see NT4 having problems like this.
Yes, I agree.. We have been using Linux for non-mission critical stuff for over a year, and are starting to rely on it more and more. Currently we use it for the Samba file server (repository of install CD's, not users personal stuff yet), print server (a few printers only), and Internet gateway/squid proxy/firewall, and our helpdesk software (PHP Helpdesk, shameless plug, I'm a developer on that project). So far we have had no problems whatsoever. But as a long time Linux advocate, I would not recomend to the bosses to install it on users desktops just yet.
Actually, I would say it is more a case of Microsoft losing then Linux winning or doing much of anything. It seems clear the real deal breaker was the fact that Linux is free. There was nothing about special about Linux here that would have prevented someone from replacing 'Linux' with 'OS/2', except that Linux is free. It was Microsoft who kept screwing them over on outrageously escalating licensing fees. It was Microsoft that penalizes their customers for not having the faith to jump whenever Microsoft yelled. If MS had more generous/less expensive licensing fees then this (supposed) company likely would still have stayed with MS.
And I would like to add my voice to the chorus that is somewhat suspicious of the article. Companies often are NOT shy about announcing changes they make to their infrastructure, especially as they relate to the bottom line.
I couldn't disagree with you more. Many pundits think that the reason that Linux is being installed is due to the fact that it is more stable or more secure, or more whatever. The pundits couldn't be more wrong. The real reason that Linux gets installed is that for many uses it is "good enough" and the price is right.
If you have some monster database, and that database costs you one grillion dollars every second that it isn't available, then you bust out your checkbook and pay for Oracle and a pile of the best Oracle DBAs you can find. However, most folks can get by with much less than the very best, and increasingly folks are shopping around. Paying a premium for software features that you don't need and won't use is stupid.
For example, in one of my projects I needed a database, not a fancy database, but something a step up from Access. Microsoft wanted me to go with SQL Server, but instead I spent the extra time to learn how to administer PostgreSQL. That extra time was time well spent. I now have several PostgreSQL databases deployed, with a fairly significant cost savings over MS SQL Server. I feel especially smug about my decision because PostgreSQL is getting ready to beta their 7.2 version which removes my last major problem with PostgreSQL, a vacuum will no longer require an exclusive lock on the table. Now I can use PostgreSQL in more demanding projects where having tables unavailable, if only for a moment, is unacceptable.
Could I have accomplished the same thing with MS SQL Server and Microsoft's development tools? Sure I could have. However, PostgreSQL, and the other Open Source tools I use, did the job for less money. More importantly, my PostgreSQL machines are completely off Microsoft's upgrade treadmill. I don't have to worry about how Microsoft is going to change their licensing agreements. Upgrades are free, and I have the choice of several organizations for support.
If you really believe that price is not a factor, then I have some software to sell you :).
but the problem is that noone "NEEDS" to upgrade to SQL 2000. Windows 2000 server has code written in it to not allow SQL 6.5 to run. It's not that it wont run it's built in obsolesence.
99.9% of all SQL uses do not need an upgrade past 6.5 there is absolutely no need to unless when you need those super advanced added features. It's as stable as 7.0 and 2000, scales the same (horribly) Just like there is absolutely no reason to upgrade from NT 4.0 you dont gain any extra features that are required for security or useage. (in fact 2000 is just as bad as 4.0 in security. you cannot lock down a machine in a domain environment.)
Microsoft is shoving every one of their products down everyone's throats. They threaten you by taking away the "discounts" and try to scare you.
Me? my servers are going to stay at NT4.0 until they go to linux. they will NEVER go to 2000 or XP because both of these OS upgrades offer nothing but fluff... and being a offshoot part of corperate I can do this.... Sometimes it's good to be the bastard stepchild of the company.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
When I used to write some web apps that ran on IIS (about 1 year ago - thank god those days are over) we worked with a fairly big NT shop.
Their policy was to reboot the NT web servers one per month on schedule, becuase if you went any longer IIS would go into a death spiral and take NT down with it.
This place was staffed with lots of MCSEs, etc. and this was their answer to problems with NT/IIS. No joke.
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
There are two basic types of margins, gross margin and profit margin. Gross margin is the difference between selling price and manufacturing cost. Out of that must come sales, R&D, advertising, admonistration, etc. etc.. When all of that is done you have profit. Any company must have a gross margin in the 40% to 50% range to survive - normally a 50% gross margin gives you a 5-10% profit margin, which is where most companies operate.
Microsoft has a 40% PROFIT margin. Not even drug dealers get this. Microsoft's gross margin is in the 80-90% range.