Slashdot Mirror
Amazon: Linux Saved Us Millions
Ian_Bailey writes: "ZDNet news presents another chapter in the Windows vs. Linux debate. Amazon.com claims that by switching to Linux, they were able to "cut technology expenses by about 25 percent, from $71 million to $54 million."" Lots of little bits in there. Nothing really new, but it's still nice.
Doest this meen that I'm allowed to like amazon again?
Breaking news just off of the wire -- A free operating system costs less than an operating system that you have to pay for! (Yes, I'm being fecetious (sp?))
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
In a corporate Linux environment you still have to pay for the staff, sysadmins, distributions [most likely Amazon bought a few copies of what ever linux.dist they have], etc..
I'm all for Linux too, but lets not use any excuse to promote it. The OS is still very premature and doesn't really compete with Windows in terms of END USER usability. Sure Linux may be a faster/stabler[?? VM problems?] OS, but it is not an easier to use OS, and in the end, for 99% of the users that is what counts.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
free is always cheaper! Awx
And the new DVD::Price::Discriminate modules
Article at Infoworld tells how Boscov's Dept Store is saving a bundle.
This article is really more about IBM, but mentions Winnebago the motor home maker switching from NT also.
"Linux as pork bellies" the os as a commodity.
With Linux, customers "end up being in the operating systems business," managing software updates and security patches while making sure the multitude of software packages don't conflict with each other," Miller said. "That's the job of a software vendor like Microsoft."
too bad that they only supply patches when the problem is absolutely demanding it. I don't really see MS going out and patching all these machines.
From the article MS had very little to say about this whole ordeal. They kept going back to the "it's free, sure, but you will pay in the long run." no. I will never pay. It is going to cause me the same, if not less problems in the long run, especially w/new licensing issues.
As far as it is usually for low end servers. Anyone see the IBM commercials lately?
isnt this more about Unix vs Linux than Windoze vs Linux. Hey, dont let the facts get in the way of a good headline!?
Once they got OpenNap working the change was a no-brainer!
That's pretty sad, the link in the article to another ZDNet article dealing with intel brings up a "Article not found" page.
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
You mean facetious.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Whoa!
With Linux, customers "end up being in the operating systems business," managing software updates and security patches while making sure the multitude of software packages don't conflict with each other," Miller said. "That's the job of a software vendor like Microsoft."
Interesting comment from MS's Miller, seeing as how so many of us running MS servers have wasted untold numbers of hours fighting off the Code Red & variant worms. Yeah, there was a patch available before the storm came (and my servers were ready, anyway), but if MS is claiming that it's their "job" to manage updates & patches, they're not doing a very good one, IMHO.
Funny, that sounds very similar to what RedHat does as well.
--It's Pimptastic!--
(1) Hasn't really helped their stock price. They are still not profitable, and won't be for a while. They say that pro forma profitability should happen next quarter.
(2) For curious folks, here is Amazon's Linux page.
(3) Amazon uses Linux despite attacks by high profile people. However, when you get down to it, it is about money. They don't really give a shit about Linux itself. They don't have feelings for it. Don't forget that. It is about the money. (And the nookie. They did it all for the nookie, the nookie.)
How to Download YouTube Videos
I've been thinking awhile about making an interactive price comparison web page for my website that would allow users to see how much they could save by switching from Windows to Linux. This is just a formative idea at the moment - if people have suggestions for this, please email me. Right now I'm thinking of something along the lines of a set of "wizard" pages that ask the user a series of questions about what software they want to run (and what hardware they have available) and keeps a running tally of the savings they would get with Linux over Windows.
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
Note that they state it was a combination of the move to linux and lowered telco/comm costs. A minor, but important, point.
this is getting old and so are you
blog
While the biz is suffering, Linux is doing well, and will continue to do so.
Best Slashdot Co
This is great! Amazon is proving that by making simple effective changes, losses can tumble. I propose some other ways for Amazon to reduce losses:
* Fire more staff
* Turn off servers randomly throughout the day (saves power)
* Run MacOS or XP on all workstations. It improves efficiency says Jakob!
* Firewall every site unrelated to Amazon. Stop those thiefing bastards looking at porn during work hours.
* Offer a lower quality telephone service than competitors.. oh, they already did that one.
It was predicatable that sooner or later, without opening new and potentially large markets, Microsoft would have to gouge existing customers.
The only thing that can bring Win2k and other enterprise software costs back in check would be a huge influx of revenues from XBox, MSN, and .Net services, three of the key new revenue initiatives at Microsoft.
How many patches and updates have Microsoft published in the last year? And how many of those were pulled, because they weren't tested properly? I haven't had to re-install Linux on any of the boxes I admin since we went to RH 6.2. The MSCE-in-training down the hall can't say that about the last three months on his Windoze boxes. Imagine doing that for 100, 1,000, or even more! What fun! Thank you, Microsoft!
When is someone going to build a new type of machine architecture (i.e. not Sparc, PC, or PPC, but maybe based on one of those chips) that is optimized for absolute reliability and the things that machines need to do today, and then use Linux as a base for their operating system?
That's where the real value of Linux to the world is. You don't need 2+ years to write a proprietary operating system; someone else has done all the grunt work for you. Same goes for BSD, except BSD is more polished.
I hate Microsoft as much as the next Linux fan, but the article was about money saved versus Unix systems.
:) Or maybe they were using some other Unix? Naaa...
It's a good thing I hate Sun too.
OK Amazon, lets see a little donation to some open source communities or deals for developers and maybe you will save yet even More $$ later on.
With Linux, customers "end up being in the operating systems business," managing software updates and security patches while making sure the multitude of software packages don't conflict with each other," Miller said. "That's the job of a software vendor like Microsoft."
Ok, so, how does Microsoft make things that much easier than apt-get?
On that command, on a debian box, I can quite happily make sure that my system is at it's best.
All done, configured, sorted, working dependancies etc...
This seems much easier than going to the MS website, hunting down all the latest upgrades, installing patches for all the seperate bits and pieces, having patches for one app kill half the rest, and ending up with your MS box in tatters...
Really, this FUD is old hat by now... I wish they'd get a little more creative, and actually do a little research for once...
Malk
Next: Ballmer says Amazon is run by Communists !
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
I'm a little surprised that it took a .com so long to realize that this step makes sense. If a company claims to be on the cutting edge of technology, why would they sink their money into faulty, overpriced, GUI OSes?
I'm glad a big consumer name company is openly saying that they've switched to Linux and saved money. But this is just the beginning. As the slump proceeds and managers want to streamline expenses, Linux is the logical alternative. Most companies that don't write Windows only software are already using a generic library that doesn't tie them to windows. It might take a bit of a startup time to switch to Linux initially but once done, it's smooth. Linux is already a pleasure to program in and it'll only get better with time.
In another sad note, Computer Literacy, a well known geek bookstore has closed it's doors in San Jose, prefering to do all their business on the web as FatBrain (how do ideas for names like that survive the first round of puzzled looks?), a subsidiary of Barnes and Noble. I'll miss them, as I used to buy about twice as many books as I intended to, because looking through books tells me more about whether I can use it or not than any glowing review ever will. Saving a few bucks from FatBrain.com is no deal over actually having the book in hand. A pity and ironic as brick and mortar have demonstrated staying power and web sales, as illustrated by Amazon's continuing effort to stay afloat.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Will this battle ever end? 5 Years ago I heard people telling me that Linux was going to take over as a desktop operating system, and squash Windows 95 technology. Well, I didn't believe them at the time, and I still dont see it happening. I don't think we should really worry about making 1 operating system the most popular. Just make it work, and make it interoperable with other operating systems. I like to use linux because it gives me alot of versatility, and also gives me a better view of my network when something goes wrong
On the other hand, Microsoft's Media Player is pretty pimp considering it will open about any video compression scheme I throw at it.
The operating system you use is your choice. Let the less savy use Windows, because thats what they want, an easy OS.
Can all fish swim?
Debian GNU/Linux powers eBay's wireless application server . . . just another example that companies really need Linux.
Ha!
Did you even read the article... they using for their servers, since it's virtually identical to other Unix boxes they can hire any trained unix sysadm..
Looking for any old 8-bit Heathkit/Zenith software/hardware - http://heathkit.garlanger.com
I'm really starting to wonder if this is Amazon's way of trying to get back on people's good side.
;)
Or is it them figuring out just how cartoonish and nasty XP is?
IMHO, RMS is full of shit is expects someone to follow him on that boycott thing, probable the 3 HURD users will.
If they shut down operations, they would save even more!
Linux should get a boost from companies looking to save money given the current economy. This article (and others sure to come) shows the value of Linux in a server situation.
Where Linux can make real strides is in the workstation market. While I think Linux isn't quite ready for the "primetime" of the mass desktop market it hasn't made the push into workstations. I'm not sure if it's a lack of a killer app or "marketing".
We know that Linux is used on high-end animation stations at many FX/animation studios but how many workstations running CAD/CAM/CAE, simulation, and other workstation like activities? That's were some major market share and cost savings can be had.
"With Linux, customers "end up being in the operating systems business," managing software updates and security patches while making sure the multitude of software packages don't conflict with each other," Miller said. "That's the job of a software vendor like Microsoft.""
Seems to me like there's a good reply from Redhat in the makings here-- Redhat network comes to mind. Of course the rep's response is incredibly funny if you consider the multitude of poorly conceived and well hidden OS patches Windows has had over the years... (ever try to figure out what the latest patches for an NT server with a sideline sql server 2000 should be? Its practically a freaking fulltime job!).... The only bloody thing Microsoft manages for you is the promotional letters informing you its time to dish out another 10k for the next bloated version of MS Office. Security patches??? Since when has Microsoft managed that???!!! But I digress.. one need only look at how well all the IIS worms spread to evaluate how well Microsoft managed the security patch distribution business.
I'm trying to find a grain of honesty in the quote... but I can only come to the conclusion that either he was missquoted or he is a bald faced liar.
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
There's an article elsewhere on the site where Intel says that the costs of using Linux are more than running Windows, since the costs go far beyond the initial cost/license fees. Linux admins cost more, hence Linux costs more.
This is yet more good news for Linux, showing where it can really shine, in the server market. Maybe this will pave the way for more big businesses to make the switch. Linux may never take over the desktop, it wasan't intended for that in the first place but in the server market Linux is a quailty product. Plus no code red!!! ;)
Snoozer.
nasty that it's had nonstop uptime ever since i installed it?
cartoonish because it has an interface that actually helps me get work done?
i suppose you think we'd all be better off dealing with command lines because they keep the riffraff out?
With Microsoft actually improving its products recently(do I get modded down for saying this?) and actually appearing to do something about their historically pitiful security, I would think that the price disparity would become a larger and larger incentive to switch to Linux and *BSD in the server arena. Speaking on a somewhat smaller scale, I'm currently(attempting) to convert my P133 with it's 580M of hard drive space(split between two drives) and 16M of RAM into a router/firewall so I can share my DSL connection among the computers in my appartment. FreeBSD runs quite comfortably on this machine, both for hard drive space and RAM. I'd probably have to run Win3.1 to say the same about windows.
However, every time this is mentioned to Microsoft, they say "yeah, but they'll pay for it in the long run". Do they actually have anything to back this up? I'd like to hear how they think this is the case.
Why?
With Linux, customers "end up being in the operating systems business," managing software updates and security patches while making sure the multitude of software packages don't conflict with each other," Miller said. "That's the job of a software vendor like Microsoft."
How can he ignore the fact that Red Hat is doing that for them? Besides, of course, that he is the Master of MS Fud at the moment, being quoted with several misleading and plainly false statements in the news lately.
While Red Hat offers some of those services, it's difficult to ensure that software packages updated frequently by hundreds of people around the globe work well together, Miller said.
It clearly difficult for Microsoft to make sure that their hundreds of software packages produced by thousands of employees in Washington work well together. Apparently the tactic here is to discredit open source devlopment in general as being some sort of complex house of toothpicks.
From another story, Doug Miller, director of competitive strategy for the software giant, says he thinks Linux isn't a long-term bet for the data center. "I just don't see it taking over the world," he says.
Anyway, apprently Doug Miller is the MS pap of the moment. They seem to have a stream of dorks, each one heading the FUD campaign of the moment.
Anyway, the story is good news I reckon. I think more and more companies are going to realize that switching to stable, free, open software is only a winning propsition, and we'll be seeing more of this as the bean counters take notice.
Juln
is the fact that Amazon credited HP with guiding them through this transition into open source software. Granted HP is on the open source bandwagon but it is great to see them following through on it.
Do you think Amazon is running Debian?
http://metamuscle.com - Better Bodies Through Hypertext
"ever try to figure out what the latest patches for an NT server with a sideline sql server 2000 should be? Its practically a freaking fulltime job!).... "
yes, you asshole, it's a fulltime job.
it's called being a sysadmin.
deal with it.
i REPORTED THIS STORY AT 7:00 AM! REJECTED.
Amazon.com didn't switch from Windows to Linux, they switched from DEC/OSF to Linux.
i was talking with a friend of mine who's company is doing an e-comm software deal with amazon, and he described amazon as "the worst example of best in breed that you could look at" - i guess they've taken lots of different best in breed approaches, but not really had a direction or a clear methodology and it has hurt them.
on the plus side, he did say that they had made inroads into cleaning up, and are big on using XML between all systems for easy interfacing. and that they do a LOT of things really well - i mean, how many other sites have link ads that know who you are? thats a pretty strong set of CRM they got running. sure theres a lot of crap and a lot of silliness, but they gots some stuff thats good too.
in the Wall Street Journal? Maybe we could all chip in for something like this:
[a picture of federal marshalls carting computers away from from a business, horrified managers in the background]
Complicated licensing and expensive audits could land you in legal hot water and cost you your business. Linux will save you money and give you peace of mind. [Add examples of companies such as Amazon that have moved to Linux.]
They're talking about ENTERPRISE-CLASS systems, kids. Not the secretary's computer that she types memos on. I think that everybody agrees that MS does NOT have a place in the back end of the ENTERPRISE. READ THE ARTICLE. They switched from HP-UX to Linux. Microsoft has NOTHING to do with this story.
OK guys, sorry to be a little off topic, but I'm a little annoyed at the moment with the lack of support from HomePNA for Linux. At my apartment my roomate and I share an ADSL connection using HomePNA 2.0 and computers with Windows installed. I'm trying to move over to Linux but now I can't get to the internet unless I boot up under Windoze because Linux won't support my USB 2Wire HomePNA 2.0 card.
Anyway, in order for Linux to compete in the broad PC market they have to support little conveniences like running a home network over your phone lines (not everyone has the time, money, or ability to run cat 5 all over the place.) It's great that Amazon is supporting Linux and singing it's praises, but there's still a long way to go before every day people switch over to Linux.
So, anybody know anything about HomePNA 2.0 on Linux?
~ now you know
Umm, yeah cnet put in some stuff that MS has SAID IN THE PAST, but this paragraph should explain what the real price cut was from.
HP has been working with Amazon since October 1999, Balma said, but the big contract win came in May 2000, when HP announced its [linux] systems would replace Unix servers from Sun Microsystems.
They replaced Solaris boxen with Linux boxen. This, actually, has nothing to do with Microsoft.
CNet just put it in there to hype the article.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
I imagine that we'll see more of these kinds of shifts into open source systems that provide more business value. As account managers' expense accounts drop, and the fluffy marketing and free golf tournaments dry up, it will be harder and harder for "decision-makers" to ignore open source solutions.
http://metamuscle.com - Better Bodies Through Hypertext
the register is also carrying this story
Story has squat to do with Microsoft. It is one of replace a Unix infrastructure with a Linux one.
It is a "bye, bye Sun" story.
the article clearly states that amazon saved money by using linux systems instead of unix systems.
Windows update is all fine and dandy for their DESKTOP OS's, but there is NO equivalent for their server OS's. Admins are on their own to search MSFT's software library.
"Dancing is the vertical expression of a horizontal desire" --Robert Frost
Why were there even comments from Microsoft in an article about switching from HPUX to Linux? This article was completely devoid of content about the actual switch and what it entailed. Instead we get a propaganda piece with most of the quotes coming from a random third party competitor to Linux.
I submitted this nearly a year ago and it was ignored.
While I could not disclose material information about the change, I did submit an item reporting the change and cited the netcraft statistics as evidence. Twice. It was ignored both times by slashdot editors, even as Microsoft was claiming that no major sites used Linux. This was the perfect example and the editors ignored it. Way to go editors!
This recent article suggests the move to Linux was recent. That is not accurate. If you look at old netcraft data, you will see this change occurred way back in September 2000.
Saying Amazon doesn't use much Microsoft is a gross understatement.
Anyone suggesting the use of Microsoft products in the datacenter at Amazon gets laughed at. Aside from mandatory/proprietary crap necessary to serve up Microsoft E-books, their stuff isn't even close to being acceptable in that environment.
Want to know why some big sites run Microsoft? Because they get the software AND hardware free or are otherwise PAID to run it. Even if Microsoft paid Amazon (which I believe they would gladly do), the thought of running their stuff there is laughable at best.
Amazon would like you to believe going to Linux was hard. It was easy. It totally kicks Tru64's ass (DIE Tru64, DIE!).
CEO: "Oh no. Slashdot people hate us for our patent of the one-click."
Lackies: "Oh no! What can we do???"
CEO: "Let's tell them we switched to linux."
A little later on
CmdrTaco: "Amazon is great!"
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
So this is basically proof that total cost of ownership is higher with Microsoft's products.
Are they still allowed to print that propoganda anymore or does this set some sort of precedent?
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
That's odd, I could have sworn Amazon started on DEC systems, moved to HP Unix systems and is now running on anonymous Linux systems.
Your point is well taken, but as far as I know they never used Sun.
Personally, I don't think this is much of a triumph for Linux since I think of it as part of the Unix universe. This is infighting between friends, with only one of them winning in the end. The common enemy isn't helped, or hurt, by this.
D
Considering I'm posting this from an NT4 box, it seems the less *savvy* obviously have better spellcheckers.
If you want Linux to take over the desktop, the first thing you're going to have to do is lose the attitude. You know what I'm talking about. Oooooh... I use Linux. I am so smart. That guy over there uses Windows. He must be dumb.
Amazon: "We wasted millions on Windows"
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
If you have a large number of servers/clients to patch, one can use apt-get or rpm with a cron job with no user interaction. How is this achieved using windowsupdate?
I couldn't agree more; I guess they had to say something- this is something we should credit the author for actually offering balance, rather than just being one-sided, even if it IS in Microsoft's favor.
But 'costing more in the end' and 'ending up in the OS business'??!?! What bullshit; I've maintained a field of Win9x machines....I was always in the licensing business and changing the versions so that people can buy new versions of the same old software. And the constant virus work...don't get me started!!
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
It knows what I have installed, what is *needed*, and other things I may *want*.
To successfully keep on top of IIS patches you have to use hfNetChk which is,
WAIT FOR IT,
a command line tool.
In other related news Sun reported yesterday that they will be laying off 3,900 employees or 9% of their workforce.
There have been no announcements of layoffs at Microsoft.
I think we all know who Linux is really hurting, and it's not Microsoft.
... based on GPL'd code then? Oh dear.
This sig made only from recycled ASCII
Also, if they claim this is their job, then maybe they are also partly liable for millions of lost revenue from companies (Amazon?) that have had problems with MicroSoft products conflicting with eachother.
or would this carry more weight if it was a company that had a reputation for MAKING money?
Looks like amazon's been /.'ed; I haven't been able to get on since early this morning. Keep away from my bookstore you bastards!
In an article in The Register, Intel's director of IT talks about making savings by deploying Linux across their enterprise, although the amount (~$200K) doesn't sound particularly massive in the scheme of things.
He says the savings "have come from price/performance advantages, reduced software licensing and maintenance costs".
john
Seems to me like you people never actually used Windows after the 95/NT versions.
First, and if the user so chooses, Windows automatically downloads the upgrades without user intervention. No need for a shell script or anything.
Second, yes you can, if you have a Windows Server you can push the updates to all the machines on the network that are running Windows.
This is not accurate. 'zon was a Tru64/Alpha shop (you'll find that if you dig for articles). When Amazon first formed, the company ran on Sun hardware. That was quickly replaced with Alpha.
Sun was never in contention or considered for the systems which now run Linux at Amazon. They are a dead-end proprietary path compared to Intel ($$$/MIP).
The big battle was Compaq/Alpha/Tru64 vs. HP/IA32/Linux.
Moving from one proprietary platform to another would be foolish.
Much of this is just speculation by news orgs that can't get specific info.
But there are hidden costs to Linux, Microsoft argues. ....
With Linux, customers "end up being in the operating systems business," managing software updates and security patches while making sure the multitude of software packages don't conflict with each other," Miller said. "That's the job of a software vendor like Microsoft."
Yeah, like Microsoft does a good job of that. Like how many times do I see "This program has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down"?
Linux isn't hurting anyone...it's bringing in business for HP. Sun has no inherent right to receive revenues.
Why is it that when a commercial product garners some marketshare, it's called "competition", but when Free software does the same, it's "hurting" someone? It's all competition.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
The reduction was attributed primarily to Amazon's "migration to a Linux-based technology platform that utilizes a less-costly technology infrastructure, as well as general price reductions for data and telecommunication services due to market overcapacity," according to the filing.
My concern here is in finding out how much of that savings can be attributed to the switch to Linux and how much can be attributed to reduction in data and telecomm services? Real data here would be interesting, but it's probably just not available.
Thirdly, in many cases companies don't have to pay extra licensing fees for the computers that connect to Linux servers. And finally, Linux is often used on inexpensive Intel computers, sometimes generic "white box" machines and sometimes older computers seeing a second life.
This is a real hidden gotcha, and in many cases a tremendous potential for cost savings. If only companies would truly look at this item before investing. Servers with "per seat" licensing can really escalate costs, especially for a business like Amazon. You think that by buying one program, your costs are over and you're done with it. But as your customer base goes up, you have to start paying additional licensing fees. Budgeting for this kind of stuff is difficult at best. Microsoft is certainly guilty of this, but they are joined by other powerhouses such as Oracle. To their credit, many of these large companies offer some sort of "enterprise" deal, but it usually has a whopping price tag associated with it. In my opinion, it's much more fair to sell by the server. If I want to try to cram 2000 users onto a single server, it's my responsibility to deal with the resulting problems.
But there are hidden costs to Linux, Microsoft argues. "I think a lot of customers are lured by the apparent low price of Linux," said Doug Miller, director of competitive strategy for Microsoft's Windows division. "They don't have a real issue with Linux, but it ends up costing them in the long run."
With Linux, customers "end up being in the operating systems business," managing software updates and security patches while making sure the multitude of software packages don't conflict with each other," Miller said. "That's the job of a software vendor like Microsoft."
Oh yeah, I've written soooo much Operating system code since I started using Linux. The last update I did (over a year ago), I didn't even feel a single urge to recompile the kernel. And what's this about managing software updates and security packages? Exactly WHAT does Microsoft do for me that I don't get with RedHat's up2date or Debian's apt-get? Software packages conflicting with each other? What does Microsoft offer to take care of this problem? I've certainly had it enough times in the past with Windows software that I could have used some help. Boy, those two paragraphs are the biggest bunch of baloney I've seen in a while -- and I was in Germany for six months!
While Red Hat offers some of those services, it's difficult to ensure that software packages updated frequently by hundreds of people around the globe work well together, Miller said.
Really? I don't think I've EVER downloaded a single package from RedHat that didn't work just fine with all of the other install packages from RedHat. Anybody else had any problems with that? I guarantee you that RedHat does at LEAST as much testing as Microsoft. Let me remind you of NT 4.0 SP 6....
Among those forces: the coming version 6 of Sun Microsystems' StarOffice package of office software, which many believe will be a more capable product than the bulky current version and thus a more credible alternative to Microsoft's Office; burdensome Microsoft licensing fees during a time of economic austerity; and the overall price tag of Windows and Office.
OK, I'm not sure that I can agree that StarOffice is or will be more capable than MS Office, but with the current economic times, the price is certainly much more attractive. And if you look at what most people actually use an Office Suite for, you'll find that almost all of them will more than have their needs met with Star Office 6.0.
The study concluded that Linux applications could provide solid alternatives to nearly every Windows application, with the possible exception of the scheduling and e-mail integration of Microsoft Outlook.
And a nice WYSIWYG, comprehensive web-design suite like, say, Dreamweaver, would be a nice addition to Linux. Anybody try out IBM's WebSphere Home Page Builder for Linux yet? Scheduling and e-mail integration is one thing I wish OpenOffice (OS version of StarOffice) hadn't dropped from their focus. Even though there are some nice e-mail and scheduling programs, it would be nice to have tighter integration with my other office software.
"Staying in compliance with licenses is something a lot of companies are scared of right now. It's more difficult, and the ramifications of being out of compliance are becoming more and more onerous," Robinson said. "As of the last year or so, Microsoft has been going after companies where they've gotten tip-offs or had other suspicions."
This is another big one. I heard a radio advertisement this morning offering to help companies get in compliance during the grace period. They through out all those scary numbers like $150,000 per violation. You absolutely know you've got a problem when agencies can actually derive their entire revenue base from helping people manage the complicated licensing issues that Microsoft has created. This whole thing is exactly what prompted me to switch to Star Office on ALL of my computers. I had licenses for the versions of MS Office I was using, but I didn't know what scheme they would think of next.
"We are a commercial software vendor. That's how we earn revenue," Miller responded. "Our goal is to be properly compensated by customers for our software."
And to make additional money off of existing customers by "clarifying" the terms of the license to them and forcing them to upgrade and pay additional licensing costs when they don't want to....
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
They saved this money switching from a propriety Unix solution to Linux.
~sheesh~
Slashdoters can't read for comprehension. Now THERE is a headline.
That TOC of linux is smaller that's clear, and Amazon comes to proof this to us. But why exactly linux is sheeper?
Many says that linux support is much more expensive and that TOC is smaller due to the cost of licenses is null
So, can anybody tell me how much of this affirmation is true? Is the maintaince much more expensive in Linux systems? (Don't windows need re-instalation each 90 days? :o)
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
From the article:
:-)
"Linux, a 10-year-old clone of the Unix operating system and a competitor to Windows,..."
This misleading comment makes GNU/Linux sound like an ancient and outdated operating system. Although, I guess the same could be said about Windows2000 being 10 year old extension to DOS.
-Derek
books.com is already owned by BN. My bad.
sulli
RTFJ.
You guys really have your heads up your asses these days. Stop just posting stuff from your pals and READ THE FUCKING SUBMISSION!!!!
It doesn't matter for me because I'm not going to send this shit in anymore!!
As (nearly) always, this is about a shift from commercial Unix to Linux. It has nothing to do with Microsoft.
Please read before you post.
I'll just bet you're not wiling to shell out for the hardware though.
How does Slashdot work? I submitted this story a day or two ago and it finally shows up with someone else's name on it. LAME!!
They don't tell us.
... well that's another matter entirely.
Hell this is INTEL.
The most likely answer is that they're cutting over their design stations from Solaris or HP-UX.
If there's tons of money to be saved it's on the IT support for Engineering. This is where the truely ghastly sums of cash get spent; and it's where Linux is starting to pound on Solaris and HP-UX.
It's also much easier to sell the idea of a Unix-to-Unix conversion to the managers -- engineers tend to love this sort of thing. Where-as selling and NT-to-Unix conversion
Maybe a troll??
ANyway point 2; Windows Update does have IIS patches. I installed one the other day.
The part I liked best was when I went to update MS Office to SR2, and it told me I had to install all the SR1 patches first, and when I went to do that it told me I had to have an SR1 CD. "But I upgraded to SR1 online!", I said, "Isn't my SR0 CD enough for you?". When I gave up and ejected the CD I noticed it said SR1 on it...
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
This is why they saved only 25%.
If they were switching from MicroSoft the savings would be in hundreds.
Speaking for myself (and in part my company) I can tell you that Linux is not hurting our SUN stuff.
It's simple easy: Linux for the low key things, and Solaris for everything that is critical to the business and needs lot of IO. Why? Because the SPARC platform right now is a very good fit.
I doubt we'll ever replace all of our SUN Equipment with Linux. I like it, I have it at home and I use it as a fileserver here at work, but that doesn't mean it's going to run our DB's anytime soon.
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
Here are your recent submissions to Slashdot, and their status within the system:
2001-10-31 04:51:37 Amazon says "Linux saved us millions" (articles,linuxbiz) (rejected)
Summary:
rejected (1)
It was rejected within just a couple of minutes of submission, yet a nearly identical submission makes it to the front page today. This is why I don't bother to post stories to /. -- the maintainers are troglodytes with no idea whether something is newsworthy, or what anyone else in their organization is doing. If this is how day-to-day operations in the rest of VA are conducted it's no wonder they're going down the tubes.
"Cause there's 40 different shades of black, so many fortresses and ways to attack, so why you complainin'?"
What I'd like to see is a quote from MS where they allege to be able to even undercut the current setup and still make a profit.
How are those hosters doing that migrated to W2K (mentioned in those monthly Netcraft reports) ?
Can it be done ?
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
There's a picture missing from your comment.
--
The Cap is nigh. Time to get a fresh new account.
And I'm sure it's not that hard to set apt-get up as a cron job!
:-)
Obviously, don't do this with the unstable distro or you'll come in one morning and find out that something went hideously wrong...
But then, you wouldn't be running unstable on a critical system, would you?
the third machine at amazon.com (if by machine we mean something with a hard drive rather than an X terminal) was a pentium running slackware. its name was "ccmotel", as in "credit cards check in, but they don't check out". it had a serial line running to the solaris/sparc system that had the webserver on it, and a 1-way custom protocol for moving credit card data to its dbm-based database. the protocol had no provision for retrieving credit card numbers (it was 1 way, remember), so sneaker net was required to get them out: you loaded a floppy into the machine (remember those?) and ran a command that filtered the files on the floppy, substituting our credit card identifiers with real numbers. unless you had physical access to that machine, there was no way you could ever get credit card data from a disk drive at amazon. it was a critical part of the early infrastructure of amazon. how do i know? i built ccmotel...
I saw a couple of comments, even from Rob, that seemed to say, "We've seen this before" in regards the Amazon announcement. I would like to submit that Amazon's announcement matters, not because of their company size, but because of how they behave. They are not early adopters or innovators, they are a technology risk averse company that bets their business on technology. In short, Amazon illustrates the critical tension facing both the Linux community and Microsoft.
There has never been a technology company to last for more than 20 years on a single family of technologies, and, more to the point, the failure of technology companies has never come from having their dominance in what they do well attacked. Technology companies fail because someone else steals their avenues of growth.
If you look at IBM, it went through waves of changes, starting in the digital age with mainframes, which dominated the marketplace from 1960-1980; selling to enterprise customers digital computers that would dramatically change their business. It saturated the enterprise with mainframes by 1980 and had, starting in the 70's, tried to maintain their growth rate by selling mainframes to middle market (500-5000 employee) companies who had not purchased mainframes.
Along came Digital Equipment Corporation, with the VAX, which just completely took that midrange market by storm, sapping the growth from IBM. IBM built the PC and launched a new market targeted at small business, but Apple, Compaq and a host of clones sought that market and, in the past 15 years, largely took that growth away from IBM.
IBM has been growing it's services business and it is paying off, driving an increasing portion of revenue. They are in year 8 of fantastic growth, but already, they are making noise about trying to sell services to businesses in the middle market; a sure sign that something else is about to come along to meet that need.
Why the history lesson? Because it illustrates the fundamental forces at work that are affecting the Linux and the Microsoft worlds.
The technology industry is characterized by several constraining forces; the innovation force, that seeks the best solution for a given problem, and leverage, the drive to extend technologies from one market to another to extract the best return on investment for that innovation.
Best solution is a subjective term, but in this case, it refers to the solution that is most applicable to a given problem, with the required supportive ecosystem around it and with the lowest cost of aquisition and the cost of ownership over the life of the technology. Hold onto those four points, they will become important.
Microsoft truly came up with the best solution for desktop productivity. Windows was a unique technology in that it brought the ease of use of the macintosh (meeting the test of applicability) that had the lowest cost of acquisition (OEM pricing included it with the computer), the required ecosystem (cheap PC's, compared to expensive proprietary Apples) and a decent cost of ownership (compared to the alternatives at the time, like DOS, which required extensive training).
Fast forward to today. Microsoft is now limited by the slowing growth rate of the personal computer industry, so it seeks to adapt its technology to other markets, in the name of leverage (internally) or compatibility (externally). So we see Windows in the Pocket PC format, where it is touted as an embedded system for extending the productivity brought by your PC. This embedded systems market is large, and fractious, as it extends from cell phones to pda's to robotic industrial arms to game consoles.
Linux is a contender for this market, using our criteria of best. Linux has the best applicability, as it is a modular OS that is compiled for the specific use. Want to use it in a robotic arm? Ditch the graphics processor and X-windows, strip it down to just what you need. Cell phone? Take out large portions of the OS that support complex sound and graphics, devices, hard drives, etc. Game console? Build up the graphics processor support and sound, device drivers and ethernet, get rid of the general use stuff that isn't needed for running really fast games.
Windows isn't nearly as modular, you can turn off functions, but it causes the OS to behave in funny ways because it was never meant to have these things turned off. So, Linux wins the applicability aspect of it.
As far as supportive ecosystem, this is where the battle really lies for embedded systems. Microsoft has brought it's armada of partners to the Pocket PC, to the XBox and to other embedded system projects, but these partners suffer from the same applicability problems that Microsoft faces. Do you really need MS Money running on your PDA, or would a simpler checkbook program that can interface with MS Money easily be better? Do you really need MS Access running on the PDA, or could a simpler program do the trick more efficiently.
In general, it is always more advantageous for the customer and more costly to the provider to innovate for a specific use than to stretch innovations across uses. As the embedded systems market grows, the viability of applications in this space will grow along with it, especially as standards for hardware coalesce.
Between Windows and Linux, the ecosystem criteria is a tie for now, but what about cost?
For manufacturers of hand held devices and specialty use devices, like game consoles, cost is a primary concern. When you are building super computers, the cost per component is a moot point, but for consumer goods, it becomes paramount. Cost of aquisition for Linux is not, as commonly percieved, zero - there is a cost in modifying the OS to get what you need and the cost of support, which is the very business model of Red Hat, but it is substantially lower than the cost of aquiring OS licenses from Microsoft.
Cost of ownership is another issue, as Linux isn't as remotely upgradable yet as it needs to be for these uses, but that innovation is coming for both Microsoft and Linux in time.
Over all, looking at just the embedded device market, Linux presents a credible threat to Microsoft, sapping the growth rate needed out of this marketplace that would have gone to the Windows hegemony as Microsoft tried to leverage it's existing innovation.
Looking at the server market, it is more bleak for Microsoft. In short, Linux wins the applicability (due to customization capabilities - want a fast database server? Build the OS to specifically run the database). Linux loses the ecosystem argument for now, but ecosystems are far less important the more you move away from mass production markets; this one is shifting towards Linux rapidly. Linux wins the cost of aquisition aspect hands down and cost of ownership is being proven to be the Achille's heel of Microsoft.
If Linux saps away a significant portion of Microsoft's growth, what impact does that have on the company? Microsoft, even in this down economy has a P/E ratio of 51. This means that a tremendous expectation of earnings growth is built into the company's stock price and if that growth doesn't materialize, the stock is in jeopardy. Microsoft stock is priced in the market expecting a 30% growth rate in earnings. If their market growth is capped by competition, they will need to cut costs and raise prices in their existing markets to keep the stock price up, which will exacerbate the situation. In short, the embedded systems market and the server market represent two rocks, and their shareholder expectations are the proverbial hard place.
So what if the stock drops? Microsoft has underpaid it's employees by as much as 30% compared to market wages, compensating them with stock options. Lose the option value and the operating expense for the company goes up 17%, further depressing earnings, or they lose employees. The dastardly side of losing employees is what IBM learned - when a company is in trouble, the highly valued employees (ie. the ones that can get other employement quickly), scatter first, leaving the undesirables behind to screw things up.
Additionally, losing the stock value takes Microsoft's credit card away. Microsoft has, to a large extent, built it's new businesses through acquisition of other technology companies (webTV, Foxpro, Great Plains, etc.) and the ability to swallow new technologies on credit (stock given away in exchange for future accretive earnings) goes away, leaving them with the challenge of paying cash, which is abhored by Wall Street for a variety of reasons (screws with earnings, risk no longer tracks reward during the acquisition process, etc.)
So, where does this leave us? The PC market is a graveyard, software for consumers is relegated to games and utilities and the whole IT industry is in a slump. Microsoft is a big, fat juicy target for a lot of IT directors looking to cut costs and, as Geoffrey Moore pointed out, markets shift when the early majority customer base makes their move. Amazon is clearly not an early adopter or an innovator (in the sense of the Moore term). Where there is one early majority customer, there are typically many many others at work.
Want to beat Microsoft? Give up on the wasted energy behind creating a better desktop; there is no growth in that market to do any real damage to Microsoft. Instead, build a better Xbox with Linux, build a better PDA, build a better server (oops, already there) and sap the growth from the company. The efforts in the Linux community to innovate is best exerted in the direction of markets to come, not markets that are.
Technology Marketing is what happens when people turn their hard work over to people paid to manipulate others.
With Linux, customers "end up being in the operating systems business," managing software updates and security patches while making sure the multitude of software packages don't conflict with each other," Miller said. "That's the job of a software vendor like Microsoft."
==============
In short, the REAL headline for this story is:
"Microsoft admits is was THEIR job, not customers' job, to apply all those IIS security patches, and thus admits responsibility for all damage from the Code Red and Nimda worms."
Microsoft's compensation cheques are presumably coming out next week.
This article is somewhat misleading. While amazon did say that they cut their technology costs by 25% last quarter by switching to linux. They did not achieve this by replacing the desktop windows boxes, but rather by replacing their proprietary Unix servers.
Paul Thurrott (admittedly someone with a strong pro MS bent) has a well written article. Here is an excerpt:
There have been some high-profile Linux adoption stories lately, with companies such as Amazon and even Intel Corporation espousing the wonders of this open source solution. The one crucial fact these stories don't highlight however, is that the Linux adoptions are replacing proprietary and expensive versions of UNIX, not Windows. And as both Amazon and Intel are quick to point out, neither is even considering replacing its Windows boxes with Linux.
Everyone gets distracted by network performance and copyright issues but P2P is not just about mass file sharing. P2PQ is a good example of taking the P2P concept and shifting it to another application. This project avoids all the problems associated with P2P and in fact is a perfect example of an Academic use for P2P. If every colege student holed up in dorms in the US were to use it it would change the perception of P2P completely.
So switching to Linux wasn't a MS is bad, Linux is good... it was a, "Those damn Sun boxes are expensive, Linux is cheap, therefore better." I don't understand how people are using this to debase Microsoft. It would be like if someone said, "Sony just upgraded their Web site from Windows 2000 to Windows XP - Microsoft wins another round against Linux!"
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
We are looking for some help/support with this cite, but we're not really expecting any.
Have you seen these face scans, etc...., of the REAL .commIEs? I thought knot.
fud is dead, everything's GNU now. just ask jeff.
when i read this...
i thought, therefore i was...
Well, here at my company they've hauled just about every desktop Sparc machine we used to have outta here and they've all been replaced by Dell desktops.
And the Dell machines aren't running Linux.
Now maybe they can become a profitable company!
"It takes many nails to build a crib, but one screw to fill it."
Please mod parent down. It is anti-"Informative". Spreading this kind of FUD/Misinformation is conter productive.
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
First, and if the user so chooses, Windows automatically downloads the upgrades without user intervention. No need for a shell script or anything.
How? I've been wanting to do this exact thing, but can't figure out how to set it up.
Except that traditionally, Sun has made tons of money doing "low key stuff" -- workstations, small web servers, and so on. Only recently have the had any credibility in the high-end market.
The point of GNU and Linux was to replace proprietary Unix on proprietary hardware. For companies like Sun that thrived on the excusivity of UNIX, it's not a good trend, except to the extent that it keeps MS out of the market.
Slashdot crashes AGAIN!!!!!!!
Who can they blame it on this time?
Surely not Linux.
Surely not MySQL.
Surely not the Slashcode.
Surely not the Slashcrew.
I know, they can blame it on Afghan terrorists. Yea, yea, that's the ticket.
Tell me how I upgrade a whole network of machines without doing it by hand on each one if I use Windows Update? Answer: I can't.
BZZZT! Sorry, wrong answer.
If you have many machines that you want to update without using Windows Update through IE on each one, you can go to Corporate Windows Update to grab the appropriate updates, then push them out the next time the users of those machines log on using your group policy.
I don't like Flash ads, and I don't imagine you do, either. Check out the ZDNet story here.
IIS patches on WindowsUpdate are generally late or never. If you want to stay patched with MS server stuff, you need to be on their maillist, not windowsupdate. (parent did say "successfully").
I did the math once now it time that GWB does the math, or can he?
Only 'flamers' flame!
To quote the linked article:
The online retailer spent $54 million on technology and content expenses in its third quarter, ended Sept. 30, compared with $71 million in the year-ago quarter, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The reduction was primarily because of Amazon's "migration to a Linux-based technology platform that utilizes a less-costly technology infrastructure, as well as general price reductions for data and telecommunication services due to market overcapacity," according to the statement. (Emphasis mine.)
So a lot of it was due to the move to Linux, but a significant portion of it was also due to their pipe(s) becoming much cheaper.
Of course, it doesn't seem like that will ever happen...
(Yes, I know that in Amazon's case it's Linux v Sun, but Linux v Win2k was mentioned in this somewhat meandering article)
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
As with the previous comment, I really enjoyed just looking around and routinely bought 3-4 books when I only *needed* one. The nicest thing about Computer Literacy was they stocked really nerdy books. The Borders and B&N's of the world only seem to carry a book if it's about Perl, Java or Visual Basic. Lame.
Even lamer tho is fatbrain itself. An (expensive) book I was interested in on Amazon.com: $60. On Fatbrain: $80. I'm not really understanding why the fatbrain people seem to think they can charge 25% more than amazon and somehow still compete.
To tell you the truth, if they don't care about the "free speech" in linux, and only the "free beer" I can't understand why they didn't choose FreeBsd. It might have saved them about a year and a half ago when they were getting D.o.S. attacked..........
I don't think it's news to anyone that Linux can be used as a replacement for commercial Unix. It would be news if this article was about Amazon replacing Windows desktops with Linux (which it's not).
> They replaced Solaris boxen with Linux boxen. This, actually, has nothing to do with Microsoft.
Yes, but we notice that they didn't move to Microsoft.
Where's Microsoft's master plan headded if people move from big pricey UNIX to little cheap Linux, instead of to medium medium Windows?
This is just another sign that Microsoft's attempt to 0wn server space is stalling out.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
This is an excellent idea. But why should we pay for it, when Microsoft is already screaming this message loud and clear?
OTOH, if IBM wants to really smash M$, they'll incorporate your idea into their slick TV ad campaign. But they won't. IBM has proven time and time again that it can't market its way out of a paper bag.
"Unless you have no past or current unhappy employees," says Bob Krueger, vice president of the BSA, "you're only one phone call away from being the target of a BSA investigation. This is not a traffic ticket."
l1nu5 0wnz j00 b1ll
Linux has enjoyed strong penetration into the server market, accounting for 24 percent of server operating-system shipments in 1999 and 27 percent in 2000, Kusnetzky said. That's second to Windows, which went from 38 percent in 1999 to 42 percent in 2000.
27% of shipments?! Wow! Considering that you can install Linux on n+ machines with only one CD... As opposed to the Windows world, I mean, where a machine is accounted for iff its license was paid. Wow. Am I overreacting, or is it really meaningful?
-- B.
This sig does in fact not have the property it claims not to have.
with Windows XP it gets done automatically, you don't have to do anything. In another versions, there's usually a scheduled Windows Update, something like once per week, I don't remember exactly.
The articles are wrong. Amazon was Tru64/Alpha, not Solaris/Sun.
I'm not saying you turn your entire operation upside down. You pick a reasonably achievable goal, say migrate the servers from IIS/Windows to Apache/Unix and sic some of your brighter guys or gals on it. When they have things working pretty well, you have them bring some of the slower ones on board and show them the ropes. When that works, you give them another task, like migrate the IT department to thin client Linux. When that is working pretty well, you have them bring the lesser folks up to speed. Eventually the second tier people will get very comfortable at this kind of thing and the first tier ones will be quite unix-studly.
The best way to do this kind of thing is to learn by doing -- otherwise, it's like learning a foreign language completely from books without every attempting to speak it. Some people don't want to try new things unless they've been certified and trained to a T. Well, no surprise, these aren't the people who are going to be leading your organization to new things. It's OK, they may do fine work when all the procedures, policies and methods have been laid out for them. You just put the people who aren't satisfied unless they learn two or three new things every day in charge of some projects, and keep the projects difficult but manageable so they don't spin out of control. If you don't have any of these people, you are in serious trouble if you are an IT shop.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
...except Amazon just filed a business method patent on it.
Idiot.
So, another company is raping the linux community for free development resources and increasing their profit margins in the process, why do I not feel like celebrating? The irony in all this is that here sits the linux community cheering and saying, "yes, please rape me again, I like it". Corporate America must be absolutely loving all you software-communists. Who would have guessed that all Amazon had to do to get back on the slashdot good-list is steal their efforts and offer nothing in return.
Now we see why linux will never really take off, it's the same reason communism never really worked, you simply end up with a small number of people pulling the wagon and the rest of the people riding.
http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2001/10/17/etoys.html
Linux perl and Apache. I would say Amazon and Etoys is a pretty good #2 and #3 punch.
MS's job is to make sure everything works together?
I'm running a MacOS shop, and lemme tell you how much fun it was adding / migrating MS Works+/> MS Internet +/> MS Office and getting MS media to play nice...
While we're on the topic of Redmond, how is it they can trademark ".NET" - isn't that too widely used as - oh what was it - oh, yeah, a TLD EXTENSION to be made proprietary?
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
For that pathetic piece of k-whoring?
Boy, automatically installing patches--that's secure...
-core
Yeah.
You're right.
And my choice to replace my Toyota with a Saturn just deals a death blow to Buick.
Uh-huh.
"Cause there's 40 different shades of black, so many fortresses and ways to attack, so why you complainin'?"
Yes, but he's a melvin.
He works for a company that has six machines.
He's in a rage because he installed Red Hat on an old P-200 machine in the breakroom and nobody is paying any attention to it.
Don't confuse him with terms like 'group policy.'
First of all, this particular bug is not remotely exploitable. In other words the user would already need to be logged onto the machine with a valid account. Now, this does make exploits of Apache or bind or whatever remotely exploitable software you might be running more dangerous, but it certainly isn't nearly as deadly as Microsoft's latest exploits.
Secondly, most Linux installs use one of the "questionable binary kernel downloads" that you malign in your post. This is no different than the binary only kernel you get from Microsoft. Part of the fun of Linux is that you can compile most everything as a module and only load those modules you need. The stock Debian kernel that I am using supports an absolutely ridiculous array of hardware. Anyone that says that Linuxers have to compile their own kernels doesn't know what the heck they are talking about. That hasn't really been the case since before the 2.0 kernels years and years ago.
Heck, I regularly swap hard drives between machines from different manufacturers, Linux doesn't even bat an eye (try doing that with Windows).
"But there are hidden costs to Linux, Microsoft argues. "I think a lot of customers are lured by the apparent low price of Linux," said Doug Miller, director of competitive strategy for Microsoft's Windows division. "They don't have a real issue with Linux, but it ends up costing them in the long run." Oh yes: 1. Linux as a core OS is EXTREMELY buggy and thus will require an expensive, disruptive OS upgrade when the next version comes around...or...not... 2. Linux doesn't adhere to open standards and thus in the long term its propietary standards require expensive custom integration products and a higher cost of systems integration...uhhmmmm.... 3. With Linux you have to disruptively upgrade to the next version when it comes out since the previous version will be rendered useless by the office software that runs on top of it....hmmm...nope... 4. With Linux, your systems will gradually become useless since linux system upgrades will demand hardware upgrades with each release, especially since the existing software is so buggy and the newer, fixed versions are only available for the new version. So your IT hardware budget increases...well... 5. With Linux, each OS upgrade the speed decreases or stays the same while the size bloats beyond recognition and useless features are lumped in that decrease stability and you have no choice but to include them....I thought I read that somewhere... Honestly, as a point of argument, can someone offer *SOME* rational devil's argument for this FUD comment?
Hey, I'm just your average shit and piss factory.
According to the article,
"HP has been working with Amazon since October 1999, Balma said, but the big contract win came in May 2000, when HP announced its systems would replace Unix servers from Sun Microsystems."
Where's the Microsoft in that?
Everyone will start to cheer when you put on your sailin' shoes.
With stuff like Amazon is doing, you really don't need to patch your Linux box that often. You obviously do not run a recent version of kernel or any software, which makes your system stable. Of course, security holes are found and fixed every now and then, and Linux distributions have (also automated)tools for that - though it might not be that good idea to run automated updates to systems running on production.
"With Linux, customers "end up being in the operating systems business," managing software updates and security patches while making sure the multitude of software packages don't conflict with each other," Miller said. "That's the job of a software vendor like Microsoft." (my emphasis)
I'll keep that in mind then next time Windows informs me that MICROSOFT Word, MICROSOFT Excel, or MICROSOFT Outlook has caused a fault and will be shut down. Should only be a few more minutes now...
"Can I say you're my lovepuppy?" Founding member of SODAMNHOTT
they migrated AND cut costs?
migration's the most expensive part of the process.
The real savings kick in downstream, wait for them.
'There is a Light that never goes out.'
I think they've been around for awhile and did just fine before they got email.
yep, probably,
Almost just as likely they've completely forgotten those business practices that got them by prior to e-mail though.
'There is a Light that never goes out.'
Cmdr Taco's post announces this as "another chapter in the Windows vs. Linux debate", which betrays a bias against Microsoft and an inability to read articles past head-lines.
The real conclusion to draw from the story is that Sun will die very soon, because Linux offers the same thing for zero cost. This will in fact make it even easier for Microsoft to take over the world.
So in a sick ironically twisted plot turn Linux helps Microsoft by taking out its main rival Sun.
Asim
Cool! It's nice to hear a FreeBSD success story, like yours, for a change.
While this story was bound to bring out the Anti-MS bigots in droves, it is worth pointing out that the article is all about replacing Solaris with Linux. Which I am sure that even the most committed zealots will agree is whole different kettle of fish than replacing Windows with Linux.
why is it not secure for Windows but just fine for apt-get?
Check it out.
This according to the Netcraft link in the article. Lower TCO, better uptime...
of course :)
/Linux.
But I bet they don't call it GNU
(since, you know, it was RMS of GNU fFame what started the boycott and all....
Shit, MS is not doing a very good job, with their 1970's technology.
nope. they're running HURD.
Ouch.
Amazon's experience suggests that Microsoft's claims are false: not only do you save on licensing costs, you also save on support costs, and possibly other costs.
So, yes, this is news, and it's not obvious.
Blablabla Linux Schminux. For gods sake, my grandma used Linux! Are you people BLIND? You all act as if it's some kind of holy being that comes down here o who you what performance is and how to 'beat Windows'? Let's face it: the design is OLD, about as old as the original UNIX itself! Oh so you like rebooting every 10 days just *because* you want to have the latest kernel installed? You like it that they stuff everything into a monolithic kernel, so you can recompile it and reboot every time they find a bug in 'whatever' part of it?
..', 'linux is the best', 'ooh look i'm using linux now i'm cool i'm part of the l33t gang watch me!', 'hey do you know how to install a linux 'OS'? I wanna go packet some servers from my OWN box'...
.. Do you see Windows users download and compile 'the latest new kernel' for their computer? I know I don't... Linux is just a monolithic kernel, nothing more, and it's design is old...
.. you're all obsessed with the almighty Linux, and it's cheap and free and it's still going to beat Windows as both a desktop AND a server os yeah baby! *laughs*
.. you litterally upgrade to the next STABLE release in a few months .. that's it.
.. THAT's one of the things all of your precious development effort should go to, instead of this old thing ...
.. that's what I wonder...
..
Really, everyone's behaving like 'wow if it weren't for linux
And then there's the series of bitchmonkeys that tries to compare it to Windows.. Woehahahahaaaaa fuckin' funny!! Ever saw a Windows user 'compile' the 'source code' for anything into a binary so they can run it? Programmers maybe
Instead of yelling 'woh linux is the future' and 'linux is gonna beat windows as a desktop and server os' first try to realise it's a kernel, not an OS, like many people think (not necessarily the ones on here). It's a monolithic kernel that works with a GNU system.
Why is there noone focussing on the development of an operating system based on a powerful microkernel instead? Ever heard of L4? L4ka? Mach? Of course you haven't
Ever noticed those funny operating systems that end in 'BSD'? Like FreeBSD? OpenBSD? NetBSD? and BSDi, BSD/OS and the original 4.4BSD? Noticed maybe how they are designed? You don't recompile a monolithic kernel every ten days
Go take a look at the GNU Hurd
What was Linus thinking when he threw that bunch of code together for the first time
GNU Hurd: http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd.html http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/hurd/ http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/ etcetera
- An Anonymous Bastard, indeed!
Here is the REAL info http://www.wininformant.com/Articles/Index.cfm?Art icleID=23086
Linux is not a religion, it is an OS!!!
everybody does a good job and some are less for the work we do.
All things aside did anyone else laugh when reading this comment on that article. With Linux, customers "end up being in the operating systems business," managing software updates and security patches while making sure the multitude of software packages don't conflict with each other," Miller said. "That's the job of a software vendor like Microsoft." The job of microsoft. Now if only they could do as good of a job as the linux community.
Wouldn't this kind of money be better spent paying good programmers to work on Linux full-time to close the gap? Just think how easily Linux could take the desktop if it could run Windows applications as well as Windows 98 (or even Windows 95).
The API is less of a moving target now that Microsoft's having more and more trouble getting people to upgrade to newer versions of Windows. If Wine could achieve a near-perfect level of Windows 98 compatibility (business apps especially, not just games), then people would have little excuse not to run Linux on the desktop.
Forget a WSJ ad -- that's just a flashy stunt. Remember how fast all those dot-coms started tanking after they overextended themselves to advertise in the Super Bowl? (Like pets.com?) Instead of wasting serious money on ephemeral advertising, use it to pay highly-skilled programmers to do the unsexy work that needs to be done, which won't get done (or not well) by a developer "scratching his own itch".
I'm starting to wonder if some sort of not-quite-open source model would be more effective. Charge a modest membership fee (maybe $10-20/month for individuals, more for companies) to "join the club" and allow unlimited use and access to source code for club members, who could share improvements with each other. Use the membership fees to fund new development.
There are millions of people using Linux every day. Heck, even if you only charged $20/year, you could fund a lot of development with over $20 million in annual funding... (To be credible, such a scheme would need to be operated on a nonprofit basis, and all the better if greater contributions could be tax-deductable...) Okay, maybe it's a pipe dream. And it doesn't really mesh well with the altruistic intent of Free Software. (But code could be automatically re-licensed to become true Free Software as it's replaced with newer versions, like Alladin vs. GNU Ghostscript...)
Don't flame me for this, it's just an idea. Even though millions of people benefit from existing free software, most of whom could afford at least a small contribution to bettering that software, we always seem to rely heavily on unpaid volunteer work, despite the fact that those volunteers need to eat and pay their bills. This often means they need a day job, and can only do so much work on the free software in their "free time". Most free software programmers can't rely on consulting income (insisting on free software) like RMS can. And for-profit companies like Red Hat certainly don't redistribute their profits to the volunteers who made their business possible, even if they do give them a whack at an IPO. (That's a gamble, look at VA Linux at IPO time and now...)
If people could pay for something similar to free software, with the money going to improve that software rather than to line the pockets of corporate shareholders, wouldn't that be preferable to being cornered into using commercial software because adequate free replacements aren't quite ready for prime time yet?
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
hawk