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 $54 million."" Lots of little bits in there. Nothing really new, but it's still nice.
Funny, that sounds very similar to what RedHat does as well.
--It's Pimptastic!--
In a corporate Linux environment you still have to pay for the staff, sysadmins, distributions [most likely Amazon bought a few copies of what ever linux.dist they have], etc..
Have you ever noticed the prices of Windows NT Server and their various other BackOffice applications? You're talking many hundreds of dollars per server for software alone. Plus you need client licences... This might just be a drop in the bucket for some businesses but when you have lots of computers, the costs add up.
I'm all for Linux too, but lets not use any excuse to promote it. The OS is still very premature and doesn't really compete with Windows in terms of END USER usability. Sure Linux may be a faster/stabler[?? VM problems?] OS, but it is not an easier to use OS, and in the end, for 99% of the users that is what counts.
What end users? The only ones that would probablly be able to tell that the computer was running Linux are the system administrators. And for ease of use... administering Windows NT isn't an easy task.
As a corporate entity, sure, but it's been my experience that a switch from M$ to GNU/Linux requires an internal evangelist. The guys in charge of running the machines have to want to do it, otherwise they can come up with any number of reasons why it's not viable right now.
Somebody in there is GNU/Linux friendly. Let's raise a glass to their health.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
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.]
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!
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?
With them, you pay throughout the short-term, the forseeable future, and even the long run.
.NET, if you bought an OS from them in 98, then you needed another one in 99 (98se), another one in 2000 (Me), and another one in 2001 (XP) plus numerous hardware upgrades. So, the average cost of those software upgrades is $75 Per Boxen, and probably $100 in hardware upgrades, again, per box.
You're modded up as funny, but you've hit on a key point... from the article: "But there are hidden costs to Linux, Microsoft argues. 'I think a lot of customers are lured by the apparent low price of Linux,'"
I'm not lured to linux by the apparent low price of anything. I'm lured by the actual free price. This whole thing with "you'll pay in the long run" is rediculous. Yeah, you'll pay in the long run. You'll pay to keep your distro up to date - a tech support guy has to type apt-get update every coupla days. Or, heaven forbid, once every 2 years, you'll want to bust down $60 at best buy for the "enterprise" edition of whatever distro you want.
Now, microsoft... Even before
I just fail to see where the "pay in the log run" comes into linux that it doesn't come into windows.
sig?
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.
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).
"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.
True people rent cars instead of buying them for several reasons. Usually because then they have a new car every 2 years and don't have to deal with fixing it when it starts to break down.
There is a problem with comparing cars to operating systems though. The bottom line is that not only is Linux free, but so are all of the upgrades, and you can upgrade to a brand new version over the net. Instead of having to go out and buy a new version and re-install their machine.
Using Windows XP is sort of like renting a car. Sure you get a new one every 1-2 years. But you have to go into the dealership to replace it and you are constantly paying. Linux would be a car that you don't pay for, it fixes itself and makes itself new everytime a new model is available.
Unfortunately, I agree that there are too many sheep out there though, and MS probably won't get tubed over this.
Disclamer - Opinion of Person
windoz 98 as a SERVER , please !, serving up what ?
I believe that Empty Sands was answering the point made by the AC. The AC stated that Linux was a poor desktop because it was "server capable".
This means that the system can run publicly accessable services such as http and ftp and a whole host of others. These services must be administered properly in order to remain secure and that is simply a headache not needed for a desktop system.
Empty Sands then replyed by pointing out that these services CAN be run under windows 9x/NT/2k desktops as well (I myself run an Apache-Tomcat server under Win98 in order to test my java servlets localy before uploading to the main test system, but my PC is firewalled off with zone alarm as an extra precaution), and that running these services, (although inefficent as far as high load would be concerned) is possible, and opens up the OS to the same security problems.
At least, that's how I read it.
"I'll take the red pill. No! Blue! AAAaaaahhhhhhhhh"
- Monty Python meets the Matrix