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
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?
You mean facetious.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
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
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.
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
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.
This announcement is a promotion for linux in the server market, not workstation. The END USER, as you put it, does not interface with the OS directly. You are arguing as if amazon put the OS on every amazon users' home computers, overwriting windows or something. This change has already happened, and if you go to the site from whatever OS is your favorit, then you will notice no difference.
I personally think linux is an awesome server OS. I find that it's interface, especially remote, is far better than Windows, BSD, Solaris, and other UNIX systems. You can't do crap with windows remotely, plus it's proven unstable. With other OSes, like Solaris, their stock tools are horrible. Maybe it's because I absolutely love Gnu tools, but I find it to be a pain in the ass to use Solaris out of the box. And I don't want to spend 2 days installing Gnu tools, etc. BSD is better, but still not there. It's tools share a lot in common with Solaris and other commercial UNIX systems. Give me a box, whether it be x86, PowerPC, Alpha or SPARC, and I'll have you a fully tweaked server OS on it in much less time than any other OS.
Plus go compare a service contract from redhat to one from Microsoft or Sun. If you can't see plain numbers...
I am wondering if you have any experience at all adminstrating web servers...
Nic
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
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.]
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!
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
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.
or would this carry more weight if it was a company that had a reputation for MAKING money?
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?
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 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.
Check it out.
This according to the Netcraft link in the article. Lower TCO, better uptime...