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.

22 of 389 comments (clear)

  1. does this meen by MindTree · · Score: 5, Funny

    Doest this meen that I'm allowed to like amazon again?

    1. Re:does this meen by BLAMM! · · Score: 4, Funny

      At least it does until they try to patent the use of Linux for on-line commerce.

  2. Extra, Extra, Read All About It! by ekrout · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
  3. quote of the day. by garcia · · Score: 4, Interesting


    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?

    1. Re:quote of the day. by rfsayre · · Score: 5, Funny

      " you will pay in the long run"

      Obviously, Microsoft's licensing scheme is far superior. With them, you pay throughout the short-term, the forseeable future, and even the long run. Basically, you'll constantly pay for your Operating System as well as any "service" you decide you need (Word, Excel). Sounds less like a utility and more like protection money.

    2. Re:quote of the day. by zerocool^ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      With them, you pay throughout the short-term, the forseeable future, and even the long run.

      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 .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.

      I just fail to see where the "pay in the log run" comes into linux that it doesn't come into windows.

      --
      sig?
    3. Re:quote of the day. by Micah · · Score: 5, Funny

      Microsoft: "Use Windows instead of Linux. It's guaranteed to produce more revenue!"

      IT Guys: "So how is Windows guaranteed to produce more revenue for our business?

      Microsoft: "Oh, suddenly this is about your business."

      ...adapted from a Dilbert strip...

  4. fecetious? by Pope · · Score: 5, Funny
    Full of shit? :)

    You mean facetious.

    --
    It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
  5. Feeble Response from MS by DouglasA · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  6. Boo! Boo hoo? Random Thoughts by WebWord! by webword · · Score: 5, Interesting

    (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.)

    1. Re:Boo! Boo hoo? Random Thoughts by WebWord! by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Insightful
      • [Amazon] 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

      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.
  7. CNet Article by Tim+Macinta · · Score: 5, Interesting
    There's also a nice CNet article on the same topic.

    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.

    1. Re:CNet Article by mackertm · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm so glad you pointed this out. It seems there are endless comparisons between Windows and Linux in terms of cost. But I think the thing that gets overlooked the most is how good the IT staff at any particular company/institution might be. If your support staff is good and knows Linux, I can certainly see where it would be possible to save heaps of money running Linux. But if your technology people don't know Linux, then just moving to Linx (be it only in the server space, or desktops, too) wouldn't save any money. The TCO in that case would be extraordinarily high. "Oh shit, we just installed Linux... Nothing works like we expected... What do we do now?"

      I think the biggest single factor in any Windows vs. Linux cost debate shouldn't be the simple fact that Linux is free. It should center around how competent an IT department you have, and whether or not they can pull off a Linux deployment that would save a particular company money.

      For reference, I'm more of a Windows person. The college I work at exclusively uses Windows computers. I run an IIS server for my personal website without any trouble. I have been starting to learn Linux, but right now I don't know nearly enough to successfully use it to run my website. And I think that's what it comes down to... The right people with the right knowledge can make Linux a LOT cheaper than Windows. If you don't have those people with that knowledge then it makes more sense to stick with Windows.

  8. Linux winning over Win2k on the money angle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    Microsoft must position the MSFT stock as a growth stock. This means revenue growth of 10% per year. As revenues grow and the market beomces saturated, this beomces increasingly difficult to do and requires more draconian licensing and steeper fees.

    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.

  9. A classic example of speaking out of one's arse. by malkavian · · Score: 4, Funny

    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

  10. How much is a full-page ad... by dlleigh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.]

  11. Linux vs MS? Nope, Linux vs. Sun! by FortKnox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
  12. Transcript of Amazon VP meeting by GreenCrackBaby · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
  13. Re:A classic example of speaking out of one's arse by Carnage4Life · · Score: 4, Informative
    http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com/

    It knows what I have installed, what is *needed*, and other things I may *want*.

    1. WindowsUpdate is a GUI tool that needs MSIE. 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.

    2. WindowsUpdate doesn't carry IIS patches which makes it practically useless for the major security issue surrounding Windows. which is IIS.
      To successfully keep on top of IIS patches you have to use hfNetChk which is,

      WAIT FOR IT,

      a command line tool.
  14. My personal views by GreyPoopon · · Score: 5, Insightful
    OK, so probably nobody really cares what I think. But I'll state my views anyway. Feel free to criticize the heck out of what I say, but please be purposeful.

    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?

  15. amazon has used linux from the start by paulbd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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...

  16. Uptime is increasing by sneakerfish · · Score: 4, Interesting
    It seems their uptime is increasing since they switched:

    Check it out.

    This according to the Netcraft link in the article. Lower TCO, better uptime...