Linux Making Inroads, But Not At Windows' Expense

zaphod123 writes "According to this article, the stories about Amazon (and others) switching to Linux have been misrepresented. The Linux install has replaced a proprietary Unix system, not a Microsoft Windows product. This is still "A Good Thing" for Linux, but not the downfall of Microsoft that some have foreseen."

Comments

Try it on grandma.

[OsamaBinLogin]

>When asked whether the company would ever consider replacing its
>Windows machines with Linux, Busch said absolutely not, noting
>the lack of "robust office packages" on that platform.

I often think that this excuse really is more like "we can't get naive users to use it without being crippled". Linux distros need to test their software on non-Unix people more. Humans. Typical office people who, if you ask them if they have a Mac or a Windows box, say, "Yeah, I think so".

>And Busch threw another wrench into any mass Linux migration by
>noting that the overall cost of Linux and Windows 2000 is almost
>identical after you factor in support and maintenance.

in other words, after you get done with the hassles of Linux, and the hassles of Win2k, the hassles of Linux are a little bit more. time=money, so the cost of that extra hassle is the same as the cost of Windows & its apps.

So much for free-as-in-beer.

This hassle is invisible to the Linux developers cuz they know how to fix or work around glitches when they arise. So it seems "easy to use" for them.

Try it on grandma. then report back.

Re:Try it on grandma.

[rw2]

The cost of admining a Linux network is going to end up being the same as admining a Windows network. There is basically no difference.

Well the handful of clients I've seen (or switched myself) switch to Linux certainly don't bear that out. Windows installs tend to degrade over time. In no small part because they are much more likely to be run wide open in order to allow people to get their jobs done. Once they can install their own software the registery gets polluted and the machine stops working. What next? Field trip to the workstation because the remote admin on Windows is less common and less capable than Linux.

So there you have two reasons why the cost of ownership on Windows is higher. And I haven't even started talking about resurecting infected machines, making site visits only to tell the user that there is nothing that can be done because the issue is in Microsofts ticket system but they haven't done anything with it or any of the other closed source problems.

Yes, I know that solutions exist, but this was a cost discussion and the solutions cost money. With linux they are an intrinsic property of the OS.

Re:Try it on grandma.

[einhverfr]

Hmmm....

It is true that the majority of Linux wins are at the expense of UNIX, which explains the support of Sun and IBM (if you can't beat them, join 'em). However, there is a little more to this that meets the eye.

Proprietary UNIX is great in some niche markets, but it does not compete cost-effectively with Linux or Windows. If the migration costs were the issue, why would people be moving both to Windows 2000 and Linux from UNIX, not just Linux? This trend is also evident when one looks at the Netcraft numbers (and actually reads their comments).

The real issue, though, is that adding Linux servers IN PLACE OF Windows 2000 servers for certain tasks may also be happening. If people are already switching from UNIX to NT-based OS's, then Linux's wins are definitely at Windows expense, in denied market share rather than in lost market share (Windows never had the market share to begin with). All of this is on the server.

Also, the data in the article was out of date (about 2 yerars old). Linux currently has about 2% desktop market share in the corporate environment accordign to the IDC as of last Feb. (I assume that most of these are technical workstations). But again, this may deny the 64-bit XP some market share as time goes on.

Now for the ease-of-use question:
in other words, after you get done with the hassles of Linux, and the hassles of Win2k, the hassles of Linux are a little bit more. time=money, so the cost of that extra hassle is the same as the cost of Windows & its apps.

On a corporate level, yes. On an individual level, not so sure. I have watched people who are not computer gurus struggle endlessly with the insanity of WIndows. So it is not really newbie friendly either. In fact the only newbie friendly OS is arguably Mac OS!

However, I have found that newbies that get started with Linux learn much more rapidly about their computer because it is more transparent. A good example of this is my parents, who went from being lost on Windows 95 to being lost on Red Hat 6.1. Funny thing, if I set up the desktop with their use in mind, they had fewer problems than they did with Windows 95. They started using their computer more, and now (even though they no longer use Windows) are able to help all their friends use Windows. So I think that Windows is "user friendly" because that is what people have struggled with and put a lot of effort into learning. Not that it is innately so. Expect Linux to take more of the desktop in the next few years...

Re:Try it on grandma.

[biostatman]

Tbe way that I see it, there are two kinds of newbies: those who know they know nothing and are comfortable with it, and those who know knothing but nonetheless pretend they are power users. The first group are no problem - I could have just as easily gotten my mother (in the former category) using linux+kde2 as I did using Windows 98. (She, and most types like her, are not going to want to change the default font of the title bar once it has been set up for her; she just wants basic functionality) Also, trust me, it would be far easier explaining the subtleties of a Linux Desktop Environment to her than it has been trying to explain the numerous bugs she has encountered in win98.

Unfortunately folks in the latter category abound (posing power users), and the only reason for their proficiency w/ Windows is sheer repitition and reading the "Windows Tips" in the back of PC magazines. Not once do they have to think their way out of a problem, as there are many aspects of Windows that frankly defy logic. Once they are confronted with a situation which is a little bit different than Windows that requires a little bit of thought, it is very easy for them to throw up their hands and call it difficult to use and too UNIX-y.

I use both Win2k and Linux, and honestly Win2k is fine for what I need it for (it is not bulletproof, tho, in my experience), but I made a (not too time-consuming, btw) commitment to learning how to use Linux, and I'll never go back. However, I think that I am not in the majority, as most people don't want to give up what is familiar.

(BTW, for people that use the argument that "abc is too hard, as I don't want to know how xyz works, I just need it to get my work done!" I say, if you are working on a computer 80% of your working time, doesn't it behoove you to seriously consider alternatives that may (or may not, certainly) allow you to get your work done in a more efficient way? Ever heard of the concept one step backward, 10 steps forward?)

Re:Try it on grandma.

[SCHecklerX]

I often think that this excuse really is more like "we can't get naive users to use it without being crippled". Linux distros need to test their software on non-Unix people more. Humans. Typical office people who, if you ask them if they have a Mac or a Windows box, say, "Yeah, I think so".

Funny how these people used to be quite proficient with things like word perfect for dos and quattro pro for dos. If they were forced to go back to that, they would use it. It is their job, after all. They are capable, but everyone gives them the pointy-clicky thing that they can use, but never really understand. It used to be that people actually understood the tools they used to get their work done, since they actually *HAD* to read manuals on using that tool. Nowadays they are just amusing toys that actually get in the way more than help.

The hassles you speak of are imaginary. If people knew their tools, no matter what those tools may be, there is no hassle. The problem these days is you have people using tools that they certainly do not understand, and there is no incentive for them to do so.

Re:Try it on grandma.

[Locutus]

Just redirect 25% of that fund set asside for virus repairs/admin and use it for training.

Solves that problem.

LoB

however

[djdead]

it still is good news in that they decided not to change to a m$ based solution. they went for linux.

Re:however

[spudnic]

This is the point. They went shopping for a more cost effective:stable solution and they came up with Linux.

They could have possibly opted for Windows. So we can say that we are stealing potential sales from Microsoft and slowing it's widespread acceptance as a server OS.

But is that the whole story? Would they have even had to make a decesion like this if there hadn't been a $free alternative? Could the switch to Linux be argued if it cost the same as Solaris? What if Linux and Solaris where expensive, but Windows was free? What would the decision have been then?

Well, it doesn't matter because Linux is $free, Windows isn't, and they obviously had enough trust in it to move many systems over to it before the Christmas rush. That's really saying something.

From the thank-you-capt-obvious department....

[stiggystiggy]

How is this news? Netcraft said this way back in their June Report:

"Linux is the second most commonly used operating system. Linux has been consistently gaining share since this survey started, but interestingly not significantly to Windows detriment. Operating systems which have lost share have been Solaris and other proprietary operating systems, and to a small degree BSD."

Also, why didn't the article spell out the loser? It's Sun, Sun, Sun, Sun, SUN! Sun is getting clobbered on all fronts. Their hardware is nice, but not so nice that is it needed for 90% of the applications on which it is used.

Solaris, their operating system, has few advantages over Linux, nowadays. Frankly, without adding the GNU tools, Solaris is virtually unusable! (And, who's gonna pay $10k for their compiler when GCC does the job?)

Sun is about to hit a brick wall. Unless they change direction dramatically, Linux is going to gobble them up, just as SGI consumed Cray. Cray was meaningful for a long time, until the capabilities of "Minis" (as Supercomputer folk like to refer to UNIX machines) silently approched the power of super computers at a fraction of the cost.

The same is happening with Linux-Sun. For a small fraction of the cost, Linux on commodity hardware (Intel) is approching the power of Sun's products. It's inevitable, without some sigificant change.

Re:From the thank-you-capt-obvious department....

[nion]

For a small fraction of the cost, Linux on commodity hardware (Intel) is approching the power of Sun's products. It's inevitable, without some sigificant change.

I disagree, and it's not because I work at Sun. Commodity hardware is not nearly on a par regarding uptime and reliability as Commercial hardware. People don't buy Sun because it's cheap. People buy Sun because it WORKS. If you think I'm biased, replace Sun with IBM or SGI or Compaq or any other corporate entity that builds server hardware. You don't base your $$$ infrastructure on a $2k LinTel machine.

Sure, you can build a rather good system with commodity hardware. The PHB's MAY allow the techies to install Linux around the network. But when it comes to making a mission-critical application, they're not going to allow them to run down to PC Joe's, pick up a $2k box, install a $30 OS and believe it will run 24/7 without failure.

Re:From the thank-you-capt-obvious department....

[Ami Ganguli]

Ok, it's definately true that you don't buy a cheapo clone and use it for a mission critical server. But on real hardware (high-end Intel, RS/6000) Linux is every bit as reliable as commercial Unix. The only thing that's missing is "hot-swap anything" features that are only available on really high-end hardware.

It's true that Linux can't go up against Sun in every market yet, but I think the original poster is correct in saying that Sun needs to do something before they lose their edge. McNealy said recently that Linux was no threat since anything new developed for Linux could be incorporated into Solaris, but that's stupid. If you're selling a higher-price product you can't compete by matching the lower priced product, you have to be better.

Re:From the thank-you-capt-obvious department....

[Arethan]

Small applications are the only areas that Linux will ever beat Solaris on Sun hardware. I'd like to see a Linux cluster beat SunFire15k or even an older E10k in a performance vs. total cost of ownership chart.

Let's see, so we hire 10 people at 80k a piece to manage our 500 machine cluster, which will need to be replaced every 4 years at a minimum, just so that we can utilize a free OS?

Or, do we shell out some bucks up front, and get fault tolerant hardware, running an OS in a 5th generation VM environment, that will only require 2 people to manage, and will not need to be replaced for at least 10-15 years. (Upgrades not being considered replacements)

I'll stick with Sun, thanks. I'd much rather deal with a single machine, using extremely fault-tolerant tech than having to deal with 500 commodity pc's that are going to go through the usual 4 year replacement cycle.

Linux and Sun both have their place. Linux is a nice server, and a moderate desktop OS for the tech-savvy (at least I use it as a desktop). It's good for ftp servers, web servers, even small to mid database servers. Sun, on the other hand, is great for extremely high availability situations, where the 0.001% of down time in a 99.999% uptime plan could cost the company a few million in revenue.

Linux is saturating the low end market. Good! The low end market could use some low-cost & stable server software that runs on inexpensive hardware. But Sun caters more to the high end market where uptime is critical and data-sets are unbelievably large.

And no, Intel is no where near doing what Sun can already do. Go shoot your precious linux server with a .44, and see if it's still up. I'd guess the answer is no. Doing the same with a properly configured SunFire 15k would result in a high replacement cost, but an up and running system nonetheless. Processing power? Single cpu vs single cpu is getting closer. But for fault tolerance, full hotswap upgrades (as in lets pop a few more cpus into this machine...while it's running), high end SMP (way more than 8-way, try 72-way), and high end memory size (as in my server as 200GB of ram, what do you have under the hood?), Intel isn't even close. Sun, OTOH, has been doing it for a few years now.

So...how was linux going to kill Sun again?

Yes, it IS at MS's expense!!!

[turbine216]

As MS still holds a great deal of market share in server installs, this IS a blow to MS, as they failed to sell Amazon on their own product!

Besides that fact, it's still a VERY good thing for Linux, as Amazon is a HUGE online retail operation that serves as a model for many other businesses. That's how Linux is becoming successful - word of mouth and trial by fire. Linux proves itself in a very fast and competitive market, and more people jump on. Of course *NIX and BSD systems will be the first to be replaced, because the people who maintain them aren't as afraid to make the jump to Linux (they're already somewhat familiar with it). Give it time, though, and you'll see quite a few former MS boxen turning over to linux.

I mean, honestly, two years ago, did you ever think linux would have about 24% of the server market? No! So of course it seems impossible that it might steal an even bigger share - and thus there will always be those who doubt that it will ever happen. But slowly, it WILL happen. It's already happening.

Fight the right battle

[TommyAquinas]

Because of its robustness, modularity and stability, Linux is highly able to replace Solaris, HP-UX and AIX type licensed OS's in the enterprise. The people who buy these systems buy them to get the best technical solution to their problems and consider cost of ownership, which is high in any OS choice given the task, secondarily.

Trying to get Linux to beat Windows on the desktop is fighting yesterday's battle. Want to kill Microsoft? Sap it's growth, which is in server OS's and embedded systems (XBox, Pocket PC, etc.)

The amount of energy spent by the development community in trying to be the next Microsoft is astounding, but very few vocal developers seem to even focus on what Microsoft is trying to become.

To borrow a phrase from the Old West, "Cut 'em off at the pass" and focus on making an OS that runs devices better than Windows ever will, an OS that runs DB2 and Oracle better than any other and an OS that can be extended and integrated with server side applications at compile time with more ease.

If you take away Microsoft's revenue growth, you take away their stock price. Take away their stock price and you take away their monopoly.

Winformant?

[rw2]

I think I trust winformant to tell me about Linux about as much as I trust slashdot to tell me about Windows... :-)

Masses & Classes - minority rights

[ch-chuck]

One fellow used to cast things in terms of products for the mass market, and products for the elite class of users. Sure, there's going to be a huge market for the 'computers grandma can use', just like 'billions & billions served' - but there's also going to be a small but vocal and powerful minority of very experienced users who just don't want a computer with the training wheels bolted on and whizzards to hold your hand thru all common tasts. In the democracy of 'market choice' it will become increasingly important to ensure that the rights of the minority users who know what they want and already know how to do it don't get trampled on.

Yes, I do it the difficult way because it's more educational and I want to know what's going on and be in control. Notice how every time your super-automatic wiz-bang box craps out *I* have to come over and fix it or figure it out for you??

Much as I like Linux,

[einhverfr]

I have to admit-- Linux for community documentation, support, and features.

But-- FreeBSD is STABLE (check longest uptimes at Netcraft when you get a chance). If I could go for 4 years without rebooting with Linux... They have even dethroned Irix when it comes to stability.

So yes, they are a very practical alternative to Linux. It is really that Solaris and HP-UX are not so practical or cost effective in the small ISP market.

I actually now believe that Linux will form a shield which will allow BSD to grow into certain niche markets, such as high-availability web servers (currently MS and Sun).

Maby there isn't a war

[BradleyUffner]

The point of Linux isn't to wipe out Windows, or even to compete with it. Linux is about creating a free operating system that people will choose if it's the right tool for the job. Linux doesn't have to hurt Windows to be sucsesfull, it just has to keep improving. Just because Microsoft wasn't hurt by this doesn't mean that it isn't a victory for linux.

Re:au contraire, they're running scared

[Squirrel Killer]

Why am I reminded of the saying:

• First they ignore you
• Then they laugh at you
• Then they fight you
• Then you win.

Seems we're at #3...

So were we hoping for the downfall of MS?

[hAkron]

"Yeah, Microsoft is evil because they have taken away our choices, let's crush them so that the thing we like becomes our only choice" Why do we have to be for this camp or that camp? Why can't we all enjoy the best software available reguardless of who developes it?

This raises an important issue for OpenSourceLobby

[mikosullivan]

This article begs an important question for OpenSourceLobby and other organizations devoted to public education about open source: how adversarial is our relationship with other closed-source OS's? Our relationship with Microsoft up until now has been clear: they're the adversary. That isn't going to change. However, there are other vendors of closed-source OS's and open source is competition for them. The strange part of this equation is that many producers of closed-source OS's also push open source products. IBM and Sun both come to mind.

So the question is this: how much effort should we devote to pushing Linux and BSD as alternatives to close-source OS's?

My answer to that question is "not much". We need to focus on our main adversary: Microsoft. John Q. Public and Buford T. Congressman are probably not going care much about which version of Un*x somebody ought to choose, but will care very much about whether to use Windows.

In short, "open source Un*x or close source Un*x?" is simply not on the political map, and doesn't need to be.

-Miko

Linux Isn't About Market Share

[shut_up_man]

These guys just don't learn... Linux isn't about market share - it's about making a good OS! Linus and Alan Cox don't get up in the morning and think of ways to cut into Microsoft's pie, they try and improve the existing Linux system. Woz said it in his recent interview... he cut his hacker teeth building computers that competed against their previous versions, always improving.

As for Wininformant, yay well done. You caught the fact that a Linux win wasn't actually a Microsoft loss. Here's some more news for you: WE DON'T CARE.

shut up man

Technically, it is at MS's expense

[valen]

After all, Microsoft has been trying to take the
"enterprise" business from the unix vendors for
years. If linux replaces a traditional unix vendor,
you can be sure they at least considered, and rejected microsoft when considering Linux.

But what would the Windows growth curve have been

[EisPick]

... if Linux didn't exist? I think these analyses ignore the loss of momentum that Linux has caused Windows.

Five years ago, as NT was replacing Netware in most enterprises, many predicted that Unix systems would be the next to fall under the Windows steamroller. However, in cases where simplicity and the availability of commodity hardware are more important than raw performance and scalability, people are turning to Linux to replace Unix systems, not Windows.

So while Linux may not have made major inroads in replacing existing Windows servers, it has prevented Microsoft's hegemony on the desktop to spread to the server side, and has given Unix (generically) a new lease on life.

I think that's a pretty major story.

Very very wrong: here's why

[devphil]

Not only do I admin and program on Solaris boxes, I'm also a GCC library maintainer. There're my qualifications.

Solaris, their operating system, has few advantages over Linux, nowadays. Frankly, without adding the GNU tools, Solaris is virtually unusable!

"Frankly," you're utterly wrong. Not only is Solaris just fine and dandy, it has features for programmers which aren't anywhere near to showing up on Linux. For example:

• The proc tools, for manipulating a running process. Try using pldd(1) to find out exactly which libraries have been mapped in, or pstack(1) to print the call stack. Yes, that's right, print the function call stack of a running process from the command line, without a debugger, and it works flawlessly. There're about a dozen of these tools, man -s 1 proc for more.
• Kernel watchpoints on memory. Tell the kernel you want to know when a process tries to read or write from an arbitrary block of memory. That process when then be frozen (or killed, as per your instructions), allowing you to find out exactly what piece of code is trashing memory.
• A boatload of malloc(3) implementations. Want a version of malloc that uses brk? It's there. Want it to use mmap instead? It's there. Want a version of malloc that never reuses memory? Or a malloc which sets kernel watchpoints on its own bookkeeping structures, for when your code is hosing the malloc internal memory? It's all there.

Linux has none of these.

(And, who's gonna pay $10k for their compiler when GCC does the job?)

Severely uninformed statement, my friend. GCC doesn't generate SPARC code nearly as well as Sun's compiler. (Ask the GCC developers.) It's good but it's not there yet.

GCC cannot even generate a 64-bit binary yet. (Very close, but still some bugs.)

There are plenty of reasons to buy a SPARC, and to use Solaris, and to use Sun's software. It's all about the right tool for the right job, and Linux quite often isn't it. (I write this sitting on a Linux box.) Quit'cher karma whoring. :-)

Is this on a server or a workstation? That's key.

[King_TJ]

I think part of the reason this "Win vs. Linux" cost of ownership battle rages on and on is because we're comparing apples to oranges.

Individual user workstations are rarely "mission critical". If they crash once in a while, productivity doesn't really diminish. (Sure, they have to spend a minute or two rebooting and logging back in, and sometimes they might lose the file they were last working on - but that's the extent of it.)

Servers, on the other hand, obviously pose much bigger productivity issues if they go down. Every user connected to one is cut off from what they were doing until it reboots.

Linux shines on servers for this reason. It's markedly more reliable than the average Windows-based server. If nothing else, it saves you from doing a lot of reboots when you reconfigure things. (Make a change to Apache or Samba configuration? Just stop and restart the daemon; not the whole machine.) Win2K and XP are better than ever about imitating that functionality, but they still ask you to "restart the machine for the changes to take effect" far too often to be convenient on a server.

On a workstation though, the rules change. The biggest factors become ease-of-use and training. Most employees come with a chunk of Windows knowledge in advance. Sure, some have no clue, but even temp. agencies requires experience with using the mouse, getting around Win '9x, and using MS Office apps. When you have hundreds or thousands of employees, it starts to look really good to use a lesser-quality operating system if it means most of your workers can already get around in it with no additional training.

This is something that only time will change (and then, only if people stick with Linux and keep making efforts to improve it over the years).