Slashdot Mirror
Businesses Slow to Adopt Linux
milenko81 and several others submitted this CNET story about corporate spending on information technology. The reporter seems to interpret it negatively because Fortune 1000 companies aren't dumping Microsoft 100% and going for Linux. But interpret it as you will.
Does anyone else remember all those stories that came out a few years ago about IT staff secretly replacing their Windows servers with Linux servers, because the end-users wouldn't know the difference?
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
That's SOP around here. I submitted an article about RedHat buying a good sized chunk of VA. It was rejected.
I mean, it's not as if we are posting insider information. This stuff is coming from PR, Yahoo, Cnet, etc.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Company IT departments don't have to buy linux. Thus, it never gets sent to HQ for funding request, thus, executives don't know about it.
As far as business-critical apps: my company found out quickly how business-critical email was. Our internet was down in September (thanks Qwest) and our clients would call and say: I just got your email sent back with Host not found. Are you still in business?
Every application in an enterprise is business-critical. It's just some are bigger than others.
"Piter, too, is dead."
Perhaps you mis-read me. According to my site's thinking, NT 4.0 is secure because we paid for it, and Linux is not secure because we did not pay for it (or substitute IIS and Apache for NT and Linux). I'm not here to discuss whether or not one is or can be made more secure than the other. I'm just trying to figure out how cost=security is all. I'll save the insecurity of M$ products for another news item.
RagManX
>their livelyhood for an operating system they
>hardly know?
For the same reason that everyone jumped from a large corporation that rented applications (IBM) to a small, unproven technological upstart that cost a whole lot less, but wasnt as "mature".
Just remember - no one ever got fired for choosing IBM - until they did get fired for choosing IBM's insane price structure.
Thats you're argument - no one ever got fired for using microsoft?
... hi bingo
>One last issue: MCSEs are a dime a dozen. Any >moron can administer a Windows network
>The proportion of people that can adminster a >Linux server vs. those that can admin MS is >huge. Probably thousands to one.
A lot of the guys that can do Windows correctly are guys that do Unix correctly.
I've met the exceptions, but they are rare.
A good admin is a good admin is a good admin. All one has to do is force yourself to think outside of just one particular mindset.
Coming up next year or so:
I'd do it more given time and customer contacts (best advertisement you can have is a happy customer talking about you to its clients.)
Share administration burden (what? doing something wrong?) with trusted friends.
Take a fair price for your work, but avoid greed.
This can and should be done as a side-job, unless you get very successful in the long term.
Only fix what's broken, security hole, or a client-requested enhancement or new service. Never say "can't do", say "I'll look into it" and go for the web; Never say "you can't afford it", say "I'd be forced to hire people for approximately $this much money, would you like to try something else instead?"
I could go on for hours, but you'll find it all out once you start thinking about it.
Make difference where you can.
I think, therefore thoughts exist. Ego is just an impression.
Is this question relevant to the current topic - I don't know, maybe.
Could someone who has followed the path and suffered explain to me how you finagle the required technical references to do things like work on a FreeBIOS project, write an ATI TVOut module or write a SoundBlaster driver for Linux?
Motherboard companies, Chipset vendors, graphics card vendors, sound card vendors, they all seem to be reluctant to release technical documents except to large OEMs.
Doesn't this hamper Linus development?
Doesn't this guarantee that Linux support will always lag the rest of the world ( MSWin )?
Isn't this almost as bad as Microsoft's restrictive licensing agreements?
Or am I just imagining that I can't get easy access to these documents?
?
* Sigh *
/. line.
Obviously moderated up because it holds the
If your Windows Admin knows what he is doing, you can have exactly the same amount of servers. EXACTLY. And I stress, if your Admin isnt a clueless idiot.
a) Only partially true and depends on your flavour of Windows Server. Advanced Server scales quite resonably and Datacenter is quite good, especially as it is generally customised for scalabilityYou'ld be a dickhead to try it on normal Server or Workstation
b) OH BULLSHIT!!!! File, pprint and mail server in one of my offices, LAST reboot 5000 hours ago and still no sign of a problem. Get a NT Admin with a frigging clue and the uptime will be measured in months. Dont believe me? Well, get an NT admin with a clue and find out! Fuck, Unix uptime would also suck if it had the percentage of clueless morons admining it that NT has.
c) More Unix FUD. As I keep on saying get a NT admin with a clue and it WILL do it. And for one, your NT admin will tell you to fuck off and not be a moron by having your Internet server and your file server on the same box! Hell, even a clued on Unix Admin would say that! If it's an Intranet server, that's different. File, print and Intranet WILL work and work with stability and speed.
The crevat being, GET AN ADMIN WITH A CLUE.
a) untrue, or at least outdated info. Win2K runs just fine on machines with eight to thirty two procs.
b) I have, and I have seen, servers that run for hundreds of days, rebooting only for hardware and major patches. Gee, just like Linux.
c) Some of those boxes are running the whole back office suite.
I would've happily chimed with agreement had we been talking about NT4. Linux is sometimes better, sometimes worse, than Win2k, and a lot of it has to do with the skills of the people running the machines, in both cases.
There are higher end Unix solutions that blow Win2K _and_ Linux away, but the article isn't talking about those, its talking about Linux.
This is the Linux zealotry that so many other posters have warned against.
Last time i checked, i used Linux because it makes a stable and high-performance network operating system.
Whether a bunch of grey-haired IT managers for big bad corporations even know about Linux is completely irrelevant to me, and i would say most of the Linux community who are actually using the software.
I suspect half the problem with adopting Linux is that it puts a lot of pressure on the IT department to perform. i.e.
With traditional proprietary systems, a perfectly valid excuse for not doing something would be 'It's too expensive'. With Linux, the only excuse you can give is 'We're completely clueless'. I bet this, more than anything else, scares the shit out of every Fortune 1000 IT department.
Also, this article states clearly that this was a survey of *spending* priority.
For an existing Windows shop, the cost of Windows licensing outstrips the cost of a single distro of Linux by an incredible amount. If you had 100 machines, and deployed Linux on 50% of those machines, Windows on the remaining 50% of them, (lets say that Windows XP Professional costs $US200 and Red Hat Linux costs $US50 - i don't know the actual figures), then 50% of your machines are covered by $50, and the remaining 50% cost $10,000.
I think you'd have to class the Windows XP as your 'Spending Priority', since the cost of purchasing Linux for half of your machines is negligible in comparison.
All i know is that, at least on my desktops and servers, Linux is here to stay.
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
Isn't the whole point about this bizarre and peculiar IT world that we live in that a 'different way of thinking' has brought us the Internet, GNU, Linux and the myriad of other splendid things into the world?
I heard this kind of nonsense five years ago..
We're brought us all closer to the world of 'business'.. a bit of common ground has formed... but do you really think that makes what most of these guys are up to OK or 'fair enough'?...
The reason that folks are satisfied by M$ is because they've been trained to accept what they are given.. Microsoft has been working hard and very successfully towards this kind of atmosphere for years... how many of you're Colleges and Universities phased out Unix for a bulk deal with
Microsoft..?? And what kind of IT are graduates learning then preaching about??
Have you all just taken the money and run, coz suddenly your skills are useful for a few years?
Are you prepared to die for your beliefs, or just to dye your hair?
A year and a half ago, the burning question in the Linux community was whether anyone without a CS degree would want to touch Linux. Now we're getting our undies in a twist because not all of the oldest and most established companies want to immediately abandon the software they only realized 4 years ago they actually needed to buy? Grow up!
Imagine if Linux and the BSDs succeeded in reducing Microsoft's desktop share to 65%, and its server share to 20%. That would be an absolute coup. The best outcome Linux can hope for is to refragment the desktop, embedded, server,etc. markets so that people can choose their OS according to their needs. That would let each OS will become more directed at the smaller and more coherent segment of the market it serves.
Linux should do what it's always done - be a homegrown operating system that serves as a testbed for the ideas of its user-developers. Since some of those are surely interested in a polished, experience, it will get easier and smoother to use, while retaining the technical accessibility that we love it for.
- - - - - - - - -
Better mod this one down: there are no misspelled words and empty rants.
Bynari Insight Server (seems like your best bet)
I tried this about a year ago and it sucked harder than an industrial Hoover. Install was bad and it just didn't work right. It appeared to be supported by a part-time high school student (From my phone calls and emails, the kid knew his stuff when you could get to him but the support level just wasn't "professional quality" at all.) Maybe they've gotten beyond this now, but the taste in my mouth is pretty sour.
I'm currently evaluating Steltor CorporateTime server. It uses a standard IMAP server and a standard LDAP server to provide mail and directory services (and shared folders if your IMAP server supports it) and its own calendaring server to do the shared calendars and scheduling.
So far, so good. It has a standalone Win/Linux/Mac calendar client and also an Outlook service (as well as Palm and EPOC connectors, IIRC). What it *did not* have was a convertor to convert all your Outlook contacts into an LDIF format, and I haven't been able to find one that either doesn't drop fields or break in other ways. I've created a Perl script to convert the CSV-exported contact data to LDIF, and I'm almost done, but it's not perfect yet.
CorporateTime seems to be very well supported and the price is about the same as Exchange Server. The fact that it uses standard protocols and the server will run on either Linux or NT is a big plus. I hope I can convince the people who write the cheques to go for it.
What evaluation? Where I work, we are just putting in the W2K problem. The leases are expiring and that's what comes on the replacements. It's as simple as that, the VENDOR is giving it to the company. There are over 160 applications that have not been tested and will only be tested when the new box is on the desk. What a bad joke! No one really looked at alternatives, they are just doing it.
Big companies sometimes have their head up their ass. Mention of alternatives gets me talk of, "dude you are talking about something company wide here". Duh, I'm not suitably awed. If it works for 1, it should work for 10,000.
Security? Everyone knows it's a joke.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Most high-end management types are going grey or balding, and while they're good fine people, they're content to sit back, maybe play a little golf on the weekends, and generally have no clue about what's going on.
:)
:) Windows? Everyone knows what Windows is. And actually, a fair number of people know what Linux is nowadays. It's still not a household name though. People you tell don't need to use it, just know of it's existance. If a random management type hears you talking about Linux solutions, and can say, "Linux? My (niece/nephew/other relation) was talking about that.", they've got a better chance of saying, "Tell me more."
Think about your grandparents. Think of how hard it would be for you to try to break them out of a routine, or one of their beliefs.
For the most part, in the past, buisness has shelled out large amounts of money for mission critical applications and such.
Money.
They're used to shelling out large sums of money. Now, along comes this 'free' thing, put together by 'hackers'. You think it's going to take the business world by storm instantly? Not bloody likely.
If I put a caveman in a room with a window, he'll sit, staring at the window, marvelling at it, tapping on it, bonking his head on it and brusing his nose. Eventually, he'll come to understand the window, and take it for granted.
It's very hard for people to change their beliefs as they grow older, unless something massively drastic happens. Management is paranoid of Linux and free software, simply because they've been weaned on expensive solutions. This can, and will change. People only live so long. As one group of managers retires, a newer, younger batch moves in.
What could speed up the process? Explaining to them, in terms they understand, why Linux and other free/open source solutions can and do work. In terms they understand. Borrow the company lawyer, point out that if something goes wrong with NT or IIS, that they can indeed bitch at Microsoft, but it's not going to result in any sort of compensation. Present them with cold, hard facts. Not, "Well, it has a cute logo, and Apache on Linux with kernel 2.4.9 responds to queries 33.924824% faster than IIS running NT, and it also automatically empties the bit bucket, making sure the kneffler pin does not come loose, thereby preventing multiphasic static crashes of the hard disk perepheral!" (Yes, I made a bunch of jibberish up. The point is, tech talk = jibberish to these people.)
Instead, point out that, "It's much faster, and would be insert favorite number) percent more efficient. Our customer's needs would be served better, and as a result, they would have greater loyalty to our business."
Another thing, talk Linux to friends, to family. Here's one case where they don't need to know what the hell you're talking about.