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
>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.
* 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
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.