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.
I'm having this problem with my site. They don't want to go Linux, because they can't blame someone if there is a problem since it isn't a commercial application. I don't understand this, because a)it isn't true (that's why you buy a distro and support package) and b)Microsoft sells commercial applications that have tons of problems, but their license agreement is such that you can't blame them if something goes wrong.
This brilliant company thinking has even extended to the security tools I use here. I can't use freely downloadable tools because someone might have trojaned them. Only if we can pay someone to ship us an install CD can we use it, because if we pay for it, *WE KNOW IT IS SECURE* or something like that. I mean, come on, Microsoft NT 4.0 is super secure, because we paid lots, right?
Let's just face it, techies don't run things, and non-techies are mostly idiots when dealing with this kind of stuff.
RagManX
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
If I knew I had a system that at least partially worked to my benefit, would I scrap it for a complete unknown overnight? I hightly doubt I would. If I could, I would attempt to fully stabilize the system I knew partially worked.
Microsoft has promised they can do this with Windows. To a large extent, they have delivered.
Why is everyone expecting businesses to risk their livelyhood for an operating system they hardly know? Wait until Linux makes some more headway into things; then we should see Linux used by larger and more significant businesses (and hopefully we will).
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
You have to wonder about the negative spin on this. 24% of the largest, most conservative companies in the country are planning to use Linux next year. This is good news. Considering that two years ago nobody believed Linux could make it into enterprise datacenters, this is amazing progress.
When interpreting these figures you need to remember that:
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
What are you talking about? Slashdot did run a story, covering the propriety version of sourceforge.
Sig goes here
100 "executives", 60% of whom thought that Windows was going to be their enterprise server of choice. Not their desktop of choice. Not some of their webservers. Their enterprise server.
The poll needed to ask those same executives what they DO use, and correlate that to what actually is used so they could remove answers from people who obviously have no involvement in their company's enterprise server purchaces. My guess is that they answered "Windows" for the same reason I told a telephone survey person that Glitton (however it's spelled) was my exterior paint of choice. It was the only name I could think of at the time, and they just wanted an answer. I answered "Glitton" to every question it was appropriate to.
Corporate execs don't understand how something that is free can be worth a damn. I know; I've tried to get Linux implemented in our enterprise as a basic web proxy. (Instead, we spend almost $10k on licenses for Microsoft software and third party filtering applications.)
Here's the deal: When you pay a cool million bucks for the software to run your enterprise, you have someone to bitch at (Microsoft) should something go horribly wrong. With Linux, the only person you can bitch at is that uber-geek you're paying $50k a year. When millions of dollars are at stake every day, you just can't trust a free piece of software.
Obviously, most of us here know this is bullshit, but it's the excuse given by every exec I've talked to. They won't trust their business to free software and a couple of geeks no matter how compelling the evidence. Even a mention of IRC as a help resource elicits manical laughter. If someone setup a high priced licensing & support system for Linux and gave it a different name, businesses might sign on. Sad but true.
One last issue: MCSEs are a dime a dozen. Any moron can administer a Windows network. I'm the only one in my group that knows enough about Linux to properly setup and maintain an enterprise server. If we implemented Linux and I left, they'd be SOL. Nobody wants to put their faith in one or two employees, especially when those employees have knowledge that is (let's face it) hard to come by. The proportion of people that can adminster a Linux server vs. those that can admin MS is huge. Probably thousands to one. It's just not easy to find a good Linux guy, let alone the 5 to 10 of them it would take to run a medium sized network.
-Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
Of course it's low on the budgetary radar scope. They're not paying for Linux and they already have the Unix expertise in house. Since Linux runs on darn near anything, they probably already have the hardware there too.
*Condense fact from the vapor of nuance*
Most computer purchasing decisions are not made by tech-savvy developers with their finger on the pulse of modern developments. They are made by golf-playing middle management who are being bribed left right and center by their suppliers with free trips to Hawaii and other inducements.
Linux will make it in the end, but it will be because one of the pre-existing corporations or management consultancies starts pushing it, because it improves their own bottom line.
Sad but true.
And the answer to this question is not Linux because....?
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Wasn't the poll about IT spending plans? Why should it be a big surprise that IT departments plan to spend more on Windows and traditional UNIX platforms? The poll wasn't about implementation plans, but what items have budgetary priority.
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
(I'd hate to be writing supply-chain management software in that case.)
The research cited in the article purports that interest in Microsoft Windows and computer security are both strong among Fortune 1000 companies, while interest in Linux is weak.
Does anyone else find that position absurd? If folks were interested in computer security, you'd think they would have no interest at all in Windows.
Ah, well. So it goes. Just another sign that most people are idiots.
was that their biggest concerns were buying Windows operating systems and security software.
"Heh, I know what we can do now that the economy has soured, Bubba. Let's stop our movement to that free OS that puts us in control. Instead, let's buy an expensive OS that is known for lots of security holes so that we can buy more software to make it secure."
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Most of the data in this article came from Goldman Sachs, which is heavily invested in MS. My company had a consultant from Goldman long before I came here, who made them implement their first demos with NT4 and Oracle. By the time I came in, they realized that they didn't have the cash or the need for Oracle. Now we're running on Red Hat and Postgres.
Also note that these are Fortune 1000 companies--all really, really big, with lots of investment in MS desktops already, and some MS server infrastructure. Linux is faring much better with small companies that are strapped for cash, not bigass companies looking ways to cut people simply to increase profitability.
Also--upgrading to XP or 2000 is one of the biggest expenditures. This is _not_ a good thing. It means that big companies are shelling out tons and tons of cash simply to stay current and keep WinWord 2.0 functionality. Eventually people will realize that this is not necessary.
Even in this article, there is a spot of hope, however: they say that financial companies are quick to adopt linux, compared to other bigass Fortune 1000 companies. Maybe that's because they understand the bottom line a bit better, huh?
I wouldn't worry about this article too much. Linux isn't about big business; it's about small business and low overhead. Big business and MS can do all they want and it won't matter.
Anyways--linux is doing fine. Anybody running XP on a p2 266? If you don't get my point now, you will soon. Don't worry.
Two comments on this: 1. Although at least some companies are switching to Linux and open source software, when was the last time you heard about a company dumping their open source software for Windows? Just doesn't happen. 2. The article mentions how "security" is in the mind of IT professionals these days. Yet Linux is phenomenally more secure than Windows will ever be. Seems like a lot of IT folks need to be educated.
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."
False.
The cost of adminning Windows servers is considerably higher than the cost of adminning Unix servers (of any flavor). You can cover far fewer servers with a single admin, and you need at least 3 times the number of physical boxen than you do with Unix systems because a: Windows scales horribly and only runs on hardware designed to be workstations b: Windows requires at least two redundant servers for each primary server to maintain the uptimes of any Unix c: Windows is only able to perform properly if each box only runs one particular server function. Put a print server, a web server and a file server on the same box and none of them will work well (well by Windows standards).
This is always the misleading statistic when evaluating open source based software solutions. The costs, the prices, the values require a different mindset.
I could easily say that this year I'll only spend $1.95 on Linux based solutions (pocket change) and install the same ISO copy image on dozens of servers doing different dedicated tasks very nicely.
Because the equivalent deployment in the Windows based world with licensing terms costs hundreds or thousands of times as much money, should I then conclude the Linux is failing to catch on in the enterprise?
I don't think so.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
(*SIGH*) The big advantage that M$ has always had over LINUX is that it controls spin on its image very well - at least where it counts. Grunts in the trenches can scream as much as we want, but executives don't see many Blue Screens of Death. Therefore, the perceptions of the different options differ between top and bottom of the management pyramid.
The other perception problem is that decision makers are (quite correctly) rooted in the here and now. They are not interested in hearing about security holes or bugs that present potentional problems, even if the potential consequences are catastrophic. Let's face it - most of the night terrors that techies have with M$ products have to do with the exceptional scenarios (hack attacks, cascading failures, etc) that might occur rather than the merely horrific ones we do face. I mean, the "house of cards" dread I get in my stomach when dealing with these things always seem to outweigh specific, documented incidents I can point out to a manager.
"Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."
I like how the poll was about spending plans. Our spending plan for Linux in the next year is $0. Zero. A big fat zero. But we build and ship a product on Linux (along with other platforms). Ok, maybe we'll buy a Redhat box at Borders for $50, but that's not in the budget.
One thing that has not been brought up yet is that most larger companies are publically traded. Their number one objective is to create value for their shareholders. While the same can be said for private companies, public companies are under much greater watch.
That being said...It is very true that executives will pick a "name" that people recognize rather than the best technology. Everyone knows Microsoft. THat's why management picks it, supports it, and spends the money.
If you want a chance in heck of deploying Linux over a MS solution, DON'T try to pitch it yourself. Call IBM. They talk the same language as your boss.
Sure, you might pay more for an IBM solution than you would if you bought stuff yourself and configured it. But the end goal is to save your company money and deploy a product they will have faith in. If MS does it for $200k, IBM for $125k, or you for $50k. It brings Linux into the office behind a solid name and then you can expand slowly with homegrown projects.
Also, is it so wrong that management would like to have a COMPANY to call to support a product they are using to run their business? It is a reasonable request, which is why you call IBM and tell them your situation.
.. that this was a survey of executives at fortun 1000 companies. The truth is that most executives at these companies would probably not know if there were Linux servers running in their own companies.
I work at one of those companies, and we employ Linux servers for all sorts of things - which is funny because as far as the VP is concerned we are a Novell/HP Unix shop.
I sincerely do not mean this as a troll. I am both a user of Windows and Linux, and I don't lean zealously in either direction.
If nothing else, at least with Windows there's a large company with financial interest behind it all. Sure, Windows sucks in lots of ways, but at least you won't find them generally working toward what customers want.
With Linux, it's a bit scarier. Not so much with the kernel as with desktop environments and applications. With WordPerfect for Linux, I felt like I was just being used as a pawn by Corel to get a foothold in a new market, and the quality of the software was secondary. Miguel, of Gnome fame, often sounds an overly idealistic college student. It makes me stop and think "Should I really be letting this guy determine the direction of the software my company uses?" Sure, you can pick and choose different products, but with Windows you don't have to. If you go with Windows 2000 or XP and Microsoft Office (or just Word) then you don't have to worry about making the wrong choice. There's often too much personal agenda behind open source software for Linux.
I still don't think that the media gets it! Linux is not reliant on the extenction of Microsoft. I didn't say this ...
..does Linux need this boost from these companies?
Linus Torvalds: "I don't actually follow other operating systems much. I don't compete - I just worry about making Linux better than itself, not others."
Now I would love to see every Fortune 1000 company run out and get Linux there is nothing more in this world that would thrill me than to see Microsoft file chapter 13 (expecialy after trying to stop non IE browsers from accessing msn arrrg!)
Maybe I am off on this, I am not a programmer or a kernel hacker i am just a simple user
I used to work at Minnesota Public Radio, which was (and still is) a very fine place. They have the resources (people and money) to maintain a very nice web site -- but they're still public radio, and they're very cost-conscious.
In spite of that, they were very resistant for a long time to free software for exactly the reasons you mentioned. But my boss was a good listener, and when her technical people kept telling her that free was viable, she started to listen. Our sysadmin, in particular, was very persistent -- not rude, just persistent. One day I said to her, "This is the 90s. Half the best software is free." Later, I heard her quoting that to VPs.
And the ideas started to take effect. We switched from Netscape Enterprise Server to Apache, from Webtrends to analog, and my old co-workers tell me there may be some Linux boxes going into production. As the executives saw free software succeeding, they were willing to make the switch. There's a lot of inertia, sure, but execs are generally smart people. Stick with it. Little by little, if they're worth their salt, they'll listen.
It really helps to get a high-profile success with free software. If you're making the case in your company, look for an opportunity to base a project in free software, and make sure it succeeds. This is the most effective argument you can make.
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.
Something that Linux advocates, ahem ahem, seem to put off to the side.
I went through this with a boss at a previous company. He decided to set up a small internal web site using Linux/Apache as an experiment, so I offered to let him use my recent copy of SuSE. But he preferred to go out and buy some sort of RedHat 'professional' distribution that cost $300.
Imagine switching not only their email program, but also their office suite and their OS. Widespread pandamonium! The cost (Linux may be free, but training certainly isn't!) is too much.
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
10,000 machines running Win NT to be converted to Linux. Existing hardware == No cost
1 Redhat distribution from Best Buy: $70
Effective budget requirements (staff are already employed to do this sort of thing) for complete Linux installation. Total cost: $70.
cf: Windows XP rollout - $100 upgrade per machine. $1million dollars plus extra new software
It's not exactly a big suprise that Linux isn't costing the earth for these companies - and this survey is talking to the Financial officers.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
CNet wrote:
and
It sure sounds to me like they asked about the budget and based their conclusions on that. This definitely biases the conclusions in favor of higher priced products because they inherently require a higher budget.
-----
Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux
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?
?
SuSE has incident based support - and free installation support. The incident based support is expensive. There is probably more on suse...
RedHat product portfolio shows lots of support packages, that probably cost a lot of money.
Mandrake is doing some support too, I'm sure you could talk them into doing a support deal.
I'm even sure you can get the guys at TurboLinux to give you a good deal too.
So next time you talk to an exec, say that
Any technology distinguishable from magic, is insufficiently advanced.
* 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.
The double standard on Slashdot is hard to believe. If my neighbor Joe installs Red Hat Linux, Slashdot is first to post a story about it. But when a bona fide story comes out saying Linux isn't gaining as much marketplace acceptance as everyone thought it was, we all rush to find reasons why the report is wrong.
There's a big difference between, as Michael puts it, "dumping Microsoft 100%," and, as the Goldman Sachs analyst stated, "with Linux...virtually not registering on our survey." But interpret it as you will.
Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
It's easy to get Linux people. Just run an ad. Linux people will jump on the chance to run Linux at work. I do because I'm in a dev shop but my target machines are AIX and the "real" development is happening there. It just happens that my interface to them is more seamless than the 'doze people in my office.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I hate to say it, but you're right. Microsoft software does get the job done almost every time. Linux has clear wins in some areas, mainly the stability (predictability) of the overall system and, of course, price. But with any given piece of software you have to ask, "Does this do everything I need?" You have to ask that question less frequently with Microsoft products, because they're usually the ones defining what everyone else needs by virtue of already having it. They may suck in other areas, but if you need that feature, there's a program for Windows that has it. This is only true in Linux if you install large amounts of software from sometimes obscure sources, meanwhile increasing the complexity of the whole system through adding features piecewise and losing the stability advantage. This isn't always true, and many companies will have the expertise to make Linux and its applications work, and work better, than Windows could ever hope to. But still, you have to ask that pesky question.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
Let me first make the assumption that you're using win2k. Other versions of Windows makes all bets off.
a: Windows is getting much better in this regard, though *nix systems (Linux especially) still have spotty driver support at best. Ever try getting Linux running on Dell's high end raid cards?
b: Depends on what the windows machine is doing and if it has the hardware to support such uptimes. Windows machines have the downside that most patches require reboot.
c: Funny. I assume you're joking of course, because it's trivial to get smb file sharing, apache, and smb printing on a win2k machine. As long as you've got the bandwidth and hardware to support the load your clients will put on it, the machine will run great. (granted you'll need quite a bit more ram, and a little more processor power, but win2k serving the print & file services will invariably be more reliable from a compatability point of view than samba)
And as one replier already mentioned you will still need a competant admin to make all of this acceptably secure and stable, which there are much fewer competant windows admins than unix admins (proctologically extruded fact)
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.
I disagree. I work for a medium sized company. 27 offices around the US, 800 users, 70 NT and 2000 servers, and we only have 3 admins. And only one is full time NT. I do WAN/LAN and our other admin is a Web developer. We very rarely have downtime, and when we do it is usually because of a 3rd party application. Buy good hardware, build it correctly, keep up on the patches and sit back and relax.
The reporter seems to interpret it negatively because Fortune 1000 companies aren't dumping Microsoft 100% and going for Linux.
No, the reporter interprets it negatively because the vast majority of executives feel Microsoft is a better choice, according to him. Not because Linux hasn't achieved 100% market share.
2) large customers get benefits, real or imagined, from being a good customer of a company like microsoft
2) Bill Gates
working at a certain large company, there was a new project that the software development folks were working on planning. The business customer demanded
One of Linux's weak points is that in the world of big business, there aren't people that can leverage a new product like Microsoft can. I guess most people here would say thats a good thing, but it isn't helping fortune 500 companies choose to ditch microsoft.
I, of course, interpret it as "Linux Rulez!"
HA!@
This still goes back to the Gartner report from this past spring that showed Linux market penetration at less than 10%. IDC is still claiming what? 32% and growing?
s ht ml
If you look at Netcraft's web survey back in September, 2001 they show Linux has around 30% of the market for internet web server machines. Ok, so that proves the IDC numbers correct, right?
Well not really, that's only counting web servers which are connected directly to the internet. This is the most established market for Linux as a server, so it's going to have a fairly substantial part of the market. But overall that's actually a relatively small percentages of global server sales, if you consider that there are other things servers run, such as databases, email, applications, file/print, etc.
I don't know the numbers for that, but as an example our company probably has on the order of 200 internal servers running a combination of WinNT/2k and commercial Unix(HP-UX, Solaris, etc), but only maybe 6 external internet web servers. I'd say that balance is actually pretty typical for the Fortune 1000.
But what percentage of the market for internal servers does Linux have? Well we can't rely on Netcraft as those servers can't be counted. You pretty much have to rely upon surveys of the IT staff to find out what they are actually buying or deploying.
That's apparently what Gartner and Goldman Sachs have done.
But where did IDC get it's numbers? Honestly I don't know, because every time I search I see conflicting details. At one point it appeared they were "estimating" based on the number of TurboLinux CDs shipped in Linksys NIC packages(as an example), and the number of Linux ISOs they thought were downloaded off ftp sites, along with the numbers of RedHat/Mandrake/Suse sales and some other factors.
But while that might create a rather large number, how is it actually related to server deployments? IDC doesn't really answer that.
When slashdot asked the questions to Mr. Kusnetzky he sort of side tracked the issues:
http://slashdot.org/interviews/01/06/21/154203.
Basically it sounds as though the numbers IDC is reporting are what he calls "Supply Side". That seems to indicate more how many CD's have been pressed and sent out.
But the numbers coming from Gartner and Goldman Sachs are what he calls "Demand Side". That is... how many CD's are actually being used, or wanted.
It seems to me that the "Demand Side" is the far more important piece of the equation. It's relatively cheap and easy to press CDs and give them out, it's even easy to download something and try it out. It's much more difficult to turn that into a production server.
Consider this. What if AOL had no real way to track who was using their software. What if they decided that the way to track this was to count the number of CD's they had shipped out to people. I'll bet we'd find that AOL would report that they have 6 billion people using AOL software. Is that realistic? Of course not.
It's like MSN claiming they are now the most frequently visited website just because they changed the IE 5.5 browser to redirect to them whenever a page not found error shows up. It's not useful statistics.
I'll just add a caveat. It's easy to dismiss these numbers as coming from Corporate shills... MS paid results, whatever. I already see such responses to this topic. I don't see that type of attitude serving any positive purpose, and really just gives the "Linux Community" a bad name, like the Amiga, Mac and OS/2 users before it.
I'll go back to my days with the Amiga advocacy. There was a concerted effort to convince stores such as Software Etc. to sell Amiga software. We had a letter writing campaign to encourage them, we guaranteed them the demand was there.
So they started putting Amiga software on the shelves. Guess what? They didn't sell much Amiga software, because the demand really wasn't there. Now we had a lot of excuses for that... Software etc was too expensive, I could buy it cheaper at Computability by mail order, etc. Yep, so why'd we try to convinced them to sell the software retail if we weren't going to buy it?
People don't like being deceived. Companies don't like taking a risk that isn't well calculated. If they start noticing that a lot of these articles talking about the wonders of Linux, the fantastic demand, etc. are really just fabrications and wishful thinking...
It's going to hurt with a vengeance when they abandon the market en masse.
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
Time to put on the critical thinking caps on. Okay you statistics gurus jump in....
.....ding! you got it a Windows server. I also do not foresee IBM getting out of the mainframe business because they are on the "lowest spending priority."
;-)
a recent poll of 100 executives from Fortune 1000 companies .
Was it 50 from one company? 100 from the last 100 on the list? This is not even a sampling in statistics. These numbers mean nothing, but make it sound "significant"
Next we have . "Respondents to the Goldman survey indicated that mainframes, Linux servers and supply-chain management ranked as the three lowest spending priorities, in that order."
Here numbers are made to sound significant because they rank as "lowest spending priorities". Time for a quick kill. Every Linux box we run came in as
Conversely, the top items in order of importance were Windows 2000 or XP Professional desktop operating systems, security software and Unix servers.
Now we are getting somewhere. Okay, based on the first point these numbers are meaningless, but if they want to use them... 2000 and XP, I am guessing like us they are in a forced migration to XP. The new pay now or really pay later licenses(although they probably did not know that). Instead, I would suspect, they heard XP was coming and wanted the interviewer to know they are keeping current. I do not fault the executives here. Most of the detail is more of a hobby, if they know much of it at all. And why should they care, as long as thier business gets done?
As for security... Well with all the issues they have had lately, of course it is a priority. But come on, given a reasonable IT budget, do you really think security software and hardware is going to make a top 3 dent? These are priorities not expenses. If I buy 200 desktops and spend $5,000 on security, security was still important, but not significant to my budget.
Even IBM--"Linux's staunchest adherent," in Goldman Sachs' view--is careful to say that Linux has its limitations.
This is great. Goldman Sachs did not even ask IBM, they decided for them. I do not know that IBM would provide a much different view, but neither do they.
Finally, we have Ultimately, technology managers don't want to hear about the operating system, Robinson believes. "All you care about is wanting a stable, scalable platform for applications to run on."
Yes they do and where do they want to go today?
My company is converting a local school district to linux.
The project consists of several stages.
1. Web/Email/DNS
2. Firewall/NAT/DHCP for main connection
3. NAT/DHCP for each campus
4. Samba/PDC server at central office
5. Slave Samba/PDC servers at each location
They are saving a ton of money as they won't have to renew their novell license.
Then we're going to set up each campus with long range wireless if it's possible. We still have to check all the distances, etc.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
I live in a rural area (very rural), and the local area computer stores aren't selling linux as a solution either, for the desktop or the server.
Working in one of these computer stores, I can tell you the typical customer's request for a server. All he or she wants is a decent machine with plenty of hard drive space that has the ability to network with windows, can do automated backups to tape or cd-rw, can do NAT/Dial-on-Demand, and is rather stable. They don't care if its linux or windows, in fact, linux would probably be the preferred choice because of cost.
However, nobody here can set up a machine like that (including I, who am a dumb, naive linux newbie, who knows about SAMBA and could probably work out a Bash script/cron job for automated backups, but has no idea how to do dial-on-demand for a NAT network). So, a windows 2k pro or win2k server solution wins out, depending on the environment.
From my point of view, linux isn't winning in business because there are a lack of people who knows how to impliment it effectively. This may be in part because linux users might be less likely to overestimate themselves, unlike the many window users that assume that if they can install a simple program with an install wizard, they can do anything.
As for me, I'm slowly learning linux and testing it out in the local store environment. I'd like to start selling it as a solution, it lowers our cost, provides the customer with equal, if not better service, and I don't have to mess around with product codes all day.
Just my $.02
We run a couple dozen web apps on a single ultrasparc machine. Four processors, 4gb ram. That's one of the smaller ones. If you had ANY idea what real computers were, you'd know that Windows can't even run on them.
a: Advancd server runs on Intel archetecture systems. It only scales as far as those go, which is high-end workstation.
b: This is Microsoft's own recommended procedure. Don't blame me if they can't keep their own boxen up (Yes, I was at a major EDI service provider that ran their internet app on IIS with SQL Server boxes for the database. Microsoft's only solution to the downtime on the sql server box was "add two redundant servers". To performance on the IIS box, "Load balance across three machines". There was absolutely nothing they could come up with to give the performance and reliability we needed on a single box. Nothing.
c: This was also microsoft recommended procedure, although I admit to it not having been recommended to us (probably because we already had everything on different machines...)
False.
the cost of admining any server is directly dependent on what tasks the server has to accomplish.
Some server tasks are far more time consuming than others. For instance running a file/print server means you spend most of your time performing backups and adding users, printers... setting permissions. Oh and recovering files from tape when users delete them.
Any time you see an argument purporting that Unix is easier to admin than WinNT or Novell it's coming from someone who has never spent any time administering real servers.
Such as this idiot I'm responding to.
I think this survey is just evidence of the fact that no businesses are in any sort of risk taking position right now. While Linux may provide a cost savings, there's no guarantee, and no IT manager is willing to put his career on the line to proove it. In the high flying times of a few years ago, an IT manager could make such risks with less fear of repercussions (because worst case he gets fired and gets paid more money at his next job). Now, he's going to do everything to minimize his visibility and hope he can ride out the ecomonic downturn.
In bad economic times, companies freak out about risk reduction because ultimately, unplanned risks cand cost a lot more money than following the status quo. A corporation with a tight budget isn't going to go and blow millions of dollars moving to linux because if it goes wrong they may end up in a worse position. I'm sure some, desperate to cut costs somewhere, will make a transition feeling that the risk is worth it (see Amazon's move to Linux from Unix). But overall, most companies are in bunker mode, and that doesn't promote experimentation.
When the dust settles, Linux will still be there, a few more success stories under its belt, and that huge price tag for Windows or proprietary Unixes is gonna still be there too.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Its really easy, you try to keep the execs out of the decision process. Get your requirements and develop a strategy.
Go buy the high-end Red Hat distribution. We did this for a client that knows we were using OpenBSD off a $30 CD. We also buy the nice Red Hat distribution.
Call up Red Hat and set up a support arrangement. They are a reasonable sized company. Alternatively, call IBM.
The advantage with Microsoft is that if you are a big company (say, the Fortune 1000 in the article) you get the special phone line for support, etc. Microsoft supports the Fortune 1000 a little differently than your pirated copies of Win95.
Don't sell them on free. Tell them that you worked with Red Hat's OS, and you found that it is better suited to this project. Inform them that you can reduce downtime (their real concern) instead of a couple grand on licenses.
More importantly, emphasize that it will save you time.
We don't use Linux or *BSD on desktops, it is too expensive.
Win2K or even WinXP involves a short installation procedure (before lunch) then come back and finish. Setting up a Linux desktop (for a technology guy, not end users) takes a few days of playing. Win2K tweaking with fun apps takes $1000 in software (including a $200 shareware budget) and you're good to go.
Look at your salaries. See what it costs your company to have you putzing around for days.
BTW: with the MS licenses and a point-and-click installer, how much time does it take to get another server up and running. Including your downloading Redhat over the corporate T1 (or whatever), how much of your time is spent putzing around on IRC, etc.
Sure, IRC is nice for REALLY hard problems. However, having a server down for 1-2 days while you troll USENET or IRC for help isn't acceptable.
Next time a MS solution is being proposed, try to get 24 hours to stall. Take the same list of software, and the budget, and CALL Red Hat Sales. Tell them what is going on, and ask them to put in a bid.
Alternative, call a Linux consultant, and work with them to put in a bid for the implementation AND for the Red Hat support contract. If the Red Hat fee is less, show that to management.
You all would get a LOT more credibility with management if:
A) You dress like professionals (I did NT Consulting for 4 years... we all wore a nice shirt and khakis... the Linux guys would often wear jeans, it makes a difference; my BSD shop does it too, it matters)
B) Emphasize solutions, not technology (they are looking for a solution, show that you understand this. Emphasize the savings in downtime, not licensing fees.
C) Focus on REAL cost savings. Don't CONSIDER unsupported downloaded applications. Discuss support agreements, Red Hat Network, etc.
Geeze, this isn't rocket science guys, understand what the executive is trying to accomplish.
Alex
This isn't new. 10-15 years ago, IT managers didn't have a clue about PCs. They would have cheerfully told you that they had no plans to deploy PCs. Meanwhile, people were buying and installing PCs everywhere.
IT managers often seem to live in some stratospheric haze of PowerPoint presentations, corporate sales representatives, buzzwords, and grandiose strategies. Don't get me wrong: they do serve important functions: getting a budget, personnel, short-term strategies, and all that. But long-term planning and change is largely out of their control--long term change just happens for a variety of unpredictable and idiosyncratic reasons.
The reason why companies are slow to take up linux? Because their trial 500GB linux data store is still working though fsck after some idiot MCSE pressed ctrl-alt-del to log in at the console!
...
... hmmmm .... I wonder what it's for? I'll just press ctrl-alt-del to log in and ...
It's happened before, and it'll happen again
'Gee, I've got this blank text screen thingy and it just says "Username:"
OH GOD NO!!! '
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
Yep. If we post a story (BUY SOURCEFORGE 3.0 NOW) about something VA does, we're corporate (BUY SOURCEFORGE 3.0 NOW) whores. If we don't, (BUY SOURCEFORGE 3.0 NOW) we're covering something up. It's a sweet deal, being an anonymous whiner griping about a free site.
Michael, let me make sure I understand you correctly. You're saying that you're corporate whores who are covering something up? And that I should buy SourceForge 3.0 now? That's cool, but since the poster you're replying to wasn't actually anonymous, I think you're just trying to troll us.
Wink wink! Seriously though, I think Slashdot is doing a great job of covering everything from proprietary software releases by VA to automated subnet banning on Slashdot. Don't get discouraged; there's going to be a few dissenters in every crowd, except on Slashdot, where everyone is a dissenter. (-;
Thanks for replying frankly, your post was pretty funny.
--
What happens when you outlaw guns
Read the full story and you note that the author has specificly chosen to ignore the fact that companies are trying Linux out.
He seems to treat it like it is irrelevent. It isn't. Especially when you consider that it takes 18 or more months for a large company to rollout significant changes.
BUt, the story follows the release of Windows XP and it's lack luster sales quite nicely....
Australia's Telecommunications monopoly, Telstra, uses a Linux based system designed by my work (Cybersource) in conjunction with Ericcson to shify very large volumes of video data between different parts of the country, so that television stations can exchange footage.
Try asking any high level Telstra exec if there's any Linux in their company. They might have good business sense, but in terms of their understanding of IT matters they have no clue. If it doesn't have a start button, its unknown.
So... the fact that Linux is "no longer on the radar screen" may actually be a good thing.
(Actually, what I'd like to see as a comparison is, how many corporations have plans for adopting XP this year, compared to plans for Linux. That would give us something to chew on...)
Your Servant, B. Baggins
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.
True that legacy windows scales horribly.. Windows Domain model is horrible and requires a BDC at every user collection point. Granted there reallys isnt a decent model available on any side. But Domain really sucks.
Where Linux/Unix blows all microsoft products completely away is that I can set up my office with 40 sub-pc's and a linux terminal server and have one person, one non-guru person completely manage those 100 users and the server with very little effort. Update staroffice? it instantly is updated on every workstation. Lockdown? no problem, configuration changes to migrate to all users (Example new printer... try to instantly install a new laser printer on 40 Windows machines without visiting every machine or confusing users by adding it to the login script.
windows is based on very old computing ideas and models. It's not efficient and has always been in catch up mode when it comes to networking and enterprise computing (Unix was there decades ago.)
98% of the corperate drones do not need the power of a full PC, running off of application servers or a terminal server is plenty and the NT model should have been based onthat from the very beginning. (but wasn't so they could charge $300.00 per workstation for the Operating system and then charge you for server access, etc...
There's big money in ensuring that none of your users are running legally.
1 Unix admin can easily do the same work as 10 MCSE's. and that is the point... the typical MCSE is a clueless lump.. I've been in this business for over 10 years and I have met only 5 good NT admins.
Why? because very few NT admins can build a SMP server from parts, redesign the entire network, Understand TCP/IP understand SMB, understand fully NT permissions,happily hack and romp in the registry with full confidence.
and the reason there are very few of theese good NT admins? companies will not pay for them. They'll just hire another fresh MCSE to replace that uppidty admin.... MCSE's are plentiful.
unix admins? rare to find, you have to pay for them, and you cant fake being a Unix admin, it is really easy to BS your way as a NT admin.
I agree, NT can be coerced or forced to work right, I have a NT server+SQL6.5 that has ran for 12 months and only rebooted for Service packs and critical patches... it's rock solid otherwise...
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Ok... Windows 2000 has been out for almost two years now.
Don't you think it's time to update your knowledge?
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.
Did you read the rest of the post... Goes on to talk about how clueless executives probabally don't even know the OS of the servers that their tech organizations run... And by executives I am assuming you are talking CTO/CIO (or whatever the hell you want to call them) not the CEO/Bean Counter types that I KNOW don't have a clue...
The apache comment was that a large number of publicly facing websites are running Linux, so how can the executives of these companies say that they don't have Linux...
If you actually have experience with HTTP proxy software, this will only piss you off. Same for firewall appliances, CD tower appliances, file server appliances, web server appliances, you name it.
The right way to do it is to go with what you're familiar with and what you know works. Not what comes in a black box that you suspect might be half-assed. Not what might work in six months.
Spec'ing out the equivalent appliances for two fully-redundant 100GB+ squid proxy servers that you can ssh into, with hot-swap RAID, redundant power supplies, network connectivity of your choice (gig ethernet, for example), etc. with a hardware vendor service agreement that specifies 4-hour parts replacement turnaround time may be an exercise in futility.
(And yes, proxy failover can work much like DNS failover - the client is smart enough to figure it out.)
In understand that you would not move all your servers to Linux overnight. That is just plain business sense. However, even in your organization, Linux may make some sense in some areas:
1: DHCP server.
2: Public DNS server.
3: Public Web Server.
4: Private secondary DNS server (or primary if you are not using Active Directory).
5: External "mail forwarders" which act as an email choke point in order to further secureyour internal exchange servers.
6: Filtering routers (should have at least 2 for a decent firewall with a proxy in the middle).
And so on. These ARE NOT the markets that Microsoft is really shooting for when looking at enterprise markets, but that is not the point. These are the areas that Linux is hard to beat.
As for an Exchange replacement-- it might be possible to use a combintation of OSS components to create a custom solution (LDAP/Qmail/maybe an additional dbms like MySQL) or use Bynari. Also IBM has some similar groupware solutions for Linux, but they are proprietary. However, that would take more work to integrate with your active directory than using Exchange, so Exchange is still probably your best option.
OK. Now that I have said this, now let us look at the other side. Linux could have several impacts on Windows in this way-- making customers aware of the necessity of interoperability and putting pressure on MS to deliver (otherwise, they won't upgrade their OS's). And more Linux machines in the infrastructure of the network also means that these areas are NOT controlled by Microsoft.
Here are what is needed in the case of large businesses (in order): 1: Reliability and Supportibility, 2: Interop, 3: Scalability, 4: Managability, 5: development capability. Linux offers ALL these things, but it takes time for them to be implimented in foreign environments (Netware or Windows).
I know this because I have attempted to build extensible, scalable, and powerful enterprise applications (mostly CRM) on Linux and it can be done. My application failed because I did not know what I was doing at the time, and I am currently re-writing it. It probably is being done more than we hear about. But until these become more commonplace, mose IT departments and internal development teams will only know Windows/VB (or maybe ASP) and be unable to make this into a reality in most places.
In fact, I have tried to do the same with ASP and VB and I have always come back to Perl/Python/PHP for my environment of choice because I can put together more elegant applications in PHP than in ASP because ASP has a psychotic way of pipelining the include statements. For example there is no ASP equivalent to the following piece of php:
include ("forms/" . $form . ".php");
(of course PHP CAN be used on Windows).
So, I expect in the next few years for MANY more businesses to begin to really using Linux because of its rich ability to develop enterprise-ready applications.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Both the GUI and CLI support tools under Windows are more powerful than those under Linux/Unix.
If you like to type, you just go ahead.
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.
What do these customers/victims do when you move on to another town or retire?
I figure my post sounded quite funny.
I set up pretty standard boxes with documentation on what I did. This way the clients can turn to any other Linux admin when they need.
There's not that much work once you've sold the box. Just take care that when something goes wrong, reasonable documentation is available in case you're no longer.
I'm looking forward to networking more with other roots, so we can offer an actual network of people.
Medium-sized companies can pay people to learn Linux in-house. Small companies sometimes have someone who's a bit more into computers, and can learn.
I think, therefore thoughts exist. Ego is just an impression.
what type of truck you use to move the merchandise, they just know whether or not it's been moving.
Ergo, the premise behind this article is moot.
Except that it isn't moot. Since IT is unusual in that you get this sort of upper management decisions to use a specific platform, in a way you'd never get with any other area of business. An interesting question might be why managers who would never even think of saying what type of truck to use or even what brand of RJ45 faceplates computers get plugged into suddenly think they are experts in selection of software...
If it were just email, then sendmail or another of the freebies.
However you say it is more, so then use Lotus Notes. It does run on Linux, and does *more* than Exchange. We run it here (10,000 -18,000 users I'd guess) and aren't threatened by the Code Red/Nimbda things going on. Machines can be infected in various small ways. For instance, we had a few "I love you" infections, perhaps 80 or so (bear in mind the total above). However, it doesn't spread. And if the administrators are watching for this stuff, Notes can clean it out itself. Running a virus checker on top helps to.
From the article: The most vital, "mission-critical" systems that keep corporations running still rely on traditional Unix systems.
Yeah, but when 50+ of those apps are things like 'ls', 'df', 'mv', etc. it doesn't seem as impressive. :)
creation science book
It's either luck or insight,but he put his finger on the right item in your tool set to question.
All the other tools are arguably the best, or in the first tier of software that does what they do. MySQL doesn't stand in relation to all database management systems the way Apache stands in relation to all web servers.
I like MySQL too, and I particularly like some of its network security. It has good performance for at least simple kinds of queries (make the common case fast). It may even be the best value tool for what you are doing.
But it is in no way, shape or form the best database management system there is, nor is it close to being in the first tier of RDBMS solutions. Database management is very complex, and the MySQL folks wisely started by concentrating on doing a small subset of the whole RDBMS enchilada well. Nonetheless, the flip side is that it is a much more limited tool than, say Oracle, or MS SQL Server.
So, if you are asking which of the products you are using is most likely to run into future problems with, MySQL is probably the one. And because of its somewhat unique syntax, moving away could be a pain.
I'm not saying MySQL shouldn't be used, or that it isn't the good, or even the best product to use in certain situations. But it's not one of those, "Just use Apache" kind of decisions that you don't need to put all that much thought into if you already know Apache.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Anyone have a solution to a lack of exchange/groupware?
I think Evolution fits the bill. This really is the killer app for Linux, IMO.
The reason there's not something like this is because these kind of things are not what the average Linux developer is interested in. Open Source is done in peoples' spare time, which means that they do what they WANT, not what needs done. Think of how seriously you take your hobbies as opposed to your job, and you get the idea.
You go right ahead and consider your cute little proliant to be a bit more than a high end workstation. My $2000 game machine at home is a dual athalon with 1gb of ram running Win2K. If you want to think of something with only 4 times the processing power (assuming, almost certainly falsly, that each of the ProLiant's processors is up to an Athalon 1.2) and ram of an affordable game box as an enterprise server, more (or, rather, less) power too you.
You've got a *damned* fine CAD machine there. Using it as anything else is a cludge.
Does your company do web services or any such thing on those servers? Otherwise, how on earth did you manage to amass 70 servers for only 800 users?
Any time you see an argument purporting that Unix is easier to admin than WinNT or Novell it's coming from someone who has never spent any time administering real servers.
We've got this nifty little thing here called a SunRay. For those not familiar with them, it's a cool box from Sun that serves up Xterms to dumb terminals. We've got about a dozen terminals attached to it at the moment. While my job is not adminning it, I'm allowed to. I can do absolutely anything to absolutely anyone from any of the terminals, and when I log in, it will be configured just like my desktop, because it is my desktop. They even use these cards that will override the current session with that of the owner of the card as long as the card is inserted in the terminal, so I can go up to someone's machine, stick the card in, and immediately be working on my machine.
Naturally, I can shell into the machine from any other machine in the company, and while I won't have my pretty Xterm, I'll have the same level of control. I can do anything from move files around to fix someone's screen color and resolution.
Of course, this isn't really a good comparison, since MS doesn't even make a multi-user OS, so they don't have anything like a SunRay to take advantage of the fact that, since it's inception, their OS was built to exist as a networked OS.
Any time you see an argument purporting that WinNT/2000 is even in the same league as Unix as a server OS, much less as good or better than Unix, it's coming from someone who's never even seen, or perhaps even conceived of, real servers.
no because my mission critical stuff is running on NT 3.51 and 90% of corperate america is doing the same.
Why NT3.51? because it has proved it'sself.
Why NT4.0? because it's finally stable enough for daily use.
Why upgrade to 2000? does it offer me anything that NT 4.0 doesnt do? anything at all? No, didnt think so. and the Microsoft rep couldn't tell me either other than that 4.0 is no longer supported.
Anyone that thinks you have to run the latest and greatest is someone that doesnt have a clue. IT/IS is run on dollars, if you dont generate dollars then management will cut your funding levels.
How do you justify to management that we NEED to upgrade to W2k or XP? justify the thousands spent, and the thousands spent on Technician training. (gotta get that W2K MCSE dont we.)
How much will this upgrade increase revinue? will win2K make the company 30-50thousand more dollars this year compared to runnung 4.0? what about revinue at risk, will 4.0 magically explode and W2K would have prevented?
the answer to both is NO.
and anyone wanting to keep their MIS job right now will say a resounding NO to 2K or XP and reccomend Linux or BSD for any new hardware.
Keep your dollars down and show you saved thousands, you keep your job, spend thousands for nothing (and W2K or XP is nothing) you get canned.
Weve been in a recession for 1 year, isn't it time you learned how business and the real world works?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.