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).
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
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.
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.
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."
.. 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 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.
* 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)
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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