Slashdot Mirror
Enterprise Linux: Are We There Yet?
Simon Crosby writes " Network Computing is running an special report on Linux in the enterprise. It evaluates strengths and weaknesses of Linux useage in the enterprise. It also discusses perceptions, roadblocks, security, clustering and other Linux enterprise issues."
...will definitely give Picard an advantage over the Borg.
Are we there yet? certainly not. Linux has shown in the last few years that it is an alternative, although it still cannot compete in every Aspect with commercial Un*x Systems. (Especially Performance)
The greatest drawback for using Linux in your Enterprise is not the Performance issue but lack of Applications. Many Porting efforts are still beta, (Or do you consider Oracle to be stable on Linux?) or simply not done.
It is still difficult to convince the big software firms to actually consider Linux as an alternative, especially in the Enterprise computing field.
There has still much lobbying to be done.
Jeff
I'd mostly agree, except I'd exclude some high-end hardware. It'll take another couple of years before you're running Linux happily on a 64 CPU box.
But if you're comfortable running NT or SCO in your enterprise, then Linux should be no problem. I'd even go so far as to say that Linux has always been more enterprise-ready than NT. The first version of NT that was reasonably stable was Windows 2000. Linux was solid much sooner.
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
I think MS Word interoperability is perhaps the single most important barrier limiting companies from changing to Linux. Other Office products such as MS Excel and MS Powerpoint are also important.
You should remember that it's not just necessary to have some semi-lousy import filters to Linux word-processors, but also have 100% compatible export filters. It's practically impossible to make a transition in any company that has to communicate with an existing MS Word user base. And that is the case for almost any companies and public administration.
And 99% doesn't do, it must be 100.000%. If there are even small incompatibilities, you have to use genuine MS Word -> MS Windows.
StarOffice 6.0 beta (same as OpenOffice build 638c) has some compatibility in basic formatting. The older StarOffice 5.2 has, in my experience, much better MS Word compatibility, but it also breaks up quite quickly. However, its Excel compatibility is worse than with SO6.0b/OO638c.
KOffice (1.1) is not even worth mentioning with regard to MS Office compatibility. Its Word import filter simply strips all formatting, and it doesn't have an export filter.
I work in an IT company, doing purely Linux work, but have to do all documentation, communication, and administrative tasks with MS Office. I was able to use StarOffice 5.2 for a while in some tasks, but can't rely on it completely. The situation really sucks.
could this question please die? considering the realities behind shrinkwrap licenses and ever dedicated support contracts, you can't sue anyone. and even if you could - how can you hope to win? the us gov't sued microsoft and look at how victorious it was?
a better question is: if things go wrong with widget x, what are my options to get it fixed? with closed s/w, the only option is the vendor you got it from (and really, knowing that, do you want to sue them?). with free software you can use your vendor, another vendor, your own staff, or private contractors (and knowing that, you could feel free to sue your vendor; assuming they failed to live up to their support contract).
note: i'm assuming in an enterprise situation you'd have some sort of support contract with ibm, redhat, microsoft, suse, sun, linuxcare, apple, etc.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
(Some is also legal... if you run into a snafu with kernel 2.6.1, who can you sue??).
You sound like you've got a good view of the issue, but this sentence cries for rebuttal. When, oh WHEN, will pople stop parroting this nonsense? Any CIO that uses this as an argument against OpenSource/Free software is a moron. I challenge anyone, anywhere, to give evidence that anyone has ever collected a single penny from suing a mass-market software maker for shoddy code. If MS didn't lose their shirt over putrid crap like win3.x or win9x, with it's dll-hell and semi-annnual re-install schedule, how can anyone get sued?
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
"Enterprise" has two components, first is the relatively straightforward "Core Application" of a company, which might be some sort of ERP system like PeopleSoft, or some other commercial produce. For many companies, this will be an amalgamation of custom programs written over many years. These applications are typically based on some form of transaction processing system (e.g. CICS on the Mainframe, Tuxedo on Unix, or even database-driven transactions ala Oracle, DB2, etc.)
The second, and more critical part of 'Enterprise' is the nature of the computing service. Generally any outage is measured in dollars per minute or hour. It's not unusual for a large company to face severe monetary losses for even slight outages. Think millions of dollars an hour (or even per minute). This measure tends to be a little slippery, but with some analysis a pretty solid figure can usually be determined.
For some enterprises, Linux might make complete sense (e.g. Google). For others, the potential of saving a few thousand or hundred thousand in licensing costs pales in comparison to the probable re-training, new hardware, and "potential" instability of moving to Linux. If you've got something that works, why fix it?
Given the above, even if all of the big 'Enterprise' vendors port their software to Linux, you're not done. Linux clustering in a business context such as Solaris, AIX, and (in the good old days) VMS provide would be one stumbling block. The lack of high-end hardware is another -- and yes I know that Linux runs on anything from a PC to a SPARC server to a S/390 mainframe. In reality, you're unlikely to drop $2million on a big Sun box then load Linux -- you'll want to take advantage of Solaris's dynamic partitioning and other proprietary hooks.
Loading Linux on diverse old hardware makes business sense -- turn that old Sun box into something useful. It doesn't make nearly as much business sense when buying a new non-intel server, since the license fee of the OS (if any) is negligable compared to the overall value of the system in the 'Enterprise'.
Over time this is likely to change, since Linux represents a constantly improving and freely available system, vendors will start adopting it as 'their' OS. IBM is an early starter here, but the process will take time. And like a battle of attrition Linux has the advantage over time, since it is constantly improving (for free), while commercial vendors have to dump $millions into R&D to bring out each new version of their OS.
"But actually trying to use m4 as a general-purpose langage would be deeply perverse" --ESR
> And while I'm at it, how about a business app
> that caused measurable damage in the workplace:
> MS Word.
And one that has caused even more: Outlook'
How many enterprise wide virus scares have shut down communications? All thanks to Outlook and its "wide open and pre-lubricated" approach to security.
dave
No, because the question itself is wrong, and is really a red herring.
It isn't "Who do you sue?" because instead it's really "Who can I blame and send the heat somewhere besides me?" The IT management structure will take heat for any service problems, but with a Microsoft solution they have the perfect blame target. Between "Everybody uses Microsoft," which absolves blame for having chosen them, and the fact that Microsoft is essentially lawsuit-proof, between their EULA and size/tactics, things are nicely diffused. Doesn't keep the systems up an running, but at least you're suffering in the same boat with everyone else, and there's the general, "Nothing can be done any better," to protect you.
Contrast that with Linux and outsourced support. First off, you've chosen something different, and hence inherently risky. Second, your outsourced support is probably less lawsuit-proof, and therefore maybe something might actually have to be done, rather than sighing in resignation.
Also contrast with Linux and internal support. Now you're to your own resources, and directly and immediately responsible for anything that goes wrong.
Note that NONE of this says a single thing about service levels, outages, or whatever. It's merely about adequate 'diffusion or responsibility' to keep the IT peoples' jobs protected. Microsoft provides a great 'responsibility diffusion sink,' one of the best at that.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Desktop office applications are a noticable but small part of "the Enterprise" and NOT the main point of the original article.
"Enterprise" usually refers to the core applications running in the corporate data center. Inventory, payroll, order processing. Applications where downtime costs $$/minute. Applications where "No application"=="No business".
Linux is making gains in these areas. The adoption rate appears slow because
Penetration of Linux could still be better, of course. We need better support from enterprise management and backup systems. We need more "mind share". This article helps.
Desktops remain a problem. Out of sight, out of mind. Windows is in everyone's face every day.
This is all fine and good - using Linux for servers is a great business decision. No licensing hassles, stays up like a champ and keeps on performing. End of story. Let's move on.
But what about:
Over the years we've been running RISC workstations that are becoming increasingly expensive from a hardware standpoint relative to what can be got in the x86 world.
We'd like to take advantage of the price performance advantage in hardware as well as the increasing maturity of Linux desktop end user applications (which are getting real close now). It seems like a lot more applications are available for Linux desktop than many of the traditional commercial Unices.
The problem is that everyone I know that runs Linux runs their workstation or laptop as their own cowboy system administrator. They typically don't worry about integrating dozens or hundreds of these things together in such a way that a small support staff can manage them effectively.
You know the kinds of systems.
So what I want to know is:
How did it work? What should we look out for? What is the advantages and disadvantages? Good tools? Web sites?"Provided by the management for your protection."
As far as the kernel goes, I think Linux is there. I DON'T think Linux is necessarily ready to compete with NT or 2000 (though I give it 18 more months), since it is still lacking quite a few easy to use admin tools (think of the NT print manager or DHCP admin and you'll understand what I mean), but it is coming along.