Slashdot Mirror
Servers with a Smile
9jack9 writes "Fortune Magazine has this article entitled Servers with a Smile. While they probably get almost as much wrong as they get right, it's still an interesting article, if for no other reason than it's in Fortune, with a readership undoubtedly consisting of people more focused on business than technology. To me the strange thing is that in portions of the computing world Linux and related phenomena (GNU/Linux, OSS, etc) does seem to be "the hottest thing", but in other parts of the computing world it is all but invisible. It reminds me of NT in the early days. There is also a related article Does Software Yearn to be Free?."
When we had Solaris machines, we needed professional Unix system administrators. Now that we have Linux instead, any geek with an undergrad degree can do the job for 80% of the pay!
For a time. Then as demand for Linux geeks increases the salary will increase as well.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
For a time. Then as demand for Linux geeks increases the salary will increase as well.
That's not the point. The misconception held by the pointy-haired boss (and reinforced by this article) is that junior programmers can do the job of senior system administrators if only you use Linux.
The end result of this will be high-profile Linux failures; not because of flaws in Linux, but because of bad decisions driven by drivel like this piece.
Ignoring this articles somewhat grim slant on Linux, the Amazon success story will be a great asset to Linux. When a big 90's .com all of a sudden starts making money and one of the main reasons given is because they reduced IT costs by switching to Linux, that's what's going to make other companies perk up their ears. When they listen to Amazon say "Yeah, we saved money on technical support...Linux gurus are cheaper than Solaris gurus", that is what will make them switch.
At my college (Virginia Tech), I suggested for 2 years while I was there that we switch to Linux as the primary server software for the engineering department. I always got a 'No.' response...why? "Not enough people know how to administrate it, what happens when you leave?" I hated this reason, mostly because *I* knew that there were other people out there that could admin a freakin Linux box, but they didn't. This response from Amazon helps out more than all plugging us geeks can do.
--trb
A bit off topic: I don't understand MS on the desktop. More, I don't understand why all users need a multipurpose machine, with a sound card, color monitor, can run millions of apps, ... when their job is to edit documents and read emails. Mostly, I think the multimedia computer is just a way for employees to waste time, and is a huge waste of time for sysadmins. Seems like the problem is that linux has been ready for the desktop for a while, but the desktop is not ready for it.
There are no trolls. There are no trees out here.
Would you want your support staff inundated with calls from people confused by a new system? Probably not.
Clearly the author never upgraded a company from Win98 to XP.
I'm much funnier now that I'm a subscriber.
Batter up...
Lack of offical support,
Right. RedHat, SuSE, Mandrake and others will be happy to take your money for them to supply 24X7 support for thier distro. Oh, and support from newsgroups and Linux specific message boards are usually just as fast and thourough as any tech support dept. I've ever called.
Swing and a miss - Strike 1.
culpability,
Ha! Have you read any EULA included with "expensive software built by huge companies staffed by thousands of tech support folks"? EULAs exist to make sure you don't sue that same company if the software you buy from them blows your business to smithereens. "Sorry, Mr. Customer. Guess you shouldn't of bought the line from the Marketing Dept. Or (heh) our software package..."
Swung at a ball in the dirt, Strike 2!!
insuring[sic] that the software company will be there to lean on when things go wrong.
No, not lean on. Call and give more $$$ to so they can fix the problem with thier software, or tell you how to use thier crappy UI. They sold you a defective product, and you have to pay more for a correct product. IMHO, they're leaning on you, as in "Vinnie, I needs youse to lean on dis stooge 'til he gives us da dough..."
Strike 3!!! Batter out!
Software Libre _is_ good - read the article.
"It's a sea change," says Bridget O'Connor, a top technology executive at Lehman Brothers. "Now I can play all the vendors off against each other to get the price I want. I never had that negotiating power when all my machines came from Sun."
Power in the customers hands, not the vendors. Competition based on technical merit and value. That's what Free means, bud - freedom to choose. Spin that to the execs next time they ask.
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
People seem to use the term "desktop" pretty loosely. It sounds like you're referring to Joe Sixblogg who wants to surf the web, run Quicken, and play a few games at home. Until Linux gains more than 10% or so marketshare, you're probably right.
But what about business desktops? In those situations, you often have an IT department to manage things, so that's not a problem. Employees shouldn't be playing a lot of games. The required software often amounts to email and a word processor, which open software has fairly well covered these days. Free is a huge plus, saving on up-front costs as well as the headaches of managing licenses. Seems to me there's a great case to be made for the business desktop in many situations (not all, some businesses [or portions thereof] are more tied to Windows-only applications). And if Linux can make inroads there, it'll increase mindshare and familiarity, speeding adoption with consumers....
"Businesspeople have tended to associate Linux with the charlatans of the Internet bubble and the flakes who seem to dominate its over-granolaed, Berkeley commune culture."
Does anyone here take seriously anything said by a publication that would actually print something like this? "Over-granolaed"? Is that even a word? Is that even a valid concept? How does one become "overgranolaed"? If you eat a lot of red meat, do you automatically become a good businessman? If this is the target audience for Linux adoption, it's obvious why it's been less than successful. These characters are congenital idiots.
Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
"Oh, and support from newsgroups and Linux specific message boards are usually just as fast and thourough as any tech support dept. I've ever called.
Swing and a miss - Strike 1."
Its this kind of thinking that unfortunately keeps the adoption rate of Linux/Free Software artificially down.
Corporations, ones bigger then your local mom and pop that is, don't want to obtain their tech support from a bunch of geeks in a web forum or on a mailing list. They want teams of experienced consultants and tech support specialists whom they can call upon at any hour and not recieve answers like this "Stop being so pushy! We do this for free you know! WE DON'T OWE YOU ANYTHING!"
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
Additionally, when linux expertise was scarce, you might have been forced to hire someone who was overqualified, which, strictly speaking, is a waste of money. Now that the linux labor pool is larger, companies are more likely to find an employee with just the right qualifications without having to pay someone who is overqualified just because he/she is the only person with expertise.
The point in the article is about efficiency.
Amazing magic tricks
I don't disagree with what you just said about MCSE's. Many are out there that don't stop to think. In fact, it appears that some didn't even take the exams. I was on one of the certification sites recently, where a guy was talking about people you can pay to go in and pass the exams for you. (Apparently, they have connections that work for the testing centers, so they simply fill out the forms using your SS# and info, and they memorized all the test questions and answers - since they do it for a living.)
Still, I'm not so sure "better trained I.T. staff" would solve the worm circulation problems. For starters, many people run small web servers from their home, and they're not "professionals" at all. Every copy of NT includes the IIS server, installable with a single click of a checkbox during setup. How many people thought "Hey, I'd like to host my own web site. I think I'll try that!" and became worm distributors, without ever realizing it?
Also, I've worked for companies where it's like pulling teeth to get the I.T. manager to allow you to do upgrades and patches. They're so afraid of service packs that break expensive/complex applications loaded on the servers, they refuse to patch things until months go by and they know for sure it's "safe". After all, if you have a million dollar in-house app developed using an obscure manufacturing control development package, you're much more concerned that the "security fix" might GPF the thing and stop your factory from producing product. The idea that "it keeps your system from spreading the XYZ worm" seems pretty insignificant by comparison.
The article says a few stupid things (and a bunch of interesting things), but I think this part is just silly:
Companies like Sun, HP, and IBM could derail Linux if they co-opt it--that is, modify it enough so that their versions run well only on their own hardware systems. That is exactly what Sun executives plan to do. They believe the profit motive will prove too strong for IBM, HP, or anyone else to resist making such a play either. "The reality is that profit-making companies like to get paid," Sun's Schwartz says.
How can you possibly tie Linux to a proprietary platform? Sure, you can make weird hardware that requires specialized drivers and whatnot to run, but if you want the large volume of Linux software in the world to run on your machine you have to keep the kernel APIs the same, which means that your customers still have the option of swapping your hardware and customized Linux for someone else's at will. Unless, of course, your hardware is just vastly better, in which case you have no need to try to lock people in, 'cause your boxes will win on their own merits.
If you choose to change the kernel API, or wrap it in proprietary utilities and libraries that provide a substantially different application interface, which you then use to implement your applications, well, you've just managed to tie your applications to your version of Linux which is tied to your hardware, but you have to convince *other* application developers to do the same to have achieved any significant lock-in. Either that or you have to create some truly killer software that is so good people will buy your platform just to run it.
And even if you achieve that, as soon as someone else ports your kernel modifications (which you had to publish, Yay GPL!) to your competitors platforms, or as soon as someone else reimplements your killer app on a standard kernel/OS, your lock-in quietly evaporates. You can also try to lock people in with contracts, licenses and marketing approaches, but that pisses customers off and, if you're very successful, it also pisses off the Department of Justice. Not to mention that all of this customization of Linux will cost you a crapload of money both to do and then to maintain.
Finally, as for Schwartz's assertion that Sun's competitors will opt to find ways to lock their customers in, I think he's on crack. Not only do the customers not want to be locked in (they've been there, done that and got the scars to prove it), many of the vendors have also learned that strategy doesn't work as well in the long term. IBM, in particular, found that you can make huge amounts of money for a while that way, but eventually it comes back to bite you.
Nope. Open Source operating systems make sense precisely because they allow hardware and applications to compete separately. Sun can't change that no matter how hard they wish they could. And IBM, at least, likes that fact, because IBM thinks the key to selling hardware is services, and they're much better at services than Sun, HP or Dell.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Does anyone here take seriously anything said by a publication that would actually print something like this?
What, Fortune? Sure. The fact that they don't see the world the way you do is fine. Indeed, irrelevant. Just like the fact that we see Free (Speech) and they see Free (Beer). It's nothing to be shocked at. They're doing it in terms their readership will understand, just like Slashdot has spelling errors (at least, I _hope_ that's why) and the inevitable Microsloth slam (whoops, did I just contribute?).
As for the comment on the culture? If the shoe fits... I keep thinking back to the old Dilbert strip, with the bald, bearded Unix guru ("Here's a nickel, kid, buy yourself a real operating system"). Like it or not, Berkeley is viewed as a hippie commune, a view that many (in Berkeley) subscribe to and act in accordance with.
And finally - it's largely irrelevant WHY they choose Linux, isn't it? After all, even if they're just buying it because it's "free beer", (a) the techs that will be running it know the difference (b) they're happy, (c) the techs are happy, (d) Microsoft is unhappy, and (e) WE'RE STILL RUNNING LINUX.
"Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
Who out there remembers MCA? IBM thought they could dominate the hardware arena by closing off their source technology and introducing some proprietary performance enhancements that would compel companies to buy strictly from them. This was back in the day when hardware would never catch up with software.
Here we are now, and IBM is the biggest backer of open source. Seems like they have a corporate memory, at least.
Software is going through the same growing pains that hardware has already gone through. And the proprietary hardware vendors are choking because open standards have caused huge price drops along with huge performance gains.
I'll be damned if I know where it will all end up, but the landscape 5 years from now will be a lot different than it is today.