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?."
the server goes from :-) to ;-( to X-|
'It will never beat Windows on the desktop, but the Linux operating system has an undeniable charm in the world of corporate computing: It's free.'
One draws the impression from this statement that these capitalists are using the word 'free' to describe the cost of Linux, rather than its nature. Hopefully the recent move by Linux's premier distributor to solidify the Linux desktop and put an end to the endless bickering over controls and widgets will do something to dispel this notion of Microsoft's invincibility in the user interface department.
Dr. Joseph Hairston
Superintendent, CCBC
it's such a good thing, he said, that Oracle had just taken 3,800 lines of its own proprietary code, developed over more than a decade, and posted it on the Internet for all the world to see. "We're trying to be a good member of the community," he said.
Heh, 3,800 lines developed over a decade. More like a month of work.
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!
Scary. Keep in mind he's talking about the sysadmins for production e-commerce server farms, and explains the cheaper labor by saying "Linux programmers are more plentiful and cheaper to hire than ever."
I just cannot stop thinking that the great growing of Linux is because is eating Unix share, not microsoft...
But programmers yearn to be paid.
Best Slashdot Co
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
The article says:
"A year ago Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer called Linux a 'cancer' that would cause the death of intellectual property as we know it. Microsofties were encouraged to make that saber-rattling pitch on their corporate sales calls. But that just made IT executives angry. Peter Houston, Microsoft's head of industry strategies, says, 'became clear that we were being seen as having a polarizing and myopic view.'"
All right! Maybe there's hope.
(Now let's just hope that the same IT executives are savvy enough to see what Palladium can do to them--and don't see it just as a way of stopping college students from trading music).
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
"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.
Most large corporations get their support from newsgroups and knowledge bases, they just don't know it. I have never met a Windows or Unix administrator that doesn't do a google search as one of their very first steps, and quite often they hit on something.
Anyone who has ever done any real system/database/app support knows that the web and message boards are your best source of information. Even the best tech support organizations suck at the first tier. The best I've ever seen was Oracle, and it depends on the phase of the moon as to whether or not you get anybody who has even the slightest clue. Sun's support is the worst, until you get to the third tier. Microsoft is better, but not much. With them you have at least a passable chance of getting someone competent at tier 2.
Besides the parent post did not say that forums and message boards are the only way to go, he simply said they are often faster, and they are. He said you can purchase support for Linux and you can.
"The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
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.
I can't tell you how many times people told me that linux was a "toy" oppeating system not fit for commercial use and would never replace more serious UNIX solutions like SCO. That Linux might be OK for a non critical print server, but other than that SCO was it and would always rule. Well, well, well - if I'm not hearing the same thing from Sun today?
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