Ford To Move To Linux

This too by essiescreet · 2003-09-15 08:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

http://www.casi-rusco.com Bought by GE while they were porting there enterprise security System to RH 7. They also have several other projects on RedHat...

Linux... by Gibble · 2003-09-15 08:43 · Score: 4, Interesting

Linux...First On Race Day

I like the sounds of that.

--
Gibble: Descriptive of an emotional state in which one's mind is scrabbling for some purchase on reality

Application programming is a dying paradigm by Amsterdam+Vallon · 2003-09-15 08:45 · Score: 4, Interesting

Most new, non-game applications these days are written for the Web.

This way, any platform can connect to the application and run it the same way as anyone else would on a Palm Pilot or Pocket PC or Linux or Solaris or Windows or whatever.

Through XML and standard Web technologies, we are making a revolution in availability. No longer does each client/end-user of the application have to download and install certain drivers or use a certain computer -- the application behaves and runs the same on any device.

When an app does have to be a traditional desktop program, don't get me wrong -- I know what works, and I would choose Linux. But for most all-new programs, bosses are increasingly and more often suggesting that these be written for the Web, and for the Web exclusively.

The Linux-vs.-Microsoft thing is dying.

--

Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate. Ex-O'Reilly/MIT employee, now a full-time Google employee.

Re:Application programming is a dying paradigm by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-15 09:36 · Score: 1, Interesting

You are very very very wrong, especially when it comes to the financial industry. In fact, in the corporate world, because of problems with the limitations of browser based interfaces and the speed of computers companies are making a big push back in the direction of thick client applications. Just what do you think Web Services are about anyway? They certainly aren't about enabling web based applications, no they're about enabling thick client applications written in C# using Windows Forms or Java using Swing.
Re:Application programming is a dying paradigm by stretch0611 · 2003-09-15 09:53 · Score: 4, Interesting

I agree. The browser is where applications are being written today. It is the reason why Microsoft used its monopoly to trample Netscape. The browser is a threat to Microsoft because it is a single, cross-platform environment suitable for application development.
The web browser has set back application development 20 years.
So what you are saying is that application development on a browser is like COBOL, FORTRAN, and Assembly?
We're in an age when even the smallest hardware store can buy a highly reliable Linux server and have MySQL and Apache running on it for under $500. All you need then is the software that'll keep your stock inventory, and the equipment to network your existing -- probably low spec -- PCs up, and off you go.
Absolutely Right. I recently just built an entire POS(Point of Sale) system for a mechanic. All I did was add a single server (w/ Linux, MySQL, and BlueDragon) added a network card to each machine he already had and now he has a reliable network aware application. Before, he had an old system that could only be run on a single computer. Now his mechanics can be updating maintenance records in the garage while his receptionist is billing customers in the office.
But web apps are a freakin headache for support, BECAUSE of their ability to run on anything.
If you stick to web standards (Not IE Standards), you can miminmize this. Admittedly, it also helps if you can make sure that everyone is using a modern browser. (Mozilla 1.0+, IE 5.5+, Netscape 6.0+)
Compiled programs are still what run mission critical software. They're faster and more reliable.
Compiled programs are faster... Yes. That is the biggest benefit. However, how much speed do you need? My POS system I mentioned above renders most pages in under one-half of a second, Only a few of the reports take a little longer. It is actually faster than the old compiled POS system he replaced. Admittedly, the old system had more data than it could handle, but with the new system I told him when there is more customer data than it can handle we could both retire.
As for reliablity, if your client machine crashes while running a compiled application it is possible to lose data. A web browser is stateless, (even though we use tricks to retain the current state) if a client machine crashes, the chance of losing data is minimal.
In the corporate world, because of problems with the limitations of browser based interfaces and the speed of computers companies are making a big push back in the direction of thick client applications
I disagree, one of the reasons why we are going in the direction of thin clients is that you only need to back-up and provide critical support for the server. It is cheapest to provide this support for the fewest number of computers necessary. The problem with thick-client is installing software updates to the client side and a concept experienced programmers refer to as DLL-Hell.

--
Looking for a job?
Want your resume written professionally?
DON'T USE TUNAREZ!!!

Huge, Huge, Huge Problem for Microsoft by jpetts · 2003-09-15 08:46 · Score: 4, Interesting

This is just the beginning of a whole slew of major players announcing the move to Linux. For each one that is announcing, there have got to be at least a dozen or more looking.

The fact that companies of the size of Ford are switching, rather than just using the threat of Linux as a stick with which to beat Microsoft, will be sending real shivers of fear up the spine of the Beast of Redmond. This is the point at which they have to start changing their business model, and fast, unless they want to spend a few years in the wilderness like IBM did after their business model died. They really don't have much time left...

--
Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender

Re:Huge, Huge, Huge Problem for Microsoft by Mostly+a+lurker · 2003-09-15 08:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

It does seem significant based on the headlines, but I am concerned that all the coverage of this so far comes from that one report in the Scotland on Sunday, and that report was not exactly bursting with details.
I am waiting to see some further independent coverage before getting too excited.
Re:Huge, Huge, Huge Problem for Microsoft by OneFix+at+Work · 2003-09-15 09:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

Umh, actually...

This is just the beginning of a whole slew of major players announcing the move to Linux.

Tell that to SGI...

This has already started to happen in the tech sector, the film industry, and many governments have already made the switch...not to underestimate this move, but it's happening/happened to some extent in every industry. Some have been small, others (like the film industry) have been massive.

The fact that companies of the size of Ford are switching, rather than just using the threat of Linux as a stick with which to beat Microsoft, will be sending real shivers of fear up the spine of the Beast of Redmond.

Not really...M$ has long realized that their OS division is going bye-bye...not because of Linux, but because their major source of revenue (the desktop market) has hit a wall as far as technology is concerned.

There isn't much for M$ to do in the realm of new features except maybe eye-candy and noone (ok, very few) is going to buy a new OS for more eye candy.

Think back, when was the last time you heard of someone buying a retail boxed version of a M$ OS for an old machine???

This is the point at which they have to start changing their business model, and fast, unless they want to spend a few years in the wilderness like IBM did after their business model died.

They already have...every heard of .Net? .Net is M$'s way of breaking into the content provider market...you know...low profit margins, customer support out the $#@!...

M$ knows it has to change, they're just trying to milk their current business model for all it's worth...
Re:Huge, Huge, Huge Problem for Microsoft by iabervon · 2003-09-15 11:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

Right, their current money-maker is Office. Unfortunately, that's not going to help them on Linux, since people who are leaving Windows are doing so for reasons which apply equally to Office and Office doesn't even run on Linux presently.

MS has also not decided that their OS is going to die; they've decided that their OS is complete (at least while they rethink the entire OS metaphor for Longhorn). They're betting on people sticking with Windows XP for the forseeable future, not ditching Windows entirely. If people switch to Linux, MS doesn't have software to sell them, which is a problem for more than the OS division.

If Linux takes over a significant portion of the corporate desktop, MS will have to port to Linux, change their stance on the GPL, and lose a lot of monopoly power.

one question by Dizzo · 2003-09-15 08:47 · Score: 4, Interesting

the biggest battle was over which Linux vendor to use - RedHat or SuSE

So who won?

Re:They'll come crying back by Krugon · 2003-09-15 08:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

After all, what is Open Office for?

Re:What about Burlington in 1999? by worm+eater · 2003-09-15 08:53 · Score: 5, Interesting

For one thing, right now Linux is a hot news item, so people listen. Whereas the city of Munich changing OSs wouldn't be much of a story a few years ago, now it is. Of course, this doesn't mean everyone's going to switch, but one more major corp. switching to Linux, one more major Windoze worm outbreak, people start to notice.

--
Maybe partying will help...

Re:What about Burlington in 1999? by TimmyJoeB · 2003-09-15 09:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

1) As stated before Ford is huge when compared to BCF.
2) Ford has a bunch of suppliers that will swith with Ford.
3) Ford has a bunch of dealers who will be switching
4) This is huge compared to BCF.

same thing here by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-15 09:00 · Score: 1, Interesting

i'm putting together a very large, very high profile communications (computers, telephones, etc) and security system for admin systems fora multi-billion dollar program for a major aerospace company.

I was told "this is critical stuff, it just can't go down every time there's a virus" and "you have to provide email, internet connectivity, web surfing, telephones, and data backup for IP video cameras - these guys n the ship are going to need perks and lots of data to home in order to hire people to work on this thing" and "you're only getting 1 dedicated geek for all 100 folks on the ship"

my security manager told me "you're not going with Windows XP anywhere - so come up with something else".

Because of space constraints, and the fact that i've only got 1 dedicated geek on the ship, but may lose communications with the shore, i have to be able to "power user" admin from the shore, but "stupid simple" admin from on the ship itself.. the option was clear.

4 XServes, 2 XServe RAIDs, and Linux workstations.

It was a no brainer.

I can admin all the servers and workstations from the shore with command line, and i can have the semi-geek on the vessel manage the servers with Apple's point-and-duh interfaces.... plus, i'm 100% immune from all Windows and Exchange viruses.

While Linux and Mac OS X (and other Unix systems) are "theoretically" just as suseptible to viruses as Windows - the "real" world has not panned out that way for the last 5 years. So, with blessing from my boss and security managers, a multi-billion dollar program is going to do all of its internet connected work with Linux and Mac.

We'd go Mac on all the desktop/laptop computers, but that's been a much more difficult sell, (for some damn reason).

This is happeneing everywhere. It just doesn't always get reported... though I get the feeling you will hear about this installation from Apple. in fact, I'm going to ask them to make us a poster child - because this is the obvious way to do business for me.

There was no Microsoft solution that would cut it for me.

Re:No Brainer by KodaK · 2003-09-15 09:05 · Score: 4, Interesting

If I were an IT manager, this is exactly what I would do.

I am an IT manager, and it's not as easy as you think. First, you have core applications, the things that run your business. If you have a development staff, great! However, for the rest of the smaller guys out there we rely on a third party for our core software.

I work for a mortgage broker. I've got our infrastructure running on Linux, but we have to have Windows on the desktop so that our loan origination software will run. (I recently found out that they're switching their software to a .Net platform, so I can't even use Linux on the server if I stick with this software. The sales drone was all uppity about it "you're the only one that hasn't been excited about that." Yeah, I'm the only one who has to drop a few tens of thousands of dollars on an MS infrastructure....)

Anyway, back to my point. This is a wonderful move for Ford, and hopefully will add a little more weight to the cause, but not everybody can do it, unfortunately.

--
--J(K) DOS is like Unix in exactly the same way that a pinto is like an aircraft carrier.

Windoze on the client by pjrc · 2003-09-15 09:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

Does "for its sales systems, human resources, customer relations and infrastructure" really mean any rank-and-file Ford employees will every actually see Linux, KDE or Gnome, and other linux-based stuff.

Or does it just mean they'll be using IE on Windows and some hidden servers they never see will be doing all the back-end processing for their browser-based sales system, human resources and customer relations applications?

Deploying linux server-side is old news, and (after actually reading both articles) I really don't see language that indicates Ford's linux decision is anything but server-side infrastructure. Did I miss the client-side comment that make this "a serious step forward for Linux in the corporate market" ?

--
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools

Re:Windoze on the client by pjrc · 2003-09-15 09:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

Re-reading the Register Article yet again, it indeed does not look good for Linux client-side...
Quoting from the article:
.... so you could maybe view the job as being more about bringing Linux servers into the infrastructure than specifically running Red Hat.
[snip, linux hype] ... But presumably there are still going to be Windows clients in there - by coincidence, we note that this quarter Dell will begin saving the company from the legacy diskette drive.

So the dozens of "this is wonderful news" slashdot comments, regarding the notion linux client "exposure", are all just wishful thinking. There is no reason to believe Ford is deploying Linux clients, and these two phrases definately give the impression that this is just a linux server application and Ford's employees using the system will be running IE on Windoze and will never even know (or care) if Linux, Windows, Solaris, HP/UX or some other system is responsible for actually making it all work behind the scenes.
At this point, "the biggest potential threat to Microsoft in the software developer's 28-year history" (Scotsman article) or "serious step forward for Linux in the corp. market" (Register article) is just a lot of hype.
Most Ford employees will never even know Linux is running on the server. Neither will most of Ford's suppliers. Many thousands of Ford emplyees will not suddently be using Open Office and Mozilla and start insisting on others to use open document formats and standard compliant html. And all sorts of other wishful thinking expressed here in these slashdot comments will not come to pass (at least not as a result of Ford's recent decision). All this really means is that Ford will be added to an already long list of well known corporations who decided to deploy Linux server for some specific applications. All the far-flung predictions about how this is some critical turning point for linux adoption, especially on the client side, are just overrated hype.

--
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools

EDI by chill · 2003-09-15 09:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

Most of the supplier's information will come as EDI (Electronic Data Interchange). Big companies like Ford, GM, Wal-Mart dictate the data format to the suppliers, not the other way around.

Customers don't send Ford .doc, .xls or .ppt files. E-mail, maybe.

The vast majority of MS Office files are going to be internally generated, and Open/Star Office can handle them well enough.

--
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.

Confirmation? by interiot · 2003-09-15 09:09 · Score: 4, Interesting

This is great news, and is something I'd expect to see picked up on online sites all over the internet. However, a Google news search turned up nothing more. And the Register story is little more than a reference to the Scotsman, with not much to indicate that the Register did any independant verification (eg. they bring up the question of which Ford picked, Suse or Mandrake, but don't mention any answer). In other words, it's essentially rumor at this point.

I don't have the balls to do it, but can anyone get Ford on the phone? Or are there any Ford.com people who read slashdot who can verify?

Red Hat or SUSE? by Mostly+a+lurker · 2003-09-15 09:12 · Score: 5, Interesting

One possible clue is a current consulting opportunity in Detroit, advertised on www.hotlinuxjobs.com:

Red Hat System Administrator - Advanced Server
Salary: 30-35/HR - Long Term Contract (1+ year) Detroit, MI -
JOB DESCRIPTION: Participate in developing the Ford global RedHat (RH) Advanced Server (AS) 2.1 Linux load.
...

Re:They'll come crying back by Zelatrix · 2003-09-15 09:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

Hehe. I don't think I get 99.999% success rate opening Office documents with the same copy of the application that created it, on the same computer, five minutes after saving. 'Specially if it has a Visio diagram or similar embedded in it - time to dig out Open Office for a bit of MS Office document repair.

Seriously, 99.999% would be more than adequate. Not that Open Office is that good, but around 98% would probably be fine. I'd say that OO was somewhere in the 90% to 95% at the moment.

Actually a good point by chia_monkey · 2003-09-15 09:25 · Score: 4, Interesting

This is actually a good point. It's not just a coup for Linux vs. Microsoft, but a big "F you" to SCO by saying "yeah, we'll do Linux". I hope more companies realize this and stop halting their Linux work or other companies will start their Linux work and stop fearing SCO's threats. This will be interesting to watch...both MS and SCO.

--

"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang

Re:What about Burlington in 1999? by johndoesovich · 2003-09-15 09:31 · Score: 4, Interesting

no, but this is big for everyone. I use Microsoft goods at home and I cannot stand it. I am tired of the issues at home. I am tired of fixing my friends computers because the latest worm hit them. The point is you use what is familiar to you. We are working to implement linux as our sole solution here at the office. We have run into minor problems because of our financial system. Other than that, we are almost ready to plung into it. If I had no idea about computers but had some sort of logic, I would go for Linux because it is free and throw openoffice on top of that. It's beautiful. I would like to see Ford put out another release for openoffice assuming they use it.

--
alias dir='rm -rf /'

Why choose, man? by dasmegabyte · 2003-09-15 09:32 · Score: 3, Interesting

the biggest battle was over which Linux vendor to use - RedHat or SuSE.

I guarantee you that the Ford motor company's IT department is bigger than either RedHat or SuSE. Why choose a distro when you can make your own system so easily? I mean, which is better: paying high priced consultants and smooth talking project managers to solve your emergency problems on their terms, or pressuring your own guys to do the same?

Plus, who wouldn't want to see Ford Linux? I may not like Ford cars, or Ford as a car company, but Ford as an engineering paradigm is something that I have respected for a LONG time. I even used to have a big Ford emblem on my first webserver...because it was as reliable as my old Ranger, which wasn't very reliable at all. It wouldn't have to be an official distribution, but wouldn't it be great if it was? Ford Linux, emphasis on secure embedded transaction systems. Direct competition with Microsoft in the market...and Linux on the dashboard of Fords, Cougars, Volvos, Jaguars...

And why is it so strange that Ford should make software? GM owns an insurance company and a bank. GE owns a damn TV network. Hell, this company we just partnered with is somehow owned by Niagra Mohawk, the power company responsible for the northeastern blackout last month. Their "core competency" may be automotive design, but if you've got a massive team of hackers tapping away at infrastructure code already, you might as well sell it. Use your name to take it to Joe Nascar's Dell...

--
Hey freaks: now you're ju

Not suprised by jafac · 2003-09-15 09:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

From my dealings with Ford IT in the past, I'd characterize them as more "forward looking" than a lot of other large companies I've dealt with, when it comes to IT. Back when I was helping with their initial deployment of NetWare 4.0, (4.00), they were then evaluating Linux, this was back when we used to download floppy images to create an install-set. (1994, 95-ish?) I'm glad something came of it.

--

These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.

Re:What about Burlington in 1999? by Anti-HanzoSan · 2003-09-15 10:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

Banks (while running OS/2 on the desktop) use full-screened VT-102 terminal emulators to access the bank's server. Have we ever seen those employees running to OS/2 because they used it at work?

That really isn't the point. While the employees themselves may not bring Linux home with them directly, the fact that a company as big as Ford is using it as a desktop will encourage third parties to create applications for it. Also, if SuSE and Red Hat are making some money from Linux on the desktop rather than just on the server, they'll have some incentive to divert more resources to developing their desktop versions.

An ever-friendlier Linux desktop with a healthy selection of 3rd party commercial apps might ultimately be very attractive to a home user.

Re:STORY IS UNTRUE - LINK by ksheff · 2003-09-15 12:16 · Score: 3, Interesting

The Newsforge people called someone in Detroit. The Register article is referencing an article in a Scottish newspaper. It's quite possible that Ford's UK divisions or all of Ford's European divisions are switching to Linux and the people in Detroit know nothing about it.

--
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs

Re:No Brainer by King_TJ · 2003-09-15 13:03 · Score: 2, Interesting

IMHO, in cases like these, all that's really happened is the stakes are higher. If you feel you're getting forced up against a wall, where you're suddenly looking at a $30,000+ investment in MS hardware just because some "core business application" requires it - maybe it starts making sense to develop your own alternative application?

I'm surely not suggesting this is an easy decision to make, but it's worth seriously looking into. If you have a good, solid Linux-based server environment already - your costs to break that up are going to be much higher than just the initial cost of the Microsoft software and rollout!

If I were in your shoes, I'd really start thinking about hiring a few good software developers, and putting them on a project to build your company some custom loan origination software for Linux. If done correctly, it would offer numerous side benefits, such as the flexibility to tailor it to exactly what your business needs, instead of settling for what you're handed in a particular version of someone else's program. Bug fixes? Can be done as quickly as your developers can get to them.

I used to work for a company that built their own in-house application for order processing and report generation. It may have turned into the most expensive computer-related business decision they ever made - BUT, that application also became the cornerstone for the company. Competitors even attempted to buy the company out, simply to get their hands on that application - because it met a need they couldn't fill with "off the shelf" products.

28 of 562 comments (clear)