Slashdot Mirror
InformationWeek On Windows-Linux Interoperability
prostoalex writes "InformationWeek magazine has a lengthy article about the issues that enterprises face when vying for Linux+Windows interoperability, as most of the corporate infrastructures are seldom monocultural. What's also interesting is the InformationWeek surveys of the IT professionals. The following questions are asked and the responses to them are nicely graphed: 1) Reasons for choosing Windows, 2) Reasons for choosing Linux, 3) Top Windows concerns, 4) Top Linux concerns, 5) Top interoperability issues."
"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer." This is an old saying everyone is familiar with. I would be more concerned if/when they openly embraced Linux as opposed to them openly denouncing it. I do not look forward to the day when someone says to me, "Have you the new Windows? It now runs Linux!" Just my .02
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy - Benjamin Franklin"
Interoperabilty needs help from both sides. Both involved parties must decide on a standard then write software to adhere to it.
eg. all mp3 players play the same mp3s. One mp3 can play on all players because of the standard.
In order to sell an mp3 player it either has to have better features that the standard implements or have more human=friendly features eg. its smaller, better looking etc.
Here microsoft coes out with a system. Then the OSS teams try to reverse engineer it and create a compatable system. Then microsoft changes it.
Therein lies the problem. Microsoft is not trying to interoperate. OSS is trying to be compatible. They are always following, and not creating. Mainly because they don't have a market base to force products onto to get a lead.
OSS needs a killer-app style product/system/something to get the lead, so that microsoft will have to try to be compatible.
True interoperability cannot happen without support from bothsides. OSS just needs to make microsoft want to help. Easier said than done.
They list 'Management tools could be better' as a problem with linux. What, do the admins not like vi? (or emacs)
Here's my response to some of the linux 'problems':
Lack of an integrated software environment- What is that supposed to mean? Does it mean that I can choose what stuff I want to use? With MS, there's one choice. With linux, there's multiple choices for software to use. I don't quite get what they're saying with this one. If someone knows, then I'd like to understand better.
Lack of a clear roadmap- Well, the idea with linux is to make it more stable, faster, and more secure (not necessarily in that order). What more of a 'product map' do you want? MS isn't going to come up with the next killer app of the internet. All of the other big applications have come out of open-source groups.
Accountability if problems arise- This means that the top IT person wants some one else to take the blame if something bad happens. Everyone knows MS stuff doesn't work perfectly, so if it screws up, it's not the admin's fault. With linux, if it screws up, most people (correctly) blame the admin.
I bet a lot of problems come up becaue when a company switches from windows to linux, the admins expect it to work the same, which couldn't be farther from the truth. Linux uses different programs, and often times, the best way to configure it is vi and a man page or two. With windows, it's all point-and-click.
Just my 0.02
Farmers Insurance agents were given a free Dell with windows 2000 and Office XP. Many of my agents want to be able to use exchange with outlook and linux has yet to give me a workable clone of exchange that works with outlook.
Yes, Ive tried suse slox and ive tried the outlook connector -- but when an address book sorts by company and creates a bunch of blank entries for an entry with no company -- it does not work.
If someones could get on the ball in that arena, I would think a few more people would be switching over.
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
I brought the various graphs up in different windows for side-by-side comparison, and at first missed something interesting -- the scale on the graphs is different. For example, the "Linux Concerns" graph goes from 0-40%, while the "Windows Worries" one goes all the way up to 80%.
A quick visual comparison makes it seem that people are as worried about "Lack of a complete and fully integrated software environment" and "Accountability if problems arise" on Linux as they are about the top MS Windows issues, "Software quality or vulnerabilities" and "Cost of ownership is too high". Not so -- in fact, the top concerns with Linux are down near the middle of the MS Windows scale.
Red Hat has per-server licensing now. If you buy a copy, you are allowed to install it on one server only, unless you buy more support seats. They reserve the right to audit you for compliance too, and charge you penalties if you have more systems installed than licensed.
Yeah, I don't see how that complies with the GPL either.
If Customer wishes to increase the number of Installed Servers, then Customer will purchase from Red Hat additional Services for each additional Installed Server.
During the term of this Agreement and for one (1) year thereafter, Customer expressly grants to Red Hat the right to audit Customer's facilities and records from time to time in order to verify Customer's compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
In fact, I think it's a blatent violation. I guess the FSF doesn't want to enforce the rules on a company that has given so much to the community. I, however, don't think they should get special treatment. I appreciate all Red Hat has done, but that doesn't give them a right to violate copyright law.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
As somebody who is available for hire to make apps (any apps) work on Linux via Wine, I must point out that this is just blatently not true. I (and many others) have been hired before by companies wishing to move their infrastructure to Linux. For custom software, the job is often reasonably straightforward as the source is available, but even for 3rd party apps the company uses it is still possible.
So, to say there is no interoperability is not true. Typically, if you do the math, you may find it is cheaper to hire a Wine developer for a time to make your apps work on Linux than continue to license Windows for all the machines needed.
They are not limiting your rights to install their products on another server. They are limiting your rights to do that AND get support for it as well. If you don't care about support, no problem!
They are allowed to do this, in exactly the same way that I am allowed to give you Knoppix and say "I will give you help learning Linux as long as you buy me a beer". I am not restricting your rights nor am I violating the GPL. I am placing conditions on my help - just the same as they are.
I like how you got worst and word confused.
This is really no problem. Anyone can have one dinky M$ box in the corner when confronted by such ignorance. Most companies will take a pdf or text file. Proposals are, after all, text rather than type set publication. The person sending them out can be trained in Microsoft pain if the lost business justifies buying a $500 Dell preloaded with Windoze and Word every two or three years.
That one box is not a reasonable justification for going all Microsoft stupid. Free software is much better for everything else, especially email, web browsing and other forms of information sharing. The actual worst case scenerio is some stupid Microsoft Transmitted Disease comes in and blows out ALL of your proposals, inventory, customer lists, vendor lists and every other record you have. Even if you have backups, you will lose information and you have no idea when the net will once again be a safe place for you poor little M$ boxes. The last wave of viruses took out huge companies with competent staff and enough money to have the very latest and greatest M$ cruft. Microsoft has a place in games. Everywhere else, they are defeated and second rate. There's no reason or excuse for using Microsoft for corporate infrastructure anymore.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.