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."
I believe the primary issue in Linux+Windows interoperabiltiy is Windows operability, actually.
This side up.
One of the biggest issues, however, is not necessarily intra-office compatibility, but inter-office compatibility. If you're sending out Word documents and Powerpoint presentations to a company who only uses Linux it causes some problems.
-- Dr. Eldarion --
According to the graphs in this article, security is the #3 reason people use Linux, behind cost and reliability. For people purchasing Microsoft stuff, even "Other" scores higher than security, which came in dead last.
I guess we should be glad that most people are apparently not falling for their "Trustworthy Computing" horseshit. The numbers in this poll show that this summer of worm after virus after worm after virus has really put Microsoft under a cloud. It will probably take them at least five years to even begin to win back security mindshare, and that's assuming there's not another SQL Slammer or Blaster waiting to happen in that time.
~Philly
I remember reading in Byte magazine years ago a quote from microsoft that went something like this.
"As soon as a Unix get over 1,000,000 seats, we will port Office over to it"
"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"
The price of Microsoft's newest version of Windows, released last week, is aimed squarely at Linux. With Small Business Server 2003, Microsoft knocked 60% off the price of its previous Small Business Server, introducing a standard edition for only $599, right between Red Hat's $349 basic edition (software only) and $799 standard edition (software plus phone support).
With RedHat wouldn't you just have to buy one copy of their standard edition software and be able to install it on multiple servers? Would this be a breach of their license? In any case this would be a definite no-no with Microsoft...
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.
The second point, accountability, is where managers, in my experience get concerned. While it was great that the company didn't get mugged on licenses, the learning curve for the admins is relatively steep compared to Monopolized Systems that are managed at the crayon level.
Businesses want to know that, in the event of the bus flattening the admin, they can get a replacement, and not here some line like "uhh, I'm a vi user, and my predecessor, apparently an Emacs LISP fetishist, (ran (the (whole (network (with {these (crazy (macros))))))))".
IANAT. In fact, I've reached a state of total agnosticism about platforms, languages, and licenses as a result of
Ulitately, I hope the market does, too, in favor of what really matters: standards.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
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.
Last week, we had trouble restoring an Exchange box from a backup. The difficulty was due to Exchange being integrated with Active Directory. What caused Exchange to go down? We ran forestprep and domainprep on Active Directory.
The integration of the two products makes it difficult and more costly to administer.
To which I reply, Go ahead.
harmonious design
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.
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.
No, if you buy support for one machine you can't "install" that support on multiple machines, any more than you can buy insurance for one car and "install" it on multiple cars. This isn't a GPL issue, you just didn't understand what they were saying.
-- MarkusQ
They're quite right to worry, and it's very nice to see that message getting through. I wonder if there's any platform in which the vendor makes a binding promise that the product will work?
Sig:Why copyright isn't a fundamental human right
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.
Wow, the graphs from the article are kind of scary. The Windows Worries graph's first item is 80% of "business-technology professionals" are concerned with software quality issues or vulnerabilites in Windows. However, on the Linux Concerns graph, the first item is only 40% of "business-technology professionals" are concerned that Linux lacks "a complete and fully integrated software environment".
While anybody would agree that 40% is less than 80%, the two charts are the same width, and a casual glance would certainly give the impression that people are more concerned with Linux problems than with Windows problems. This is disturbing since there are no Linux concerns that exceed 50% with the interviewed "business-technology professionals" while there are three concerns that exceed 50% of the same group with Windows.
It appears that "business-technology professionals" are more concerned with Windows than Linux, but the graphs are set up to give the opposite impression. Is this another case of spin-doctoring? Or is Linux just a casualty of aestheticism?
All data is speech. All speech is Free.