EWeek Details Linux to Windows Migration

nakhla writes "Even though we always hear stories of companies migrating from Windows to Linux, eWeek is running a story describing several companies that have migrated from Linux to Windows. Among their reasons are inadequate support options, application compatibility issues, stability problems, and the added cost of troubleshooting."

Comments

The Big Versus

[psbrogna]

It's been my experience that most organizations have problems because they're staff are inadequately trained. I myself and just as guilty of slapping up incredibly-complex-software-that-has-been-shrink-w rapped-and-commoditized (ie. firewalls, mailservers, database servers, etc...) and the post-incident debrief revealed that of course there were problems- I didn't RTFM. Apples to Apples though- correctly implemented, it has been my experience that Linux/BSD/*ix stuff is faster, more stable, and just damn better designed. The product evolution strategy is always value driven vs. some other ulterior motive (ie. revenue, locking a customer into your product line, etc). Given this, the freely available Unix distros have always provided me, & the companies I've worked at, the maximum ROI.

Re:Complaints are too vague to counter

[spikev]

Speaking of details, I think it important to remember that one of the companies, Combe, switched to Linux nine years ago and back to Windows two years ago. It seems they bailed out too early for their words to be relevant now.

Brylcreem Nuff said

[bstadil]

These guys are the sleaze folks that makes Brylcreem for crying out loud.

If you do a little sleuthing you will discover this is part of the MS Get the Fud program from May 2004. You relly should visit and admire the Linux = Shareware blurb.

Check with Netcraft and you will find that they reason the switched was that their ISP went out of business and the one that they teamed up with that got them to "switch" has managed to gain ZERO additional clients since. Again Source Netcraft.

Confused marketing people?

[Xerp]

Wow. The article really gives a whole new meaning to FUD.

two companies that have completed the switch from Linux back to Windows cited recently.

Personal care products maker Combe Inc., of White Plains, N.Y., developed and administered its Web sites with an ISP running a Linux-Oracle platform about nine years ago and started the switch back to Windows two years ago.

I guess 2 years ago is recent... but it gets worse...

"There was a limit set up within the program that said you can only order 'x' amount of products within one transaction," Roy said. "When one of our guests went over the limit, it crashed the whole store. We then had to manually identify the erroneous credit card charges."

Um. Is it me or does that sound like it has nothing to do with the operating system?

I'd guess this is the second company See how cool and uber their website is now? Many of the categories in their "shop" are just empty, and transactions have been limited to 20 of any one item. So, I ordered 20 of everything....

Opps! An error has occured on the site. If this problem persists, please contact the site administrator.

If you are getting this error at CHECKOUT, please check your Order History to see if the order went through before trying to place the order again.

If the order went through, we have successfully recorded your purchase although you will not receive a confirmation letter with liability release. Please download a hard copy by clicking here.

Phew. Good job its running on Windows now!

What is their uptime? Oh. 8 days.

Re:Examples are rubbish.

[caluml]

MySQL doesn't even support foreign keys

MyISAM doesn't. InnoDB does. InnoDB has transactions too. Having said that, I do prefer Postgres.

Certifications

[einhverfr]

I hold the Linux Professional Institute Certification Level 2, and I passed the combined exam while it was in beta. I also hold other certifications as well (MCSA, MCSE, Inet+, A+, Network+, and Server+).

As a Linux-centric consultant, here is what I have to say about the questions people talk about:

1) Which distro to learn on? Doesn't matter. But learn how to read configuration files and use command line utilities. This is more important than what distro. Also learn about the boot sequence and learn how to configure both LILO and GRUB.

2) How much learning is enough? You will NEVER know everything you need to know to impliment Linux solutions which stretch your knowledge. However, you need to know the fundamentals of networking, security, and other basic cross-platform topics. You also need to be comfortable *in the Linux world* to understand how to put together a solution which will meet an arbitrary set of needs. Finally you need to know where to go to get documentation. Beyond that, you can learn as you go.

Also best IT practices in general are a good thing to know. Beyond that you can read up on documentation and play with programs. This is where OSS kicks the competition out ;-)

Re:Certifications

[einhverfr]

I find your comment here intriguing. One of the main mantras that I hear from linux advocates is that the fact there are so many distributions, you can pick the one that suits you best. I've always wondered how does a user know which distribution they should pick? Redhat, Mandrake, Suse, Debian, other? Why should a user prefer one over another?

I picked Red Hat because it was the most accessible when I started and I got a copy from a friend. This was in 1999.

The largest obstacle is not the subtle differences between the distros, but the fact that the GUI tools now available obscure the basic mechanics and make the admin less able to troubleshoot the system. Therefore the choice of distro is less important than focusing on learning the command line and config files in a solid manner.

YMMV, however, and UNIX admins (who already have some experience) are likely to find Slackware most to their liking. Others may prefer Mandrake or SuSE. Many advanced users like Debian.

I don't think that we only need two distributions. I think that competition is healthy in vendor space. Yet, you have a point that some standardization is needed, hance we have LSB.

Finally about the GPL. I don't care much for license wars..... However, I think for an OS fighting entrenched proprietary competitors, the GPL is probably more effective. For areas, such as web servers, where open source has always had a strong role, this is far less important (commercial forks of Apache have not managed threaten the dominance of the OSS project).

But for all I know, the success of Linux could have less to do with the GPL and more to do with Linus's incredible leadership skills.

Re:Complaints are too vague to counter

[beacher]

The article is *very* misleading- Here's the *REAL* source of this news bit That's right, MicroSoft. Their ISP provider went bankrupt in 2001 (fancy that) and gave them 2 weeks to switch their code over. Very misleading article.

More details on microsoft.com

[Anonymous Coward]

These two cases are well documented at microsoft.com.

http://www.microsoft.com/spain/hechos/casestudy.as p?CaseStudyID=15390

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/facts /casestudies/casestudy.aspx?CaseStudyID=15188

As a friend of a former worker at Combe's ISP...

[Anonymous Coward]

...I can say this for sure: the ISP in question filed for bankruptcy in January 2001, and was left in its last two years with a skeleton staff (3-4 people) and no database alternatives other than Oracle. There were basically no developers and only one very tired and overworked sysadmin who was also in charge of a lot of other things that had nothing to do with system administration. From what I know, it's a miracle that Combe's sites even stayed commercially workable during the last two years they sat on Linux.

The reason that the article refers to how surprised the CIO was that things went so well initially is that this describes the time period prior to the company filing for bankruptcy.

FWIW, earlier database development (pre-bankruptcy) on the Combe sites done by the same ISP was done using the Empress RDBMS largely by other developers, and - from what I know - there were no issues back then!

You see, it all comes down to the people....

Re:ID 10 T Problem

[AstroDrabb]

I don't think it was even as simple as a ID10T problem. In the article, it states that _only_ two companies switched back. Not much to cry about. They were probably "MS Only" shops that hired "VB Only" "developers" who couldn't program their way out of a paper bag. I have ran into far too many people who call themselves programmers only to learn that they know nothing other then VB. Anyway, from the article

but Linux became an issue when Combe's Web applications needed a database, and the only option available to the company was one from Oracle Corp.

This is total MS FUD. What are these guys smoking? If you need a commercial DB under Linux, they _all_ run under Linux, DB2, Sybase and Oracle. The only one ofcourse is obviously MS SQL sever from MS. There is also PostgreSQL and MySQL, and MySQL offers commercial support. As soon as I read this part of the article, I knew it was MS FUD.

There will be a bunch of MS apologist to this topic saying how "real" this is. Howver, it is nothing but FUD. Come on now, the _only_ commercial DB available to the company is Oracle? It looks like MS paid or gave two small companies a nice discount for these statements trying to kill two birds with one stone (Oracle and Linux).

At the end of the day, Oracle is the _second_ largest software company. And Oracle has been pushing Linux hard with their "Unbreakable Linux" and even recommending Linux for all new installs. I doubt Oracle would gamble their one and only cash cow (Oracle) on Linux if Oracle didn't have anything to back it up.

I have been a programmer at 3 fortune 500 companies and I have been with the current one for about 4 years now. The DBA's where I work refuse to run Oracle on _anything_ but Solaris and Linux and want Linux for all new installs. The DBA's get what DB they want on what platform they want because they have proven themselves to be top-notch with protecting the fortune 500's data. To me that is saying a lot.