Slashdot Mirror
AT&T Considers Mac OS X, Linux For 70,000 Desktops
hype7 writes "CNet's News.com.com is reporting that AT&T is reconsidering its corporate IT investment in Microsoft Windows - with both Mac OS X and Linux being considered. Although the article notes that AT&T is not actively seeking to replace Windows, there's a wonderful quote on the page from the AT&T guy - 'Any CIO would not be doing due diligence if they are not looking at their options now.'" As with previous mass-migration stories, a cynical (or realistic) viewpoint is also that by "looking into" non-Windows operating systems, they're giving themselves a bargaining chip when talking with Microsoft. Update: 10/06 17:35 GMT by T : Actually, that's 70,000 desktops, rather than 7,000 as originally stated.
It makes a difference.
From what I can remember about my time with AT&T, every single desktop was running Windows NT. Its not like they were actually using it. Every single desktop was running Reflection so they can access the unix server that maintains their switches.
Granted this was 4 years ago, and I only dealt with two call centers, but there really was no reason for them to be using Windows NT for any of the PC's in the office, whether it be the desktops for the supervisors/managers or the dummy terminals running the ascii based clients that did the backend work for the operators and the directory assistant workers.
Maybe they would be better off just popping in some unix based OS.
The other thing I can remember is all 300+ dummy terminals (from our one office; 1000+ if you counted the sister office) were maintained by one system admin. He would be able to broadcast out a new OS on those bad boys overnight without blinking an eye. One thing AT&T knows is how to network. Those bastards were tight, and the SA knew how to get the job done right the first time, on time.
I still don't get why Linux development leaders aren't understanding why Windows is so popular, regardless of appplication prevalence. Linux is still asking questions that aren't dumb, but still frighten anyone who isn't very familiar with computers. Modeline and resolution? Swap space? What are ext2, ext3, and reiser!? Does my keyboard have 104 keys or 105?
/system ("don't touch anything in the system folder!") /users/joecubicle ("Just backup the /users folder, and all your data and prefs are okay"), and /trash? ("you can delete anything in there")
You have to give big, shiny, easy options because computing shouldn't require that kind of knowledge when people are trying to look at websites and use their e-mail. You've got to sell them the OS first, and then allow them to customize to their heart's content after they can see the utility in what you're offering.
Comparatively I'm dumb to a lot of the slashdot crowd, but I imagine there must be some way to provide full binaries that are LIBRARY INDEPENDENT. Bandwidth is cheap. Hard drive space is cheap. Trying to train everyone how to use symlinks and sort through thousands of libraries using arbitrary command line options is stupid at best. But the first time someone says, "I want to do X and Y is broken!" You can tell them how to do both, and explain to them how Open Source makes it possible.
And I know POSIX compliance is important to everyone, but the directory scheme will have to go someday. What is wrong with
Sad thing is, if OS X were released for the x86 platform, half of the Linux users I know would switch the next day.
No spyware, no viruses, ergo no thousand dollar software investments. Also the ability to whack the hard drive in dissimilar hardware without it complaining about reactivation.
"AT&T is evaluating different operating systems, including Mac OS X and Linux, as alternatives to Microsoft Windows for internal use. "The company's chief information officer, Hossein Eslambolchi, has set up a team in AT&T's research labs to assess the appropriateness of desktop operating systems for the company," reports CNET News.com. "The company currently uses Windows on its desktop PCs, which number in the tens of thousands. The engineers are testing and measuring how Windows, Linux and Mac OS X stack up on security, reliability and total cost of ownership, Dickman said. AT&T expects to make a decision on the merits of the desktop operating systems by the end of next year or early 2006." ~ better description from MacMinute
Is it just me or would you take a 4% profit per machine instead of a 23% profit per machine on a deal like this if you were Apple? Which actually points out a small fact. Apple still makes an average of 12% on educational sales (even more if you factor in Applecare and service plans) I think if they are serious about enterprise and education, they'd take 3-4% profit. I also think that they don't realize how many of these workers would love them and buy them for home use.
If Apple could just do this and be successful in ONE corporate entity, it would make a huge impact on other enterprise deals. The fedex deal fell through - they were only able to sell them 20% of their total computer purchase. (Which replaced about 30% of all the computers at fedex worldwide)
I imagine that AT&T will go with Linux though.
Boy, isn't this a good reason to have a headless iMac?
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
Not that it'll make any difference, but just for the record: Mac OS X supports multiple mouse buttons and scroll wheels. It just doesn't get supplied with them, or need them.
If you want a right mouse button, go and buy any old USB mouse, plug it in, and the right button will instantly bring up context menus just as you expect; and the scroll wheel will scroll windows in most apps ditto.
I wish we could see some sensible arguments in the Mac-vs-PC debate. (For example, I fully agree that Mac OS Classic sucked. Or at least, it sucked for people who'd used something else first. From what I hear, most folk who started with a Mac loved it; but people like me who came from other platforms (mostly Atari and X Terminals in my case) hate it -- I fought against it continually for a year or so until Mac OS X came out and I heaved a long sigh of relief!)
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
I have a Blue and White G3/350. Purchased in 1999. It is currently running the latest Mac OS X and many apps at very usable speeds - in fact, OS X has consistently gotten more efficient and faster with new releases. I've added more RAM (700MB now), a couple of hard drives, and a faster video card.
Now, certainly some apps that rely heavily on AltiVec (GarageBand) and newer games (UT2004) are out of this machine's reach, but for web browsing, Photoshopping, Office, even 3D modeling, everything runs at quite acceptable speeds. At the very least, they are the speeds you'd expect in 1999.
Compare that to the Windows world. Would you dare install XP on a Pentium II at 500MHz? How many driver incompatibilities would you have?
- Jasen.
I just upgraded my home PC to Windows XP Pro on one hard disk and Mandrake 10 on the other hard disk and I dual boot. The first thing that hit me - XP is so much more "crisp'! I upgraded from Redhat 7.2 to Mandrake in the hope that it will look visually better - it did, but its not quite there yet. The default fonts on some web pages for eg, suck, making me never to want to go to that website again, or visit it only when Im inside Win XP Pro.
On the other hand I notice how much farther Linux has come since I first installed Slackware back sometime in 1997. Its made some large strides especially in peripherals recognition and configuration - kudos to that.
But out of the box, if you ask me which is prettier, Id have no doubt what the average user would choose. Also, XP is a step further in the direction of stability (former Windows ME user speaking!) so thats quickly becoming a non-issue as well. The only point that Linux probably has over Windows is probably "security" right now, but sadly its not something that jumps right out at you when you open your new Windows box, so the average user gives it secondary consideration.
Maybe that will change in the future.
In this article, (sorry in German), they describe the process and the reasoning. Some highlights:
Now, I know one could do a Wintel environment with Citrix MetaFrame, in order to reduce clientside upgrade problems, but Citrix would require a larger backend.