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.
I wonder how many companies are now doing this so they can get price breaks or cheap long-term contracts from MS?
Read jack phelps dot net
As the article says, it seems to be the SOHO guys who are getting most keenly into Linux. This is paradoxical, because Linux ought to be easiest to adopt in a big corporate environment - easy lockdown and centralization, natural multi-user capabilities, and there's always a tech guy on hand to deal with the lack of GUI wizards and troubleshooting tools. But maybe enough small businessmen are ideologically keen on Linux for it to make headway. If so, they'll be a valuable testbed.
If you can squeeze extra discounts from MS by saying that you are 'looking into' Linux and/or Mac OS X, why not say it? Sure, you may have to conduct a small inquiry into the feasibility and do some cost calculations. Peanuts compared to what you can save by extorting MS like this.
MS is getting exactly what they deserve. They went into panic mode over few big customers and gave deep discounts, and now all sizeable customers are filing for same discounts by issuing vague statements how they are 'looking into' linux.
So, either in the long run the MS software gets cheaper, or at some point MS says 'screw it, go linux if you are not happy with our prices' - obiviously assuming they'd still stick to windows. Then some big name actually goes thru with the switch... and we get some real world data on the actual costs. At which point MS will bring down it's prices and/or otherwise sweetens the deal to stay competitive.
This ain't rocket science...
From the Article:
Most likely, AT&T will stick with Windows, because Microsoft is addressing many of problems associated with its desktop software, including security flaws that leave it particularly vulnerable to viruses, Dickman said.
Just because Microsoft is addressing its problems doesn't mean they are going to solve them any time soon, nor does it mean they are going to disclose all of their vulnerabilities.
An AT&T spokesman said in the article, "AT&T is not actively seeking to replace Windows". Which is quite the contradiction from the article's title, "AT&T looks into closing its Windows". Of course, since when has CNet been the pinnacle of journalism.
How about we stop posting stories of Companies and other entities considering a switch to Linux or Mac or whatever ? How about we only post actual switching stories ? They exist and thy are out there. We all know that many companies and Governments are using (especially) Linux as a negotiating argument to get a better deal from Microsoft. Let the involved parts alone. If the company is really serious and they implement it, let's see how and what they did.
Flame me if you wish, but it's true.
h ot.jpg
Mac's always have had the lowest cost of ownership over PC's.
When the average turnover rate for a Dell is two years and the average turnover rate for Mac's is several years it's not to hard to figure out which platform is cheaper in the long run.
Of course Mac OS X is just plain gourgeous and very user friendly, happens to be very secure as well.
http://homepage.mac.com/hogfish/.Pictures/screens
It's time to give Apple a shot, dam that John Scully!
blocking Linux on the desktop in the workplace is internal web sites.
.xls and .doc and boy I wish it couldn't handle .ppt[0], and I bet there's even a Linux email program that interfaces with all the stuff that handles Outlook-style calendaring and that rot-- since it's going to be impossible to change out the desktop OS if you've got to roll out new infrastructure at the same time. But the problem is, I won't be able to fill out my timecard, or access the trouble ticketing system, or a half dozen other things my job requires.
I dunno about your company, but where I work, and a number of other places I know of (friends work there, ex-employment, etc...) there's a lot of stuff on the web-- time cards, change management systems, computer-based training, employee locaterators... and it all requires MSIE. It's either ActiveX, or uses proprietary MSIE broken HTML, or what-have-you, because the webmonkeys that created it know everyone has a Windows box on their desk so they could do it the easy way instead of the right way.
And so, sure, I could use Linux on the desktop. I could use OpenOffice to handle
I suspect many companies are in this boat-- the apps they run on the desktop can easily be replaced, it's the broken web stuff they're stuck with.
> 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.
Yes. But the fact they can do that without beeing laughed at, means that Microsoft dominance is threatened.
And each such article, even if only used as a negotiation, further the perception that linux is a serious contender.
The less expensive option is Linux. Not just because it's open source, but because they can reuse existing hardware (PC's) to run it.
:-) for an organisation of this size to move exclusively to OS X would be prohibitively expensive.
As much as I do love Mac's (as my 17"PB would testify
I suggest that they try Linux as well as OS X and ensure that all common internal applications can run on both. It's not exactly trival to port Linux apps to run on OS X but in many instances it's relatively easy. For those wo still need MS Office they can run Mac's. For those who can run OO.org get Linux.
AT&T prefering Unix to Windows? Seems appropriate to me.
"...with restrictions on the use of Windows machines having no outside Internet access."
Isn't it sad that is about the only sane way these days to keep Windows secure?
To bad all Windows users don't use this policy!
Mod as Flamebait/Troll? Seriously. But that said, I like to give everybody at least a chance to speak and I will respond to your statements out of principle.
It is nothing more than a linux / gnome system that has no frigging software.
You are either trolling or you really have no idea of what you are talking about. OS X is so much more. We are seriously impressed with the platform allowing both a CLI access to the *nixy goodness and having a beautiful GUI on top for those less experienced. We can run all of our *NIX code with a recompile on the same box as Office, Photoshop, IDL, ImageJ, etc...etc...etc... The machines provide the easiest plug and play compatibility I have ever seen. I could go on and on here, but you get the point.
Not only that but the damn apps crash all the time
This statement is completely bogus. I call shenanigans. My experience with all of our OS X systems has been one of complete stability (more so than the IRIX box I had on my desk and much more than Windows). I have played with Linux, but for us, Linux has not worked as desktop replacements. For a server, Linux is nice although not as easy to manage as OS X.
and don't even get me started about either browser (ie and safari) both of which suck
It's true that ie on MacOS does suck and all development for ie stopped quite a while ago. It is a dead application. Safari on the other hand is a rather nice experience that is fast and provides features needed in a modern browser.
So save the MAC fan boy shit for someone not smart enough to know better.
Get a life, open your eyes and save your computer elitism for your greasy friends in the basement. Out in the real world, the whole point of using computers is to accomplish work. If a platform allows us to accomplish more work with less involvement, CIOs, CTOs and end users should be encouraged to explore options.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Yes and no. Yes, you can't get cheap Macs, but for what you get, they seem to be fairly competitive with similarly-specced PCs. (I haven't done the analysis myself, but whenever I've seen it done, the Macs come out not much more expensive, and sometimes cheaper.)
Again, this depends on your criteria. The hardware is closed, but most of the components are standard off-the-shelf ones. And the core OS is open source -- I should know, I've made a couple of fixes myself (one is apparently in OS X 10.3).
This is a genuine concern. Give Apple a 95% market share, and who knows whether their current drive for compatibility, open standards, and quality would continue? OTOH, MS never had those in mind, even when it was tiny -- it's used predatory and unfair business practices from the word 'Go'.
However, the choice isn't just between one monopoly and another. The chances of OS X gaining 95% market share are tiny, and even a huge Mac purchase won't make that happen. What it will do is help to level the playing field a bit; once people are freer to choose a platform on merit rather than on MS's marketing and legal spend, then everyone benefits. I look for a day when many different platforms each have a reasonable market share.
You and millions of others... But it won't happen, for two reasons. First, economic: unlike MS, Apple is basically a hardware company; their software is often wonderful, but financed from hardware sales, and ultimately drives hardware purchases. To make economic sense, OS X on x86 would have to cost enough to make up for loss of hardware sales, as well as covering the development cost. Which would make it prohibitively expensive.
And second, technical. One of Apple's main selling points is that stuff Just Works(tm). And that's partly because they control the hardware. They know just what hardware they need to support and test against, and integrate the two quite strongly. (For example, look at how long Macs have been able to 'sleep' -- shutting down almost all the hardware, and yet able to wake within a second or two, with all software carrying on perfectly.) Supporting any old x86 hardware -- just like supporting any old PPC hardware -- would either take an unfeasibly large compatibility, testing and drive development department, or leave lots of OS X installations that were a bit flaky, not supporting some hardware and working badly with other. Or, more likely, both.
Why not start wishing for something more realistic? Why do we never hear Windows users saying "MS should port Windows to PPC"...?
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.