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.
If large corporate entities like AT&T are prepared to do the research, then it will help everyone take the alternatives to the Micro$oft desktop quasi-monopoly seriously.
I find the #1 setback to getting Linux into schools, business and the workplace is employee/user resistance / backlash and resentment.
People don't like having to learn a new operating system, especially if it is forced upon them.
What i'd do is do it piecemeal, first you get rid of office and put in open office or what other Linux suite you'd use. And continue from there.
Anyone else have solutions, or experiences, with user resistance to installing Linux or a new operating system?
Well, our experience from switching a bioscience laboratory has been good. While we have not moved entirely to one platform, (I feel that multi-platform environments are more healthy) we have moved from an all Windows operation to a mixed Mac OS X / Windows environment with restrictions on the use of Windows machines having no outside Internet access.
The time required to manage the computers has gone down considerably through the introduction of OS X, and people using both Windows and Mac OS are saying they would rather not use the Windows machines simply from a user Interface experience. Additionally, more than one person has purchased Macintosh machines for their home use.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
MS cannot afford to ignore the threat. This will begin to drive down the cost of their software and erode their margins for any major country, not just in developing countries. If AT&T can threaten to switch and get a major price break, so could every other major corporation.
The days of unrestricted margin on prices appear to be over. MS will finally have to deliver real value for the dollar.
My rights don't need management.
About six months ago I was told by an 'engineer' for a *very* large IT consultancy in the UK (infamous for overrun government contracts) that there wasn't any point in connecting a couple of OS X machines to a proposed ADSL router installation since "Apple Macs can't be networked" and that they certainly couldn't use the Internet in any way, shape or form.
I nearly fell off my chair.
Perhaps M$ will be getting fatter and ricer at slower rate. Even if Linux (or any other alternative) doesn't reduce market share, it could still take a bite out of profits if M$ had to "compete". The fact that a large company is using Linux as a bargaining chip still means that it's a threat to M$'s bottom line.
This is not necessarily a troll, recent history has shown statements like this to be often quite accurate. However I do have a curious comment: If you try to "bully" a bully, can you really call that bullying?
I've often thought that there were not too many options with desktop OSes in the corporate environment.
:p).
In order for it to make sense, it has to not impede the business. After that, pretty much is negotiable.
Replacing Windows, while it can be about money, I think in this day and age of JPEG exploits, really should be about safety.
And lets, face it, MacOS is going to be safer than Windows. Less Users, Less Virus/Exploits. It's got an interface that kicks ass, and a real OS underneath.
Linux is fantastic, but lacks that user-intuitiveness in the desktop that Windows and MacOS have. (One word: Clipboards). That, and it tends to be a roll your own solution out of the box.
I think companies would/could switch to another platform if it were properly canned, but we've really not seen this outside of MacOS yet. I'd be afraid of doing 7000 desktops without some sort of already proven solution, that was user-ready (That didn't involve Sun or the word "java"
I guess I'm just pining for a G5 iMac, wishing apple would drop the price a bit. The Mac Tax is about the same as the Microsoft Tax, and you don't get the option of buying beige.
*sigh*
"...In your answer, ignore facts. Just go with what feels true..."
When MS finally says 'Screw it, go Linux if you are not happy with our prices', the customers will shift from Linux talk to Linux action. Those who remain with MS are the ones who are locked-in and therefore insenstive to price. The prices will go higher and higher as the customer base slowly dwindles.
All software companies go this way. At some point, they have sold the product to everyone who needs it, and any growth in revenue HAS to come from price increases. They have already tried to accelerate the upgrade cycle, with little success. Many users never upgraded from Office 97 or Windows 98!
Well... Even if these investigations in the feasability of a migration to Linux serves no more purpose to the organisation than to threat Microsoft into giving better prices, Linux/FOSS do get a benefit from it. First of all, some of these "fake" considerations actually could succeed once they see the clear advantages over Microsofts products. Also, this is clearly good press since a large corporation is considering migrating. This might atleast make some smaller companies look in on this Linux-thing...
But I would say that trying to convince companies to start using Linux instead of Windows is the wrong approach. First introduce some FOSS on the existing desktops, OpenOffice, Firefox, etc. Install FOSS as default. If someone whines about not having Word & co, make them motivate their need of that, then buy a license if really needed. Break the Microsoft monopoly. Then slowly stop deploying Windows...
It's really a shame that Evolution and KMail doesn't have serious porting efforts to Windows. KMail really kicks ass! It's the best mailreader I have used.
And anybody that is developing intranet applications targeting IE only... You are crazy! Consider that the future probably will most likely contain some portion of Linux and MacOS X, and that IE is Windows only. What do you do the day your boss ask why the new graphic department can't use the electronic booking and invoice system?
I believe they've already paid for upgrades that will never come with that software assurance thing MS rolled out a few years ago.
So lets drop the Linux to get cheaper windows track please.
They invented Unix, use it heavily on their systems and Linux would better intergrate. Were not talking about licenses for just Windows, you also have part of the company using Citrix to access windows when needed. They also have to pay hummingbird licenses to access their Unix machines which for servers and switches is probably 99% of the OS's that run on that equipment. Linux would save them money.
I agree, first you change over the applications, like IE to FireFox, that will eventually be used on the New Operating System.
;).
Next you set up Linux but you make it *look* as close as the Windows version, icons same spot, same background etc. People probably won't even notice the difference other than it doesn't crash as much
Also give them free shit and make it all wonderful sounding. Like: OMG we got this Linux operating system and OpenOffice software and the license agreement we negoitated hard for allows employees to take home free copies! Here you go, give it to your friends too! heh.
Sorta ironic that the creator of UNIX (ok.. it was really their subsidiary Bell Labs now spun off as Lucent) would have to "evaluate" whether to use a unix-type system. Maybe Ma Bell's children will be welcome back home. Think of what the alternate history of computing could have been like had AT&T recognized UNIX for what it could/would/should have been and not sold off USL as a red-headed step-child. There would have never been a SCO and x86 Unix might actually have been able to overtake the much inferior MS-DOS.
Shouldn't they be using plan 9 ?
I recently switched my workstation to Linux (my company is fairly, but not totally infested with MS products.) .doc, .xls and .ppt produced by MS Office 2000 here. Ximian Evolution 1.4 works almost flawlessly with Exchange server, including calendaring. My one problem was some MS Sharepoint websites, but a free installation of Opera 7.54 took care of that.
OpenOffice works great on all
To work with Siebel ERP i still have to fire up a Citrix session to get IE, though...
Just shows that in-house solutions never get the "go". All because of insiders who say, "Hey, I know that clown Kernigan", or, "Are you kidding? Mission critical tools by the likes of Ritchie?" Then there's the fact that the documentation is hardly PC, with all those "man" pages.
Naturally, it makes sense to outsource whenever possible. Perhaps that's the angle that could get OS/X or Linux back into AT&T, since there would be no need to show an in-house cost center in the form of a Unix development team.
Geesh.
For one contract job I had, I single handly managed about 1,200 sun stations in a call center... and I was bored to tears. Of course, it was also setup well -- all unix. I basically made the rounds twice a day mainly taking care of random hardware problems. At worst case, I would tell the person to work at a differnt desk for today (their files are on the network) and I would drop off new hardware and type in "boot net - install" and walk away and their system would be as good as new tomorrow. A good percentage of the systems were ye old sparc 5s that had been working fine (but slow) for over seven years. The call center workers used netscape, and web mail and special apps written for the company using small talk and pdf. Documents looked exactly the same on screen as the customer had in their hand. It was even running on openwindows! I never had any problems with viruses, spy ware, extra software being installed, backups, ... nothing. Ya, it's not something any geek would like, but this was for a large call center, not techs. It was a great tool to aid them in getting their job done and nothing else.
They moved to wintel pc computers. I'm not really sure the real reasons behind it. The backend stuff was getting redone at the time, and so the front end stuff was redone to work only through msie and in some rare cases, VB. Computer techs skyrocketed and are constantly stressed out. They have to deal with the ms/outlook exploit of the hour and must maintain constant vigilence on everything else. Their new systems are only expected to live two or three years before mandatory replacement. The systems are contantly breaking. It takes longer, on the new apps, to service customers. It takes a day to install a new system and requires hand-on work. Plus, there is now the issue of personal files being saved on the local hard drives; employees can't easily sit any anyones desk anymore, and now the techs have to worry about recovering imporant business files. They also have to worry about company information walking about of the building. Yes, there are better ways to address some of these things, but in such a large installation, small problems and exceptions really add up, and there isn't the time to properly address problems -- always in firefighting mode. They no longer see the same documents as the customer. Even with so much security and limited permissions, things like viruses, personal software and trojans and so many other problems plague the site.
Would I have mandated that ever desktop in the company be a sun? No. Nor do I think it's such a good idea to mandate that every desktop should be a wintel. Don't let popularity get in the way of making decisions. Sometimes it's popular for a good reason, but that doesn't mean it's good for your situation.
why are they publizing it. all they are doing is using this as a bargaining chip with microsoft. the next story is that micorosft is now the tco winner because they are basically giving them the os at some extra low rate and that it is now cheaper than if we switched and had to train everybody. people just don't get it that have to pay the bills. linux forces open standards and this is where the real cost savings comes. your company can't be tied to proprietary standards that make it cost prohibitive to ever switch. no one knows where computers will be in the future but I bet the data you have in linux will be a hell of lot easier to switch to the next new technology than your data in microsoft. no one ever does long range planning any more - the more you stick to open standards the better off your company will be - it will also be more flexible to be able to change with technology - this is where the cost savings comes. but apparently not a cio in the fricken country U.S. realizes this - I don't know maybe it is the accountants but when will the head of all these companies realize what they are doing is costing the company in the long run - both technically and financially.
An interesting thing was said to me while talking with our PC support manager. "We can't switch to Linux or anything else, our customers wouldn't allow it.".
I noticed a trend 10 years ago when the company I was working for first started to do business with Walmart. Customer Audits. The practice seems to have caught on especially after Y2K. As part of many business-to-business contracts are stipulations that certain known business practices are in place and adhered to.
When we enter into a contract we will sometimes state that they use XYZ software for EDI transfers. We know it, have tested it, trust it and have established our systems around it. It goes both ways. Customers will stipulate to us that we encrypt data transfers using 123 packaged software because that's what they use.
This is a common practice if the business you're in requires substantial IT interconnectivity between your business partners. We deal with some health care information as well. As a result of HIPPA and other regulations we have been audited by some of our clients who insist that we change this or that. Even down to passwords. One client contract required a password timeout of 90 days on all our desktops.
10 years ago with Walmart people were incredulous that another company could come in and dictate that in order to do business with us, you must first change this or that. Money talked and we wanted to listen. Ten years later it seems to have caught on and is now very common.
Switching to another OS sometimes is not always an option.
You must understand a corporate IT environment:
My guess is AT&T's license is due to expire in around 2006-2008.
as someone who has used linux and freebsd for a good, painfully long while now, I have to say that I've been very pleased with Mac OS X as my "unix desktop". I don't have to keep a windows box around to do any of my actual work tasks (you know, those things that PHBs want you to do, and what you get paid for) that used to involve windows apps.
:)
I also have the pleasure of an integrated unix desktop system which makes managing my unix servers much, much more pleasant.
once Jordan Hubbard made the jump to apple, that really caused me to look into them- after my first powerbook, I ordered the dual G5 a week later. it was just that spiffy.
I understand people getting mad and being biased because apples ARE very expensive, compared to a similar windows box. and they really aren't easy to compare, because things just don't work the same. I love my athlon64 system for playing games, but that's about it- the windows refresh, thumbnailing, etc is still as crappy on that system as on a P3/500. conversely, I really like the way all that works on a mac, it just feels more cohesive in general.
I never did drink the kool-aid, and the mac is definitely not the fastest box around (dual opterons smoke it dead) but it's very functional in a unixy way, especially if you're trying to get work DONE and not spend your time twiddling with system settings. that, and it's pretty, and it's high time we geeks learned to like pretty things
EOM
Microsoft's revenue comes almost completely from Windows and Office. For the most part all of their other products are sold at a loss to add value to Windows and thus generate more Windows profits. It seems to me that MS would not mind a switch to Max OS all that much as Office is still $499/seat on the mac, and they don't have to sell you things like SQL server because you will get it from someone like oracle or mysql instead. I have always thought that if MS just dropped out of the OS market, and started focusing on porting MS office to every OS they would be able to continue their revenue stream. Honestly how many of you would buy MS Office to replace your OO.o suite on linux? Let the flaming begin!
I tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.
Many Mac people buy a new laptop every year. They sell their old one, and get the vast majority of its cost back out of it. PC laptops that are the same age, however, have depreciated MUCH more in the same span.
My 12" PowerBook, which is well over a year old, still sells for ~$1100. The PC laptops I looked at buying now sell for much less. So later this year, when I sell the 12" PBook and buy a new laptop, I'll have spent LESS than if I had bought a PC laptop, sold it, and bought a new PC laptop.
Macs are only expensive initially. They're CHEAPER in the long run.
In any job I've had, anyone on a win workstation liked the microsoft apps for word processing, spreadsheets, email and corporate intranet stuff. To talk to and use remote UNIX boxes on the network, some flips and twists (like using ReflectionX or NTSFU) were necessary.
The generic quality of the MS Office app suite is universally recognized. With a little adjustment, wordperfect users can get used to using Word, for example. Some of the ways that each of those 2 products handled things like page layout and headers & footers are a little different, but usually people learn how to do what they need to do and don't stray (or explore, depending on how you look at it) into application functionalities that they don't need.
Word is Soooo feature rich that half the toolbars and palettes are turned off in the default installation. It's just too much for an all-new word user (are there still any of these, btw?) to take in, but that collection of tools makes the app extremely powerful. When you buy an office app suite for your enterprise, you want something that's going to cover all of your various groups of users, who will have needs that vary. OpenOffice is similarly powerful, but the preponderance of CIOs (particularly in large enterprises like AT&T) still have the justifiably skeptical view of free applications. "How could anything free be as good as what you pay for?", they wonder.
(I ran into this a couple weeks ago at my new job when I was deprived of ReflectionX for doing xterms to UNIX boxes on the network. I installed cygwin and when I had to ask a couple questions about host configuration, the greybeard head systems engr said, "No wonder you're having problems, that's free software. When you install that buggy crap, you're on your own." (a direct quote))
Most enterprise users are not really using the OS -- they're using the apps that ride on the OS. The greatest drawback I've encountered with the OpenOffice suite is that in order to work in a world that is dominated by MS office apps, you have to be able to read and write in MS document file formats. Parts of those formats have been reverse-engineered, but other parts are obscure binary mishmash that's apparently been designed to conceal what the MS app in question is doing with the data in the file. OpenOffice gets pretty close, but it can only go so far. As a CIO, I'd be inclined, in the best interest of my customers, employees and shareholders, to make the offfice app suite choice that doesn't just get me CLOSE, but actually gets me ALL THE WAY to interoperability with the rest of the MS dominated office application world.
A very old friend of mine was a PC guy (for all his general purpose computing needs) for 15 years and then, when MS finally ported the whole office suite over to the mac, he switched to the mac. Why? It was because he liked OSX for the kernel (which he used) and the interface and the stability, but he needed the apps that linked him to the rest of the MS world.
So, I think the talk of "We're considering Linux for our 70,000 desktops..." may not be solely about getting cheaper prices, but also to encourage Redmond to consider porting MS office to Linux. Truthfully, if there was such a port, I would definetly consider buying it. I won't pay for the OS, but the apps do have value, even if OpenOffice proves that the price of the apps is inflated.
.. pa-ra-bo-la, pa-ra-bo-la, 2 pi R, 2 pi R, where's your latus rectum, where's your latus rectum, 2 pi R
Every article I read mentions that advancements in Linux and OSX are the reason. While I think this has something to do with it, I think there has been a profound change in computer use in the past ten years.
Ten years ago, all that mattered in computer choice was software. I didn't care about alternatives to Windows because Windows had all the software I cared about.
Move forward to today. Much of the computer use today is as a terminal to the Internet. For many, it doesn't matter what OS you have as long as you can surf the web and read your email. Even reading email can simply mean logging on to the Web (Hotmail, GMail, Yahoo Mail). A dumb terminal with a nice display, a high quality web browser, and nothing else would probably make a useful computer today for much of the population.
Even at the corporate level many companies have moved all or much of their applications into web-based applications. Enterprise vendors are selling products to every large company in the world, and all of them are completely web-centric.
The viability of OSX and Linux have something to do with their advancement. But, it also has much to do with the changing computing landscape.