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?
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...
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.
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.
It makes a difference.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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!
[0]: There seems to be a "hierarchy of Dumb" when it comes to email attachments. The Dumb Rules of Thumb:
.DOC, it's more Dumb.
.XLS, it's probably even more useless and Dumb.
.PPT, chances are it's insanely Dumb.
If the information comes in the body of an email, chances are it's least Dumb.
If it's HTML encoded into the email, it's usually a bit more Dumb.
If it comes as a word
If it comes as a
If it comes as a
Next time you're at the office going through your email, think about it. The most insanely stupid stuff you get is probably powerpoint slides (and chances are, could have been done just as well in plain-text email and gotten the point across...) and the few useful pieces of email you get are probably unhindered by any sort of encoding...
-JDF
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 hear the term "total cost of ownership" a lot--especially from the microsoft camp--but have any of these large corporations (or even smaller ones) considered the personnel issues that may arise from a mass migration?
;even migrating just the *server infrastructure* of their corporation to a GNU/Linux or OS X based architecture would mean that those network and system administrators--the most technologically savvy user group--would have to know those architectures fairly well, right? what about the end users?
;what i have found in my experience is that those in the IT industry who know microsoft products, know *only* MS products, and most are uncomfortable with the idea of and form of UNIX--beit BSD, or Linux kernel based.
;but have companies such as AT&T or the like taken this into consideration: that many of their MS knowledgeable IT staff may not know Unix systems, care to, or even be *capable* of learning them?
; i am not attempt to bait anyone. i am a part of the aforementioned group of MS administrators. but while i know that products such as GNU/Linux and Mac OS X may be better--in may ways--am i really prepared to migrate to these products when my IT staff may not be capable enough to administer them? am i considering my "total total cost of ownership?" and if they *aren't* ready, are they prepared to pay for their training in order to get of the microsoft merry-go-round? let's hope so.
;treehead
"If any part Linux was stolen, then Windows was the biggest heist in history."
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 think every company that has a significant investment in MS software says they're investigating alternatives. It's part of the corporate negotiating dance. AT&T at least gets the luxury of receiving headlines for talking about it. Yes it's a bargaining chip for AT&T and yes AT&T will probably get a small "discount" from MS the next time their contract comes due for re-signing. Will they move away from MS solutions? I doubt it. Microsquish knows what a huge pain in the butt it is to re-deploy all of the desktops in an organization of that size and they know this is all just negotiating rhetoric from AT&T.
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.
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.
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.
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
A technically proficient geek will tell you that operating systems and the applications that you install on them are very complex bundles of libraries and processes, all intercommunicating with each other and controlling hardware. That's the same whether you use OS X, Windows or Linux.
A marketing person will get a pretty looking front end put onto the whole thing to give the appearance of simplicity to the end user. However, in reality, the whole thing has become a lot more complex just to hide having to manually edit configuration files behind a few mouse clicks.
In my experience, most Linux users can fix any problems they encounter on their Linux boxes, the same cannot be said for Windows users - worse still, if the Registry corrupts and you don't have a backup, the whole Windows installation has to blown away.
My personal feeling is that if you don't understand a bit about how a computer works, you don't use one, end of story. No different to driving a car, understanding how the controls work and how you need to change the oil and pump up the tyres occasionally.
The fact is that NO computer is easy to use and maintain - Microsoft have chosen to use "ease of use" as marketing hype to sell more of their products which the general cattle populace has fallen for hook, line and sinker.
And just to give you a final example, I'm Red Hat Certified, I'm UNIX certified, I've worked with both and with Windows for years. Last weekend I had a look at an XP problem on a friend's machine and I found the whole interface cluttered and totally unusable. IMHO, XP is a bloated, confusing excuse for an operating system that has proven just how off-track Microsoft are, when Windows 2000 actually started to give the impression they were finally beginning to get things right.
I'm a Linux user and Open Source proponent but I don't want unknowledgeable people using it - the UNIX mentality is to treat all users like adults and make them responsible for their actions; Windows is like an alcoholic parent that holds the users hands some of the time but then suddenly lashes them about the head when it feels like it.
All I need now is for the Joe Public users to be given their own virus-infested part of the Internet to run their Windows boxes on so that I don't suffer slow downs because of their stupidity and I'll be happy.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
"My personal feeling is that if you don't understand a bit about how a computer works, you don't use one, end of story. No different to driving a car, understanding how the controls work and how you need to change the oil and pump up the tyres occasionally."
Um, while I sympathise I'd like to point out that as far as analogies go, every service station will check your tyres and oil for you. Which leaves knowing "how the controls work".
Which is what is expected from and known by most users.
Substitute if you will service station for tech support or IT.
What is currently expected with most Linux distro's is oh say changing air filter, battery and occasionally assembling the engine. Cool if you know how to, a waste of time if your job only needs you to, you know, drive in a profitable way...
Depending on the skill and capacity of tech support, Linux may be great for the work place. I'm not sure if it'd be that much cheaper than mac's, hardware being such a small factor and all that, and I presume companies of that size already have the IT in place for good servicing, and I bet IT would be happier to support Linux than Windows already.
But given the fact that lots of technical people still think training is the solution to bad design and some even loath solving users' problems, I think that Linux could be a strain on relationships inside the company.
Gut feeling tells me OS X would still be a lot easier to service, with a lot less to explain and train (as if that has solved anything ever) and would get more um mileage as it were.
I think, therefore I am...I think.
The big irony about the "Mac is a toy" myth is that the one field where Macs really do have a shortage of apps is games.
So the one thing the Macintosh is really not suitable for is as a toy.
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.