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.

Comments

Can't be anything but a good thing

[Cybertect]

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.

Consideration - Employee Resistance

[Famatra]

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?

Re:Consideration - Employee Resistance

[Apreche]

Yeah, at first people don't like being forced to learn it. What you have to do is not put it on their computers, but show it to them on another computer. Let them see and experience the advantages of this system over the other. Migrate people who don't mind. Eventually the people who don't will watch the people who did. The people who did was be like "oh, its so fast, oh it never crashes". Then when it becomes popular people will go over in droves.

When you just stand there telling them the reasons its better they zone you out and don't listen. You're a computer guy talking about computer stuff they don't care to understand. But once they experience how much better it is, they want more. This is why Firefox is so successful. The difference in the immediate experience is so drastically and obviously superior to IE that people who use it for a few minutes and know how to effectively use tabs never go back.

People are skeptical and cautious about moving to a new technology unless they see an obvious benefit. But when people have already moved forward to a new technology and have experienced the obvious benefit it is impossible to move them backwards to something less convenient.

The only problem is that having a few linux boxes here, and a few windows boxes there makes the sys admins job not so good.

Re:Consideration - Employee Resistance

[TykeClone]

Somewhere between steps 2 and 3, you need to address those applications that must be run under Windows. At work, I've got three of them that I can think of, and there are no linux based alternatives for them.

I think that this is the same in many industries - most of the basic stuff (web browsing and office stuff) you can easily move. When you get to your industry specific stuff that was written in .NET and uses Internet Explorer as an integral part of the application, then you run into a little trouble moving.

Re:Consideration - Employee Resistance

[ender-]

I didn't even get as far as showing them linux. I work in a small office [10 ppl]. I had to re-install Windows XP for our receptionist. I installed Firefox and Thunderbird to replace Outlook and IE. I've been getting people one at a time to try it out, to see how it goes over and I thought since I was setting up her machine from scratch, I might as well try her next.
She wanted nothing to do with it. She used it for half a day, and wanted Outlook/IE back. The only functionality that was "lost" was a task-list from Outlook, which I was in the process of looking for a standalone replacement for, but she decided she hated Firefox/Thunderbird. She didn't really have any valid reasons, just some mumbling about the web-page colors not showing up right [uh, yeah whatever].

The other person I have using Firefix/Thunderbird has no problems at all. She likes it and has come to love the Tabbed browsing. :)

So you will definitely find people who are against ANY sort of changes. God-forbid they have to learn anything new.

DT

Re:Consideration - Employee Resistance

[mchawi]

If I go and show someone my version of XP at home - it runs fast and hasn't crashed in two years (believe it or not). If I show them Linux on my other computer - it also runs fast and hasn't crashed.

Know what most people notice if I show them both?

XP has prettier colors. I kid you not. I never know quite what to say to that. It does sort of illustrate though that better technology is NOT going to mean Linux is deployed everywhere. You have to understand that the typical non-geek does not think like we do. You and I will be in awe about some new technological marvel. A user will be in awe by moving icons and brighter colors.

Not to say that all users are like that, but I'm always surprised by how many people on here think that technology will make Linux 'win' more home market share.

This is the same group of people that voted for President in 2000 - and when CNN interviewed a group of undecided voters, several of them said they were voting for Bush because they liked his tie.

So my proposal? Linux needs brighter colors. That will give it market share, and could eventually lead to Tux being elected President.

The CIO is smart. Nothing special

[Jarnis]

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...

70,000 PCs not 7,000

[hey]

It makes a difference.

Mac's lowest cost of ownership, ease of use

[Anonymous Coward]

Flame me if you wish, but it's true.

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/screensh ot.jpg

It's time to give Apple a shot, dam that John Scully!

One of the toughest things, I think...

[foxtrot]

blocking Linux on the desktop in the workplace is internal web sites.

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 .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 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.

Options.

[His name cannot be s]

I've often thought that there were not too many options with desktop OSes in the corporate environment.

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" :p).

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*

Re:Our experience

[Zemplar]

"...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!