Slashdot Mirror
Windows to Linux Migration in the Enterprise?
youngerpants asks: "There is a lot of talk at the moment about migrating applications from WIN32 to Linux. This certainly helps move the OSS movement along, however, the true test of Linux is in the enterprise. Whereas we can move applications, how can the enterprise itself (such as Active Directory to Open LDAP, Exchange Server to Sendmail and NTFS to Samba) be moved.
Have Slashdot readers used any applications or followed any strategies to migrate their enterprise? How would you tackle an obviously risky migration?"
"Active Directory to Open LDAP, Exchange Server to Sendmail and NTFS to Samba"
I understand the gist of your question, although I don't think you understand it yourself. None of your examples actually discuss the one thing the enterprise is interested in: "Functional Parity"
AD to OpenLDAP doesn't go, because OpenLDAP is just a directory protocol -- I wish people would start to understand that. There is no directly usable management interface, no business logic, no nothing. It is just a protocol....
Comparing Exchange Server and Sendmail earns you a good thwapping over the head in my team -- maybe Exchange Server vs. Open-Exchange, but again you are comparing the wrong things. Finally, go stand in the corner for comparing NTFS with Samba.
I usually don't complain about Ask Slashdot type stuff, but this takes the cake. Go learn something about IT before you ask stupid questions.
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.
Very small...
Individual Pockets -> Workgroup -> Departmental -> Enterprise
As much as I love open source and think it provides tremendous value to organizations, I have to realistically evaluate any large migration and observe two obvious points:
1) It's different. There will be people who will not want to see it succeed. You will need to PROVE that the functionality provided is SUPERIOR and that the cost of migrating is overcome by the reduced ongoing TCO.
2) Is your organization ready to provide the level of support it has become accustomed too? Are you a MS Enterprise or Select customer? You need to prepare for the fact that to some extent the warm fuzzy blanket of misleading comfort is being pulled away from the organization.
I would NOT begin by migrating something. I would begin by looking for a new unit, group, or area of the business. New is much easier to accomplish than migrate.
Finally, if you are a hardcore MS shop, the financial pitch to MGT can be the leverage that doing something small can provide in price / service negotiations.
Nowdays, with all this "Get the facts" FUD, the Free Software comunity reacts trying to show that it's not true that migration is a nightmare, and that it's not true that it costs money. The true is, Migration from ANY system to ANY other system, is a nightmare, and it does cost money.
The point we should make clear is: Migrating from Windows to Unix Is a good decition (I Say Unix to make clear that i'm not talking about Freedom or ethical or monetary issues, just about the technical stuff) and it will make things just easier and safer in the long run. Technically, there is no possible discussion.
About non-technicall stuff: Microsoft insists in their "get the facts" bullshit that if you use windows you can hire incompetent sysadmins, and with Unix, you can't. It's just not a good idea to hire incompetent people. Hire a good sysadmin, and pay him well, what do you prefere, to pay thousands to a big monopoly for the right to copy, or pay a worker for actual honest work??
ALMAFUERTE
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
If you want to do it all-in-one over-the-night type push, you're very likely to fail. Or at least your users will kill you.
Also, you may (or may not) hit many little annoying details that would make you belive m$ fud more and more.
I've been trough two migrations now and what i learned is this: go easy, keep the existing systems in place for their forseeable lifetime (dont fix if it's not broken approach), implement OSS stuff only for new services and gradually replace old systems with newer, running OSS. In a timeframe of 2-5 years or so.
Sadly, Linux just isn't there yet when it comes to enterprise IT. Unless you're rolling your own core business applications, you're pretty much stuck with Windows. Want to run an integrated payroll/HRIS system from a shrinkwrapped package? No luck with Linux.
Further, IMO, while Suse's OpenExchange appears to be a compelling package (which I'd love to deploy in lieu of Exchange Server), I've had a very difficult time finding a local 3rd party vendor to support it.
The point of my post is not to denigrate Linux. I am generally a Linux advocate, and will still deploy it wherever it is practical (practical being the operant word here). The issue, however, is that much of these services are inside of niche markets where it doesn't make sense for the vendor to develop Linux support. Others are very bleeding edge and not commercially supported. If you don't have a very large IT department to support the services that you want to run, they're nearly useless -- that is, unless you've got gobs of free time on your hands.
OTOH; if you're rolling a custom app (and thus already have the staff you need), need a webserver, or a database backend, Linux may be an excellent choice. One way to look into it is to find out how Linux is most widely deployed and supported as a solution (ie web servers, database backends, etc). If you go the other way, choosing whatever solution you find that's "out there", you may find yourself in a heap of trouble -- looking for a new job. I supppose that this applies to all software, commercial or otherwise. Always ensure that you can support it...but it's something that one has to be especially cautious about when getting into a bleeding edge F/OSS package that is new enough where there is either no commercial support, or inadequate support for your needs...and unfortunately, there are currently quite a few of these out there.
-Turkey
>The only places that can really migrate to Linux en-masse are places like call-centers where computers are used for specific and rigid purposes.
:)
Yes. And when 50% of the company is on linux, then what?
The key is to make your applications fully web-based and be os-agnostic. There are three main reasons companies even look to replace their existing systems:
* Cost, short term and long term.
* Increased functionality.
* Effective staffing.
Right now linux provides visible short-term cost. Also, it can provide some long-term cost saving but that's more fuzzy.
On functionality, the gaming world will tell you going away from windows is a step back. I think you gain some and you lose some, so wash.
Staffing: You need fewer people but you have to pay them more.
My horrible analogy: 400 day laborers with pickaxes or 1 highly paid driver in a Komatsu D575A-2SD.
> The places that have successfully transitioned to Linux (federal labs, Burlington Coat Factory, City of Largo, small companies) were either established Unix shops already or started with small or completely disorganized IT organizations.
Most companies have completely disorganized IT organizations, so that's actually good for future open-source adoption prospects
"Piter, too, is dead."
I've always been curious about this. I love Linux, but one of the areas where I think it is sorely lacking is in file system permissions flexibility. For example, if I had a folder and wanted the following in Linux, how could I do it?
MKTG group = rwx
DEV group = r
EXEC group = r
ADVERT group = rx
ADMINS group = rw
Is there a way to do this in Linux? I have no idea. It has always been my understanding that I'm stuck with UGO and sitcky bits for permissions. Is this entirely true or is there another way.
If you mod me down, I shall become less powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Realistically this just doesn't work because the overall best integrated system is still windows. Linux may be cheaper on a per seat basis but when you consider how many people are required to keep the systems running it becomes less and less clear that Linux us the way to go.
Benjamin Arai http://www.benjaminarai.com
i cant agree with you on this one. at worst linux would require the same amount of people required to run windows system. it also helps that linux is much better at being remotely administrated (SSH/Commandline is much more efficient than Terminal Services). only reason i can think of linux requiring more people is because the admins arent properly trained.