Slashdot Mirror
Part II: Corp. Desktop Linux - The Hard Truth
comforteagle writes "I've published Part II of W. McDonald Buck's essay on Linux TCO. In it he looks at the scenario of a company having already moved to Linux in the server room and also to open source software on Windows desktops, but "...now wants to know, how much extra can be saved by the final step of changing the operating system itself? And, what are the other costs, risks and benefits of doing that. To keep the scenario simple, we're assuming too that this will be done at a time when the desktop equipment is also being replaced. The news is good, but not as good as we like to believe." Part I was discussed previously on Slashdot."
Article text, in case of slashdotting:
Part II: Corporate Desktop Linux - The Hard Truth
Enterprise Linux / Article
Date: Feb 11, 2005 - 06:39 AM
by W. McDonald Buck (slashdotting-resistant version)
In Part I (of IV) of Corporate Desktop Linux: The CTO's Hard Truth retired CTO of World Bank W. McDonald Buck wrote about the difficulty of making accurate real world assessments of Linux vs Windows TCO analyses: If Windows laden computers are less expensive or equal vs. no OS in cost for Joe Hacker.. where's the savings for a large buyer who gets a volume discount? In this, Part II, he addresses the hard cost savings for companies of switching the desktop operating system, as distinct from the applications, as he sees it.
Part II: The Hard Cost Savings of Corporate Desktop Linux
A number of cost studies have been published. In addition to their biases and their other flaws, they generally evaluate replacing both servers and desktops with Linux. There is no question that Linux is successful in the server market, where almost any fair analysis concludes it will save money. This article focuses exclusively on the desktop side of the equation, since for a decision maker, these can easily be separated into separate business decisions.
A different way of framing the question will help get at this. Say a smart company makes the decision to save a lot of money by moving all its servers to Linux. Many have begun doing so. And of course you don't have to change operating systems to save money on applications. The press is full of reports of people dumping Internet Explorer for Firefox. Switching from Office to OpenOffice for all but the most demanding users is a smart move with a high payoff. Having done those things, the company now wants to know, how much extra can be saved by the final step of changing the operating system itself? And, what are the other costs, risks and benefits of doing that. To keep the scenario simple, we're assuming too that this will be done at a time when the desktop equipment is also being replaced.
The news is good, but not as good as we like to believe.
We know that Windows costs money, and we believe that overall, a Linux desktop must cost less. If this is so, why is the cost benefit analysis unable to sway more migration on the desktop? Part of the reason is that switching the operating system is a more drastic step, precisely because it forces the migration of all the applications at the same time, increasing the switching costs. The hard truth is that for the majority of the desktop market, the capturable, present value cost advantage to the operating system change (as distinguished from the other changes) doesn't seem to outweigh the costs and risks of doing it, unless you put a high value on the benefits of Linux. Those benefits, which are so compelling to us, are not compelling to the target audience. This article explores the hard dollar cost side of this heretical assertion. A follow-up article looks at the benefit side.
Before getting to the analysis, I want to also briefly pay homage to the idea of changing the whole computing model, as many suggest, to more of a thin-client central server architecture. I think companies will increasingly do this, but corporate environments change slowly, and for many of them this is a big change. In large part this whole series is about pressing for the winnable victories first, rather than the more radical changes. Since thin-client looks like a more radical change to the corporate world, I'm going to stick with analyzing the less radical move, acknowledging that the other may be a big win if it can be sold.
As a point of reference I'll use the 2004 update of the TCO analysis done by Cybersource Pty. Ltd, entitled Linux vs. Windows, Total Cost of Ownership Comparison (.pdf). This is a very pro-Linux report (egregiously so in my view). Unfortunately, I found a number of errors (11), including 5 pretty obvious arithmetic or transcription errors. Still it has the virtues of trying t
I didn't start looking into this recently. But is it really impossible to: (1) encode MP3s and AACs, (2) render text using TrueType kerning tables, or (3) take advantage of subpixel rendering, on Linux desktops, without breaking patent laws? With all the hype surrounding Linux on the desktop, I have trouble believing these common activities could be illegal, but nor have I seen anything indicating otherwise. What's the deal?
(And please, no Stallmanesque rants about how intellectual property should be abolished. I don't have the patience for these ill-conceived prescriptive arguments.)
How necessary are these activities on a corporate desktop? Are they worth the IP hassle to implement on a office desktop?
Microsoft's current inability to handle security issues is much more persuasive. Linux advocates should focus on that, instead of beating a dead horse.
One way to aproach this situation is to put a large multi-user box in each individual department or workgroup. Keep the windows desktops there, add X-servers, and run some apps centrally.
If the question is licensing, a net-booted corporate (Linux/FreeBSD/NetBSD) desktop wouldn't be too difficult. Run locally what the machine can handle, make sure the network is super fast, and run the apps requiring performance on the workgroup server.
This would reduce the need to upgrade lots of hardware (which will surely be obsolete again soon) and minimize downtime in the process. If need be, some legacy apps could survive under Wine locally or, again, at the workgroup server. Keep storage centralized to facilitate backups across the entire organization (OpenAFS?).
It's an old way of doing things but overlooked far too often. You've obviously got to run the numbers but, surely, "a few good men" handling things on the server (they would handle the app server AND the centralized, consistent-across-the-organization, netboot image(s)) would be much less expensive than the workload on an IT staff required by an office full of people and their problems on Windows machines.
Maybe not *THE* solution, but certainly worth a look for many.
It did seem offtopic at first... but...
:)
Out of the 3 you mentioned, subpixel rendering is actually the one I was thinking could prove most useful in a corporate environment. It *does* help, and with the number of LCDs making their way onto desktops today, this feature would benefit free systems (free system users) in a big way.
Whether or not the boss will take your eyestrain into consideration when choosing a business platform is another question altogether....
Right now you are not likely to save a huge amount of money dropping Windows. The big savings will come from dropping Office for OpenOffice, dropping Outlook for Thunderbird and IE for Firefox. Once you are not tied to Windows only apps then you are free to move to an other OS easily. Be it Linux or Mac.
It is a matter of freedom.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
How much and in what ways can a switch improve employee productivity? The author makes a valid point that the 100k saved is minimal in transitioning the OS, but anyone seriously looking to promote Linux from within must be prepared with a host of reasons that translate into a more productive employee. Saving money on IT operations is one thing, but one can be quick to lose sight of the function of computers in the workplace-- make smarter decisions faster.
I get the suspicion that part IV will be the article that discusses this.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
My definition of "real world assessment" is a case study of a real business operation. These dueling sets of hypothetical numbers pulled out of various zealots' butts strike me as completely pointless.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
The "good enough" argument is dead, because the spyware crisis has made it abundantly clear that Windows security is anything but. When somebody sits down at their computer and finds it unusable because there are thousands of spyware programs running, security stops being something they can put off dealing with.
You talk about MS's "public moves to improve the security of Windows" as if it was something they just got around to, and will quickly succeed at. The truth is, they've been fighting a losing battle against their security problems for a couple years now. But the same mismanagement that created the problem is making it very hard for them to respond. So not only do they have security problems they never should have had, they have security patches that are buggy, slow to be released, and not compatible with many existing systems!
My claim that Microsoft is mismanaged might seem insane. They're the biggest, most profitable high tech venture ever. How can they be mismanaged? But those profits mostly come from dependable revenue streams they accidentally created over 20 years ago. Most especially, everbody who buys a PC has pay them a tithe. No matter how many mistakes they make, they will continue to make money. Until they screw up so badly, nobody can fool themselves into thinking that MS software is "good enough".
And possibly that day is here. Which is why Linux adovcates should focus on Microsoft's inescapable mistakes, not trying to fight old battles Microsoft has long since won.
We're about 80 machines including 10-ish servers, almost all MS except the firewall thats OpenBSD, and a specialized Unixware box that cant be touched. Two apps are really keeping us from a 100% Linux rollout, Lotus Notes and the ERP software. The ERP company has promised linux binaries, and we've seen some test cases, but thats about it. Please dont ask us about iNotes, we use Notes far too heavily to attempt that (and we have).
So we're just keeping a hopeful eye out, especially on Lotus Notes, and the desktop distros. The server bases are covered, between SuSE, samba and sybase, a majority of our operations can be moved. What we want from the desktop distros is that it should look and feel a LOT like the windows NT/2000/XP interface. Notes shouldnt be hard to port at all, its all java based anyway, IBM is dragging its feet for linux there, despite some customers asking for it.
We'll probably not be the first to go all Linux (or FreeBSD, or BeOS, or SkyOS, or ReactOS etc), but its interesting to know how far in the future we can expect it.
Complaints:
(1) Theres no single Linux distro that really looks and feels like win32. Training dozens of people to use a different interface from what theyve been using for 10 years, is something we cant stomach. Tried Fedora3 and Xandros, will try Linspire soon.
(2) Application seriousness. Everything is made for win32 first, betas appear for linux and stay beta. That doesnt fly with corporate networks. We need a FEW critical app vendors to really support Linux, once the market floats, the rest will follow suit.
(3) $$$ and energy. It takes a LOT to switch ERP systems. Takes a LOT to replace network system. Takes far more to replace everything. Sure we can do it in steps, but collectively the steps are all manhours to attain OSS nirvana, but not profit in the short term. We cant just aim for everything free, somehow, in some ways, theres still a difference between debian and readhat. things get patched in redhat and developers have to listen and work. With debian, the design and philosophy is awesome, but you cant really ASK a developer to fix that bug that is stopping your company. He'll just say fix it yourself.
(4) Assurance. Not an issue since our mgmnt hates MS, have hated it since the DEC days (which is why we ended up with lotus instead of exchange).
So we're all getting closer to the 'threshold', still not there yet.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
The author talks about the OS transition being "risky". In what way?
The servers and desktop OS are changes that the user is not much concerned with. It is changing the applications which impacts the users. Once you have changed the application set to one that is not windows dependent I have trouble believing that changing the underlying OS would have much impact at all. Basically being able to get rid of the OS fees is an inherient benefit to getting rid of OS dependent applications. After that the workstation OS can be changed at will without significant retraining of users.
Like the servers, the users do not interact with the OS directly, only with the application icons on their desktop.