Cisco IT Manager Targeting 70% Linux

RMX writes "LinuxWorld Australia has an interesting article discussing Linux Desktop adoption in Cisco. Cisco "already converted more than 2,000 of its engineers to Linux desktops...plans to move many laptop users to the platform over the next few years...the driver for Linux on the desktop is not cost savings, but easier support. Manning estimates that it takes a company approximately one desktop administrator to support 40 Windows PCs, while one administrator can support between 200 and 400 Linux desktops.'"

Comments

40:1 ?

[Heem]

Ha, 40:1 ratio for desktop support personell for windows? Tell that to alot of IT managers, in particular, my former employer. Try 200:1

Re:40:1 ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll admit I am no fan of Windows, but 40:1 does sound off. I support users coast to coast at 24 different divisions, and we too are closer to 200:1.

However, I do also support a number of Linux/FreeBSD servers and think they are much less trouble. Also, have heard admins on both systems who say they support thousands of systems.

Re:40:1 ?

[Heem]

Remember too, they are talking desktops, not servers. My previous position, I had 3 guys supporting 400 desktops and about 200 servers, that in addition to admin voice over IP and 3 locations. ugh. Kinda takes the sting out of my had being laid off. My new job I have no desktops to contend with and only about 50 servers.. for more money. ;-)

Re:40:1 ?

[Radical Rad]

Ha, 40:1 ratio for desktop support personell for windows?

I used to work in an all-microsoft shop back when Nt4 was new and at that time the ratio for us was about 20-30 users to 1 support person. However we did more than just helpdesk support. But when I left to come to a NetWare shop I was amazed at how many more users were being supported per number of IT people. It was at least triple. And to top it off, at the NetWare shop we are responsible for much more than at the other place. In addition to data we also handle phone and security and support users at remote locations. So I think the ratio will differ from company to company depending on various things but I know from experience that Windows is support intensive.

Re:40:1 ?

[Wateshay]

It probably depends a lot on the type of user that you're supporting. Supporting secretaries who do nothing but type and send email is going to be a lot easier than supporting engineers who have use a wide variety of software requirements, push their computers hard, and often need new software products installed.

Re:40:1 ?

[flithm]

All of you people who are balking at the 40:1 ration need to grow up. No offense to you or your little piddly-ass companies, but this is an article about Cisco.

Every company is different, and I guarantee you most of the people at Cisco are doing a hell of a lot more interesting things that answering email, writing word documents, and scheduling meetings.

You really have to consider all the factors involved, of which we don't have many, so if the IT manager at Cisco says he need 1 support person for every 40 machines, he's probably not lying.

Maybe instead of merely slamming his numbers you could try to extrapolate and learn from.

Re:40:1 ?

[unoengborg]

Yes, 40:1 ratio for windows sounds a bit pessimistic. But so does 400:1 for Linux. I have seen installations with 10 times as many users per sysadmin both in the windows and the Linux case.

I suppose it's all about what level of service you want to provide to your users. The basic message that Linux is easier to admin still holds true though.

Re:40:1 ?

[Spoing]

1. Ha, 40:1 ratio for desktop support personell for windows? Tell that to alot of IT managers, in particular, my former employer. Try 200:1

40:1 actually seems high if you take into account the time spent by informal power users.

Though I'm not (officially) an admin on this contract, I am pulled in frequently to handle problems with systems...nearly always Windows 2000 and XP. The Linux systems are almost(!) drop and forget. Not as ignorable as Netware, though much more adaptable.

Re:40:1 ?

[LnxAddct]

It really depends on the company and skill level of the admin. The typical person on slashdot is not the typical windows admin. I've seen plenty of shops where the ratio was as low as 1:12 and the admins were still freaking out and had no idea how to handle themselves. On a side note however, not only is the ratio of admin to user better for linux because of easy administration tools and things that just work(tm) but its also much easier to just say "okay here is your home directory, have fun" Lock them from the rest of the system (every distro I've seen does this by default more or less). Do an incremental rsync of their home directories everynight and if something ever goes wrong just delete their home and replace it with a good copy. The nice thing about linux is that once it gets running, it stays running. This is from experience of setting up shops with Fedora or Red Hat Enterprise Desktop depending on their needs and level of necessary suport etc...
Regards,
Steve

Re:40:1 ?

[zulux]

In my experience, the engineers are fine but it's the secretaries who cause all the fuss - getting viruses from their Hotmail account, clicking yes to popups etc...

If the company can stomach the up front costs for locking down the systems - then yes their ok, and the engineers need more help, but for smaller companies that are more reactive, the AIM using, Arery form printing, spyware downloading secretaries are a pain in the butt.

Re:40:1 ?

[rtphokie]

Yup, it's the secretaries and managers (the higher they are, the worse the problems) that cause the trouble. Unlike engineers, they the ones who get most of the viruses. The secretaries and managershey are the ones that are least able help themselves.

Re:40:1 ?

[captwheeler]

so if the IT manager at Cisco says he need 1 support person for every 40 machines, he's probably not lying.

Because no manager ever fudges the staff numbers to make a case, right?

Re:40:1 ?

[cduffy]

Do an incremental rsync of their home directories everynight and if something ever goes wrong just delete their home and replace it with a good copy.

I know this is a bit offtopic, but... AFS's support for backup volumes provides basically this same thing as a feature built into the filesystem. Furthermore, it lets the administrator issue commands (from any node on the network) like "move this volume from partition 1 on file server A to partition 3 on file server B"; the data gets moved, and the clients are notified to use the new fileserver for files on that volume with no further work. You can also have read-only volumes be located on multiple fileservers, and the clients will automatically load-balance between them; further, updates to these read-only volumes can be made by an admin editing a read-write copy of the volume, and then pushed over to the read-only volume as a single transaction.

Making it performant can be a PITA, but from an administration perspective it's really neat stuff.

Re:40:1 ?

[legirons]

"Remember too, they are talking desktops, not servers."

They're also talking engineers' desktops at an embedded-hardware company, so most of the usual stories about "we'll give everyone a word processor and a web browser and that will be that" probably change a lot.

Our company is completely different to that of course. Every software engineer maintains their own machine. The amount of time we spend on application or OS problems easily exceeds 1/200 of working hours.

Re:40:1 ?

[LnxAddct]

On the east coast of the States, Philadelphia, New York, Boston, and the other big cities are really picking up pace in the linux arena, more so on the server side but every now and then on the client side as well. I don't know if it'd be a feasible business model to focus solely on consulting for linux based businesses or businesses that are interested in linux, but it definilty helps to add it to your "bag of tricks". Pretty much as a consultant you should recommend the best tool for the job and increasingly this is becoming linux. If I were you, I'd definitly start consulting on linux systems, its a fairly small market right now so you might not want it to be your only focus, but their is room for ton's of growth and according to forecasts, by 2008 the business should be huge.
Regards,
Steve

Re:40:1 ?

[shaitand]

"Does Cisco *really* emply such a large team of nothing-but Windows admins? At my work, we have about 200 Windows PCs... and Wayne, the admin."

In order for a windows admin to support 200 pc's he has to be EXTREMELY overworked, and the setup has to be very simple and streamlined.

Now I'll grant that 40-1 is low, but that is about what it would take to be able to deliver IMMEDIATE response to technical problems without users being able to install/configure software themselves (meaning at any given moment there will be someone sitting around waiting for a call) which is probably what cisco is looking for when it comes to its Engineers. The higher the ratio goes, the more it becomes about setting up a queue of tasks, the admin's ability to juggle tasks, and reasonable rather than immediate response times.

Cisco admins are probably making 40k/year and the engineers are making 250+k/year each... they probably figure this is worthwhile to minimize downtime.

At 400-1 a linux admin will probably have reasonable idle time, but you can't guarantee that two problems will come at once. This is where having 5 admins who administer 2000 pcs come in, ONE of them will be more likely have idle time when that second problem comes in. Of course those 5 admins are probably making $80k/year rather than $40k/year like the windows admins were but the salary of 10 admins with only 5 sets of benefits is a great deal less than 50 salaries and 50 sets of benefits.

"His poor admins who now have to support linux with inadequate training..."

Keeping the same admins would be categorically stupid. You simply get rid of the windows admins (they did not have the knowledge needed to perform their job function, no unemployment for you!) and hire in real linux admins. Or maybe discover that some of your windows admins were really linux admins who took the job to get Cisco on their resume.

Since the support costs of linux ARE lower than the support costs of windows I doubt he is fudging the data.

Re:40:1 ?

[1lus10n]

Not really. Even at the largest tech companies the majority of the employees are management, sales and marketing. The actual technical people are a small percentage in the grand scheme, and usually dont require any support.

A 'team' could probably support 200 windows PC's. An individual would run so far behind on updates and fixes to the updates that it would be far too unreasonable for a major firm that has major security expectations to do things that way.

Not to say linux doesnt have similar issues because it does, it just doesnt have has many.

Re:40:1 ?

[JPriest]

I will give you that. I also noticed the people that got where they are because they have the degree tend to be the least versed in other technologies compared to the other mostly self-taught-by-geeking types.

In my days of tech support I talked to many certified people on the phone, the MCSE's were usually very arrogant, they knew Windows but not networks, the A+ people were barely any better than Joe Users but at least they could use DOS, and the Cisco certified people were generally both respectful and knowledgeable.
I can think of very few, if any cases where someone Cisco certified called me and had the problem be on their end.

1:40 ?

[flyman]

That is the worst support ratio in history. I hate Windoze, but no large support org has that bad of ratios. Mine are approx. 250:1 for a Win2k shop, which is pretty average.

Re:1:40 ?

[quelrods]

You have to be kidding. At my former company they had 2 windows admins and those guys were busy non-stop. "My outlook is broken." "The internet is down." "I opened a virus attachment [that the virus scanner didn't detect]." You name it but for the 48 people there they couldn't have even gotten away with just 1 admin.

Re:1:40 ?

[gabebear]

Seems pretty low to me, but I've heard of much worse, although I really don't see how they improved by switching. You have to take in to consideration what their tech support does; support ratios alone don't mean anything;

• How often are computers replaced? You can no longer easily ghost Windows between different computers.
• How many computers per user?
• laptops generally require more support
• How bad is employee turnover?

Re:1:40 ?

[Fallen_Knight]

There are alot of things you CAN do with a windows box (ghosting for instance) that you need to buy software for most of the time, but then with linux you get the same tools and abilities for free and built in.

Is it

[idono]

because Cisco is now a security company?

Get the Facts(TM)!

[cdavies]

So, Linux TCO is greater, eh?

Re:Get the Facts(TM)!

[Greyfox]

Yeah, because you have to hire a real human being for Linux support, while Windows can easily be supported by a chimpanzee who will work for bananas!

Of course if that chimpanzee is an MCSE, it'll cost you twice as many bananas than if he isn't. Oh and never say "Get your hands off me, you damn dirty ape!" They hate that.

Re:Get the Facts(TM)!

[einhverfr]

Wow. You didn't get the joke about Ballmer acting like a Chimpanzee ;-)

A couple of points:

1) I hold the following certs: MCSE, MCSA. LPIC-2, A+, Network+, Server+, Inet+

2) I spend at least as much time as a consultant working with Windows as I do helping my customers with Linux. I can design Windows networks and troubleshoot them with the best.

3) I used to work at Microsoft.

Ok...... Now for my opinions:

1) Windows sucks because it is TOO COMPLICATED.

2) Windows security sucks because Windows is too complicated and interdependent.

3) Windows is getting more technician/admin friendly but it is still full of braindead dependencies. This ensures a Sendmail-like security record on both the server and the desktop.

4) Linux costs less to support because it is simpler.

5) Training costs for corporate workstations is less with Linux than Windows because it is less complicated.

6) Linux is more predictable due to better quality code and more simplicity. This makes it easier than Windows for a newbie to learn.

The above comparisons assume that one can readily run similar programs on both operating systems. In areas where this is not the case, YMMV.

Sometimes I think that MS shills are invading slashdot!

Oh great

[Stevyn]

Now Balmer is going to get on a plane and install Ad-Aware and SP2 on their machines to help with tech support.

Critical mass...

[saleenS281]

So when linux reaches critical mass and people spend as much time searching for/writing worms for it as they do for windows, how's that support ration going to look?

Re:Critical mass...

[DaHat]

Just because a patch is available doesn't mean that one should install it immediately. Regardless of platform, extensive testing needs to be done to verify the patch and ensure that it doesn't break anything.

I have read many articles that say that this sort of testing is often not done with OSS projects prior to the patch being released.

Re:Critical mass...

[Husgaard]

Probably the ratio will only slightly worse.

One reason is the better overall security in Linux. For example you actually need to mark a file executable before you can execute it on Linux.

Another reason is the diversity of Linux systems. Worms and virii thrive best in monocultures, and it is hard to write such a beast so it is able to thrive in a hundred different Linux variants.

Re:Critical mass...

[Waffle Iron]

and what exactly is going to happen when a non rooted user executes that worm?

Little if any functionality of most worms requires root privileges. They could run just fine as a user process.

about the worst thing that can happen is the home directory to be wiped out

Which is usually the only directory on a workstation that contains any information of value.

Delete all your home directories, rsync or rdiff your backup in and magically things just work.

You could restore the entire filesystem on any computer to achieve the same thing.

There are many factors that make Linux less worm-prone than windows. Taken together, they add up to a huge disparity in malware prevalence between the two OSes. However, no single factor is a magic bullet, and that includes the relative difficulty of running with root privileges. It's just one small piece of the puzzle.

Re:Critical mass...

[SunPin]

So when linux reaches critical mass and people spend as much time searching for/writing worms for it as they do for windows, how's that support ration going to look?

Considering that Linux is not monoculture and Linux machines never run as root the way Windows machines do, the support ratio will not change. Cisco's internal distribution might be monoculture but how do you suppose virus writers will figure out company changes? They won't.

Virus and general malicious software is difficult to write when everyone is running Linux. People will continue to try but only the hardcore. Script kiddies, in contrast, would become extinct.

Re:Critical mass...

[Apreche]

Why do people keep bringing this up? It's a logical fallacy. I understand that it seems to make sense that if more people use linux, as much as they use windows, it will be a bigger target and easier to hit.

However, this is simply not the case. Windows is a very homogenous system. Every win2k box is a win2k box. The only differences are slight differences in configuration.

Linux is heterogenous. I mean even if you take a distribution like fedora core 3. Every FC3 box has the same kernel. And if they are up to date they all have the same versions of stuff like glibc. A linux box is a collection of many small pieces of software. Windows is one giant blob of software. So maybe you find a hole in a particular version of openssh. Lots of linux boxes have openssh of varying versions. So you might be able to hit a bunch of them. But it is very difficult to target linux the way you target windows because the number of systems that are similar enough is very small, even if the whole world used it.

You would literally have to find a hole that is present in all 2.4 an 2.6 kernels regardless of patches applied in order to get enough of the linux boxen. And some people still use 2.2. 2.0?

Re:Critical mass...

[BJZQ8]

Based on my experience, Open Source patches have a much smaller chance of screwing up other things when applied; this is because Open Source software has no vested interest in moving people onto the next "Big Thing" by making it difficult to use the last "Big Thing." Patches are maintained for Linux kernels as long as a significant interest remains in them. If not, you can always get the source and fix it yourself. For Windows 3.11 machines (I know of several that are still in use in my former company) there is no alternative but to "invest" in Windows XP, in this instance. The patch "system" for OSS is about fixing things; the patch "system" for Windows and/or most closed software is more often than not about exercising power over users and forcing upgrades.

Re:Critical mass...

[digidave]

Umm.. no. The home directory is mostly personal preferences and documents. They should be backed up regularly anyway, so an admin just needs to replace with a last known good backup.

The key is that it's very hard to destroy a system with a Linux virus.

Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

What gets me is that what they describe could be done with Active Directory and group policies.

TCO

[Docrates]

I wonder if those microsoft studies that show Windows' TCO better than Linux's account for the "productivity" of a linux engineer...

What i'm sure it doesn't show is that a linux engineer handling 200 computers can provide a much better service (due to the fact that more is "known and controllable" in linux than windows) than a windows sysadmin handling the same amount of computers, resulting in lower costs of security, less costs related to spywares, viruses, user support calls, etc.

but microsoft....

[ZiakII]

but microsoft is more secore according to microsoft... /sigh what to do

Handling Firefox

[bogaboga]

I am sure they (CISCO) have some Mozilla/Firefox on these PCs. Question is: How have they decided o manage it? Central managing of Mozilla/Firefox is still not [officially] possible now. Any ideas?

Re:Handling Firefox

[illtud]

Am I missing something? What is there to manage for a browser besides installation?

In the corporate environment (ie when the PC isn't yours and the company doesn't want to spend ages fixing messes you've made 'personalizing' your PC) you need to lock down some preferences (eg proxy settings, security settings, mail account details if you're using thunderbird/moz suite). This used to be really easy under the old Netscape suite (there was a GUI tool), and although there's some support still left in firefox/mozilla (you can lock down prefs manually in the .js files) it's not half as good as it used to be. Other stuff is rollout support with pre-populated profiles etc.

Check out the Mozilla Enterprise project for more details and how some of us have hacked together lockdown and other 'enterprise' requirements.

Bullshit

[afidel]

They obviously don't know their own department. I worked as a contractor for them a couple years ago. I was the only onsite tech support person for two sites with a total of 250 users, with 99% of those being windows. I was also part of the support teams initial Linux push, and I can tell you that the biggest driver from a customer (end user) perspective was the idea of using cheap Opteron workstations instead of uber expensive Sun stations. A Sun dual CPU workstation at the time with 12GB of ram was over $50k dollars, whereas an Opteron station with more cpu power and the same amount of ram was under $10K. That is a huge difference in price. The biggest factor stopping it from becoming a reality was the fact that at the time the Clearcase tool chain and support tools weren't fully functional under Linux. So I doubt the driver was so much lower desktop support costs as it was lower equipment costs.

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

I was a Cisco employee several years ago. I worked at the Corp. HQ in San Jose. My cube started with a Sun workstation and a Win2k laptop. The laptop was soon converted to dual boot Windows / Linux. And as one of my projects ended up demanding a test Linux system, I ended up with another desktop that was also converted to dual Windows / Linux. I never sought out tech support for my machines. And I doubt anyone but my immediate management had any clue what was going on in my cube.

The cool thing with Cisco was that this wasn't uncommon. There are some generalities - most PMs, management, marketing, etc. I met had a single Windows laptop. But when you met someone in a technical role, there was no telling what tools they had aquired to do their work. Cisco took providing their employees the desired tools seriously - "no technology religion". And as far as I could see, it created a very diverse IT environment (and very effective despite the fears of monoculuture IT fans).

This touches on another reason Cisco went this direction. Their employees demanded it. Cisco aquired quite a few startups that were heavily using Linux already. Linux was working its way in to the engineering corp. at Cisco even without these aquisitions. It was very much a part of Cisco's corporate culture to find a way to support any tool their employees needed (which explains the hell they went through to move to Exchange :).

Cost Savings

[p0rnking]

"... the driver for Linux on the desktop is not cost savings, but easier support. Manning estimates that it takes a company approximately one desktop administrator to support 40 Windows PCs, while one administrator can support between 200 and 400 Linux desktops."

Isn't this still Cost Savings, when you don't need to hire as many admins?

Re:1:40 local support, ex. central IT admins

[Uber Banker]

We're typically 1:30 for local areas which is basically admin of the LAN, user applications, etc. Add to that central security, networking, hardware support, and we're down to 1:15.

Including in-house bespoke application support (specialist programmers emplyed under an IT remit, rather than technically able and active users) and you're down to 1:6 in some areas. On the other hand we have specialist terminals (with high maintainence requirements as well as user training etc) which are more like 1:90.

Inefficiency abounds in some companies.

Not cost driven?

[Junior J. Junior III]

the driver for Linux on the desktop is not cost savings, but easier support. Manning estimates that it takes a company approximately one desktop administrator to support 40 Windows PCs, while one administrator can support between 200 and 400 Linux desktops.'

And this does not represent a cost savings?

License management...

[DrDribble]

Apart from the ease of creating a company software update ftp (apt-get, yeast, swaret, slapt-get, etc), I really think the license and CD administration to be a pain in the Windows admin's butt.

My Windows co-workers often need a CD either because they need new software, or due to their computer requesting a CD due to some function not already installed. Finding the RIGHT CD (they are like 1000 cd's every month, and they are neatly marked in INVISIBLE, but very fancy, writing) is a total pain. Then, there is the issue of which key is used for this one (oh, you used the english version!) really turns this into a nightmare.

Folks running windows run all kinds of different versions of their software. Why, upgrading costs time and money. On my Slackware machines, swaret has done all upgrades for me, totally automatically! Just upgraded one PC from Slackware 9.0 to 10.1 - swaret --upgrade wait for a while (was a 200mhz...) and reboot when all is done. No keys, no CDs, no cost. Totally brilliant!

Right,

[warrax_666]

but usually patches for OSS vulnerabilities are not bundled along with all sorts of other updates. This means that far less testing is usually needed for OSS security patches. (Or, that's the theory, anyway.)

Linux on the Desktop will Accelerate

[reporter]

Linux's eventual success on the desktop will be due largely to IBM. As a company, it has made a disproportionately large contribution of programmers and money to the development of Linux. IBM just announced that it will spend an additional $100 million for the sole purpose of proliferating Linux onto the desktop.

Linux is easier to maintain than Windows, largely thanks to IBM. Linux is more reliable and is less prone to infection by viruses and malware (e.g. spyware) than Windows. IBM ensures that any OS (whether it is commercial or free) shipped to customers on its computer systems meets stringent requirements for reliability.

IBM has been vindicated. IBM initially tried to dethrone Microsoft by producing OS/2, but it was a failure. Now, IBM has thrown its weight behind a product (i.e. Linux) developed outside of IBM, and that product is succeeding in hurting Windows.

Re:Linux on the Desktop will Accelerate

[bunratty]

However, even IBM itself doesn't seem to be able to switch from Windows to Linux. Seems that they have some web apps that work only in IE, and their help desk supports only IE.

Maybe the success of Firefox will force web programmers to develop for more than one browser, and then we can all more easily switch to Linux.

I work for Cisco...

[Anonymous Coward]

.. and I have to say that their Linux Workstations are extremely well deployed and managed. The desktops themselves are Dual-CPU 3G boxes running a customized version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Red Carpet is used to manage packages, supported by really nice internal mirrors providing fast access to everything you need to get the job done. The default install even includes acess to Microsoft Office and Internet Explorer. Not sure if this is through Crossover or something -- it is so well integrated that I've never had to look under the covers to see how it is done. Having worked at other networking companies where Linux is the default engineering desktop, I have to say that Cisco really gets it when it comes to desktop linux.

Re:I work for Cisco...

[Anonymous Coward]

cisco guys are going to be more technical. Such windows "power users" are much harder to support than office clerks. 200 or so was the norm in a big bureaucratic non-computing-industry corporation I once worked for - but the support necessary was just for windows, office (including Access) and IE, and various intranet web apps (IE-specific craptivex based, of course).

The requirements for supporting an engineer's windows desktop securely would be much higher, if you support them at all. Whereas on linux, package management that actually works (.msi exists, but it's a whole lot worse than .rpm...), clear segregation of admin and ordinary users, etc., makes support linux workstations for technical people much easier than windows workstations. At my present work, 2 people admin about a hundred physicists' linux desktops, and about 20 windows ones. The linux ones are a centrally-administered breeze, even though each desktop has a different installation profile. So do the windows ones. They aren't a breeze.

Hey! maybe now we'll see open source drivers ...

[UtilityFog]

... for all those Linksys cards.

Look at a vulnerability

[warrax_666]

lists and you'll find that most vulnerabilities are either buffer overflows or string format vulnerabilities. There are very few circumstances where fixing those with a one-liner patch would change behavior in a way that other code depends on. If there were any such code then that in itself indicate possible data corruption bugs in the currently running software.

In short: When you don't bundle fixes you typically have one-line fixes which don't break code which isn't already broken (by relying on buggy behavior). Hence, testing time is minimized.

Re:Look at a vulnerability

[runderwo]

You're being stupid.

The choice is between having a security hole in a deployed piece of software, and running the risk of breaking applications that depend on that security hole. It's your choice whether or not to install security updates. How is the community supposed to regression test against your buggy closed source in-house software? Obviously, they can't. That's one of the responsibilities that you took upon yourself by standardizing on a poorly-supported proprietary application in-house.

It's ridiculous to blame the community for not having a magic wand to detect how every deployed site is using the software internally. If you want to do more regression testing than the community is able to do, then you are free to do it yourself before you deploy the fix.

Support cost less not due to windows per se...

[SdnSeraphim]

What about this idea...
If a support tech can only support 40 windows PCs, but another support tech can support 200 Linux PCs, is the difference the amount of support or the intelligence of the tech.

Now I run windows, and have administered windows and I develop software for windows. However, Linux is not as straightforward to administer as windows. I think it requires someone with more skills to administer a Linux box than a windows box.

Someone with more skills will likely be better at administration in general, regardless of which OS. So it is kind of a split problem. To administer linux boxes, you need someone with a good skill set, but they can administer more boxes, but probably at a higher salary. To administer windows boxes, you may not have to pay as much but each tech supports fewer boxes.

Re:Support cost less not due to windows per se...

[starfishsystems]

If a support tech can only support 40 windows PCs, but another support tech can support 200 Linux PCs, is the difference the amount of support or the intelligence of the tech.

That doesn't logically follow. You have expressed two free variables in the statement, so any difference in outcome could be due to either.

Re:Support cost less not due to windows per se...

[jtev]

Where are you coming up with this? It's harder to PROPERLY administer a windows box than to PROPERLY administer a Linux box. Doing many administrative tasks in Linux is far more straighforward than in windows, there are a few that aren't but those are all one shot, then leave it the hell alone forever tasks. Once a Linux machine is set up, it's pretty simple to just leave alone. It's also very simple to configure multiples of the same machine without buying new software, just install, insert identical hard drive to secondary master, cp /dev/hda /dev/hdc then move the secondary master into a new computer, insert identical disk again, repeat until finished. You can also do a netboot or floppy boot that connects to an ftp server with the disk image on it and copy from there. Or the other option is a totaly diskless workstation where you simply have one server with all the files, or multiple servers with the files, and netboot everything.

If done right, Windows workstations aren't bad..

[cbreaker]

At my company, we have over 5,000 Windows XP workstations; notebooks and desktops. A team of about 10 people manage the entire system.

With the help of Active Directory, some really neat software (Marimba) and some planning, you can manage thousands of Windows workstations with a minimal staff.

You lock down the machines (no admin logins) you manage the software versions and patches (centralized software distribution) and you don't allow users to install software on their own.

Denying admin logins alone stops 95% of all spyware.

40 workstations without any control WOULD be all an admin could handle, but when you deploy them correctly you can support over 10x that - just like any other system.

A pipe dream?

[pangur]

I work for a Cisco reseller, and I see Cisco sales guys all the time.

There are rumors that the CallManager software (Cisco's IP PBX) will be ported from Windows 2000 to Linux. As it is, to run this box safely today requires having the box on its own subnet with access lists, running anti-virus software on the box(es), running Cisco Security Agent (looks for anamolous behavior of running programs), and running the boxes in a redundant fashion. Not that porting to Linux would solve all problems, but a box that runs a web server, SQL2000, and Windows 2000 has a fair number of issues that could r0x the b0x. Not the least is that if you download a patch from Microsoft that Cisco hasn't approved, and it breaks the box, Cisco TAC will wash its hands of you.

However, Cisco and Microsoft are not only in bed with each other, they are spooning. Part of Cisco's new security initiative involves running Cisco software on desktops to check if the anti-virus and CSA software are up to date, and not allow them to join the network until they are. This is part of those Cisco commercials where the "Self-defending Network" comes in and stops attacks. Getting Cisco software to use the Microsoft API in a world where MS could simply roll their own software just like it for free is a tricky business. Cisco needs to know what Microsoft is doing, and Microsoft could just as easily start doing more business with Juniper should they want to.

What I'm saying is that Cisco uses Linux today for a good number of its products (Content Networking, CallManager, etc) because of its stability. However, the aims of this guy to publically change internal desktops to Linux would be nullified by just one phone call from Gates to Chambers (Cisco CEO).

Re:Offtopic?

[CowboyBob500]

Active Directory would only address the issue if it was deployed in a homogenous Windows environment. Since Cisco have decided to have at least some Linux workstations, Active Directory is effectively useless, since it is not possible (AFAIK) to have true single sign on in an Active Directory domain on a Linux box.

Of course, when Microsoft releases the Linux client, I'm sure Cisco would be willing to evaluate it as a solution...

Bob

Re:more like 1700:5

[Anonymous Coward]

>> AND we are absolutely not overworked.

Hi! This is your manager here!

Thanks for that great and timely information.

Starting Monday, your team will comprise 4 persons instead of 5.

Have a nice weekend, and don't bother coming in on Monday.

Wrong!

[soloport]

As the poster says, the driver for Linux on the desktop is not cost savings, but easier support

And EVERYONE knows that easier support doesn't save any cost.

Heh. Try nearly 2000:1

[TWX]

I work for a school district. We have thirteen field technicians to support 25,000 desktop computers and approximately 2000 network printers. We have at least eight different Apple platforms (5260/5400/5500, beige G3, "new world" G series towers, iMacs of each vintage, and the eMac), and thirteen different PC platforms from NEC (1), Compaq (4), ABIT (1), ASUS (1), Dell (2), and Intel (5), plus all of the proprietary crap that people bring in. Our computers run everything from Windows 95 through XP, MacOS 7.5.3 through 10.4. Somehow we're still averaging 24 hour turnaround on our initial appearance, despite having about 100 sites (85 schools, fifteen or so admin sites) over a 20 mile wide area.

I have absolutely no sympathy for people who can't support their fifty computers because it's too hard for them. I would love it if we were down to less than 500:1 or if we could exchange 90% of the equipment to standardize on two or three Macs and two or three PCs, but it'll never happen.

About time someone mentioned this....

[Fallen Kell]

I work on the Unix/Linux side of one of the IT departments at my work. We have about 25 admins for 180+ servers and 900+ workstations, plus a beowulf cluster and associated SAN/NAS devices. And we actually have free time to work on other projects (like in-house software development/support, training, and learning/developing new technologies to roll-out). The PC group has about 80 people to support ~700 PC's and 70 servers. Do the math...

Re:Different perspective...

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems like this discussion is basically going like this:

"Linux is easy because we set up proper polcies and enforce them. Windows is hard because we haven't bothered to do so."

In other words, you guys are proposing a technological solution (Linux) to a political problem (user desktop control, admin saavy).

Re:Different perspective...

[cduffy]

"Windows is hard because we haven't bothered to do so."

More akin to: Windows is hard because users have expectations, gained based on home use, which are broken by proper security policies, and IT doesn't have the political clout to transitions those users to an environment that breaks their expectations. There are also cost issues -- getting Windows equivalents to some of the functionality we use for managing our Linux systems would imply going to Windows Server 2003, buying a bunch of Windows licenses, buying a bunch of 3rd-party tools with licenses for those, etc. For the time being, we're a fairly low-budget operation.

In other words, you guys are proposing a technological solution (Linux) to a political problem (user desktop control, admin saavy).

Damn straight, but it works! We sit the user down in front of a Linux desktop, and they don't expect to have administrative rights, so the political issue is entirely circumvented.

Re:Different perspective...

[mattspammail]

Not as their primary job. THAT would be to post regularly on /. The $25-$50 is just during regular hours. Mac mod surfing is done on overtime rates. :-)

Sounds like your company is doing it wrong

[Craig Ringer]

My advice, and that of serious Windows support pros I've worked with: Do it over the network. All of it. Even OS installs. Slipstream service packs and fixes into your build image, along with your base software etc. Install packages automatically on login using AD. You can do all this... and it'll save you a lot of pain. Hell, you don't even need to worry about your CD key, you can do that as part of the automated network install script.

I'm using Linux thin clients for most of my basic needs users at work. They're getting pretty good now, but I'm still running into a frustrating number of stupid bugs. I think I spend about an equal amount of time supporting them and the win98 users - at "near zero". Ditto our one and only XP user now that I've got the bugs ironed out. Most of my time is wasted supporting the MacOS 9 desktop publishing staff due to the nightmarish OS and apps involved there.

If you think Windows is hard to manage, try MacOS. ARRGGGGHHHHHH. MacOS/X is a little better, but still pretty awful IMO.

Microsoft is also pretty reasonable with CD keys etc compared to many companies. QuarkXPress and Adobe Photoshop both scan the network for other copies, interrogate them for their CD key, and refuse to run if they find it's the same. This makes image based installs impossible since they don't provide any way to install and configure the app, then "de-personalize" it so all you have to do to get it working is enter the CD key. (You can do this with Windows, BTW). Those apps are a nightmare and in comparison Windows looks absolutely lovely to manage.

I'm also finding my trials with OO.o and GNOME for our journalists pretty dismal so far. All sorts of weird bugs keep on turning up and I'm about to give up and get them Windows boxes. I use Linux at home without issues, but these uses can and do break stuff all the time.

In the end, I guess it comes down to picking the right tool for the right job. MS desktops, managed well, are OK. I don't like them, but they work. Especially if you lock IE down so hard the user can't even run it, and if they figure out how to run it anyway, can't visit anywhere or do anything. Too bad they cost so bloody much and still insist on bundling IE, Outlook Express (Yes you can remove it, but it'll be back every time you patch the damn OS), etc.

Re:1:40 local support, ex. central IT admins

[oliverthered]

Well, the company I worked for was so large that they had there own IT maintenance company.

at most we needed 2 people got the office to get the required skills base, so as a standalone company I'd say you need
1 person = 30 employees, or 1:15-1:40
3 people for 50+ employees, or 1:16
after that you can start to drop the ratios down quite quickly because you've got enough people for a reasonable problem.

'AM. Came into work, our email client was not working. ',....' Later arises the email server ran out of disk space.' isn't that the first thing you check?
Put quotas on all servers, and have them email you an alert when they start to run out of space or something sits at 100% CPU etc... also make sure all email accounts have a fixed quota, and try to make the quotas total no more than 150% of the disk space on the server.

This would have turned you Monday into an occasional job of fitting a new disk or emailing everyone holding lots of email telling them to clean it out or face the rm -rf *.

pm, browsed /.

"Someone complains they've not received the laptop ... From a user perspective around 0 to 400 hours have been spent 'building' this computer.", so what did you do with the rest of the morning apart from a 10min phone call.

PM. Someone has a problem with ODBC drivers in an application they're using. Turns out the drivers client application drivers were out of date for the server application.

Lock down the clients, no problem.

Wednesday. /.

Thursday.
'Someone's computer reset overnight ', all computers should be turned off at night and screen locked when the user is away from them.
It is a fire and security hazard to leave a pc on overnight.

'They remember their password but not their username(!)',
How?, don't you assign someone a user name when they get the job and keep records. Also try looking on one of the access logs of a server they used to get the users name. Failing that you'll find it recorded in the windows system log, of the pc, logging as admin and take a look.

PM.
'User complains of persistent popups on IE on various websites'
I recommend locking down the workstations,
Patching shouldn't be critical, you do run a firewall, web proxy and filter all email don't you?

Friday.

'Network folders seem slow (30+ secs to browse a folder with few files).', Wins or network configuration problem, make sure all you subnets are ok, there are lots of free tools to do this, and it only takes an hour or so.
failing that it could be a worm spewing all kinds of crap. The system should have been configured correctly in the first place, locked down and firewalled off.
PM: Trouble receiving attachments in email. takes several hours to partically resolve.

Why do I expect that you get a lot of 'email' and 'network' related problems where you work?

Revised week....

Monday, recieved an email from the mail server, bills inbox is full, sent him a reminder to tidy it up or I'd archive anything more than 3 months old.

Total time for the day 5 mins.

Tuesday, one ten minute phone call. Explained that the laptop was 'non-standard' so we were taking more time to check the configuration was good so that they didn't have any problems with it later on.

Total time for the day 10 mins,
Wednesday.
nothing
Total time for the day 0 mins,
Thursday,
Looked up someones user name for them.
Time 10 mins.
PM.
Nothing.
Friday.
AM. can't say, but should take too long, shouldn't have happened in the first-place.
PM. again can't say because.

So, in a week you probably would have had to do at most a days work, if the system had been locked down and configured properly. Do the same with the rest of the sysadmins &co and 80% would be out of a job.

(a little better than the 70% I claimed to be able to save you)

Re:Offtopic?

[Thanster]

you can use samba 3 to join an active directory in full native mode (no schema extensions, no mixed mode) we have completed this on Solaris and Linux.

un-American, that's what it is

[DuctTape]

I think that it's positively un-American that they're switching to Linux and taking jobs away from the hard-working deserving American citiziens that work at Microsoft, and subsequently at American anti-virus companies like Symantec. I've heard that there's French and Russian types that have spies in America that have worked on Linux, and it's only because Linux is free that companies are switching. Well, it's NOT FREE!!! Every copy of Linux that gets installed means one laid-off American worker from American companies that support our president and our just wars overseas. This has got to stop! If just every red-blooded American citizen would go out and buy a copy of Microsoft Windows at the suggested retail price, our lives would be so much better off for those of us that have invested our American dollars in MSFT.

I think that if we bought products from the company of every CEO that has slept in the Lincoln Bedroom, we'd have more prosperity, fewer terrorists, better return on our investment dollars, and higher executive bonuses that would trickle down to all layers of our economy, especially at American-staffed Mercedes and Lexus auto dealerships. So stay away from that Linux corruption. It's bad, very BAD!!!

DT

Re:Heh. Try nearly 2000:1

[Dwonis]

Maybe it's those ceyboards you're using that are the problem. ;-)

Re:Heh. Try nearly 2000:1

[sigaar]

Computer And Chair

Call it the Brittish spelling if you wish :-)

Cisco hardware deployment with non-Winders

[Scutter]

Ok, so someone explain to me why Cisco's web-based and desktop-based management tools are almost always Windows-only? Not only Windows-only, but frequently don't run right under anything but Internet Explorer.

Guess I'll continue to stick to CLI and console cables for configuration and management.

Re:Different perspective...

[cduffy]

No, and I don't see any need to. Users are free to run sofware they install within their own accounts -- being developers, this is a frequent requirement.

Re:Different perspective...

[harmic]

This thread is typical of the IT support mindset that says "if only we can restrict what the users are doing we will have a much easier ride". The problem is that assumes that a one size fits all PC configuration can really work for all users.

It probably won't cause a problem if nobody in the company can install screen savers, desktop images, custom sounds, their favourite media player, or games. What does cause a problem is when your engineers cannot install the software they need to do their work.

I work in a large multinational manufacturer of telecoms equipment. I routinely have to install software: drivers for various types of mobile phones, different JVM versions to be compatible with vaious applications we have to test, test tools, etc. If I ring my helpdesk and ask them to install them, they say "sorry, this is not an SOE approved application". Luckily I was able to put the case to be given Admin rights.

I would also add that this type of user usually has the requisite skills to fix most problems anyway - so doesn't need to call the help desk as much anyway. One of my colleagues recently picked up a virus that the SOE antivirus did not pick up. He located the fix for it on the net and applied it himself.