Slashdot Mirror
Midsize Businesses Not Considering Linux?
LukePieStalker writes "eWeek is running a
piece
about a research report which concludes that Linux is not even
on the radar screen for midsize businesses. The survey involved
over 1,400 executives of companies with annual revenue around $250 to
$500 million. It seems that, while smaller companies may see the
licensing savings as being significant, and larger companies have
the expertise to manage it, bringing Linux into a midsize Windows
shop creates a multiplatform organization which is prohibitively
complicated and expensive to manage. Unfortunately, companies of
this size comprise the bulk of American business. Quote: "Linux is
free, but the support for it is not.""
I once worked for a smaller company that had this exact viewpoint. They would not even consider Linux for issues that would have actually had cost savings.
One particular scenario was a firewall. I suggested a Linux firewall due to the lower upfront cost. Now, there were a Microsoft shop, but a firewall is not something that has to be administered everyday (when it is working properly). Instead they decided to go with a Checkpoint firewall that cost them a hell of a lot more than what the support costs would have been for a Linux firewall. The interesting thing was they did not need all the features that were provided by a Checkpoint firewall.
Are they really sure they are not using linux?
Probably not in some major capacity, but I suspect it's there. All in all, maybe that is why they are in the mid sized category! [Think outside the box] Just kidding... mostly.
However, one thing about the article really annoyed me and that was the calendaring functions.
Not to go crazy on this one, but what is the big deal is requiring your calendar and address book be tied to your email client. I guess somewhere along the line everyone got mixed up and decided this is the way life should be.
It's not difficult to seperate the three and it is certainly not difficult to use them together (ie, mailto link, ldap interface for address). Then if you are really slick your address book ldap elements for your email clients are meta tables based on an extended set of data available... so you get to squeeze tons more information into a relatively organized space.
That said, I have to get around to configure Open-Xchange for work and setting up the outlook clients with the connector plugin. The suits really love that stuff... me... I just want them to use the ticket system more.
It would be nice if Evolution had a win32 port.
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
I say their loss. If they're too strung up with windows to consider other options that very well could provide more stability and better service for a cheaper price then that's their loss. That's alright the others who do realize this will have an advantage when it's all said and done.
Kyle
http://www.unlogikal.net/
You and I know that administration of a firewall doesn't take much of your time, but lots of businesses don't. So what do you do? Start a business providing managed firewall services for a flat fee per month. Use free tools and provide services on top of them, and even RMS is happy.
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
If it wasn't for Linux, Apache, MySQL, and Perl, some of us would be hard pressed to stay in business.
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
The just-released report includes results of a survey of more than 1,400 IT executives ... (emphasis mine)
I.e., not sysadmins or developers. I think it's quite reasonable to assume that in many cases, the people actually doing the work are using whatever tool best fits the task -- unless they're hamstrung by stupid company policies, of course -- and not bothering to tell the PHBs, either because they don't think it's worth mentioning or because they're afraid of being shut down.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Midsize businesses can suck my dick.
From reading all the comments thus far, its becoming obvious that these companies don't want to run linux because they already are paying for support with Windows.
My question is quite simple. Is it really more expensive to run Linux after already paying for windows? Seriously because I thought (never bought a windows OS myself) that you had to basically purchase a copy of windows for each department, etc. Microsoft I believe makes you pay for multiple copies of the same OS because thats how it makes the money to maintain its position in the marketplace. I could be wrong but if I'm not then it tells me a lot of companies find Windows cheaper when they use it illegally.
A lot of this varies greatly between companies too. A dry cleaning company may be more reluctant to use Linux then a company specializing in electronics. Keep in mind that these surveys generalize a large amount.
Quote: "Linux is free, but the support for it is not."
A couple years ago, not knowing anything about Linux, I bought a boxed Linux release at the Big Computer Store and proceeded installing it on an older P200 machine. There's a place where it stalled during installation. I googled and group.googled for a while (searching on release version, looking for hints on install problems) and found a Usenet post complaining about my very problem, a respnse spelled out how it wouldn't install on a Pentium 1 because something was compiled for a later processor. The responder pointed to a fix: put this file on a floppy inserted into the floppy drive when installing. I did, it worked.
On most products it's just as easy to presume they are orphaned, and the only support is unofficial, outside the product's maker. This often gets me better support than going to the manufacturer.
Tag lost or not installed.
Theirs and Linux's. If nobody uses an operating system, there will be no incentive for software producers and such to market to it. Likewise, if everybody uses an operating system, there will be a large incentive for software producers and such to market to it. If Linux had more people using it, more people would market to it, and more people will be willing to use it. Now, of course, Linux isn't exactly tiny...but it isn't nearly as large as Windows. The more people who use it, the better it will be, I think (but this statement isn't too true for Windows, as tons of people use it and it still isn't as good.../me pets Ubuntu and Fedora).
What, exactly, does an "IT Executive" do? Wouldn't that just be a manager in the IT department? Why don't they just ask the people who actually DO the work? Even if the article says that "IT Executives in mid-sized companies are hands-on", the fact that some of these companies make $250-500 mil. says to me that the company is too large to keep a close eye on every bit of tech in it. Managers are the people who *think* they know everything that's going on, but they're probably the ones who know the least.
Tluin natha Linux xxizzuss uriu olt bwael mon'tun.
I'm sure there were people who believed that mid sized companies were wasting money buying big blue, but the combination of FUD^H^H^Hsalesmanship from the friendly IBM rep, total lack of understanding of computers, and the one-stop budget line (a big deal to accounting) makes it worth the other hassles. As much as we like to think that computers are more accessable, there are still a large number of people who don't understand 'em, don't like 'em and don't want to know about 'em. We call those people managers!
"Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
About 50 people, but the company grosses a few hundred million a year. We're moving to the new Novell Linux Small Business Suite next month. :) Although, I've already been using linux for mail, web and intranet stuff for about 5 years.
Ok folks, I can see how it would be "interesting" to the press to write about what IS being used and picked up by the industry, but writing articles about what IS NOT being picked up? I wonder why they would feel the need to do that? Not.
There is obviously a motive behind this tactic and the motive is hidden from view for obvious reasons. Whenever there is a shift from one product for another, all those tightly involved in the losing market are going to do anything they can to slow down, stall or even stop the migration. Atleast until they too can figure out a way to shift over to that new market and pull profits from it. Think about the oil industry and hydrogen/fuelcells. All of Detroit held up the gas/electric hybrid flag until Bush took office and directed them to hold up the hydrogen/fuelcell flag. A shift threatened the profits of one industry, oil, and many players involved moved attention away from the immediate solution in order to slow down growth while they figured out how to play catch-up. In this example, there has been a number of articles falsely stating data.
So, why would eWeek/PCWeek/ZiffDavis post an article about companies who have decided NOT to use GNU/Linux?
I recall seeing them post a few articles about how much money was being made on sales of Microsoft software compared to GNU/Linux. The funny thing is, THAT kind of article was showing businesses how much they were sending to Microsoft or its partners, instead of NOT spending the money on GNU/Linux. Microsoft has shifted its marketing from competing on price with GNU/Linux and is now focusing on TCO. Just like this eWeek article....
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
A recent report shows that Linux is a roaring success with midsize businesses.
An amazing 27% of the companies taking part in the survey were already using Linux.
But the most important finding of the report is, that more than 50% of those companies currently not using Linux think about deploying Linux.
It seems it's really time for Microsoft to start worrying.
I know I am not the only one who has experienced Linux xenophobia before. To me, Linux, Windows and all others are just another way of doing things... so I do them all. (Not everything looks like a nail to me)
But bringing up Linux to some people strikes fear and confusion into their hearts because it's very foreign to them. And in the tech world, to appear to be ignorant is a sign of weakness.
So largely what we're seeing is the natural resistance to change. Bosses don't often know anything about their IT stuff and rely largely on their in-house experts for advice... largely, these are people who only know Windows, so naturally, the advise Windows. But more and more, tech people are getting curious about Linux, learn about it and start using it.
Nothing can really accellerate this progression except marketting and there's not much marketting going on. IBM was marketting for a short time... it was encouraging and it got people talking about Linux and wondering what it was.
It's all an eventuality, I think, but only while current activities don't change. I work for a medium-sized corporation... maybe edging into 'large' but we have a strong desire to migrate into Linux based solutions. (There was a BSA audit a few years back, I'm told... With all this buzz about Linux and OSS have you heard anything about BSA lately?) Whatever the case, the more things like Perl, PHP, Apache, Firefox and even OpenOffice are used, the more we like it. It's just working out for us and since the migration is somewhat gradual, there is little to no shock involved.
We will begin testing the Novell Linux Desktop before long... I am very excited at the idea and I expect my site to be the first to get it.
And it even gets funnier if you look at the other numbers.
As you mention, 27% already have Linux installed, so that leaves 73% of the 1400 companies asked without Linux.
Now of these 73%, 48% have no interest in Linux, which of cause also means that 52% are interested in Linux.
That leaves us with 35% of the 1400 companies not interested in Linux.
Now to sell a study based on these numbers with the claim that Linux is not doing well in this segment of the market, that indeed nearly half of the companies are not interested (remember, 35% became almost half) and then to write an article about it claiming
"It also tends to confirm what Microsoft has been saying, slaps down some zealots and reminds us that media hype can't always be trusted."
is, ehm, impressive, to say the least.
Having worked in MS Support (MS Word), I can tell you that you are 100% correct. Microsoft goes out of it's way to ignore ANY kind of input from users. THey even have a fake bug submitting system, which is directed to /dev/null at all times. They are de facto conning their own support agents.
All the bug fixes they put out are a result of corporate support packages (we're talking millions here). An ordinary Joe that calles MS tech support has ZERO influence.
It's like a constant barrage of these articles about how --oh gosh businesses aren't satisfied with free software for XY and Z reasons and if those don't change then business will never use free software.
Well, uhm so what?
This more users argument is stupid. MS clearly disproves the theory that more users makes better software. Of course more coders seeing code should most certainly be helpful in numerous ways, but that's a completely different issue. More clueless users whining about what they don't like though? Who cares? Let them stay away in droves.
All the better as far as I'm concerned. Free software doesn't need business. This is the whole point of free software. Business is irrelevant. This is why MS is, in fact, a monopoly: free software is not competing with Microsoft because free software is free. You're not competing if you're not in the same market and free software is certainly not in MS's market.
Moreover, free software will inevitably drain that market, but observe that this is not the same as being in the market. It's more like an alternative to the market that demonstrates how ridiculous the whole metaphor of a market was for a product that had no physical existence and could be re-created more or less infinitely without costs worth tabulating.
Open Source is the awakening to the fact that software is too important to be shackled to arcane and inappropriate systems like markets which are effective only under conditions of scarcity. Open Source is the beginning of the real software of the future and its destiny is most certainly manifest. Geek hippies will rule the world!
So, when these businesses get broadsided by other businesses that do reduce their costs by using free and open software then this petty crap will no longer be an issue. It's just a matter of time.
Until then, what difference does it make other than being fodder for a pissing contest in the IT press. FOSS will be just fine with or without these businesses.
One old friend is better then two new ones.
While the meaning of this really tweaked my kid's brain for a while, it can make sense in the business world. And while the meaning is indeed different than the saying you quote, there's a common theme: familiarity can be equated to security.
Method of processing duck feet
If anything, a single competent linux admin can run a LARGE set of Linux boxes with little to no effort. Create custom install scripts for "regular" boxes (Kickstart), point the boxes to your own package repository, enable nightly updates - there you go, half of the problems you'd have with "stock" windows (if you pay for SMS, windows will install shit for you, too) is solved right away.
:0)
Then lock down the boxes for non-root accounts, put together a file server, and install windows 2003 with 10 terminal server licenses for the rare occasions when someone needs Word and OO won't do.
This, of course, assumes that that you're only running Office or Java software on your windows boxes. If you have custom windows apps, shit becomes really complicated. Well, at least until BSA raids you for minor non-compliance.
This might not actually be true if you take a look at the costs involved. Most computer users today have at least a general understanding of how Windows works, this means that for a mid-sized business a dedicated IT position is not necessary. By eliminating an entire position the mid-sized business will probably save more per year than they would spend on Windows licenses.
You also have to take into consideration the fact that most PCs come with Windows already installed and the license is included in the price. During a short stint selling/repairing computers at Office Depot I found that most of the midsize business owners would come in and buy two or three mid-range pre-built computers and hold on to them until they had stopped working (which was normally due to software).
I think that the major factor keeping Linux out of the mid-sized business world is that linux systems aren't being offered at Best Buy/Office Depot/Circuit City. Once linux is in the store front people will get used to using it. Once people get used to using it small businesses will be able to handle 90% of the administration themselves. Once they can handle the administration they will use it.
Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know. ~Lao Tzu
Ever try to get a non-postscript printer to work on Linux? Some work but many are nearly impossible to get working. What good is a free OS if you have to go out and buy a bunch of new printers. There are other issues but this is bigger than you think. Many offices still run on paper and if you cannot print then no matter how superior it may be in other ways, it is useless to them. I dislike Windows but nearly any old printer can be used effectively and until this problem is solved, Linux will have trouble penetrating that market.
6F 9E A9 1E 96 9F 74 27 ED B8 81 6D 0C 4E 1E 78
My other Sig is a 229.
Why don't these dorks ever ask my company? 1800 total employees. 250 desktop users across 24 locations in the US and Canada and *ALL* desktops are either LTSP diskless workstations or a few are actually disked.
All of the Winblows sys admins I know can't believe how lucky I am to be able to handle updates, upgrades, problems and how LITTLE it costs to do so...
I love to get the MS sales saying, "we want to help you with you software costs"... after I stop laughing at them, I take a deep breath and laugh for a while longer.
sPh
C'mon pal, it should go without saying that any sizeable IT department with any sense about them is not going to jump both feet first into swaping out all of their enterprise and end user systems. With the advances Mac (and linux too) have made in integrating simply and tightly into heterogeneous environments It's quite painless to start dropping them onto desktops as computers need replacing. It's not going to be for everyone at first when you take into consideration replacing applications and retraining end users. If you want to work towards spending less on endless desktop support of an inherently broken OS like windows then you need to start somewhere. I'd be all for keeping MS in the office If they would just drop their arrogance and just stop the lying and denial fix their shit!
Anyway, I was speaking in a very general sense to moving away from an all windows house gradualy and mostly I was reffering to the comment that Linux support wasn't free as opposed to Windows support. Like I said, in general, you get a much more experienced support individual in a *NIX sysadmin than you would an MCSE. I would also have to agree that current Windows platforms are more complex than the NT stuff of past and would require a better and more serious admin. I hope that's a trend which will continue. I've been in the business a very long time as a suport guy, then an admin and also a developer and I'm calling it as I've seen and still do see it.
Oh, and most of corporate America is full of shit. If it wasn't then we'd not be having this discussion which stems directly from Windows, a product of the Microsoft corporation which I think we can all safely agree upon as being quite up to the brim with the smelly and brown. 'Nuff said.
At least with Windows they know what to expect and they have something they paid for that they can blame (rightly or wrongly) for fuckups. Plus, Windows is getting better and better and the average user is getting to be more knowledgeable.
Novell and RedHat can be blamed now and have been in that mode for a long time now (before Novell there was Suse). Linux is gtting better and better too and the avg user is getting to be more knowledgeable. That helps Linux just as much as it helps Windows. So I don't see your "advantages" to Windows being advantages anymore.
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address