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.""

Comments

Something to Think About

[soniCron88]

FTA: "But, in the midsized companies, adding Linux would create a multiplatform company where a Microsoft-only shop existed previously."

Keep in mind, while medium sized businesses may "comprise the bulk of American business", this is only the current situation. As smaller businesses grow, there will be an influx of Linux based organizations in the medium-sized business world. Adding Linux to a Windows based infrastructure is inherintly more expensive (because you have to pay for the upkeep of two systems). But a computing infrastructure based entirely on Linux is, as far as I know, cheaper in the long run.

Also, as Linux becomes a better candidate for a desktop platform, its adoption as a viable computing platform will only increase. The state of Linux is, now, significantly more advanced than it was just 2 years ago. 2 years from now, even more so.

Re:Something to Think About

[Rick the Red]

"Linux is free, but the support for it is not."

Windows is not free, and the support for it is not free either.

That said, many companies don't provide adequate Windows support; they expect their employees to know how to install softwear, connect to servers, etc. If anything goes wrong the IT department only knows to re-install Windows. That's the real problem: the employees don't know how to use UNIX, so the "support staff" (i.e., the employees) will need re-training if they introduce UNIX. Now, if they had a proper IT department, this would be a few dozen people, but as it is they'd need to train everybody. Cheaper to stick with Windows for the sheeple.

Re:Something to Think About

[Chuqmystr]

Fellow /.er, my thoughts and experiences exactly. From what I've seen, a great deal of the MCSE's I've come acrossed in the past few years were little more than "paper technicians" spat out from the dot-gone-boom trade school "puppy-mills" for lack of a better description. They still have to be paid a salary. At least most of the Linux suport people employers may meet (and hopefully hire) actually know their craft and can often support much more than just Linux. In my own experiences most of the MCSE's I've met and worked with who were worth their salt were already really good sysadmins in both experience and on paper and had just decided to gain some more skills and another bit of cred.

So come on corporate America, think of another excuse, you're still full of shit, as per usual. Billy-bitches, the lot of you! Hell, buy some Macs for desktop use and then I'd believe you. OS X boxen seem to almost support themselves these days. And all that money you save on desktop support you can spend on *NIX backend support. Or another executive benefit, although we prefer the former.

Re:Something to Think About

[sphealey]

> But I find it hard to believe that they are
> not considering Linux.

We are. I would love to convert our shop to all-Linux tomorrow.

Problem is, mid-sized business use midrange apps. E.g. Forth Shift, Visual Manufacturing, etc. Which were written in the late 80s/early 90s. For the Windows API.

Changing out a business management system is no trivial task for a midsized company, and not undertaken lightly. If and when these midrange vendors compile Linux versions (web-based really doesn't work for high-volume ERP transactions), then we can look at moving to Linux. But unfortunately not before.

sPh

Re:Something to Think About

[pipingguy]

Cheaper to stick with Windows for the sheeple.

And it probably is, actually. IT is so important to most companies these days that there are relatively large budgets dedicated to it even though IT is not the core of their business.

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.

Firewalls

[TimeTraveler1884]

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.

Re:Firewalls

[Ogerman]

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.

Here's the problem: A firewall today is not just about "Linux kernel + iptables." Those Checkpoint boxes (and others) are full featured "security appliances" as they call them. They have features such as:

- application proxies to filter / virus-scan / monitor content: HTTP, FTP, SMTP, etc. (so you can say.. stop employees in the sales dept. from playing games on Pogo during 9-5.. to give an example of the granularity of control available)

- network monitors and various intrusion detection / prevention methods

- complete mobile VPN services, including dynamic firewalling rules

- user authentication services (used for VPN, proxies, replication to other network services, etc.)

- very complete GUI admin tool / management console. (and multiple security devices can be linked together throughout the company..)

- daily automated security updates (virus updates, IDS signatures, firewall software updates, etc.)

Can you do that all with free Linux distros and available OSS tools.. Mostly. Will you be saving any money by the time you've got all the raw materials kludged together into a working solution? Nope.

The Open Source community has failed miserably at producing real-world solutions. It has produced an enourmous amount of quality raw material. (And if you examine the commercial firewall solutions, you'll find much OSS being used internally!)

I think there is a good solution to this: The major free Linux/BSD distros need to have subprojects focused on specific needs. For example, there should be a "Debian/Firewall" sub-distro. (note: not a fork) It should provide a more or less ready-out-of-the-box firewall solution using pre-integrated "best of breed" components from the base Debian distro. If there are shortcomings discovered, the improvements can be fed back into the base distro using standard processes. If there are flaws found in the raw materials, this is a perfect way to make sure that OSS meets real world needs through user feedback.

Now apply this principle to all major areas of network services.. mail servers, file servers, web servers, etc. As long as there is a decent web based admin interface, there will be no problem getting organizations full of Windows-only IT staff to use more OSS. (And meanwhile all the old-school Unix folks are squirming in their seats.. Sorry folks, I don't like it either, but sometimes pragmatism is required. There simply aren't enough smart Unix people to go around. So we either compromise or we let proprietary software continue to dominate the industry.)

They even tossed in calendaring.... in a survey...

[Cylix]

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.

Bullshit

[Fefe]

I have professional dealins with many a mid-size company, and every single one of them has had some network service running under Linux somewhere.

It might be true that the management doesn't know, though.

Use your knowledge.

[PornMaster]

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.

magnitude

[bersl2]

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.

That's midsize?!

Talk about spin

[Anonymous Coward]

"- Only 27 percent of respondents currently have Linux installed.

- Almost half of respondents said they had "no interest" in Linux.

- Of the companies where Linux is not already installed, 48 percent have no interest and an additional 15 percent are not sure."

So to sum it up, 27 percent already use Linux and of those who don't more than half are interested in it, while an other 15 percent are not sure.

How someone can conclude that this means midsize bussinesses are not considering Linux is beyond me.

From TFA

[Daniel Dvorkin]

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.

Re:From TFA

[bonch]

Reading the replies so far, I can't help but wonder, why do people try so hard to spin any survey results that look bad for Linux? You don't see this in Windows articles or other topics regarding other competing operating systems. But when an article is posted that reveals that the Linux movement isn't 100% full-steam-ahead in all ways, everyone starts splitting hairs. "It said IT executives, not sysadmins!" Well, who do you think the sysadmins are working for?

A lot of these places have systems they have been using for a decade or more. It's going to take a while for them to "see the light" so to speak and just convert everything over to Linux when whatever works for them...still works for them. Seriously, why should they switch if they are happy with what they've got?

I suspect most of the disinterest in Linux stems from the fact they already have systems in place that work for them. However, small businesses would be more interested in Linux because of price, and large businesses because of price and platform. Mid-size businesses don't have the resources to switch everything over, but have enough to have already chosen a system previously that still works fine.

I imagine if you did this same survey with other operating systems like, say, Windows Longhorn, you'd find that mid-sized businesses are pretty much disinterested in it too--why switch from what they've got? In other words, not necessarily anything to do with Linux specifically. Any switch of systems is going to require a support cost, not just Linux.

ummm..

[Beatbyte]

Linux is free, but the support for it is not.

Microsoft now supplies free IT employees with their expensive OS?

More like this...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Linux is free but support isn't"

I have yet to encounter a problem in Linux that can't be resolved by googling, or calling the vendor.

A corrolary is:

"Microsoft 'support' isn't"

IE, the teleflunkies at MS Support don't even know the basics of their own OS. I worked as a Intern with a large company, we were trying to spit out a webpage for some app, and gee, used Frontpage for the quick and dirty work. I know, hand code, yadda-yadda, but everyone else there was Mainframe gurus, and they had MS on the desktops.

Anyway, this particular version of MS was generating improperly nested formatting, which we could reproduce...

I was told "Hey, we have a support contract with MS, call them"

"Hi, I need help with frontpage, it's generating malformed HTML. Is there a patch out? Or something we can do."

"Front page generates compliant HTML"

"No it doesn't, I can tell you how to do it. Do you have a bug process"

*Conversation goes no where after description of convoluted process to get bug even noticed by MS. Every Open Source Project, I have very little problem submitting bugs*

Microsoft support isn't support. Yer paying for nothing.

Re:More like this...

[ExtraT]

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.

Article gets it

[Espectr0]

There's a saying in spanish "mas vale malo conocido que bueno por conocer" which roughly translates to "better something bad that is known than something good that is unknown" (don't know if there is some saying in english similar to it)

People are scared of trying new things, especially management types. Increasing the complexity of a system by installing other in parallel can get, er, complex. Linux can be installed for free, but no support.

People will prefer to pay for windows than to pay for support and training to use alternatives.

I get free (except my time) support on the Net

[antispam_ben]

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.

Clearing something up

[gexen]

Before any more people go and post about how calling Microsoft for support costs money, please remember the following:

1) If the place is a Microsoft shop with a bunch of servers 10-20+, they're most likely a Microsoft Certified Partner who get X amount of free trouble support requests per year. And if YOU solve the trouble shooting or if you bring a question to them that there is NO way you could know or find the answer to, they do not charge/deduct credits. As long as you've done your research and have tried everything to fix the problem, you're most likely not going to be charged.

2) "Support" isn't just calling Microsoft. It also consists of paying on-staff administrators to support everything. The admin(s) that are currently there, if it's a Microsoft shop, are probably MCSA/MCSE's and most likely not that well trained in Linux. For a mid-size business, a salary of 40-60K for another admin is probably a very prohibitive expense.

Maybe

[Anonymous Coward]

Midsize Businesses fear multiplatform organization which is prohibitively complicated and expensive to manage?

Maybe it's a sign that we're all a little nervous in the post-9/11 world.

Bulk of US Business

[joelgrimes]

Unfortunately, companies of this size comprise the bulk of American business

I think that is incorrect. No matter how you measure it, small businesses are a larger component of the economy.

• Represent more than 99.7 percent of all employers.
• Employ more than half of all private sector employees
• Pay 44.5 percent of total U.S. private payroll.
• Generate 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs annually.
• Create more than 50 percent of nonfarm private gross domestic product (GDP).
• Produce 13 to 14 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms. These patents are twice as likely as large firm patents to be among the one percent most cited.
• Are employers of 39 percent of high tech workers (such as scientists, engineers, and computer workers ) .
• Are 53 percent home-based and 3 percent franchises.
• Made up 97 percent of all identified exporters and produced 29 percent of the known export value in FY 2001.

4 year old stats, but I don't think it's changed

link

We're a small-midsized business...

[kikensei]

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.

Re:Paranoia

[B'Trey]

I don't see much difference in this and contracting out physical security services. If Acme Security provides the nightwatchmen for you and also for your rival down the street, are you going to worry about them letting your rivals come in the back door and rummage through your place at night?

There is no conflict of interest in providing security for competing businesses. You have a contract with each business to protect their network infrastructure. You do not have a contract to help their business succeed or to assist them in any other way. You specifically don't have any interest in helping one company to accomplish illegal acts of corporate espionage. Your interest is to protect each network and there is no conflicting interest for you to take any other action. It isn't at all like the case of, say, a law firm representing two competing businesses. While there may be a small number of managers who won't grasp that, most business people are familiar with a company providing services to multiple organizations, including competitors. Do you think they worry about the power compnay cutting off their power in order to help a competitor? How about UPS letting the competitor look through their packages? The phone company letting them listen to phone calls?

Xenophobia

[erroneus]

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.

Midsize companies buy computers, not OSs.

[xplenumx]

Every single institution I've been at bought computers in bulk from Dell, with the OS (windows) pre-installed - only those with special needs (and were pretty computer savy to begin with) used Linux. Linux simply isn't a household name in the desktop market. Besides, practically everyone uses Windows or the Macintosh - sticking with a popular OS (real or perceived, it doesn't matter) reduces the risk of incompatability with the rest of the world.

Conclusions don't match the data?

[burner]

• Only 27 percent of respondents currently have Linux installed.
• Almost half of respondents said they had "no interest" in Linux.
• Of the companies where Linux is not already installed, 48 percent have no interest and an additional 15 percent are not sure.

So let me get this straight, 1/4 of midsize businesses are already using linux, and another ~ 1/4 have interest in it. And the conclusion we're supposed to draw is that mid size companies have "no use" for linux?

minor quibble

[scruffyMark]

So to sum it up, 27 percent already use Linux and of those who don't more than half are interested in it, while an other 15 percent are not sure.

Not quite right.
100 % total - 27 % with linux = 73 % without
of whom 100 % total - 48 % not interested - 15 % unsure = only 37 % of those without linux are interested
73 % without linux x 37 % of them interested = 27 % without linux but interested

I agree with your general point though - 27 % use linux, and a further 27 % are interested in it. 54 % are either using linux or interested it it. That hardly qualifies as "off the radar"

Ahem, check the author

[freezin fat guy]

Coursey is a familiar open-source basher and well used to distorting the picture. He has even been quoted as saying that commercial software firms do the innovation while open source mostly copies. This myth has been well debunked before but in case you missed it consider MS and tell me:

who "innovated" DOS, gui computing, windowed applications, mouse based ui, menus, word processor, spreadsheets, email client, address book, database... you get the picture. Such willful ignorance of the facts is quite staggering and makes for good reading/flaming.

Which causes me to wonder if Coursey really believes what he writes or if he's just there to create reaction. eWeek has more than a few OSS fans and Coursey knows he's kicking the nest. Maybe he's just having fun?