Slashdot Mirror
"Get the Facts" Campaign Working
brontus3927 writes "According to a Reseller Advocate Magazine write-up, Microsoft seems to be winning its war against Linux. Info-Tech Research Group recently ran a survey that is now being used on Microsoft's Get The Facts campaign. In it were some surprising results. 'After polling 1,400 IT managers and CIOs in SMB corporations, his group found that 48% were not interested in Linux, 15% were not sure about Linux, and only 10% plan to evaluate Linux." Despite this, two-thirds of all webservers run Linux. The disparity in these numbers comes from the fact that most smaller companies' websites are hosted by service providers running Linux servers even if the company itself isn't."
A lot of Apache webserver installations are used by hobbyists, not companies. You can't say the same for IIS.
Its not like MS can win a fud war against a free / quality product, this they showed Netscape. MS can slow Linux adoption but this by itself wont stop it, but if they combine a campain to slow linux combined with patent blanketing and file format lockin they may be able to marginalize linux.
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
GNU/linux that is thanks you very much.
Despite this, two-thirds of all webservers run Linux.
No. Two-thirds of all publicly visible web servers found by netcraft run Apache, but this includes many other operating systems.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
Given a survey that says people aren't interested in your product, the first thing you do is to blame it on the opposition's marketing. Not to point out your product's advantages, not to listen to what it is the customer actually wants, but just to whine about how the other guy isn't letting you compete.
And you wonder why they have so much marketshare.
Microsoft seems to be continuing its efforts to rubbish Linux and the Open Source movement, but i've noticed one positive thing to come out of this.
It seems the IT journalists are no longer taking what Microsoft says as gospel.. you read any Microsoft vs Linux type article or report and you'll see that the press regularly question Microsofts reasonings behind its attacks on Linux. In fact, apart from the handful of sites that seem to be permanently pro Microsoft, the majority seem sceptical about Microsoft! The BBC especially does a superb job on giving fair balance in its reports.
Clearly Linux is beginning to get a major foothold, and I still genuinely feel Microsoft is worried and getting more so every day.
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
Oh well, lets just all format our hard disks and promply head to Circuit City and pay up. We tried.:{
What about the NFS & AFP corporations? Not everyone runs CIFS.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Two thirds of web servers run Apache, but many of them would be running Apache on Windows!
This is the same old same old story for so long, I wonder why these keep ending up on the main page.
Unix rules the server room. Windows rules the desktop. Linux is solidly taking over the server room from proprietary Unices. The Linux revolution is not taking over the desktop. If your business sees computers from the desktop app perspective, MS is the winning vendor. If you are running network services and high availability dbs, you are running Unix (now Linux). Most companies of any size are running a polyglot of op-sys and apps which trends towards windows on the desktop and trends towards Unix/Linux on the back end.
They are using Linux everywhere in brokerages and banks. Don't believe these polls. If a dollar can be saved - they will use that technology.
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/08/ 224225&tid=163
Unfortunately Microsoft may be winning the war. And more scary in my opinion is Microsoft has shifted to more subtle means. What could be less intimidating than a web site dedicated to gently walking managers through the maze of technical issues ostensibly improving their (the managers) effectiveness?
For me, all I need to do to consider which platform costs less to manage is look back over the span of my career... I've managed Windows and Unix systems for over twenty years (which means I've managed Windows systems for "x" years -- you pick when you first think that might be -- I know it hasn't been twenty years). And when I weigh how much I invest to keep systems running, Unix (linux included) always wins, easily.
Of course, I found it unusual for management to ask me or any of my technical peers for recommendations, they typically get/got most of their advice gladhanding on the golf course, or from nice glossy brochures, and now, from slick benevolent web sites.
Microsoft is one of the best at PR, and their "Get the Facts" campaign may be one of their most impressive successes (oh that Microsoft would be so successful developing and creating safe and secure software). But, Microsoft knows perception is 90% of reality. What they say only has to feel true and assuage the fears of managers justifying manager's choices to stay with Microsoft. Unfortunately it has become a Nobody ever got fired for choosing Microsoft world (remember when it was IBM?), and with Microsoft's huge lead and head start in controlling the marketplace I don't see this changing any time soon.
What bugs me is when it bleeds into my area (I prefer doing my work in the Unix world...). For example, the time our team got a new member -- a new sysadmin who previously had been working and support Windows machines at our company. Our main server was a workhorse Sun Server and I had with reverence watched it chug away doing good work with an up time that had finally exceeded 550 days (not a huge record in the Unix world, but it was fun to see it go...). The Monday of week two of our new admin I was dismayed to see that our trusty Sun server now only had an uptime of less than two days. Sigh. Wasn't sure why, but reboots/crashes happen. Before I could do any more checking, "Bob" (not his real name) dropped by positively beaming and let me know he had noticed that luna (the server) had not been rebooted for a long time so over the weekend he had rebooted it for us! Universes collide! Sigh, again.
I'd love to see good technology prevail -- unfortunately today the combination of effective PR and FUD campaigns combined with Microsoft's products turns out to be good cough enough.
Was Linux ever winning this war? Microsoft's been in the lead, it's just that Linux is playing catch-up.
This same group came out with the story '"Mid-Sized Companies Not Interested in Linux - Microsoft Still Dominates, Study Says" - April 5, 2005'.
It looks like the same "study".
Thanks, Slashdot, for giving the lame "study" more legs and contributing to Linux FUD.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
I seriously doubt those data and the credibility of the whole "study". This strikes me as another Microsoft-sponsored fabrication. My company is doing market research on about anything, including the use of operating systems, with sample pools that are more than a magnitude largers and we came to very different results that also indicate that Linux is on the rise in every segment, even on the corporate desktop market. Shame on Microsoft for spreading lies again!
And no, I haven't read the article yeat
Maybe this is due to Sun's announcement to provide Solaris for free and under an open-source compatible liscense.
"GNU/linux that is thanks you very much."
No, we thank God that you do not work on marketing. Refrain of spelling such an ugly and unpronounceable name. Guh-noo slash Linux... what the fuck?
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Last I checked, Netcraft only checks the server that the site is running on. If 10 sites are all hosted on the same server, then they count 10 seperate servers. Anyone else think this kind of counting is flawed?
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
what are the percentages of IT managers and CIO who were not interested in Linux, were not sure about Linux, and planned to evaluate Linux before the Get the Facts campaign started?
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
That survey only shows what people are thinking of Linux now. Suppose that before the campaign, only 5% were thinking of using linux and 90% were dead-set against it? Then the campaign would be backfiring. Without any data points on what people thought before, or what a control group of people who haven't been exposed to the campaign think, we can't tell how effective or inneffective "Get the Facts" has been. -Drachasor
Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
This may surprise to the parent poster but quite a few Apache installations are on top of Windows simply because people don't trust IIS - ditto BIND (which people shouldn't trust either, but let's not get into that). It shouldn't come as a shock that IT managers aren't evaluating Linux for servers as much anymore when you look at what's available in Windows Server 2003 and *BSD. I'm not as big a user of Linux as I used to be, so stop me if I'm talking out my ass here, but stripping Linux down to operate strictly as a server simply isn't what it used to be (in terms of effort required if nothing else) due to kernel bloat and dependency hell. Why would you use it when there are other OSes that provide everything else a server needs with less kruft?
--Ryv
For the campaign to work, people whom would be considering Linux would have to change their minds. In the SMB space, 50% of those responsible for IT policy (aka. the owners) likely don't have a clue. The "Get The Facts" campaign is likely raising the noticeability of Linux more than anything else.
The SMB space (especially the S part) often consists of small offices (20) that have grown organically from a workgroup configuration. The migration is often to a single MS-SBS server at the instance of a rent-a-tech. Rent-a-tech'r'us (TM) recommends MS-SBS because the smb staff is comfortable with the MS interface to do simple things (Like backup; add/disable users).
Without Rent-a-Tech'r'us, many SMB operators would not get the benefits of using a server to increase Knowledge flow within the organization. Such SMB operators don't know what a NOS is, or care.
To Conclude: 1) Many SMB operators do not know what a NOS is. 2)The Get The Facts campaign has informed them, and informed them about Linux. 3)Keep up the Good work Microsoft;)
Two-thirds of all publicly visible web servers found by netcraft run Apache, but this includes many [bsd] other [bsd] operating [bsd on mach] systems [windows].
*BSD I can deal with, but how many actual web sites running on Windows servers use Apache rather than IIS?
Management isnt going to act on ethics. We need an example - a company that has clearly benefited from switching, and not just "we saved a couple bucks because our IT nerd is running a linux box for something I never knew existed". We need to convince the millions of people who sell stuff for a living that something free is the best option. It's a culture war, and either we fight that or "we had a better product but..." If we want linux to take over the business world then we need business men to do some heavy lifting.
But why should we care? Is Linus doing this for world domination? Is anybody? I'm content with thriving community we have now, I play with it, and I'm lucky enough to work with it. Fuck the boardroom.
If you do the equation above, you find that 37% of responses *AREN'T ACCOUNTED FOR*. Could it be that 37% of managers is using linux or PLANNING on using linux? Seems to be the logical conclusion to draw when 48% aren't planning on using linux, and 15% say they may evaluate it in the future.
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
I will flip out if I see someone say "Fact: Linux is dead." now. Microsoft has always been a strong competitor. It doesn't matter how much MS campaigns. Linux has a strong backing and it is a solid OS and its cheaper than MS. This is just a minor setback.
Arguably, these guys won't use computers only to run web servers.
:)
Firstly, Linux on desktops can be tricky to administer, and you have to train your users, while being able to use Windows and Office is now a bare hiring criteria for even an ill-paid clerk.
And, secondly, while linux server software for small and medium businesses has gained ground since a couple of years, we can recognize that Redmond is quite ahead in business software. Most medium and small ERP apps run on windows only. And while Linux is the most efficient solution to run a mail server, a web server, these are almost always outsourced to ISP or hosting companies.
So these guys may end up using linux for business-critical apps without even knowing it
The stereotypical image of Linux (smelly, overweight nerds wearing Star Trek T-shirts) compared to Microsoft (suit-wearing shmoozers with lunch budgets to burn) explains all this.
Decision makers tend to be more political and less technical in nature, that's how they got to be bosses.
Of course, this is not always true as there are companies that have tech-backgrounded managers that do a great job. Find one and work for them.
Linux on the Desktop is dead. The Linux desktops have had nearly a decade to mature, and they are all still far, far behind the other major commercial offerings.
I mean, seriously -- I use Fedora for development at work, and it's a joke. The desktop is slow and unresponsive, and installation of new programs is a pain in the ass. I had to install the trial of Rational Rose Modeller the other day, and it was a sad experience. I had to manually create a shortcut to
I'm sure that in this hypothetical alternate universe where people only ever use three applications, Linux might be able to be at least bearable, but beyond that it's a fucking joke. I'm sure that this is, in part, due to the condesending attitude of both desktop camps that "Joe Users are Idiots and They Will Only Need to Browse the Web and Use A Shitty Office Suite". I'm sure that for the 5 people that fit that description, that the shitty office suite that Linux provides will do quite nicely.
Both XP and Tiger are light years beyond anything that Linux has ever been capable of providing. So it's no wonder that corporate uptake is slowing -- as people (wisely) farm out the non-core tasks such as hosting web pages to other companies, all that's left in the corporate environment is a series of networked desktop servers. There might be one or two file servers and database servers that would work a bit better on Linux than on Windows, but the overhead of having a Linux admin there for one or two servers which can work just as well on Windows can't easily be justified.
Seriously, this is not any huge surprise -- the amount of hardware in any given organization that can usefully be transitoned to Linux -- which emphatically includes NONE of the desktops, as "useful" is a criteria -- is so small that the cost of moving them to Linux probably IS more than keeping them on Windows.
Those Apache servers are not all Linux. A lot of Apache servers are BSD or other *IX systems. A few are even Windows boxes. There's probably a MachTen box or two in the mix.
I think Linux is the cat's pajamas, the bee's knees; it does not need to steal credit from BSD and other projects in order to deserve praise.
You can tell me all kinds of stuff and back it up with expert opinions and statistics. The trouble is that when your 'facts' disagree with my own observations, you lose all credibility with me.
If you tell me that if I smoke pot I am destined to use heroin and I look around and see lots of potheads who have never used heroin then I won't believe anything else you tell me.
When I look around me at the open source uptake around here, I have to think that way more than half the CIOs are at least thinking about linux. Therefore, I simply don't believe what these guys are saying. Either that or lots of CIOs have no clue what's going on in their own shops.
Bill Gates can no more stamp out Linux than Nancy Regan could stamp out marijuana.
Cool, so 52% is interested in Linux. Only 15% was unsure about Linux, the remaining 85% have already made their mind up about running Linux or not. Finally an amazing 10% of all SMB corporations is already planning to try out Linux.
I think that's pretty impressive.
How would you like to spin your statistics today?
And how much were locked-in using M$ ?
By the way, 10% seems a good start to me... When 10% would have switched, maybe 10 other percent might consider to switch.
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
I wouldn't worry about lack of Linux adoption due to FUD. Linux will win solely by virtue of its price if it actually becomes a good replacement for Windows. Think about it: if your business spends millions of dollars a year on Windows, a competitor who uses Linux will have a big advantage. It doesn't matter how much propaganda MS puts out, the issue will work itself out.
Right now, Linux offers some advantages and has big disadvantages -- such as the lack of Windows compatibility. It would simply be impossible to replace it at my job, for instance, because many corporate applications that I use are only available for Windows (one is an ActiveX application, by the way). Obviously, Linux is not an option here.
The real danger from Microsoft is software, file format, protocol and especially hardware lock-in. Microsoft has enough power to make that happen. Of course, all of this borders on unfair competition, so they will have some legal obstacles in that arena.
Beacuse they can do this thing called *Marketing*.
Be it honest or not, marketing is what wins the battle.
When was the last time you saw a linux commercial? When was the last time you saw a Microsoft commercial? Bet it was the microsoft one.
Guess which one sticks in the minds of conusmers?
This also goes for IT publications and IT consumers. The magazines are plastered with them. With very few linux ones ( mostly IBM ads )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
When will we have a linux version of get the facts?
We should compile a list of reason why GNU/linux is better or why it's TCO is lower.
There are reasons why UNIX/Linux is better and there are also some arguments why "Windows" or closed source are good in some case.
I haven't seen a objective debate about this.
I always get the same answer: people in the SMB space think of Linux as more of a enterprise tool.
[laughs] Remember when Microsoft spent money on marketing trying to convince people that Linux wasn't "enterprise-ready", and it was seen as the exclusive domain of hobbyists and small-time outfits?
I'll vouch for the "Universes collide!"
We have a couple of windows admins that regularly reboots Unix platforms. It took a management directives to tell them "hands-off, buzzards!"
These souless guys (and gals) don't have a clue what Telecom industry have been touting for so long, the holy grail of six 9s (99.9999%) uptime.
Does the majority even matter? Back in the good ol' days we used to believe that the world was flat, and that idea kinda failed. Who's to say that the same principle doesn't apply here?
Anonymous Coward
It's not a 'war' except in the minds of some /. ers.
As a user, not a computer guy, the matter isn't even a close call. I would LOVE to have the technical ability and background to use Linux. But I don't have the time to learn all the arcane syntax and jargon needed to be able to make it work.
I have *never* done a Linux install, of any distro, that didn't need me to open a vi session and tweak some unknown "switch" or go out and find and download some snarky driver or some such. Invariably this also occurs when the pumupter being worked on isn't yet capable of communications, so I have to do this on ANOTHER PC and transfer the file with a floppy.
I wish the Linux proponents would spend 1/12th as much time as they spend breast-beating trying to consolidate all these ego-busting distributions -- and make just ONE that was even close to Microsoft's comprehensiveness.
I fear that will never happen.
I see OSX starting to take over the desktop. It's a slow climb though, we aren't going to see everyone switch overnight. And if Longhorn is good, that takeover will promptly stop.
Microsoft lobbying is usually very foolish, their lobbying and PR fires back on them. You do not have to write anti-MS stuff you just have to take their stuff and report it. As it is done here.
I think microsoft is a huge promoter of Linux, even where Linux does really compete with Windows Sure, users will switch to Linux. Everybody does. Just be realistic.
One example: Miciosoft lobbying for softwae patents. Microsoft hires x different lobbying hats to lobby for patenting of software, but they all behave like fools. In Denmark Marianne Wier even leaked a blackmail attempt as a PR. Marianne is responsible for Public Affairs. The Borsen newspaper article created a storm against microsoft. The next example was Bill Gates at the European Internet Foundation, his meeting was a real failure for Ms lobbyists in Brussels.
A lot of SMBs have no in-house sysadmin. They rely on Microsoft for their IT solution. No reason why they couldn't rely on Red Hat or Novell; they just don't. Now. They'll figure it out in time.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
I run a large datacenter and recently looked into setting up a linux environment, imagine my surprise when i found out that red hat enterprise linux cost the same as my microsoft licenses and then i even had to pay an additional yearly subscription fee to get support. The distros are doing this to themselves, not the M$ FUD campaign. Mark me down, i don't care :)
I am willing to bet that many of these small businesses don't even have a dedicated server. Someone's desktop in a workgroup functions as a "Server" and calling one of the employees an IT Manager or CIO is probably quite a stretch.
What role is Apple going to play in the near future? It seems to gaining ground in both.
pointing out facts only gets in the way of mindless Linux zealotizing.
pointing out the facts only gets in the way of mindless Linux zealotizing!
Dear Microsoft, please put "Define:fact" in google and learn what a fact is and isn't.
So Microsoft have released another bunch of statistics that show that their product is better than their competitors. Does anyone actually believe this crap? The more they do this sort of thing the more obvious it is that Linux is starting to make their eyes water. Squeezed tight enough yet Bill?
Anyway, I had been doing this \\222.222.222.222\ loopback + putty trick over ssh (compressed and encrypted). So one particular day the guy was more frustrated than ever with his server, I logged on my debian home machine, opened the guy an account, gave him samba acess, configured the local loop on his machine, installed putty (now using portforwarder, it's even easier) and off he went with a remote drive access in windows. I also showed him netscape running over ssh and using the cygwin X server and told him about remote X11 access being an integral part of linux. Also told him there isn't much to do in terms of administration for something as trivial as this. Will walk him through the installation/basic admin too if he decides to scrap xp on the remote server.
This is how you generate interest in linux, kids... no need to roll your eyes and froth at the mouth while shouting abuse, it doesn't work! It is much more effective to do your own (supported by working examples) "get the facts" campain.
Switching to Linux for most of these companies doesn't make sense.
Now, on the front end, the websites etc, the e-mail forwarding, they probably are serving up pages using Linux and getting services from Linux and they don't even know it.
We've got an IT mindset and I think it's a bit unrealistic. Those numbers actually look pretty reasonable to me, with or without the Get the Fud campeign.
Luck favors the prepared, darling.
For a great example of infighting, read the latest colomn on pcmag.com by John C. Dvorak. but it doesnt dtop there, ask any linux geek what distro they like and then mention that you like a differant one, that is the quickest way to start a petty-ass flamewar that I have ever seen.
Second: tell an OSS evangalist that you like GIMP, but preder photoshop, stand back on this one, lest rabid drool fall on your shoe as their eyes get bloodshot with anger and they shout "THE GIMP CAN DO ANYTHING PS CAN!" the same can be said for any number of titles. Untill the greater linux community stops acting like all closed source software is rooted in pure evil, this will be a barrier to entry as well.
And lastly, enough with the f***ing superiority complex towards n00bs, at one time or anotherr everyone was a "n00b". There is nothing more irretating to a newcommer to a computer platform to get the same answer to every question, "RTFM N00B" that pisses people off and could drive them back into the windows world where there is at least somewhat professional tech support. The preceding was Just my observations, nothing more or less.
Stripping down Linux is pretty easy. There are many distros that are already stripped down, and every distro I've ever tried has a "server" package, which includes only what you need to run a webserver.
But even if you do the stripping yourself it's not that bad. Whenever you do something mainstream that lots of people do, you can do it the way everyone else does.
The dependencies for apache are clearly known by pretty much every distribution. There's even a project to build everything you need from scratch if you just want to start with nothing and build up. In short, if you have dependency problems when you're dealing with apache, you're using a pretty messed up distro to start with, since virtually all of them solve that problem first.
As far as kernel bloat...I don't know where you're getting this. Even a big kernel is tiny compared to any Windows kernel 95 or higher. Recompile the kernel, or download one of the many, many already created tiny kernels. It takes four minutes to configure and half an hour to recompile and install.
*Note: Poster may be someone looking to Slashdot to do his research for him, and I didn't want to do so. I will, however, say that the links for all the things I mentioned are available at freshmeat.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
This is the same old same old story ... Unix rules the server room. Windows rules the desktop
Nope, the story changed and you weren't paying attention. Windows now has a higher server marketshare than all forms of *nix combined.
Linux is very strong in Internet servers, but once you get into the back office stuff, its barely making a dent.
In other words you didn't plan a change over. You failed to train users on how to work with the system, and you wonder why it failed.
You sir are an idiot. People like you deserve windows. An OS designed from the ground up to help create better money paying idiots.
So, I partially agree with you (quite a bit costs money) - and am actually busy doing something about it.
Give me two more months and there will be much fun to be had - do not underestimate the power of your own voice.
= Ch =
Insert
I think Linkin Park had a line in a song that described the choice between Windows and Linux...
"In the end, it doesn't even matter"
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
You fired someone for making a suggestion that turned out bad and in the end was a decision *YOU* were responsible for?!?
That guy is *A LOT* better off now than he was working for you, that much is clear. You are a terrible leader in the worst sense, someone who will cover their own ass at the expense of others.
You are lucky I am not *YOUR* boss... you'd be on the unemployment line right behind that guy... no, actually, only *YOU* would be on the unemployment line... I'd hire him back and get him a better boss too.
If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
I still maintain they should call it GNUlix :)
Perhaps not....
Anyhow, what about all the non-GNU software included with the average Linux distro?
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
You work for the Windows "Get the Facts" campaign. No?
Fine. Would you please consider rewritting it so that it includes a few more facts, and a lot less FUD?
"polling 1,400 IT managers and CIOs"
Polling who? Trying polling the people that actually do things. Those CIOs and managers probably don't even know what Linux and Windows are.
Unix rules the server room.
I don't know about that. My highschool, both colleges I went to, and the three companies that I've worked for all were running Windows servers. I think Linux tends to get a bit overhyped about how much it is used.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
You're comparing Microsoft marketing professionals with Slashdot posters?
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
48% are not interested in Linux.
52% are somewhat interested in Linux.
15% are not sure about Linux.
Which leaves 37% who have deployed Linux or are testing Linux for deployment.
The company I work for sounds similar to your's. We have LOTS of server apps that will only run on Windows. Except we have more servers.
Possibly. But "now" isn't "tomorrow".
The key issue is whether you're talking about an EXISTING installation or a NEW installation.
Because you have an existing installation, your company has already spent the money to evaluate and deploy that system.
But, at some time in the future, there will be an upgrade. And you will have to spend more money on your system.
There are 3 items to consider when evaluating a system.
#1. Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) - how much does it cost to run this system day after day.
#2. Return on Investment (ROI) - How much revenue with this system allow us to generate?
#3. Migration cost - How much will it cost to deploy this system.
Now, even though Linux may have a far lower TCO and a far higher ROI, the migration cost can be too high to make a business case for it.
But when it is time to pay for the next upgrade, the migration costs need to be compared. So if it would cost $1 million to migrate today, but it would take the company 10 years to make that money back, no one would migrate.
But then you have to pay $500,000 for the next upgrade. Suddenly, the Linux system doesn't look so bad. Particularly if you're looking at ANOTHER upgrade within the next 5 years.
So you (being the pro-active guy you are) get in touch with the people working on the Linux systems. You have the time and they have the incentive. Can they cut the migration costs to $250,000 within the next 5 years (estimated time to your next upgrade)?
After all, it's just 0's and 1's.
If they can do that, then the next upgrade will cost MORE than the migration.
It's called a "migration plan". Only idiots or people with an agenda try to migrate ALL of their systems at once.
Start by learning Linux and seeing where it can be deployed, reasonably, in your existing network. We're running it for DNS/DHCP/backup/webpages/etc. I also have it protecting an old GroupWise system. I'm also trying to establish OpenLDAP as our standard directory service.
The longer you wait to start, the more proprietary infra-structure you'll have to migrate.
Your IT department needs a plan. Otherwise, you'll be driven by the vendors. And the vendors are only interested in getting more of your money into their pockets.
And "staying with Microsoft" is not a plan.
If you ask me, back when I was new to Debian the #debian on the OpenProjects IRC network was great. I guess that's all changed names/moved to the freenode IRC network now but I'm sure that the support is still the same.
Not to mention, all the people in that channel were volunteers, as far as I know.
when the mind-share is clearly turning away from Microsoft, they can claim anything they want but it doesn't change the fact that people are switching to Linux.
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
And every Linux user knows that it's way better than Windows. It's just Windows has the thought police and the government.
Please let me explain the above post. This entire "Microsoft vs Linux" war (a war nota bene interesting only for infantile cheerleaders and crazy zealots on both sides and otherwise bearing very little if any relevance for real system administrators) is utterly pointless and has been from the very beginning. Everyone is basically saying: "We think that you should buy from us because..." and the "facts" follow. Does it really surprise anyone? Does it still have to be a front page news? Do we really have to waste our valuable time on explaining lies and FUD being spread by Microsoft? Can't we just accept that lying Microsoft is a status quo and start posting front page news after it becomes status quo ante? Now that would be some interesting news I would like to read about. People, we as a community have a lot of much more important things to do but we prefer to write countless posts about Microsoft and meanwhile the sarge is still frozen, the kernel is still buggy, pasting is still inconsistent and we are still not ready for the desktop. Why? Because we waste our time on arguing that we have great software instead of making it even greater. That is our biggest problem.
Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
Nice troll, but why would the guy get fired if it was just an evaluation?
See, you're going to have to rework the whole thing now, because if you just did that minor correction alone, we'd still recognise it as a cut-n'-paste troll.
Thank you for playing Slashdot. Please come back again.
Apple currently has just above zero percent of business desktops and servers (outside of the design business), so any positive change is "gaining ground". It's going to be a very long haul for them, but at least they're working at it (ie, OS X Windows networking).
They really need to get some corporate-focused boxes out there. Businesses don't buy sealed-box machines that require special tools to install RAM.
The fact that a CIO probably doesn't know anything about Linux and thinks that his servers are running Windows (because it's the only thing he understands) but his system administrator has already been running most of the servers under some flavor of Linux for years is something that happens very often...
Most of them know about the end-result but the ways to provide this end-result are simply not valuable information for them. I think this "survey" only proves this point. They only know about buzzwords like "Windows" "Linux" "Apache" "IIS" but have them explain the difference to you, it's like watching Dilbert's boss on TV...
RedVortex
Judging by their relentless increase in revenue from quarter to quarter, nobody is making much progress against MS.
OTOH, it has to stop sometime, like when we all work for them...
So, 48% is most now?
that's amazing!
Anyway, this is a dup from a few weeks ago. The original post actually had a link to the study instead of a press release, MS, and the study company homepage...
If you actually look at the numbers in the study, it shows that 52% of SMBs are interested at some level in Linux, 10% are evaluating, and something like 25-35% already have some linux deployed. Only 48% aren't interested... which really is quite amazing. Already the MAJORITY of SMBs are interested in Linux.
In unrelated news, a recent survey of scientists reveals that most believe that the sun is still pretty darned hot. "You wouldn't want that puppy in your pants" said one source who wished not to be identified. Moon worshipers worldwide were quick to point out that the sun survey was commissioned by sun worshipers. One source, who wished not to be identified, said "Sure the sun makes a pretty good sun, but it would make a lousy moon, but those sun fanboys fail to point that out." Both sides of this hot debate agreed that you needn't fresh or original content to get a bunch of page hits, you can simply rehash something on slashdot.
Making the world a better place, one psychotic episode at a time.
This isn't exactly what I'd call an earth-shattering revelation. Do you people seriously expect intelligence from corporations?
Corps feel a desperate, hysterically technophobic *need* to be hand-held and spoonfed, especially where computers are concerned...and Microsoft are going to be a lot better equipped to do that than any Linux vendor.
Whether Linux gains corporate mindshare has nothing whatsoever to do with technical superiority...It has to do with who is best capable of burping, feeding, and changing the nappies of corporate executives and managers...and as I said, that's Microsoft in this case. Other than maybe IBM, it's not going to be anybody else selling Linux.
Bunk. 2/3 might run Apache, but that runs on any flavor of Unix, BSD/OSX, even Windows.
http://www.linuxquestions.org/
Very helpful community, and very active for a lot of distros. I have never, ever, seen an answer that was only "RTFM". I've seen answers like "Here's how you do it, and here's the section of the manual where this fix comes from", but never only "read the !@#$@#$ manual."
Actually, Linux is moving onto the desktop.
http://www.kde.org/ The K Desktop Enviroment, really stable and is what I use
http://www.gnome.org/ GNOME, made by red hat and shipped with Fedora Core
If anyone else could post some more GUI's i'd appreciate it
This is another good reason why Microsoft should buy Red Hat. Then Red Hat could focus on making some high-quality commercial tiny component of the 'computer solution to management issues'.
Clueless management Barbies and Kens could claim their total allegiance to dominant monopoly capitalism (every met one that wouldn't?) while the real corporate computer system network could be running with Linux under the control of the technocracy (which is you if you're reading this).
Microsoft Red Hat would provide the means for the Linux community to integrate competence and consistency into corporate computing while still testifying to senior management that they are still using the 'secure, stable, safe, and acceptable' Microsoft solution.
For all their talk, deep down senior management only cares that that their computers work. Fear of Linux is simply the general corporate fear of anything unknown.
They aren't. Hehe.
Poll some non-M$-related people, see what they say.
In fact, some of those systems even allow for significant portions of hardware to be swapped in and out WHILE the system is running.
If you have good hardware, you aren't likely to see or get any corruptions, failed startup scripts or other related issues. Startup scripts don't suddenly fail, text based configuration files are only going to get corrupt if you have massive hardware problems, like a failing Hard Drive or a failing Processor.
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
Does anyone really care about this "war"?
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
So where do you see the decline in interest?
Okay. Stop. You're talking out of your ass.
I use Debian on servers. It is ultra-simple to install a bare system and then add on only what I specifically want.
And that isn't even counting recompiling the kernel or recompiling any packages. I'm sure you could get an extra 5-10% performance, but my systems are already on idle most of the time.
What "kruft"? Which OS's have less? Certainly not in Win2003, as you mentioned. You cannot remove services in that, just disable them.
why not get the best of both worlds and use mac os x, it's as solid as any *nix and it has must have commercial apss natively.
I think the parent was suggesting that you not sell them technologies, but solutions. Solutions are brand-neutral, and require little to no additional knowledge on the part of the consumer. As long as the software does what they need, I'm not so sure the means by which that happens is all that important.
Most of those people probably already have Linux boxes. Their staff has likely snuck some in as firewalls and servers. Furthermore, lots of their embedded devices (access points, network storage, routers, etc.) run on Linux.
:-)
The nice thing is that these people don't have to "investigate" Linux, Linux is coming to them, piece by piece. In Capitalist America, you don't adopt Linux, Linux adopts you
Fired? I'm assuming the guy spazzed out and quit after his Lunix world domination plan failed. Most Linux fans have a very disconnected view of the utility of Linux and would rather be unemployed than deal with the harsh reality.
People taking these classes are naturally going to go back to their businesses and install on what they learned - Linux. They do, after all, have instructions from class that are tailored to Linux/Oracle or DB2, not Win2003/Oracle or DB2.
If you are only running MS products, such as SQL Server, Exchange, etc. then yes, you'll likely only have MS servers in your datacenter.
When you change startup scripts or recompile parts of the kernel, then you reboot in order to test your changes.
When you don't change anything related to startup and don't touch the kernel, you don't reboot.
Simple enough?
First fact, I make heavy use of Linux and open source and my skills are way way more in demand than my MS counterparts. And that reflects in my pay, and the fact that people are always coming to me for solutions.
Second Fact, I can often provide all the IT infrastructure my company needs without even requesting a PO. In fact, while ohter people get haggled every time they make a purchase, I rarely even get questioned - which I think is because I do way more with way less then my counterparts do.
Third fact, I really have few worries about an unwelcome visit from the BSA, and I don't mean boy scounts of america.
Frouth fact, I rarely need to deal with all the license headaches, and the annual renew crap and forced upgrades that my counterparts do. In fact, upgrades and improvements are not a chore, and I am not terrorized that every upgrade will break everything.
Fith fact, I get the pleasure of doing more RnD, because I don't need financial approval from a bean counter everytime I do something.
Sixth fact, I rarely pay extra for things like compilers, office productivity stuff, graphics programs, and visus scanning is't even a worry accept for scanning linux SMB servers for others.
Seventh fact, things like paravirtualisation, parallel clusters, email, databases, dns, web servers, and remore access to programs come standard in Linux.
Eight fact, I can literally rip a Linux box out of one x86 box and place it in another and run kudzu and it recovers ausomely. Have you ever tried this with Microsoft?
Ninth fact, those are all red herrings. What makes Linux vavuable is that it's not about technology, but freedom. People who talk about business and not freedom are cowards and ingrates to the culture and attitudes that made them successfull to begin with and over the long term they will certainly get what they deserve.
In today's 'merica, mindless shilling and advertising is truth.
I usually see the word spelled with a 'k,' but apparently 'sceptical' is an acceptible varient. Now I'm trying to figure out what the opposite of irony is called.
Die already... geesh!
Meh.
I think this is the latest corporate acronym rather than an IT acronym. I know its hard to keep track, and its quite possible it stands for something else altogether.
If we dont stop yelling at people about how Linux better because its FOSS, and just point out how it is better people without blasting anyone who criticizes Linux will use Windows unless they already use FOSS, and MS will win.
Baiting, not drilling, is how to win people over.
The company I work at uses an absolute ton of OSS libraries and tools. They work quite well, the developers are (mostly) happy with them, and everyone is professional about it. We don't care about the zealots, and we don't have to. We have contributed patches to many of those products, and don't involve ourselves in fanboyism. We're just interested in getting the job done. Point is: every group has zealots. There are as many Windows zealots as there are Linux zealots. (In fact now that I think about it I would imagine Windows has far more from a purely numerical standpoint simply because of their vastly larger user base. But that's just conjecture.) Remember the Amiga? Holy crap. Amiga users made Southern Baptists look like beacons of moderation. Did that mean the Amiga wasn't a great computer? Hell no. It was kick ass. Still remembered fondly.
Anyhoo. If the tool works better, use it. Screw the evangelicals. I'm an OS X user at work, but I actually switched back to Windows because our in-house (non-OSS) source control system only works on that platform, so it was too painful to develop on the Mac. I was having to Remote Desktop into my PC, and the lag was substantial enough that it affected my productivity. Right tool, right job, so Windows it is for coding, however much it sucks in comparison. :)
"For a great example of infighting, read the latest colomn on pcmag.com by John C. Dvorak. but it doesnt dtop there, ask any linux geek what distro they like and then mention that you like a differant one, that is the quickest way to start a petty-ass flamewar that I have ever seen."
I agree with you, there are a lot of FOSS zealots quite vocal in Slashdot and other community forums, but you have to keep in mind that Linux didn't get where it is because of them but because of a tech-savvy silent majority, which is way more helpful and way more involved in the real issues than those guys. The zealots have more time and more energy to waste in sterile discussions, but what can we do? Should we spend hours modding down those morons or typing coherent arguments that get ignored or mod down by them anyways?
"OSS evangalist that you like GIMP, but preder photoshop, stand back on this one, lest rabid drool fall on your shoe as their eyes get bloodshot with anger and they shout "THE GIMP CAN DO ANYTHING PS CAN!" the same can be said for any number of titles. Untill the greater linux community stops acting like all closed source software is rooted in pure evil, this will be a barrier to entry as well."
True, but you're talking with an evangelist, what were you expecting? I mean, do you get objective, facts-based analysis when you speak with MS Office evangelists or Mac evangelists? The problem is not the community but a very specific type of guy within the community. Just talk to different people and you'll see the difference.
When you have changes that need testing, you either do that testing in a non-production environment or you don't make the changes.
Once you have the system setup, you don't go around changing the startup scripts except immediately before a planned upgrade that involves rebooting anyways.
Only way a reboot happens is when essential upgrades are being implemented or a catastrophe has happened, like an earthquake, or the UPS blew a fuse.
I for one have had enough of our former desktop overlords. Join my army lets march on them and eliminate them all for good!
It seems to me that this report would help motivate Linux supporters to evangelize. Its a double edged sword in that way. Especially as posted on Slashdot, its a provocative story, but not really FUD. I don't think any people here are going to suddenly give up on linux because of this study.
At my company Linux is slowly making some advances.
This is mostly due to that some of us developers having some Unix experience, I can see how Windows only shops would be very slow to use Linux due to that they would hesitate over whether they could maintain and manage these systems, even though there are cost savings.
One problem with running many Linux systems and software applications is documentation and support.
Now with open source software there's not much free support, but this could be alleviated by really good documentation and how-to manuals. Yes, I know that there's a lot of documentation online for some of the open source software, however other projects has almost none, or only partially documentated. If open software wants to become heavilly adopted within organization dominated by Windows software it has to be better documented. Open source software documentation can not only be almost or as good as commercial counterparts, it has to raise the bar and set a new standard.
-- This would have been my two cents on the topic but I found that I only had one left.
Please read the Netcraft survery again. Apache runs not only on linux but every other *nix system and even windows. Netcraft has a 2/3rds use on public webservers. The last OS grouping survey I saw said linux was around 25-28%. But that was a few years ago and I have long since lost where those surveys were.
I suspect WITHOUT the Get The Facts campaign (et al). there would be an even smaller number thinking of evaluating Linux - because they would never have heard of it.
Most IT people I work with don't know about it if it's not in a Microsoft catalogue. Most IT people are in IT not because they have a particular passion for it, but merely because it pays the mortgage and and isn't too awful. They don't actively research outside what's in the shiny catalogues of large corporations, they just install what's on offer from the biggest.
It's going to be at least a decade before Linux even scratches the surface in most traditional companies.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
And you expected it to work?
I now systematically install Firefox as the default browser on all machines, but I first used it myself for several months (started with v. 0.7 I think, called Phoenix), and only recommended it to computer-savvy friends. Then I set it up for a few users (it was at version 0.9 by then), and waited a couple more months. Then I asked for their feedback, before deploying it to normal users. (The feedback was positive).
And that's for a simple web browser.
I understand why your employee isn't at that company anymore, but I don't understand why you didn't leave with him
Mr. Microsoft, Repeat after me. 1. Linux is not Apache 2. Apache is not Linux 3. Its not Windows vs Linux 4. Its Windows vs Apache
This is the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy. Namely, the poster believed that since this survey occured after the "Get the Facts" campaign, then the "Get the Facts" campaign is responsible for the survey results. This may or may not be true.
Personally, I found the "Get the Facts" campaign as anything but factual.
We have two eyes and ten fingers so we will type five times as much as we read. http://www.shlomifish.org/
When you have changes that need testing, you either do that testing in a non-production environment or you don't make the changes.
What does that have to do with anything? This guy is telling us he is installing completely untested changes on his production system and they break things at unexpected times, so he needs to test them. Apparently, his production system isn't very important to him, so he can reboot that. If his production system were important to him, he could install the changes on a staging system, test there, and then synchronize, but he should perhaps walk before he runs.
It is important to understand that Marketing is what really works here and there are several examples of that. HyperTransport/Opteron is far superior to Netburst/Xeon but you dont see many commercials touting the benifits of that platform so AMD struggles to penetrate the market. Yet every commercial you see on TV whether its from gateway or IBM or HP they all say "We use intel Processors". Dell and Intel's Superior marketing skills keep them as the percieved technology leaders even when it is clear they are not. They are market leaders not technology leaders. Likewise the same scenario plays out with Linux and Windows. Windows is a market leader not a technology leader. Linux is the current technology leader. You don't see Windows running on Cray or S390 big irons do you ? Nor can I easily install windows to a USB thumb drive and boot any USB bootable PC and all my desktop and files are there. So how can we reduce the effectiveness of their propoganda campain? We have to directly attack the campain 1) Reduce the effectiveness of their paid studies. How ? (a) Simply ridicule the paid studies (b) point out their obvious flaws in a professional manner (c) Make jokes about the obvious flaws in their studies. This will instill in peoples minds that anyone that believes *Any* of MS paid studies is quite naive. We must single out each one of their studies in the Get The Facts Campain and create a tag line for each one. A tag line that points out the obvious flaw in each study. Then propogate these in ways that will be prevalent in the minds of CIOs each time they see one of MS GTF ads. Basically we want "microsoft funded studies are flawed" to be as ubiquitous as "Microsoft has the poorest security" in the minds of managers and the media. Marketing is what rules not superior products If superior products ruled then many companies would be using alpha technology today. If price/performance really mattered then most companies would have already switched to Linux/AMD64 platform or would at least be evaluating it.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
MS has been found guilty of anti-trust violations in several countries.
MS has pursued a course of dishonesty regarding numerious so called research papers, of which they funded.
The halloween documents expose the intent of deception goes deep within MS.
Perhaps the more relevant question to ask is why does it seem the majority of the associated population tend to support such dishonesty?
How is it that a whole country can folow a president that has clearly deceived the people regarding the invasion and subsequent control of an oil rich country, with teh excuse of WMD?
Likewise how is it that intellectual property copyrights have been extended into infinity and that which is of a collection of nothing more then natural law, physical phenomenon, abstract ideas and mathmatical algorythims be granted patent rights?
If someone was to insist you state whether or not you are honest or dishonest and then took a count, the results would be that most all people claim they are honest. But the above actual realities prove that the majority of the population are dishonest. Perhaps mostly with themselves.
And as a thing begets itself, dishonesty is such a beast to beget itself, even without thinking about it.
If there is ever a beast of dishonesty, it is the news media mouth the beast uses.
But since most people don't really oppose about exposure of the beast of deception, the words comming out of its mouth, as they support it...
Oh wait a minute....
what if linux is actually growing in business use...
The only way for you to know that is if in fact it is within the scope of which you can personally see and know. But to believe what someone else says, especially when they claim fact is 90% claim...
They still don't get the facts...
Of course the technologies that is part of the solution are of importance.
It also helps lock them into using you as a vendor. If you sell them a "Windows box" they know they can go find somebody else to support "Windows boxes." But if you sell them a "web server," they have no idea what it's running, so it's easier for them just to go to you for support.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
They are incompetents, that's why they "manage".
Freedom has a business case.
Many businesses have a policy that require no single vendor products in business critical areas. This policy seems to have been forgotten in IT.
This type of policy is about securing the future of the company by guaranteeing its freedom to change vendors.
Freedom is good business.
Have you heard of Samba?
>"We have 10+ years of infrastructure built on Windows. We have over a dozen servers all running Windows, talking to each other, running programs built for them."
When I was an IT manager, I got these calls all the time. For a while I actually sat there for 20 minutes answering questions; then I got bored and started saying whatever to get them to go away. Then I stopped participating.
Don't take these surveys as being of the same (doubtful) statistical quality as a good Zogby. The sampling is weak, at best, and self-selecting for drones.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
There are plenty of books on the subject, much like the ones you would need to buy for the Windows Server line.
Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
Groklaw article
Great how Slashdot supports MS at recycling old and debunked FUD.
What normal small or medium sized business has, or can even afford, a fucking CIO?! What planet are Microsoft on if they think that?
The vast majority of SMBs do their IT on an ad-hoc basis, and mostly rely on local IT businesses and individuals that they know to produce cost-effective solutions. There are a lot of local IT businesses out there that use Linux and open source software to give them the flexibility and cost savings they need. The running theme for small businesses when looking to expand their network and server infrastructure is that it is simply too expensive, particularly with Windows at the back-end.
I don't doubt that the vast majority of SMBs use Windows desktops, but as for server and network infrastructure - small businesses just cannot afford Windows 2003, CALs and all the other paraphenalia. Microsoft is in a dream world if they think that this is some sort of untapped source of gold.
Despite real strategic efforts by Microsoft to slow the adoption of Linux, the real culprit is the lack of coherent documentation for users during the adoption stage. I know this article is about businesses using Linux, but I have something to add to the tale. I graduated from college with an MIS degree (don't laugh). I have 2 Linux Distros running on my Mac at home and yet I haven't installed Linux on my Dell laptop where I really want it (microsoft hate) because the wireless card isn't supported by any Linux distro straight from install. Instead I've spent the last few days trying to decifer the forum posts and web pages of Linux experts to determine how to make an unsupported wireless card work and they use phrases and terminology that make perfect sense until I get to line X of the instructions that says something like "then recompile and make a sldfjksdf-sdf in the sldfjs" and suddenly I realize I'm not anywhere near the solution because I have yet another day's worth of homework to do. I can only imagine what it must be like when considering Linux for use in an enterprise environment. I hate to say it, but I'd rather have my documentation from a single source that has given an ounce of consideration to communication techniques and the end user's experience.
This kind of article always brings out the same argument, which we've beaten to death in this forum.
.NET, because the other developer was a VB guy, and the learning curve for him would have made it impossible to meet our deadline. I am comfortable with the Linux/Apache world, and generally prefer it, but I must admit that we whipped out a smokin' application, thanks to the data support from Visual Studio. (Interesting side note: this app has VB for the data layer, but C# for the business logic and the presentation layer. We had absolutely no trouble integrating the two languages.)
The question seems to be, is Microsoft winning 'the war'?
Oh, come now. All they are doing is fighting a rear-guard action. How could they possibly win in the long-term? The only way would be if we collectively stopped developing Linux and the applications which run on it, and go back to always buying Windows products. Does anyone really think that's going to happen?
I am currently consulting for a company which has a variety of systems and applications going. About half of their software development effort goes to in-house, never-to-be-published applications. The other half is specifically for the purpose of public consumption. You know what? The public consumption side is all running or being converted to Linux/Apache/Tomcat. The internal stuff is still up for grabs, but this is a cultural issue, not a question of the technical merits of MS vs the world.
I had a short timeframe to develop my current project, and I ended up going C# and
The Linux/Apache/Java side of the house is also grudgingly admitting we did a great job getting a fully-functional app out the door in a short timeframe. But they are also doing interesting things with Lucene and some other child projects of Apache.
The state of things now at the comapny are that getting the job done is Job #1, and the folks who write the checks don't care whether MS is in the loop or not. But, as more of our IT staff begin using open source tools, the more our tech staff will start saying to the bean counters, 'hey, we don't need to buy a Microsoft license for this or that project.' And the beanies are going to be happy to go along with that!
What's interesting to me, as a long-time Linux and FreeBSD guy, is that the quality of development tools that MS has had to create is a direct result of having to compete with the open source alternatives. And the quality and utility of those tools is accelerating.
The real story is that WE win.
If I'm looking to the real future of computing, I'd rather know what a bunch of geeks in high school think about technology than some random group of CIOs. They'll have the greatest degree of influence over it in the long haul.
Adolecents are very bad at determining anything that is going to last a long time. There's a lot of quick, off the cuff, rebel without a cause, I just want to be different attitude. High schoolers may determine fads, but not long term statistics. As for the other group, the over the hill stuffy antiques that occupy the highest ranks in companies, they too have problems. They are most likely to stick with what they know too stongly and never change. Many of them did go down with the mainframe. No, I'll take the middle ground on this one, as the guassian curve of change requires. Many of the people now working in the trenches know most what's going on.
I agree with you about technology becoming a commodity, but the problem is I don't see how there is an equivalent between something actually new, and Linux/FOSS. An OS is an OS, and Microsoft's OS isn't technologically different from Linux as say PCs were to mainframes. Even so, I'm still unsure about whether another "revolution" is going to take place in our industry. It would be nice to have a free and open OS, as well as applications to run on it, but development does have a cost in terms of time, as well as money. I'm assuming Microsoft will "eventually" lower their prices enough that makes it pointless to actually check Linux out. The problem is, do we still want them to "control" us?
I would love to see a technologically new, free, and open OS, that is actually different from the OSs we are familliar with, but somehow I don't see this happening. And since it may not happen, I don't know how any CIO (or app vendor) is going to choose between two OSs that basically have the same function, except on price, especially since one of them has 90 percent of the market.
Working in the trenches as I have however has given me good perspective on how a company like Microsoft exercises control over its customer. Microsoft doesn't seem to (or hasn't up to now) actually wanted a stable core that can be built upon as time progresses. They know that if they can get you to "whole hog upgrade" every few years then they can be on the gravy train for life. They know that selling the whole hog is more profitable than selling the pieces "componentized". This kind of thinking yanks my chain, and you can bet our CIO will eventually hear about such problems from the trenches.
For some software there is, but for other open software solutions there's almost none. I'm trying to point out that there's something that the open source community could pay more attention to in order to be more competitive to Windows and other commercial solutions in general.
/.
I've written my share of documentation so I know it's not that easy to write.
-- Fire away, never use the preview button on
One of the benefits on knowing about the Free *nix's is that you can use it yourself for your benefit. Whether you own a company, want to start one, or want to implement something internally in your company. You make yourself look good by doing it right, undercost, and on time. Yes, it's not always possible, but you sneak it in where you can. ;)
How come nobody is looking at it the other way. The desire here is to focus on some imagined learyness of Linux. I would like to see a survey that came back and asked if Linux users were considering jumping ship to Windows. I think you would find a LOT higher percentage would say they are NOT considering Windows.
It take a sorry individual , with no life , and who's refered to as an idiot every day of is life to turn everything into derision. Sure OS are not important , if your really mentally hill that is , why dont you try and run your computer without one , or without a real 300k budget.
Why did you think that when the grandparent said "needless to say, he is not with us anymore?" Spazing out and leaving the company. Are you a troll? :(
Sorry to have fed you then.
Amazingly enough, notepad is not a service of the operating system. Even if it were, it is not a standard service of all operating systems.
There are at least a dozen ways to provide notepad "work-alike" functionality in whatever Linux you pick, but that is beside the point.
The point is you just authorized a zero dollar migration plan, and then got upset when it didn't work. Even if you were migrating to the next version of Windows you would have spent something, and you would have tried it out on a few machines for a few weeks before deploying company wide.
Just because you now drive a new car doesn't mean that its newness will save you when you decide to stop using seatbelts and to disobey traffic rules.
If you are doing that (selling solutions), you better make sure they "just work". No technology excuses about how MS "broke" the SMB protocol causing the Samba server to malfunction, or why users can't automatically authenticate into the web app, and so on.
This propaganda campaign, digging in an already embattled IT culture, points the way for the demise not only of Microsoft's monopoly, but the extinction of the entire "MIS" species. Linux and its ecosystem will continue to multiply, selected by the modern envirornment of rapid data pattern change and increased DIY activity. But not among those buying into Microsoft's denial/rationalization campaigns that keep them chained to a dying animal. Eventually, the whole twisted, edifice will buckle, taking out not only the Windows paradigm, no longer fit enough to reality to keep up with some critical shakeups, twists in the road unforseen by marketdroids. When the gamma rays hit, the new Hulk will bust out of its fancy Microsoft suit, and only the stretchy Linux skivvies will be able to keep up.
If Linux people want to see Microsoft go the way of the dinosaur, we should encourage this kind of talk - amongst their scaly faithful. While Linux SW evolves to keep up with the real world, which is protected from reality by marketing the way the Earth is protected by its atmosphere from a giant meteorite.
--
make install -not war
Being the semi-lone Linux advocate in a rather large Solaris and Windows environment of about 3000 users I think the poor reputation of Linux is the result of older implementations that were done under the "official" radar with poorly supported hardware. When they break it's really painful and those incidents tend to get pointed to as why Linux is a "bad" idea. Usually, "support" is the critical area. "Support" more often means blame shifting than actually getting things to work (although that sometimes happens.)
Fear not. Companies that intelligently use Linux will have a huge cost advantage in the long run. That will eventually turn more heads than all the PR campaigns Microsoft and Sun can fund.
I think it's probably because people who know anything about Linux are not the sort to waste their time on surveys. I'm pretty sure I've hung up on several such surveys, for instance.
At work another IT Project Manager was just saying he didn't understand how Open Source software worked if nobody "owned" it. They just aren't able to visualize what's already there. So he was vulnerable to FUD. When I was a kid Sesame Street had a small bit that took you to a dairy and showed how milk got to your house. It'd be fun to see a documentary about how Apache server is currently run and maintained. How does a bug get handled? How is the Apache Foundation organized?
Well, putting Dovorak up as an example of infighting is like putting Napoleon up as an example of fighting. Dovorak couldn't even resist the urge to change the keyboard.
Personally, I applaud his zest for new ideas, and his drive to implement them. But it's not like you're picking an average example. Of all people, I'd expect Dovorak to have many different ideas from the typical manager who is impartial to using Linux.
Linux is so good that it shocks people into a state of confusion. They cannot imagine how it is possible that something so techincally wonderful can be unsurped by something so technically botched (Windows). They are appealing to the only tool they have which might change another's mind, logic; unfortunately, they often fail to really study what they are promoting, so they cannot describe the exact essence of why it's so good.
So you get rehashed arguments of rehashed arguments that rely on basic gut instinct. It's an attempt to market a product without understanding how marketing works.
The one key reason that Linux will succeed isn't GIMP or any applicaiton. It's not any particular distro. It is becuase when something is broken, you have the option of fixing it, the option of paying someone other than the manufacturer to fix it, and the option of paying the manufacturer to fix it.
If you had to fix your dryer, all these avenues are available to you. But when you dryer becomes so "locked down" that these options don't exist, you become dependant on you're dryer manufacturer.
In such a world, the diagnosis quickly becomes "you need a new dryer" or "you need a new (expensive) dryer part than can only be obtained from the manufacturer". It has nothing to do with whether or not the dryer really needs replaced, but has everything to do with the technician needing to generate revenue for the manufacturer. And don't expect any renegade techs out there, because they will soon find themselves cut off from the super-secret manuals and diagnostic pass-codes on self-destroying control chips.
I used dryers as a product-neutral example, but if you wish, you can see some of this typical, yet abusive corporate behavior happening with cars.
Why can't people see that getting the facts about Linux from Microsoft is like getting the truth from the Devil?
This is exactly the point. People don't see that they have choices but if they see that they have a choice in one area of technology, they begin to check to see if their are other choices that they can make as well.
Microsoft's big plus is in making consumers think that there are no choices. It is scared of people getting the chance to make a choice and even more scared of consumers making an INFORMED choice.
Just because you use Windows and have always used Windows does not mean that is the best choice for you. It means that you have not taken the time to investigate if there are better choices and have just accepted the fate handed to you by the Microsoft corporation.
One day these other Windows people will wake up abnd learn that they have a choice whether it be a different browser, a different OS, a different Office app, a different web server, a different database or whatever.
One day they will realize that they have choices and that is what Microsoft fears the most. They want to convince you that even if you do have a choice, that it isn't a REAL choice. And they are losing.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
If you asked the CIO and/or Manager where I work what percentage of services were run on Microsoft products vs. anything else, they would give you erroneous numbers skewed in favor of Microsoft. It's a medium sized company.
Last year a manager said "we don't want to get involved with linux or free software..." and an internal survey was done...about 15% of all our machines were running Linux or BSD, including quite a few desktops. He was running most of his services used on his MS desktop through Linux/BSD firewalls and servers and didn't know it.
He was cool about it when he found out...in fact he was pleased when he discovered how much money was saved and how rapidly we can throw new services out without any lengthy paperwork or license issues. It was like a light bulb going on.
There are, unfortunately, a lot of managers who get angry about "not knowing something"...but we have a good one, he rolls with the times and lets his people use what they consider the best tool for the job...within reason.
Looks like someone is busy running:
...in 32 parallel processes by running this:
Shhh, I weren't supposed to give people bad ideas ;)
The campaigns against Linux seem to treat it as if it's something that used to be widely used but is now dwindling. We all know that this isn't true.
Linux has really jumped up out of nowhere, and is now being considered by quite a large percentage of businesses.
The 'facts' seem to show that Linux is growing in popularity at a phenomenal rate, and is battling extremely well against Microsoft's considering the lock-in/lock-out situation.
The world complained about stability, and Microsoft made Windows more stable.
The world complained about security, and Microsoft... well, it seems to be having a good try.
Now, the world is complaining about lock-in, and Microsoft... oh dear. Is Microsoft going to open its protocols, APIs and file formats? I think not.
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
Who's talking about unemployment? "not with us anymore" means the he got hung with a CAT5 cable, 'cause that's what we do with Open Source commies.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
The world wide web was a hobby project. So your point would be...what?!!
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
That's their problem. I mean I feel bad for the grunt workers in IT, but as long as corps or individual owners care more about money than whats down the road, then they deserved to get hit with a Penguin!!
I only blame myself for all the years I put off going to unix (linux). Everybody out there knows there are very good alternatives to the proven monopoly, m$.
I dont' try and preach unless I'm asked to, because m$ people dont' care (about anything but themselves usually, after all this is a cultural thing for sure).
I am getting ready to get involved with projects like Wine which will probably be the type of programming that will be the final death-nil to m$.
The War (should not be) on how we can convert those that dont' want to be converted, but against a company which has cost untold amounts of money, frustration and time for those involved with it at ever level since it's inception.
m$ is not only bad for business, it is bad for just about everything else on the earth, because it stifles freedom, cooperation and technological advances for The People.
It is this m$ *philosophy* of sitting back, knowing that all (almost litteraly) pc's sold *HAVE TO HAVE* their piece-oh-trash os installed (by legal agreements), that is at the heart of what us earthinks need to counter with a better alternative.
If that aint' commie-ism, what is.
-- dont' hate me cuz i'm ugly.
I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..
I don't see any evidence of it working, it comes up against skepticism at every front and many companies are pointing out holes or simply disproving MS's campaign by setting up Linux businesses of their own.
...I'd have you fired on the spot. Buying Red Hat would lend massivle credibility to Linux and Linux-based solutions, leading to vast losses for Microsoft. Why on earth would you endanger your Windows monopoly by exposing yourself to competition from a host of Linux-based operating systems?
No, Microsoft will carry on pushing Windows, presumably by integrating services on top of Windows. You'll be running the next generation of Windows due to ActiveX/VBA/AD/.NET etc etc, not because of Linux kernel vs Windows kernel.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Now with open source software there's not much free support
You have GOT to be smoking crack with this one. Nothing the size and scope of the linux user community exists in windows. If you recall, the linux user community has won AWARDS for its support.
You can say a lot about linux, but you cannot say it doesn't contain free support. Linux is the epitome of free support.
I disagree. The main problem is the "perception" of no support. I'll grant you that ther are some applications for which there is little support. You have to find it, for sure. But with Windows it's hardly like each server comes with a guy to teach you every application that that server has running. Linux can fill the gap just like Windows. Most companies buy software from a vendor and the vendor comes in and does the setup. Learning their app on Linux is no more difficult than with Windows. Once you learn the power of Linux, you'll find you have so much more control than under Windows. All that and you've saved a bundle! Windows has it's place. I've always said, Windows is an applications platform. Frankly, if you run a small business and are purchasing Windows servers, you're ignorant. The money you could save with Linux leaves no justification for Windows. Put that money in something useful. Buying Windows is a simply a waste.
Let the businesses run their IT the way they want. That includes letting them run Windows.
Then, be their competitor with an OSS solution. If it really makes a difference, you'll have the edge and it'll be that much easier to plow the other guy into the ground. Or they'll swicth over in order to survive.
Honestly, why does anybody care what OS businesses are running? A bank or something with my money in it, yeah, but really, what difference does it make for Generic Company X, Y, or Z?
I "own" and operate a large intranet and internet service for my (global) employer. We easily see 10000+ users on our slowest day, and our systems are always mission critical.
In my case, we use Apache on Solaris. And it's rock solid - with zero downtime over the past year.
Is zero downtime important? Well, think of the money lost when 10000 people can't do their job for an hour. That's 10000 hours. At $20 per hour (at $40,000 per year), that's $200,000 lost per hour of downtime.
If my infrastructure was Windows/IIS, I likely wouldn't want to change it either. People have a tough time dealing with change - even CIOs.
But my infrastructure is Apache and Solaris. And given how well it operates, there is absolutely no reason for me to switch.
One thing you're forgetting: linux has effectively cut off Microsoft expansion in the server room. NT was supposed to put a dent in the Unix dominance, and win2k was supposed to kill off any competition in both desktop and server market. Now MS finds itself blocked by a free upstart, which is even cheaper than they are. No wonder they're pissed off.
> Most Linux fans have a very disconnected view of the utility of Linux and would rather be unemployed than deal with the harsh reality.
As apposed to the winders fans who keep believing the the latest version is 'rock-solid.' Give me a break. We all have been hearing this since they introduced 95 and NT (at v. 3), yet each time they deliver crap. Shit, I've been doing this long enough to remember the praises of such wonderful products as DOS 4.0.
Obviously being a Moron Confused by Sun Equipment helps to be dangerous.
From Moe and Curly's Software Emporium no less!
Lets read between the lines
'After polling 1,400 IT managers and CIOs in SMB corporations,
The ones we got out of our registeration records who are only using windows.
This group
The group hired by Microsoft to do the survey
found that 48% were not interested in Linux,
Because they already paid for windows
15% were not sure about Linux
Becuse they never thought about it before.
and only 10% plan to evaluate Linux."
Because they will get a discount from Microsoft for taking the survey
Despite this, two-thirds of all webservers run Linux. The disparity in these numbers comes from the fact that most smaller companies' websites are hosted by service providers running Linux servers even if the company itself isn't."
"My my we didnt know that. We thought they were windows based."
I trust Microsoft as far as I could comfortably spit a dead rat
Microsoft goes after big corporations because they have money. The CIO has a big budget, and Microsoft wants as much of that as possible.
The people in the trenches might not actually use some of the Microsoft products much, but in the short term that doesn't really matter. MS is more concerned with what companies buy than what they use. (This even applies to indvidual users: Whenever you buy a PC, you're paying for IE, even if you choose to use Firefox instead.)
Microsoft seems to be winning its war against Linux.
Once upon a time or even last I checked, as far as Microsoft was concerned, Linux was supposedly not a threat. Oh, Linux merited a bit of astroturf and slams now and again, but Linux was not acknowledged as any sort of competitor.
However when this has changed and Microsoft moved from "Linux is not a threat" to "Linux is the enemy" then it seems to me, that acknowledgement alone is a battle won.
Point to Linux.
Yes. Firing the current staff and hiring in people that know Linux as well as the current staff knows Windows.
I haven't seen anyone suggest firing the staff and replacing them. Instead most suggestions I've seen are to either see if anybody on the current team knows or is willing to learn Linux, or to get one or two who knows it and experiment with it on one or two servers. If it works then as tyme goes by switch more servers over to it. Personally I'd say the only enterprise who should compleatly go with Linux is a new one, but only after doing or having done a compleat systems analysis to determine what is needed and what will fulfill those needs. THAT should be a part of any business plan.
For myself, though I've used WinTel almost exclusively the past several years, the next computer system I plan on getting is a Mac. Not that I wouldn't use Windows, I'll install it in a Virtual PC VM. I'm thinking of either installing Linux in another VM or setting the Mac to dualboot.
FalconShould there be a Law?
You're absolutely right with this: Linux is just an optional kernel in an entire system of interchangable software.
I use linux at home because I find it so much easier to administer than any other 'nix. (It has a much larger userbase and there's a lot of free support, which I like.) That aside, I also have access to a mostly NetBSD-based intranet that's administered brilliantly by someone else who knows what they're doing.
For the most part, whether it's linux or BSD doesn't matter to me at all. The underlying standards mean that I can run virtually any software on one system that will run on the other. If a component of either system fails, becomes obsolete or unsupported, I really won't have to worry because I can just slot in a replacement component.
The ability to do this has nothing, directly, to do with linux -- it has to do with Open Source. If there's any comparison here at all, it's between the Microsoft model of doing things, and the Open Source model of doing things.
I haven't seen just one homogenious Slashdot culture, what I have seen are MS Heads, Penguins, and Mac Heads. Personally I'm a Chile Head.
Falcon
The HOTTER the better. Jalapenos are too mild, habaneros are better. As are Anchos and Thai Hot Peppers.
Should there be a Law?
instead of talking about their reports,
how about the ugly reality of using Windows instead?
Aggressive, Mass-Mailed Sober.p Worm Poised To Smack Users
By Gregg Keizer, TechWeb News
Monday may be a very bad day, a security researcher said Friday as he warned that the aggressive Sober worm of early May is timed to download new code the first day of next workweek.
Sober.p, the mass-mailed worm that spread voraciously by virtue of its offer of free World Cup tickets, is poised to launch another attack Monday, said Dmitri Alperovitch, a research engineer with an Alpharetta, Ga.-based security firm CipherTrust"
whenever someone gets the urge to post another stupid article about how MS is winning the FUD war, they should just post another REAL worm/virus/update/phish article complete with catchy tagline, links to other important security sites, etc.
chris
"...that's as white as it gets; all the bits are on..."
I've been reading studies that are comissioned by M$. They seem to be spending a lot of money coming up with "studies" that are derogatory to Linux. I'd like to know if anybody in the Linux comunity has ever paid for a study to show how much Windows sucks, or is that knowledge just free and word of mouth?
GrowLaw [www.groklaw.net] tore up a similar artilce a few months ago.
Let's see.....
15% got there ass stuck on the fence == 15% still there
10% plan to evaluate == 10% still "evaluating"
48% not intereset == 52% ARE interested
You also have to know the questions asked as they can be just as "loaded" as the answeres.
I also helps to know who was surveyed.
But these will never be released.
Survey - Dr. Bob do you think Crest toothpaste is better than the other.
Dr. Bob - Never used Crest
Survey - Thank you.....[dial tone]
Dr. Tom/Jim/John/Mary/Dave/Sally/Adam/Carl/Doolittle - [same question]
[answer from all] - Yea, it tastes better.
Results == 9/10 dentist recommend Crest
Nothing new here.................
http://www.techweb.com/wire/security/163106139
"...that's as white as it gets; all the bits are on..."
The only thing that's changed is that CowboyNeal fell for the stupid paper that claims M$ is winning and Microsoft's use of said paper that they bought.
I predict that by this time next year, 75% will be interested and 25% will be evaluating while the confused and no interest crowd will shrink.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
The manufacturers make it very hard to support wireless cards. If you had a hypothetical wireless card that wasn't supported by Windows, you'd give up and not spend ages faffing around. If your current card had manufacturer-supported Free drivers, you wouldn't have to think about it.
(In the enterprise, what platform is used is mostly dependant on (a) what the staff know and (b) what applications you want to run; hardware support isn't really an issue these days, although you need to be careful with RAID cards and bleeding-edge motherboard chipsets)
We have 20+ office around the world. We are a dedicated windows shop. We have no intention what so ever of considering linux. A few of us do use Linux to help us do our windows jobs (lol). Our network security guy uses nagios to monitor a number of things. I use it to get alert emails for certain things. I hate to say it but Windows is the defacto standard in large corps. And its much easier to "go with the flow"...
--- I was far from home, and the spell of the Eastern sea was upon me. -Lovecraft-
I can't remember where this report got debunked when it surfaced - it's more than a couple of weeks old anyway - and someone here or on groklaw went through it and tore it to shreds in a fairly convincing manner.
So it's not news, and it probably doesn't matter.
Not the OS, not the hardware. The documentation. If you read his post, he was talking about something that doesn't work on install, but seems to have drivers floating around the net that he'd like to add manually. I've had the same sort of problem with sound and video cards (odd OEM things of a common brand, but weren't recognized by the distro automatically), and it was a headache.
I'm more knowledgable of Linux now, but the stuff I had to learn to do that was scattered about everywhere. I had to find a seperate page or seperate post for each step, or each strange term, since none of them were geared at a Linux newcomer. I want to learn Linux completely and not be stuck to these "do it all for you" distros, but it isn't simple with the way it's currently documented.
Yessir ladies and gentlefolk, we has a Winnah!
Campaign effectiveness, monitoring & evaluation requires before-and-after measurement, and preferably a control group (or period).
What we've got is s single-point reference which suggests that the majority of SMBs are considering GNU/Linux. Which is pretty damned substantial. Oh, and it's recycled from a release a month or so back ... which similarly did some really impressive spinning of stats to make strong Linux support sound weak.
Clearly the work of those not expecting critical readers.
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
Two points:
One: IIS is bundled with stock legacy MS Windows desktops. Amateur installs probably blow away Apache numbers.
Two: If they're still published, take a look at Alexa's stats. When I took a look at their top sites November 2003, representation of IIS in Fortune 100 sites was high. But representation of Apache in actual top-ranked websites was far higher. Moral: it's easier to sell to those vulnerable to manipulation than to those who live and die by their website's performance.
From the top 20 (again: Nov 2003):
If memory serves, GWS is Apache-influenced, and I suspect the "unknowns" are also Apache.
Hosts are: 6 Linux, 6 FreeBSD, 5 Windows 2000,, 1 Solaris 8, 1 NT4/Windows 98, 1 unknown. By which I'll presume that Apache and other 'Nix-based webservers outnumber Windows 3:1, among top-20 websites.
ObIRepliedToAnAC: IHBT, IHL, HAND.
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
...I can tell 'coz you didn't put a tarp or any hay on your roof. (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
...tends to leave the real farmers standing, and the city farmers sitting around looking queasy and trying to hear or see too much - or in some cases, looking for the lost lamb (leaning over a rail, calling out "Bert!").
Yes, the squeaky toys are indeed cute. (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing