Slashdot Mirror
Linux Growth In The Workplace Slowing
BrainSurgeon writes "According to a Business Week article Linux growth numbers have slowed for the first time since SG Cowen & Co. began tracking it on their survey. The biggest reason for the slow down according is due to the hidden cost of consultants." From the article: "That doesn't mean overall Linux use is slowing. The survey only shows that a smaller number of companies not using Linux plan to try the software than in previous surveys. Most analysts expect Linux use to grow at the companies that have already rolled it out -- and do so at a healthy rate. And analysts say Linux is picking up steam outside North America, which the Cowen survey doesn't cover."
that open source software wasn't going to lock anybody in? Now it seems like a "We've spent too much to go back" kind of scenario.
So in other words it isn't even Linux growth slowing, it's Linux's imaginary growth slowing?
Is it slowing too? In which case, this is a sign of overall growth slowing... or is it just a Linux thing?
libertarianswag.com
With every new annoucenment from MS, it seems someone, somewhere states this.
It's You and I against the World... When do we attack?
"We've spent too much to go back" means that the manager is an idiot and doesn't understand the concept of sunk costs.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
It locks you in to "open source software". It doesn't lock you in to an open source software vendor. Nobody ever said open source means the end of compatibility issues and network effects, what it means is a choice of software suppliers.
BACK TO MICROSOFT. Take Independence Air, a low-cost Washington (D.C.) carrier that had been running the reservation system on its Web site with Linux. The company, which uses Microsoft's Windows operating systems in most other pieces of its business, needed to hire consultants who could write code for Linux, since its Windows developers couldn't.
What can 'Windows developers' do? Use a mouse?
And if this statement is to do with the code running on a web server (Apache, I presume), then even more so I feel they hired the wrong 'developers' to begin with.
Just more FUD - move along.
I suspect the company quoted in the article had a lot of developers who knew what they liked and liked what they knew. The idea of learning a new OS and new APIs didn't really appeal to them, so they just said "we can't do it!" and went off to hire new people.
I dunno. The other theory sounds more likely - Linux is competing very well with older UNIX based installations but isn't attacking the low end server market as well as it could (ASP compatibility?). And desktop is still at the "we're starting to take this seriously" stage rather than "mass deployment every week" stage.
I read somewhere that this study was itself funded indirectly by Microsoft, but who knows. The survey data seems credible. That said a reduction in the number of groups who said they were planning to evaluate it dropping a bit doesn't necessarily mean growth is slowing. Maybe it just means a lot of them got around to it? ;)
Once DRM becomes mandated on all PC hardware, who in the OSS community will be able to afford to be 'certified'. Not many..
At that point only the 'big boys' will be able to play..
Microsoft has a *lot* of money in the bank, and can afford to be very patient on regaining their domination..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
in that order. You can make the numbers say anything with sufficient qualifications. Oh, and it's only in the US, not world-wide. Read the article carefully. It doesn't mean Linux adoption on a per user basis is slowing, as I read it, the growth rate of new companies using it is slowing. Hardly time to get out the black armbands..
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
If the problem is the hidden-yet-growing costs of consultants, I think we can solve this by
1. Outsource consulting to India.
2. Due to labor shortage, India re-outsources back to us
3. ????
4. Profit!
Well just because the growth is slowing doesn't mean that its not still growing. The HPs and IBMs of the world already are using Linux, but the smaller businesses aren't really leading the way with Linux. At my company ( about 500 employess ) we are just this year using Linux for some servers, and I know several other companys that are just starting to use Linux too. So even though these companys are small, as machines age more and more of them will be replaced, and more and more of them are being replaced with something other than Microsoft. Maybe it won't happen overnight, but it will happen none the less.
The article said that they surveyed North America. North Americaa includes three large populous nations and several smaller ones. Only one of these is the US. North America is not world-wide, of course, but it certainly is not just the US.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
...a competing study notes that the situation is not quite as hopeless as it sounds, since the rate at which Linux growth is slowing, is actually decreasing.
That doesn't mean overall Linux use is slowing. The survey only shows that a smaller number of companies not using Linux plan to try the software than in previous surveys.
Uhh.. right. So the the survey shows less linux use, but that might not be true because the survey might be wrong. Is that what this line is implying??? OK so you've just established the survey is worthless? Or only when linux use goes down?
"That doesn't mean overall Linux use is slowing. The survey only shows that a smaller number of companies not using Linux plan to try the software than in previous surveys. Most analysts expect Linux use to grow at the companies that have already rolled it out -- and do so at a healthy rate. And analysts say Linux is picking up steam outside North America, which the Cowen survey doesn't cover."
:)
Even a negative report about Linux instantly becomes a positive one on Slashdot.
The biggest limiting factor of Linux growth in the workplace is actually simple. After your computer has been immobolized by 188 pieces of spyware (by SpyBot's count), the extra Linux partition confuses the system restore CDs from Dell and Compaq that you try to boot with.
Cover your eyes and click this link!
Where cost is more of an issue for boxen in comparison to talent.
Places like China etc which probably aren't being measured, since they're not the EU or US.
And if there are sales there, the price per unit shipped would be less, since the market won't bear higher premium prices, and thus would show up as "lower growth in sales amounts" which is what they measure.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
It can just mean that linux is normalizing. People are not able to hype it anymore to get it into a company. This can be the best thing, since where it gets in, it will stay, and that way slowly gain market share.
My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
No Juncker!
You what? The "FUD" that Microsoft had been saying about Linux in terms of cost turned out to be true? Who'd have guessed it?! It turns out that in real world, it does cost money to move over to new systems, train people and get support!
If you had a product like Interstructures you'd get by with your Windoze guys.
http://www.interstructures.com/
I'm not a troll, but I play one on Slashdot.
Appreciate the clarification. Guess I didn't read it carefully enough..
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
And not much are out there left without a GNU/Linux server.
These statements are skewed to show that Independence Air's Linux deployment cost too much in consultant fees, and therefore Linux is "expensive" to deploy in comparison to Windows. But they really say no such thing. Independence Air's problem was not its Linux deployment, but the fact that it chose to deploy a small part of their infrastructure without in house knowledge. They already had hired a Windows skill base, and therefore the comparison in utility between their Windows skillset for the entire Windows deployment against a small Linux deployment was bound to come out poorly for Linux. One sees savings with Linux in scale, not individually. Deploy hundreds of hosts and you'll save huge. Deploy a few hosts to drive a small piece of corporate infrastructure and not only will the savings be marginal, but you may have to hire external help to support the deployment.
So. Don't deploy Linux for small tasks if you're already heavily invested in an alternate technology. Duh. But to claim poor savings across the board as a result of this anecdote is simply stupid. With in house Linux (or UNIX) personnel and a large deployment - of course you'll save big. Which is why the UNIX houses have dumped commercial UNIX desktops for Linux. And why so many have dumped all their small UNIX servers for Linux (and BSD) on Intel. Because it's cheap. Very cheap (and cost effective). --M
The point is: Many companies say they're not switching or thinking about switching, and many of these same companies have no idea that they use this stuff. The people being asked are not necessarily the ones who know. And as I've shown, not only at my employer's company, but also at some other places I've moonlighted for as a poor-man's IT consultant of sorts, many functions can be switched over to Linux to gain higher robustness. The servers running this stuff can be in a closet somewhere. I install everything, back it up, turn it on, and then they forget that it exists, because it Just Works (tm).
So I'm not too sure that these survey results are meaningful.
Now everything John C. says is going to come true... can't you see it? If his next prediction is "Bill Gates and Steve Jobs will become co-Emperors of the Known Universe", I'm packing it in.
I liked it better when nerds weren't cool.
Only 7% of outfits with no Linux servers plan to add some over the next year.
Can we safely assume that we are approaching the limit of diminishing returns, all those who are amicable to convert, have already done so.
Also, this doesnt mean Linux is slowing/stopping. Companies with some servers would definitely go forward with more, thus growing the overall Linux implementations.
It's really quite simple: the first derivative of linux use (growth) is positive, but the second derivative (acceleration) is negative. Let's just all hope that the third derivative is positive.
If you have linux dual-booted then why not just use that to assault the spyware?
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
Goddamit, Tux would not be wearing a suit! Makes him look gay. I know Taco probably thinks it's cute, but to those of us who fight the battle against the ass kissing, back-slapping, glad-handing, Big Bertha swinging, BMW driving, Hamptons vactioning, outsourcing, pro-actively lay-offing idiots in suspenders on a daily basis, it's just plain offensive.
Taco, it's is the MANAGERS who would USE liunx that would be wearing the suits, not Tux!
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
This time we are looking at a more indirectly sponsored study by Microsoft. You might want to look up who is behind SG Cowen & Co. LLC and you'll see they are largly owned by Société Générale, a large French bank that is one of the major investors of Microsoft.
Sorry, but as everyone knows Linux is gaining market share very rapidly. Nice try...
I'm getting tired of hearing these doom and gloom stories repeated on and on as if there were truth to them.
What's the margin of error? Who actually responded? Who paid for this research?
And most importantly, WHO CARES? It'll be there, at some pace, constantly whittling away at MS's user base. It can do so at glacial speed, but it will not stop. Linux is not in a hurry, does not care about quarterly revenue reports, and does not care about some superficial "war" with anyone else. It just plods along, doing what it does best, and gets better all along.
And now, we see that it has come to pass mere hours after that appeared on Slashdot!
I guess the Second Coming is happening tomorrow.
Java servlets? Java is Java is Java. Perl is, well, Perl.
What does that leave? Well, ASP. asp2php and other conversion tools help, but that would need new skills. MySQL and PostgreSQL are different from Access and SQL Server, but the GUI managers out there are plenty good.
There's the business of configuring Apache, but there are GUI tools for that, too. In fact, between the excellent stand-along GUI tools you can get off Freshmeat, that come with Fedora, or are provided with Webmin, I can't think of much you can't do with Linux in a purely graphical context.
This means that when people complain that Linux isn't "friendly enough", what they really mean is that they're determined not to like it, that when they complain they can't use it, what they really mean is that they don't want to.
There's nothing wrong with choosing not to like something, but it is better to be honest about the fact that it often IS a choice and not something intrinsic about the target.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Try getting a job with a company that wants someone with a Unix programming background and tell them you have experience programming for Windows or VMS or some other non-Unix OS. Do you think they might be asking for that experience for a reason?
Try the reverse. Try landing a job doing Windows programming when you've only had Unix/Linux experience. Again, do you think they might be asking for that experience for a reason?
...being about con and insult, two favorite things of his.
That came to mind when I read this both for the consultants part and also for the fact that my intelligence has been insulted by an attempted con at trying to make me think Linux is ready to go anywhere near business desktops.
The same people who can't manage Windows, can barely use AOL, they're going to make work efficiently an OS which is the orgasmic manna for geeks firmly of the "difficult is beautiful" mindset? Yeah, right. Maybe the server department, but I don't think any of the middle aged women in my family, who've worked XP Pro, NT4, OS/2 Warp 3, DOS 6, DOS 5, Windows for Workgroups 3.11, on their company desktops are going to be remotely interested in another paradigm shifting without a clutch.
If I had to use Gnome or KDE at work all day, I'd want to strangle someone. If it was Red Hat or Fedora underneath, I would merely choke them to unconsciousness. If it was Debian, to a coma. If it was Gentoo, straight to the grave. BSD is right out.
Little did those who suffered in the early years of Unix ever realize that their kids would one day be masochists on a level undreamt of even by the Marquis de Sade and actually find Unix cool. "Waitaminute, you said DOS sucked because of text. Now you think Linux is 'da bomb'? Are you researching bombs now with the Internet?"
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
They say their survey shows reduce interest in Linux
... statistically zero.
in North American Companies
that have not deployed Linux.
But they don't state their error margin.
http://www.resolutions.co.nz/sample_sizes.htm
So, given those numbers, unless shown otherwise, the difference between the two surveys is
But that doesn't get the big headlines, so they play up the difference between the two surveys because people don't know enough about surveys and statistics to know that there might not be as big a difference as is claimed.
As you noted, the REAL question is: What is the adoption rate doing? And we won't know that until a year from now. Even a 1% gain a year means that, eventually, every company except Microsoft and Sun will be running Linux.
And even then, we'd need to know the error margin to know whether there is a statistically valid increase or decrease.
Micro$oft (heehee, see how I made the "s" a dollar sign? It's because Microsoft likes money!) is using every trick in the book (like selling stable, supported software with a high ROI) to try to stop the powerful threat (slashdot, kids in basements declaring that businesses love Linux) that they see coming (2% and growing)!
Soon (never), Linux will be the number 1 (behind Windows, BSD, Mac OS X, Solaris, AIX, QNX, DOS, and probably OS/2) operating system for businesses (who don't mind paying smelly college students eight dollars an hour to admin (replace toner carts in copiers, run to staples for legal pads)) their Linux boxes (cheap x86s built from parts of old Windows boxes)!
"Little did those who suffered in the early years of Unix ever realize that their kids would one day be masochists on a level undreamt of even by the Marquis de Sade and actually find Unix cool."
Very well put. Those who were working in the computer industry at the time GUIs were introduced know that they were widely recognized as a major development by virtually everyone in the field.
It took years of academic propaganda to drop us back into the 1970s.
Is the only thing that advertisers learned from popup blockers how to misuse javascript in even worse ways? And no I didn't read the article because there was a fucking ad floating in front of it!
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Slowing or not, but it's growing! So what's your point exactly?
Homer: Here's good news! According to this eye-catching article, SAT scores are declining at a slower rate!
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Wow! What is with this story submission? The title on /. would suggest that the Linux growth is slowing. The only thing the article stated was that the rate of new companies testing Linux solutions was slowing.
The last line of the article sums it up nicely:
The prior paragraph also states that Linux server sales were up 35.2% for first quarter 2005, and that was the 11th consecutive quarter of double digit growth.
the_crowbarHave you read the Moderator Guidelines
When you ask from a company about what systems they are using, they will give (if they will give such information) out an number which consists of systems are actively maintained server or desktop systems or other systems which cause expenses.
If the system doesn't cost anything extra, it doesn't exist in those numbers. Hence, all test and development environments don't show up in these numbers. In many cases the company doesn't even want to give out any information on what platform they are developing their products on - or then the people in the management see them only as "pc" expenses, and draw an conclusion that it must be also an windows box.
The same people who can't manage Windows, can barely use AOL, they're going to make work efficiently an OS which is the orgasmic manna for geeks firmly of the "difficult is beautiful" mindset?
No, those people are going to find new jobs. Preferably higher up the application stack, but in something more suited to their talents, like pizza delivery, if need be.
Linux growth is slowing because Linux has used up the available pool of UNIX cultists. These are people who believe that it is morally wrong to make a computer easy to use, and are angry at Microsoft for making so many functions point-and-click. The problem is, you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Once people get used to point-and-click interfaces, and software development that works like a powerpoint drawing, getting them to go back to a CLI and text code development is like talking people into giving up their car for a bicycle. I'm an old-fashioned computer geek myself, I think that object oriented code is an abomination, and God wrote the Universe in "C" (with some assembler for the microscopic stuff). BUT - I have zero chance of getting my kids to see the world that way. SO FOR ALL YOU LinGeeks out there- make a choice. Either make Linux easier to use,(that means NO CLI) or resign yourselves to having Linux be the dysfunctional OS for the kind of social misfits who brew methane with their own poop to fuel their converted VW bugs.
"Sic Semper Path of Least Resistance"
IT departments wouldn't need to hire consultants if companies would just hire people who understood linux in the first place. One of the large reasons why Linux is not taking off where I work is because IT is aproximately 4 years behind on their linux builds. I'm still forced to use a Redhat 7.1 build. They're hoping to upgrade to SLES 9.1 soon. By the time I get that I'm sure it'll be at least a year behind.
In comparison, they're never more than 4 to 5 months behind Microsoft when it comes to new versionss/patches for windows.
The other main reason is that we're so dependent on Exchange server for calendaring/meetings/email . Linux tools are finally getting to the state where things can communicate well with Exchange for all circumstances. However, I still can't use any of those tools because I'm stuck on an ancient Redhat machine that I can't upgrade. This keeps 99% of the people I work with from asking computing to give them a Linux desktop. Computing see this and says "No one wants linux!".
At my company, the largest reason Linux isn't taking off is because the people working in IT departments are, on the whole, not that bright. Sure they've got a gazillion Microsoft certifications, but that doesn't mean jack to me. In the IT department that supports me, I only know of handful of people who even have 4 year bachelor degrees.
The rest are hack(er)s.
I work for a large company that makes processors.
The *required* cost of using Linux in the workplace is, of course, $0. Just hire people who've been using it for years and you don't have this big scary learning curve. They, like any other long-term OS user, knows how to manage the version stream and keep focused at the same time. Except with Linux, there's no other costs. It's free.
The way it actually gets to cost something is driven by a market. The question isn't how much free Linux costs. The question is how much Windoze-imitation Linux costs. Companies who are accustomed to shelling out big bucks for Windoze will shell out just a bit less for anything else that does the job and call it a win.
So of course, for many things, Linux does the job.
And then there's RedHat to charge just a bit less.
That's all it takes to bring Linux TCO up to Windows range. I've seen it happen, with my very own eyes. I've even seen a company pay *more* for Linux than Windoze.. *and be happy with it* because Linux is higher performance for many server applications.
"Unbelievable!" I thought. But it's the market and the expectations that set it up.
No matter that you can d/l and install Fedora to do just the same job in less the time than it takes to call a RH consultant to get even a quote. You just shout "Risk! Risk! Risk!" enough and you get your IT department a fat budget and get to wear a Linux T-Shirt.
It's like saying A bird in hand is better than two in the bush. "Sure we could all become Linux experts, but maybe we'd fail!"
Businesses understand and practice outsourcing intelligence all the time. That's their bird in hand.
I suspect you missed the point. The people the grandparent was referring to are Windows end users not programmers.
If you were referrring to the geeks, than yes. They would probably be better off delivering pizza than working on OS's for the masses.
And analysts say Linux is picking up steam outside North America, which the Cowen survey doesn't cover.
;-)
Linux was created outside North America, so it's surprising that the Cowen survey crew even noticed that it exists. If they look around a bit, they just might find other useful software that was written somewhere else in the world.
(Honestly, when will those Norteamericanos notice that they are no longer in control of the computer industry? Haven't been for years, actually.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
That's really not true, you know. If Sun stopped supporting Star/OpenOffice, or the guys at MySQL gave up and went home, I'd give you great odds that it would pretty much kill future development of the corresponding product as well, open source or not. You might get the occasional bug fix or minor patch, but that's probably it.
The harsh reality is that just because you've got the source code to something doesn't mean you can instantly be an expert in how it's been designed and all the little things that were learned along the way, nor competent to continue development as if you were the original dev team. This has nothing to do with being open source; classical closed source businesses have been facing this dilemma as a matter of HR management for as long as there's been software development. Moreover, even a relatively weak dev team doing this stuff professionally usually generates better documentation than most F/OSS projects seem to, and there's usually more continuity even if some of the original development staff leave.
Open source projects that are widely distributed in more than one version by somewhat independent groups -- in other words, Linux -- are a good bet for future-proofing. Open source projects that are widely distributed in only one version with only a few core developers -- in other words, pretty much everything else, including the other big names -- are not good bets. In fact, if future-proofing is your biggest concern, the most robust option is to get it written in-house, with an emphasis on good documentation and testing procedures, and with solid management overseeing the work. Failing that, you might well be better off going with something provided by a megacorp that employs vast numbers of developers and has vast financial reserves.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Notice the absence of real dollars, as opposed to terminology like "70%". 70% of what? 70% doesn't mean much if you don't have a frame of reference.
Windows Server had 10% increase in units shipped while the market in whole only grew 5%. I know a couple companies that replaced their sun web servers with windows 2003 and IIS6. Lot cheaper to maintain, you can pay some college kid $10/hr to take care of them instead of $100/hr for a consultant. Also considering Windows 2003 web server edition is only ~$375, the initial cost is nothing for a business compared to labor costs.
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
I've heard this argument a lot, and yet... At the hourly cost of employing most guys at the office where I work (mostly developers, and a few tech support/sales guys), the amount my employer pays for a Windows licence is worth a little over an hour. Office is a couple more, and Visual Studio a couple more. Since there's a very good chance that someone in the office will know how to do just about anything with those key products, ongoing support costs are close to nil.
In other words, even if we were all instantly and permanently as productive with Linux and a Linux-based office suite and development tool, and they also required no ongoing support costs because we could pretty much do it all ourselves, the most switching to Linux would save my employer is the cost of a day of my time. It would take that day just to set the new system up.
Now, there are many UNIX fans at the office where I work, and we all know at least the basics since we develop for several UNIX-ish platforms, including Linux. Even so, I don't for an instant believe we'd be as productive using the Linux-based tools (which we're free to do if we want, but almost no-one does, even the Linux fans).
In summary: this is an office full of technically competent people with no particular love of Microsoft and a certain fondness for Linux, and yet I can't make a genuine case for switching on cost saving grounds. Unless I'm missing some major financial consideration, that pretty much kills the argument for other offices without either the technical expertise or the Linux fans dead. So where are the big savings I keep being told about coming from?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Long lines, TSA searches, terrorists threats, no smoking, and now ... BSOD on the in flight movie screen!
Q: From your modelling, what can Microsoft do strategically to remain competitive against a product that is argued to be of better quality, is updated more frequently, and is free?
4 834&t=technology
A: A few actions that the model suggests Microsoft could do to remain competitive are:
1. Increase its own demand-side learning.
1. Listen to the demands of the user community to better exploit the benefits of demand-side learning. Microsoft must facilitate communication between the user base and the company to have prompt feedback on the performance of its products.
2. Make an effort to incorporate improvements in the code (fix bugs and introduce new features) as soon as possible.
3. Reward those who propose improvements for the code. At the very least, Microsoft could publicly acknowledge those who proposed new features or discovered bugs.
2. Feed its direct and indirect network effects.
1. Support as much as possible the independent software vendor community so that the quantity and quality of complements is substantially above that of Linux.
2. Encourage competition between the different ISVs. The lower the prices of applications, the more appealing the Microsoft system will be.
3. Price discriminate. Give Windows and applications away to schools and universities so that users build their file libraries on Microsoft, not Linux.
3. Minimize the number of strategic buyers.
1. Let governments access the source code and give guarantees that sensitive data is treated confidentially.
2. Price discriminate. Give binary away to organizations and individuals who are not willing to spend money on Windows but who would be willing to use Linux because it is free.
4. Reduce costs to be able to sustain long periods of time with low prices.
5. Decrease Linux's demand-side learning.
1. Because the way to do this involves some questionable (from a legal point of view) actions, we will refrain from suggesting specifics.
6. Lessen Linux's direct and indirect network effects.
1. Make it as hard as possible for Windows applications to work on Linux.
2. Same for MS Office documents.
3. "Promote" Linux's code forking.
7. Infuse fear, uncertainty, and doubt into the Linux user community. For this to work, the statements must be perceived as credible. Credibility requires some past FUD announcements to be realized.
from: http://hbsworkingknowledge.hbs.edu/item.jhtml?id=
Selected excerpts:"A" report "suggests" it's about to slow. Windows growth is zero, but Linux growth in 500 corporation buyers, limited to those who a) plan on buying new servers, and b) plan on having Linux installed, may slow to 7% growth.
Have all the companies that began adopting stopped or reversed adoption entirely?But not these guys, apparently.
So this guy says. If anything, it shows where those marketing Linux-based solutions aren't reaching out to customers with other needs. Linux does a fine job as a low- to mid-range file and print server, document-server and company intranet web-app server. That's about as easy a drop-in replacement that you can get. However, thinking is required.
Who are these companies, and what do they do? How did they implement it? Where is the report with cited sources to back up this statement?
Ouch! This seriously undercuts the credibility of MS-certification, since this crew doesn't seem to know how to read. Of course there will be greater costs during the switch, but will that remain at 70% above the current costs forever? Also, this is an anti-argument for Microsoft, because this same company is obviously going to have a hard time dealing with the API changes coming in Longhorn. If anything, this message is: "It will cost a lot more to move away from a Microsoft solution if you buy into it, and your applications won't be portable to other platforms. Microsoft can't grow with your business, and you'll be stuck with them!"
This guy works for MS marketing strategy. Did we really need to quote him? Also, his statments contradict the concessions made by the author of the article. Who is right?
It hasn't? Linux has been the platform on which to build a "super"-computers with commodity hardware. It's also a popular platform for serving massive loads in heavily-used websites. It can do more. The author also fails to point out that Microsoft, despite its major marketing effort to get Windows into the "data center", is encountering resistance. Let me put this forth: If operating systems such as Solaris and AIX are in the "data center", and Linux is replacing UNIX, where is Linux going?
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
"Wolf! Wolf!"
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
And it took years before those desktop systems were as useful and reliable as UNIX was in the 1970s. And UNIX wasn't that reliable compared to other "big iron" operating systems of the time.
What exactly is your argument here? Is it that UNIX and all it's derivatives have remained unchanged since the 1970s? Are you sure you want stand behind that?
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
"in that order. You can make the numbers say anything with sufficient qualifications."
What qualifications would it take to say that geeks get laid most of the time?
Perhaps nobody knows how to update the mail-scanner's virus definitions, so three months later every byte of useful data on the LAN is destroyed by the latest Win32 worm. And of course the secretary dutifully walking through the backup ritual didn't know what to make of the messages telling her that the tape drive was dying, so she just clicked OK each time (which seemed to work) and now the only backup tapes they have are wall-to-wall CRC errors.
Sad but typical. If anyone was doing backups at all, that is.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Anyone actually read that TCO paper Microsoft keeps flaunting? Allegedly "independent" it is quite simply brilliant marketing - see what use microsoft are making of it: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/facts /default.mspx
Some of these alleged researchers are going to get very large Christmas hampers from Mr Gates if not their own lower TCO (lol).
There is no actuall cost breakdowns in these articles - just hype. I wouldn't trust any of this BS.
Linux doesn't fight this kind of marketing campaign so maybe it's losing out. We all know which OS is the better coded!
On the fly: 207.4
Sliding: 320.8
Why doesn't the word "Macintosh" appear on this page? Oh wait, now it does.
Obviously there were a few years between the time UNIX was developed and GUI based systems were feasible. I think my Xerox Alto was no less stable and a lot more useful than UNIX systems of that era.
If you are referring to Windows, I suggest you try porting UNIX to an 8088 based system with less than 640K of RAM and see how reliable it is. Keep in mind that all programs on the 8088 use the same address space and no kernel levels can be enforced by hardware.
I'm not claiming that UNIX hasn't changed at all but if the average user still needs to use the command line to do their work, UNIX will not succeed on the desktop.
I'm looking at this right now at work. I've been a long-term Debian and occasional FreeBSD user, so I'm new to a lot of the considerations involved. If anyone can point out any misunderstandings or inaccuracies it would help readers and perhaps allow me to make more informed decisions as well.
We have a large number of desktops (numbered in four digits) across a large number of sites (numbered in three digits). When you get to this point, the idea of a free OS isn't quite the issue. Sure, it's nice that you can pop in the RHEL (Red Hat Enterprise Linux) or Fedora CDs and get a functional desktop. Automated hardware detection is good when anything other than a preconfigured, flawlessly automated installation simply isn't an option. This is something that Fedora has covered, as do many other free distributions.
However, where Fedora falls short is remote management -- obviously you can update a single machine easily, but imagine having several thousand identical systems to update in a secure and timely manner.
Add the fact that when there's nobody at an installation site capable of fixing problems should they arise you need a way to test new packages and updates prior to deployment. What is needed is a way to set up groups of machines in such a way that you can push software out to them easily in a controlled manner. Set up a testing lab, for instance, and test new software in the labs before risking a breakage in remote settings. Then, when you've tested, push updates out easily, and offer rollback support if something unexpected happens.
This is the state of what Red Hat Network allows you to do (at least with their highest level of support), all via a web-based tool. You can even delegate administrative access to subsets of machines to given administrators. They promise a stable distribution, even to the extent that APIs and ABIs of provided software will not change. This is something not promised under Fedora.
RHEL clones exist, but they do not allow access to the administrative features that the Red Hat Network provides. Nor are they supported by vendors -- if your SAN is supported under RHEL and doesn't work under RHEL, you can complain to the vendor until they fix it. If your SAN is supported under RHEL and doesn't work under CentOS, there's little you can do.
Windows allows system management like this through a product called Systems Management Server. Unsupported Linux distributions don't offer the features, and they don't offer this level of guaranteed API/ABI stability and vendor support.
Yes, you can do without support. However, when you're dealing with application vendors who expect to have a known set of installed software, it's much easier when everyone is on the same page. (This is a pain when it comes to JREs required by Windows apps -- everyone wants a different version, and if you don't have enough pull with the vendor to get them to support what you've got rolled out, you're stuck rolling out yet another JRE).
Cheap software means nothing if you can't tailor your environment to your needs, including deployment, testing, and administration on a wide scale. That's why companies pay for Red Hat support and subscriptions -- because of the management tools and guaranteed support you don't get with Fedora or CentOS.
I'm ignoring Novell here entirely, by the way, but they do offer similar features. They just can't seem to make up their minds whether to push open products or ones based on NetWare. Their interoperability is wicked, but they also like to push their consulting services so it's hard to find direct information much of the time.
Finally, Red Hat's desktop stance is quite unclear. Novell is pushing the hell out of Windows migrations, but they are short on details such as pricing and return on investment (except pushing products such as ZENworks, which is similar in function to the RHN stuff I've described). You can't get any information on Windows-to-Red Hat migrations either -- all of the Red Hat case studies are UNIX-to-
Somebody get that guy an ambulance!
This is news? Sounds like a relative of Norvig's Law.
If Linux in the workplace reached 100%, would slashdot use the headline "Linux Growth in the Workplace Comes to Grinding Halt"?
This is for debian, I can't speak for Fedora. Set up your own local apt-get source. In fact two, one "test", one "production". Point a cron job in your test/production machines to the respective sources, with forced upgrades. You will have cleared the production packages *before* you push them to the production source, so there's no risk there. Run a test run. If all works well, great. Update your production source from the test source. And then the cycle starts over.
If the test machines crap out, upgrade and try again (probably a bad build, if it consistently craps out contact the software maintainer). If you are talking about running servers, debian stable + security patches ONLY via cron job should be a safe way to keep them running without all this hoopla.
How might shit hit the fan? Well, if you can't keep your test machines out of operation as long as it takes to fix something. Or if something goes wrong on your production machines. You can script it to forcibly downgrade to the production source version, but that might not always be supported. Usually it goes well, but if the upgrade updated the configuration files in some way not supported by the older package, well... whoops.
Of course, none of this will get you app support for Red Hat supported products. Since CentOS is built off the same source, it is highly unlikely the problem is caused by not running Red Hat, but if you ever dealt with support, you know that doesn't matter. Try making an ISP support request using an unsupported OS, and it doesn't matter if the problem is your ADSL modem caught on fire. Not supported, bye bye.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Here's why: whenever there's news like this, people lose their perspective. This is practically non-news in itself; Linux can't grow at the same speed all the time, nor can that speed always increase.
When you mentioned the 2nd derivative, it actually all clicked into place for me; I knew intuitively that this doesn't mean a thing, but it's been a while since I last bothered with maths. Let's see what this means:
there is a Linux install base x. Then it doubles to 2x. Growth rate: 100%.
Next, it grows by "only" 50%, so the new install base is 3x. The growth rate has decreased by 50%, although another x number of people installed Linux, just like before.
I've noticed people have a tendency to treat any info on 'growth rate slowing' as 'losing market', and have had trouble explaining it wasn't so.
This is non-news, or nearly so. There is still growth; it just isn't exponential (and thank all the Greek Pantheon for that; it just means Linux isn't a MLM scheme).
I so much prefer maths to marketspeak.
Ignore this signature. By order.
Here in Brazil several government units plan to migrate everything to linux and free software solutions. The Sao Paulo subway company has already adopted linux and open office solution for their desktop computing...
Ronaldo Faria Lima
E-mail:ronaldo@ronaldolima.eti.br
Home page: http://www.ronaldolima.eti.br
we built 3 more linux servers for internet apps last week alone.
our company also hired three more linux admins and our chief architect installed linux on his laptop to pilot linux on laptops because of the spyware and virus problems on windows.
We also have a standardized linux build for servers in the last phases of testing.
I don't think linux growth is slowing down here LOL.
I wish I was allowed to say which company I worked for in a public post.
I don't know where they get their numbers but they are definitely off the mark.
l8,
AC
My IT doesn't give root on linux, but
...
gives admin on XP
I moved to XP, and installaed colinux
better to be on Deb3.1 than RH7.2