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."
Is it slowing too? In which case, this is a sign of overall growth slowing... or is it just a Linux thing?
libertarianswag.com
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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...
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.
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
I'm tempted to say 'point and click' my arse, but might it might give you the wrong idea :)
Yes on the surface in some areas Linux might look a bit like a GUI spatchcock, but its heart is golden, engendered by thirty years of evolution and stress testing, windoze has nowhere near the pedigree.
We live in a black box society where people think all that is necessary, is to have the correct label for everything and to know which button to press. There has the inherent danger in this process, of dumbing everyone down.
Truth to tell, it is not about UNIX Linux or Micro$oft, it is about open source versus closed source, this has nothing to do with GUI/CLI.
Read the man (Richard Stallman)
It's called an elephant's trunk whereas it is in fact, an elephant's nose, a nose by any other name would smell as sweet