Linux Feels Growing Pains

Carl Bialik from the WSJ writes "As Linux enters the mainstream, adopters 'are demanding many features found on commercial software, including a large variety of add-on application programs and management tools that are easy to use,' the Wall Street Journal reports. 'How quickly open-source programs can narrow the gap with commercial software is a hotly debated topic in the computer industry. The transition may determine whether the technology will continue its momentum, or stall in the face of tougher competition at the heart of corporate computer networks.' Eric Singleton, chief information officer at retailer Tommy Hilfiger Corp., which recently switched its e-commerce site 'Tommy.com' from Linux to Microsoft software, calls Linux 'a great product,' but adds, 'it's got to get the final tier of reliability and predictability that I'm going to bet a multi-billion dollar corporation's future on.'"

Comments

Microsoft Reliability

[bigwavejas]

'it's got to get the final tier of reliability and predictability that I'm going to bet a multi-billion dollar corporation's future on.'

Good point Eric, with MS you're almost guaranteed to get hacked. Now THAT's predictability!

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[rabbit994]

Properly patched and firewalled Windows box is at no higher risk then a Linux box.

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[smbarbour]

Yep, MS will reliably crash your entire machine (instead of just the errant process) whenever you are predictably hacked.

Sounds like a game-winning plan to me!

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[Knome_fan]

I really don't know why the parent was moderated flamebait.

Sure, claiming that using MS almost guarantees that you'll get hacked certainly is a bit trollish, but there is a certain irony if someone who recently switched to MS talks about Linux lacking reliability and predictablity, isn't there?

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[bigwavejas]

Not true, just by the sheer number of people who loathe MS, you're guaranteed a greater number of attacks will be geared towards the MS platform than Linux.

Stop the MS machine!

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[RobotAndy]

Ah patching. What a great way to spend a day.

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[Anonymous Coward]

but there is a certain irony if someone who recently switched to MS talks about Linux lacking reliability and predictablity, isn't there?

or maybe it isn't, outside of Slashdot? Maybe even the CIO of Hilfiger knows almost as much about running his systems as your typical +4 informative M$ sucks Slashdot poster? ;->

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[colinrichardday]

But is it as easy to keep Windows patched as it is to keep Linux patched?

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[edremy]

I know, it pisses me off endlessly to have the redhat update agent hang over and over again since it can't manage to resolve a few dependencies, and trying to keep up on the enormous number of patches a simple webserver takes by hand is a royal pain.

Oh wait, you were talking about Linux, right?

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[fimbulvetr]

I rarely see rhn down - maybe 3 or 4 times a month, even then it says something along the lines of:

" IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOLLOWS:

Red Hat Network is currently experiencing technical difficulties.

We apologize for any inconvenience this outage may cause.

Thank you for using Red Hat Network.

--the RHN team"

In that case, they usually have it fixed within 20-30 minutes.
If it's hanging any more than that, you have connectivity problems. This is my experience with 10 RH (AS/ES, 2.1,3.0, x86/AMD64) boxes.

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[bart416]

Kind a, thats why i lost all my data of 4 years because of the service pack 1 installer. Since then i hate microsoft realy. BSD and Linux are still the best choises for things like servers and programming AND DESKTOP USAGE. The only thing that is wrong is that its described as hard to use by many people. Infact its just because you guys are used to windows. Once you are used to Linux you will find windows hard because you don't have full access to the configuration etc... I hate it when i am forced to use windows on school. I use linux at my home desktop for just about everything. Windows is only on it to play games. And that is the mistake of the developers of the games. The only problem i have is the lack of drivers with some hardware. And that is another issue that needs to be fixed by the company that makes the hardware.

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[dratox]

Or a lifetime

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[megarich]

MS adaware/spyware installed without your knowledge.
LINUX does not have this problem to the level MS does(if at all).

No amount of patches or firewalls will protect you from malware. From this fact alone Linux is of a less of a risk than Windows.

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[RobotAndy]

Oh wait, I got confused for a moment... Redhat==Linux? Maybe, I'm sure that point could be argued (but so can the existance of dog). Linux==Redhat? Nope. I suppose here would be a good plug for Debian. True, it is not exactly the most up-to-date distribution (Sarge: now defaults with the new 2.4 kernel!), but what it lacks in packages for the most up-to-date version of VLC it makes up for in roach-like disaster perseverance. What is a real royal pain in the butt is when a vendor offering updates for its products doesn't distribute the update in hard-copy (thus forcing one to, at the worst case, hand update every machine). On top of that, I can't say I like the start button either.

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[coolGuyZak]

I really don't know why the parent was moderated flamebait.

It's because of his sig. When someone asks to be modded "+/- N whatever", the mods usually oblige.

To the mods: +5 insightful, please. ;)

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[Simon Garlick]

WTF? Parent modded "flamebait"?

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[Taevin]

Or maybe Mr. Big Shot CIO of Hilfiger Eric Singleton was paid a lot of money by Microsoft to switch and make a public statement about how Linux is just not reliable enough? I generally try to stay away from making such unfounded claims but it really does make sense.

1. I mostly ignore fashion and trends and fads and whatever the hell else these idiots provide for people to gobble up, but I understand that Tommy Hilfiger is popular with people in varying age groups. At least some significant portion of these people will find out about this and, since they won't understand any of it, will hear "Hilfiger uses Microsoft because it's more reliable than Linux." This would be a good enough reason for Microsoft to drop some funds into what they would probably call targeted marketing.
2. Why the hell else would this happen? What knowledgable CIO would switch from using Apache (presumably) in a stable Linux server environment to using the disaster that is IIS on a Windows Server? And before you say "Oh you're just a M$ sucks lololz1! troll," consider that I work with this crap everyday. My job is to code and maintain ASP.NET pages hosted on IIS 5.0 and IIS 6.0 running on Windows 2000 and 2003 servers. The company I work for runs enterprise class hardware but we don't get enterprise level traffic. And yet server OS/software problems are the primary issue we have to deal with. The IIS web applications regularly freeze up and hang which at best requires a web service restart and at worst a full server reboot (of which we do several a day - not really a problem for the end user since we have multiple servers but still rediculous nonetheless).

Needless to say, I frown on our own use of IIS so I just can't understand why someone would use it to "bet a multibillion-dollar corporation's future on."

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[Knara]

I'm not the OP, but actually I used to see problems with redhat machines using the GUI version of up2date (not sure why just the GUI) hanging indefinitely when trying to resolve a large number of dependancies. Don't think I've seen it in EL4 yet, though.

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[bluekanoodle]

So let me get this straight. You hate Microsoft because YOU failed to backup 4 years of data before attempting to do a major patch of your operating system? How is this Microsoft's fault?

As an aside, I usually do not jump on people about minor spelling and grammar mistakes on /., but your post was so horrendous it would make me think twice before I took anything you had to say seriously.

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[jedidiah]

The CIO of Hilfiger knows about as much as the systems his company runs as my grandmother.

This situation has nothing to do with the actual qualities of whatever OS. It's all a selling and marketing game because the target audience knows squat about anything.

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[fimbulvetr]

Oh, that's fair. I've never used the GUI, just CLI. Hope they fix that.

Cheers.

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how the IT grunts at Tommy Hilfiger feel about the switch?

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

MS has made HUGE strides in reliability, but like anything else results will vary depending on who is using it. Netcraft's hosting reliablity stats have had hosters using MS VERY high over the last year. Just checked the lastest and of the top 10 it broke down like this:

5 Windows (2 Win2k, 3 Win2k3)
2 Linux
2 FreeBSD
1 Solaris

We also do large ASP.NET apps on Win2k3 (IIS6) and the server hasn't been touched in almost 4 months (when we did disaster recovery testing). If you are having anything like multiple hangs per day you should REALLY audit your code. It REALLY sounds like it is more the applications fault than IIS's fault.

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[Anonymous Coward]

Take a look at how many patches are released for packages included with each distribution every month at www.linuxsecurity.org, these patches are released when available so someone may end up patching a system today that they patched yesterday. What's easy about this? First figure out if the patch is applicable then deploy and maybe repeat tomorrow or the next day.

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[alvinrod]

Maybe it's a bit stereotypical of me, but here I go anyway. The people who are most likely to give a rat's ass about their appearance and buy Tommy Hilfiger clothes, colone, products, are the same people who aren't tech savvy enough to know that Linux exists or if they do, much more than the fact that it does exist.

Anyone who's hired by a company to manage a system like that shouldn't be hired on the basis of whether they think Tommy Hilfiger products are trendy, cool, or whatever. They should be hired because they know how to get the job done regardless of whether or not you're using Linux, Windows, something else, or any combination.

Regardless it doesn't change the fact that the comment made by Eric seems a little ignorant. Perhaps the comment was made simply to justify the move and the associated expenses to the bigwigs. They probably won't understand the finer points and nuances of it all so saying, "This is more reliable and will make things easier/better for us," is probably more than enough for the people who can't be bothered or outright don't want to know all of that "computer stuff." After all, it is going to take some money to migrate away from Linux, and that cost needs to be justified. Would your boss be happy if you were just throwing money around?

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[Knara]

Yeah, the CLI works flawlessly when the GUI gets all horked up. And, like I say, I haven't seen it happen even on older machines with EL4 WS so maybe they have by now.

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[Anonymous Coward]

Your wrong, our IIS 6 servers are exposed to the internet 24X7 with no unplanned down time, that's reliability.... Plus IIS 6 has fewer vulnerabilities than Apache 2.0. I guess all those people who loathe MS products are stumped on that one!

I think the only people who really loathe MS products are a small group of computer experts who still don't understand computers need to be user friendly instead of expert friendly.

Bye the way your post sucks and has nothing to do with reliability...

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[edremy]

It's not the connection- that's fine. Try using the GUI up2date. If you simply select every package the up2date program will hang on the "resolving dependencies" step, almost every time. It seems like any dependency at all will cause it to die- I've let it run for 24+ hours and it never completes.

And I won't regale you with the time up2date downloaded a bunch of somehow corrupt font files that broke xemacs totally. Never was able to fix that one, but at least the upgrade to FC4 did.

The latest version in FC4 has worked for me so far- we'll see if that bug got stomped.

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[pixelpusher220]

You're correct that the people buying TH clothes and assorted products aren't probably techno-literate, nor do they care about what OS is being run. (GP poster made basically the same point)

What he also said is that these are the people most easily swayed into believing FUD, and MS paying TH Inc. to switch would be a cheap form of advertising. So the neophites hear "TH uses MS because it's good and secure" and believe it rather than "TH uses Linux because it's good and secure".

Now, what OS are they more likely to remember when then need to buy their next computer?

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[Taevin]

Anyone who's hired by a company to manage a system like that shouldn't be hired on the basis of whether they think Tommy Hilfiger products are trendy, cool, or whatever.

You're right about that, I meant the "common folk" though. I know plenty of people who read stuff like the WSJ and plenty of people who are easily influenced by big brand names. I just meant that it helps Microsoft's anti-OSS goals by planting that little evil seed of "Microsoft is more reliable than Linux." Besides that statement being wrong in most cases, it's annoying to have that crap thrown at you by someone after you just fixed their Windows computer of malware or some other problem that requires them to reboot frequently.

You might also be right about the justifying the move to the bigwigs part. I just don't see how anyone could justify it to themselves.

Would your boss be happy if you were just throwing money around?

No, but I would be :)

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[bigwavejas]

"Bye the way your post sucks and has nothing to do with reliability..."

You're wrong, I could reliably predict MS employees or suck-ups (much like yourself) would post as an Anonymous Coward. Grow a sack and take your down-mod like a man.

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess Windows + IIS6 has less security vulnerablities than Apache 2.0?

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[Luke-Jr]

Properly firewalled? A firewall shouldn't be necessary at all in normal circumstances.

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[scbysnx]

You can't argue a point when if your argument succeeds (this case you're argueing that linux should be more popular) your point will be void. Linux has no spyware/malware because it isn't popular with workstations and home users. The spyware people target home users if they start using linux the spyware people will be happy to code for linux. Lack of spyware does not prove that linux is more secure.

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[colinrichardday]

SuSE has YaST Online Update (YOU) which allows an administrator to set up patching as a cron job.

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[Anonymous Coward]

You should just gain some knowledge. Most likely, these hosting companies are running server farms. I can only find the july results that it goes like

Windows - 3
Linux - 3
FreeBSD - 3
Solaris - 1

http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2005/07/index.ht ml

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[Anonymous Coward]

uhh versus pick the distribution of your choice + Apache?

What's your point.

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[goldspider]

Doing somersaults to get a common USB sound card working is a blast too.

Oh wait, you're talking about Windows.

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[Taevin]

Well, I wasn't able to find hosting reliability stats from Netcraft but certainly good uptime is a requirement for reliability. The uptime stats I found show IIS in 6 out of the top 50 with the highest ranking at 16th. Could you give me a link to your stats? While in my experience what I've said is correct, I'd like to know if I'm actually wrong in the larger picture.

I guess maybe I'm more frustrated by the fact that you so often have to reboot Windows machines (a process that can take several minutes) if anything goes wrong. If it actually is the application's fault, you could kill and restart Apache in a few seconds.

To be honest, the biggest problem we have is from a third party app that we are thankfully moving away from. Still, there are plenty of others that were written in house that fail. One is just a registration form that checks user input for typos or just plain old duplicate registrations. What's so complicated about an approximate string matching algorithm that it would cause a lockup requiring a system reboot?

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[51mon]

What netcraft stats you checking?

I think you may be looking at ones that measure network performance, rather than specifically server performance or reliability.

There aren't any pure Windows solution in the netcraft longest uptime top 10, the first when I looked was in 26th place, II5 on W2K. There are some highbred solutions (IIS on BSD) presumably firewalled or proxies (we have IIS on Linux due to squid accelerator being used at work) further up the list.

Of course BSD dominates because they didn't have a roll-over in the reported uptime counter, unlike a certain OS from Finland.

Of course stats only tell half the story, whilst we had some kernel trouble with our Linux firewall, a reboot and a head scratch is nothing as to the mysteries that W2K3 has thrown up, including two known Microsoft bugs, for which there is no fix. Microsoft code written by people who don't understand the Microsoft user model (not surprising given how complex it has become under ADS).

No way would I willingly trust big Enterprise systems to W2K3, it just doesn't look ready to me. My employers small enterprise is depending on it, but then all it is doing is being a file and authentication server. If we had a Linux box doing that role, I'd be very surprised if we tripped over major bugs like we did with W2K3.

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

You should just gain some knowledge. Most likely, these hosting companies are running server farms.

Easy boy! ;-) Of course they are running server farms. Of course that goes for the linux/BSD/Solaris sites as well as the MS sites. What is the point? The NetCraft statistics have LOTS of variables and certainly cannot be used to say one is better than the other! There are just too many other variables to use them to draw such a conclusion. They can however be used to get a very general view of reliablity in the wild. I'm just trying to point out that Windows isn't what it used to be (when you would rarely see see a windows site in the top ten let alone being the most used OS in the top ten). Anyway, here is the current version.

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[StormReaver]

"If you are having anything like multiple hangs per day you should REALLY audit your code."

I wish I could have, but it was a fresh install of NT 5 using nothing but Microsoft software (NT 5, IIS, Microsoft ODBC driver). It was impossible to audit since Microsoft doesn't make its source available. There was nothing else but a simple query+display ASP script. Everything else was simple static HTML. The NT 5 machine would plateau at 100% CPU (both CPUs) 2-3 times per day, and leak 1GB of RAM at those times. This was with only 4 simultaneous web users on a barely tapped T1. We had many other problems with it that eventually broke the Director's will to use it any further.

We replaced Windows with an old version of Red Hat, I rewrote the one ASP script in PHP, and all of our web problems evaporated. Once we got away from Windows, and onto a stable platform, we were able to provide web services that were never able to get past the, "wouldn't this be great" stage on Windows.

We have since been putting all new services on Linux boxes. Linux has been, and will continue, replacing both Windows and Unix in our server room.

Just like Windows Security, Windows Stability is a bad joke. Every single one of our Windows machines (up to and including XP and NT 6 [Win2003]) has to be rebooted at least weekly, while our Linux machines keep running until either kernel upgrades or hardware failures require a shutdown.

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[ckaminski]

If you can't manage it from a serial console (especially if it's sold as an "appliance" like the Dell Powervault) it's not ready for MY datacenter.

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft Recommends, in the Service Pack 1 Installer itself, that you back-up your data prior to installing it. If you didn't heed that advice, well, thats your own problem. It could be argued that you shouldn't HAVE to back up specifically for installing the service pack, but why the heck didn't you have a backup from, at most, a week prior? 4 years? O.o;;

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

Yeah, I was referencing the hosting reliablity stats which do basically track network reliablity, sorry not best stat for this case ;-)

Also, I certainly wouldn't say Windows is better than Linux/BSD running apache. The post I was replying to just didn't seem very fair from my experience. The issue with mulitple hangs per day just seemed a bit crazy. We had an Apache/Tomcat appliation which had similar issues and of course it was an application issue (related to DB locks). We fixed that and now it runs like a dream. It just seems too often the OS or webserver is blamed for problems in the app it is running. A few years ago, there was a MAJOR disparity in the reliablity of our Unix/Linus boxes and our MS boxes. Over the last year (with up grade to Win2k3) those differences have all but gone away.

Not saying one is better or both don't still have some occasional issues, its just I've never seen (recently) issues like the original post where it was the OS or web server fault. Most of the apps we run I'd call "critical" we run on Linux/Apache, but my feelings about running such systems on MS has certainly improved over the last year.

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[canofbutter]

I hear that! Even the PC Weasel won't help you with a Windows server. Pretty much VNC is the only option there and that really doesn't help remote administration when there's a network outage. A modem connected to a serial console is really about the only option when that happens (short of having to make a 2am run into the machine room). We have 2 servers running Macromedia CF, one is running win2k, the other is running Linux. When CF is having problems using excessive system resources (as it regularly does) it's a lot easier to access the Linux machine by dialing in than to try to use VNC (100% CPU usage on both CPUs is not uncommon, and the serial console on the Linux box still responds nice and quick). Making a trip into work at 4:00am because a system goes down and VNC is unusable is not my idea of fun...

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

You hate Microsoft because YOU failed to backup 4 years of data before attempting to do a major patch of your operating system? How is this Microsoft's fault?

A lot of data is not very important and a lot of home users have large amounts of it. For example, it is cost prohibitive for me to back up all of my files so some of them (like images, random informative PDFs, and intermediate drafts of work) are not backed up. I'd like to have all these things forever, but I'm not willing to pay enough money for a few more external drives or a case of DVDs and another burner with which to back them up. To me this means that there is a perfectly valid reason to not backup all data. Do you agree that this is reasonable?

Given that, I certainly don't want upgrades to hose my files, screw up, or require me to wipe my data for any other reason. If an upgrade I do install does this, then it is the vendor's fault and I sure as hell am going to blame them, whoever they are. I recognize that there are always risks, but that does not mean we should excuse poorly written updates. Hosing my data is a bug and vendors should be responsible for shoddy products, especially if a previous bug is necessitating the update in the first place. If vendors are not held responsible for their mistakes, what motivation do they have to avoid them in the future?

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[jo42]

The other week one of our code monkeys turned off the firewall on a W2K3S w/SP1 server that was outside the firewall. Why? I don't know. Within minutes it had been hacked. Had to Format C: and reinstall the OS from scratch.

Meanwhile, the FC4 box sitting right beside it, with no firewall installed on it since day one, keeps on chugging with no such problems.

Frickin' Microsoft.

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[Anonymous Coward]

Properly patched and firewalled Windows box is at no higher risk then a Linux box.

Not true. Repeat after me "Process before product ... Process before product ...".

First off, patches and firewalls have little to do with security. They are adjuncts to good security, nothing more.

Here's why;

1. All software has unpatched defects.

2. Some of those defects can be exploited by third parties to abuse system resources.

3. If the service, application, or other code is not running or is limited in what it can perform, the possibilites of exploiting the system are greatly reduced.

4. Isolating parts of the OS allows the impact to be limited to the one part.

So, what do you do? Patching and firewalls show only that you do not trust the current configuration. If you don't, then why not consider the current configuration a problem and work on reducing how much it can be abused -- before anyone attempts to abuse it? Firewalls don't protect anything, they just filter connections. If the bad guys can pass something through the filter that leads to your systems being compromised, you're screwed.

Case in point: Anti-virus programs and spam filters. Both need constant updates. Both are based on blocking intentional abuses. Do they help? Yes, most of the time, yet both are frequently ineffective.

What is effective is to remove as much as possible from the loop and to limit interaction to an "as absolutely needed" basis.

Getting back to Windows and Linux: Windows can be secured, though reaching the same basic level of security is much harder as Microsoft has chosen to hide so much and they retain control over the core OS -- treating it like a black box.

The process required to handle Windows in a secure way is much more complex and has system-design limitations. Sure, some things under Windows are easier, though the whole process required to secure the system is not.

Things like SELinux just don't exist for Windows -- let alone the ability to disable entire sections of the OS like the UI and still use it as a server. (Yes, you can...but it's such a pain to do it begs the question of why you want to go through that much anguish.) The defaults for Linux are generally much better (distro depending).

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[bluekanoodle]

"A lot of data is not very important and a lot of home users have large amounts of it. For example, it is cost prohibitive for me to back up all of my files so some of them (like images, random informative PDFs, and intermediate drafts of work) are not backed up. I'd like to have all these things forever, but I'm not willing to pay enough money for a few more external drives or a case of DVDs and another burner with which to back them up. To me this means that there is a perfectly valid reason to not backup all data. Do you agree that this is reasonable?"

Reasonable? Hardly. If you don't back it up, you can't moan about it when it's gone. At the risk of starting YABA thread (Yet Another Bad Analogy)on slashdot, that's like saying you only use your car to go back and forth to the grocery store, so why bother checking to make sure the tires are bolted on.

I am not a MS Fanboy and I agree that vendors should be held responsible for legitimate errors on their part, however the OP comment about Blaming Microsoft is nothing more then anectodal nonsense.

The SP1 installer worked on millions of computers worldwide, but somehow his computer got screwed up and that's Microsoft's fault? Making a SWAG here, but I'd be willing to wager dollars to donuts that if you did an analysis of his system after the crash, it would have been riddled with shoddy 3rd party software, pirated games, free porn and spyware. Anyone of these could have be a contributing factor to the crash, yet some how Microsoft is to blame? I don't buy that.

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Reasonable? Hardly. If you don't back it up, you can't moan about it when it's gone.

So by analogy, if you don't keep your money in fire safe you have no reason to complain if it burns up when your house is burnt down? Even if the fire was caused by a defective product? I strongly disagree. It is a good idea to take precautions, especially given the myriad causes of data loss, but that in no way absolves the responsible party of their guilt.

that's like saying you only use your car to go back and forth to the grocery store, so why bother checking to make sure the tires are bolted on.

You check your lug nuts whenever you go to the store? You would consider it your fault if a defective run of rotors caused them to come loose? I check my lug nuts about twice a year, and I'd be pissed if they came loose regularly, and if I could trace the source of that problem I'd demand recompense for the defective product and any damage it caused.

The SP1 installer worked on millions of computers worldwide, but somehow his computer got screwed up and that's Microsoft's fault?

It also screwed up on many computers worldwide, and, yes I think you should be able to reasonably expect an update to not break your computer. Maybe my standards are just too high.

I'd be willing to wager dollars to donuts that if you did an analysis of his system after the crash, it would have been riddled with shoddy 3rd party software, pirated games, free porn and spyware. Anyone of these could have be a contributing factor to the crash, yet some how Microsoft is to blame?

So what you're saying is having porn on your computer means that if a vendor update breaks your machine it is your fault. What an interesting argument. Why should it matter what is installed? Userland apps and images should not cause any problems with upgrades and if they do either your architecture is fundamentally flawed or you're doing something very wrong.

I am not a MS Fanboy...

And yet you think that updates required to fix critical security flaws breaking a machine is ok? If I make a mistake I own up to it and try to make amends. MS made a mistake in the form of critical bugs that needed fixing. They further made a mistake by including non-critical updates bundled with their bug fixes. Finally, they made a mistake by distributing an update that breaks some systems. I'd say they are plenty culpable.

Maybe, this particular user happened to have a coincidental hardware problem or maybe they had somehow modified their system in such a way so as to break the upgrade. It does not matter. They ran the upgrade because MS said to trust them and the user had little choice. They ran the upgrade because MS had already made a mistake they were trying to fix. I'd say that makes any problems pretty firmly rooted in MS's buggy code.

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[RobotAndy]

Although I'm sure people have them for a reason, I've never been really sure why people would want a USB audio device, save for maybe some rare circumstance on a laptop. PCI audio boards are cheap, and fairly well supported on most desktop platforms.

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[Anonymous Coward]

not sure... Linux is a Unix-based system, the original Unix system has only 4 virus for it.. and, for a high-end system, thats really nothing.. so, if the Linux became popular as Windows, the hackers will have more difficult to made a Spyware/Malware for it.

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[abdu]

You can plug an IP power switch to your computer. If you can't access yor system because the system is CPU loaded, power the computer off/on remotely.

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[sigloiv]

The problem is, many of those IIS vulnerabilities are easier to find by script kiddies. Plus, many of them are much worse than many of the Apache exploits.

Lastly, I've run both IIS and Apache2. Apache2 is just way easier to configure and get up and running: vanilla and PHP/mySQL.

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[abdu]

It's the Windows admin fault. Probably a virgin OS without a single patch. And if he doesn't know how got hacked, he doesn't know much about Windows security.

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[canofbutter]

This is still not an ideal solution, as even with the load, I can usually get the software to close cleanly (flushing its buffers, releasing locks, etc). A hard, cold reboot is sort of dangerous as not all database transactions may have been written to disk yet and disk buffers may not have been flushed. This is one of those solutions that you'd only use of there was no other option (i.e. system is completely locked up). I was stating my opinion on remote administration of our Linux vs. Windows machines and really find it easier in disastrous situations like this to deal with the Linux machines over the Windows machines, but thanks for the suggestion; this is definitely something worth looking into for any of our machines.

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[goldspider]

In my case, it is a laptop. Still haven't gotten the USB sound to work (though the crap on-board sound works like a champ).

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux's default behavior is to kill processes arbitrarily when it runs out of memory. Now that's reliability.

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[mvdwege]

However, if you're IDSes get hammered with Windows exploit attempts to the tune that it takes you 25-50% of your working day to track down administrators to check the patchlevels of their boxes, then I'd say Linux is still ahead.

Mart

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[ckaminski]

Try debugging a boot-time problem on a machine with:

  No monitor
  No keyboard

Ergo, the POS Dell Powervaults.

Once NT starts booting, no more serial output. :(

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 funny maybe, but +4 insightful...? Way to effectively use those mod points.

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[d34thm0nk3y]

Properly patched and firewalled Windows box is at no higher risk then a Linux box.

Yeah, but I read on Slashdot that Linux gets the most hand jobs. Therefore it is better.

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[coolGuyZak]

The meta-moderation is the joke. It wouldn't be nearly as funny if I had actually been modded +5 funny.

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[Anonymous Coward]

I want to believe you, but I have never had spyware or a virus on any of my Linux machines *ever* over 10 or so years.....

weird huh?

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[ozmanjusri]

Properly patched and firewalled Windows box is at no higher risk then a Linux box.

Sure it is, as long as you're using the Linux box to firewall it and download the patches.

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[chthon]

Yep, that's ISO 9000/9001 for you.

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[Dr.Opveter]

How did you manage to lose 4 years of data because of the SP1 installer?
I lost data a number of times in the past --my own fault usually, but most the time i could recover at least about 90% without too much trouble (even after formatting and reinstalling OS a few times on the same drive).
What did the SP1 installer actually do that you could not recover the data?

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[Thundersnatch]

Lastly, I've run both IIS and Apache2. Apache2 is just way easier to configure and get up and running: vanilla and PHP/mySQL.

You were hoping for a +1 Funny mod with that one, weren't you?

Re:Microsoft Reliability

[51mon]

Netcraft exclude recent Linux kernels, because of the 47 days rollover in the method they use to calculate.

The uptime project tracks uptime for fun... Anyone have a feel for how valid they are?

Basically they have currently (ignoring OSes with minute share).

Linux 2.2 Best
Linux 2.4
Linux 2.6
Windows 2000
Windows 2003 Worst

I'll ignore the XP stats, let us charitably assume a lot of the people didn't realise it was a competition ;)

No doubt older OSes/kernels benefit from a few very big uptimes. But at 20d or so Windows 2003 is certainly looking "stable". Suggests some of the perceived convergence might be those damned recent Linux kernels. I think I may have a resource leak in netfiler :(

Sure it must be possible to correct these stats for the few very high uptimes - 90% range perhaps.

Where differences start to tell is when I patch my Debian boxes, and replace one major server app with another, the box and the rest of it's services just keep plodding along. Barely glancing at W2K3 will cause it to ask for a reboot still (I remember the W2K launch party where they claimed 26 cases where unnecessary reboots were required had been removed.... they didn't say how many were left).

Linux will need to act popular to be popular

[BlackCobra43]

Heh, interesting catch-22 thinking. By interesting I mean "silly".

Re:Linux will need to act popular to be popular

[RobotAndy]

Put that tape on erase Rearrange your face We always liked Picasso anyways. From We're Through Being Cool, by Devo You cannot expect state-of-the-rat technologies from open source, mostly because a lot of what is being poured into os's either has something to do with digital rights removal, or glitzy interfaces, and I'm done with glitzy interfaces.

Well good!

[TCM]

As Linux enters the mainstream, adopters 'are demanding many features found on commercial software, including a large variety of add-on application programs and management tools that are easy to use,'

I can't wait to see their contributions. Oh wait, you mean they are just demanding and doing nothing?

Who cares what they demand then?

Re:Well good!

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares what they demand then?

Microsoft and others, for starters. I know the average F/OSS dev won't take notice, but hopefully IBM will. The door swings both ways, people - you want Linux on the desktop, well with power comes responsibility. Are we, as a community, prepared to handle it? With responses like that, I am not sure...

And, before you mod, I have been using Linux since 1999. I was first in line at March Of The Penguins at my local theatre, too. :P

Re:Well good!

[AvantLegion]

I love it.

People here champion Linux as the answer to everyone's computing needs, from personal to commercial.

Then, when someone comes along and says, "no, it's not", the answer is "WELL THEN WHY DONT YOU FIX IT YOURSELF H0M0FAG!!11"

Re:Well good!

[ScriptMonkey]

>I can't wait to see their contributions. Oh wait, you mean they are just demanding and doing nothing?

>Who cares what they demand then?

Companies such as RedHat, who stand to make large sums of money from these potential customers, better care.

If they care about remaining profitable, that is.

Re:Well good!

[Otter]

I can't wait to see their contributions.

Their contribution is called "money". Red Hat and Novell actually prefer money to "You have the source! Fix it yourself!" fanboys...

Re:Well good!

[bsartist]

Who cares what they demand then?

Anyone who wants to make a living meeting their demands.

Re:Well good!

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

People here champion Linux as the answer to everyone's computing needs, from personal to commercial. Then, when someone comes along and says, "no, it's not", the answer is "WELL THEN WHY DONT YOU FIX IT YOURSELF H0M0FAG!!11"

Neither you nor the previous poster are speaking the language of business. The previous poster asked, "well what are they going to do about it." You stepped even further away with your script-kiddy-speak. The response to this that business users should be expecting and will completely understand is, "How much money will you give me to do it?."

Most large businesses with in house developers already fix all the problems they run into and everyone benefits. What we're dealing with here are the less technically proficient and and smaller businesses that just want it to work. 90% of them that have purchased Linux bought from a vendor and will ask that vendor to add whatever they want. The other 10% are worthless and won't pay for what they want or do it themselves. The other chunk of people we are talking about are those who have not purchased Linux, but want to and want new features. They will take bids from IBM, Redhat, etc., make whatever feature is missing a requirement for the sale and it will be taken care of. It happens every day. Why is this news?

Re:Well good!

[PlacidPundit]

I love it too. You don't seem to grasp the concept that Slashdot is not a single human being with one viewpoint. Did you ever consider that these opinions may be voiced by two different groups of people?

Re:Well good!

[LWATCDR]

You are missing the point of open source. Too many people think it is "free" in that it costs nothing. Open Source can be free if you happen to need what someone else has created. The IDEAL behind OSS is that if you need some feature you can.
1. Pay someone to develop it for you and then release it.
2. Develop it yourself.

I bet you see more and more closed source software running under Linux soon. Oracle and DB2 are examples of closed source programs running under Linux.

Re:Well good!

[NanoGator]

"Oh wait, you mean they are just demanding and doing nothing? Who cares what they demand then?"

"Free as in beer, but only if you work on it."

Ass.

Re:Well good!

[Seumas]

I can't wait to see their contributions. Oh wait, you mean they are just demanding and doing nothing?

Who cares what they demand then?


I'm really tired of hearing people whine "how come linux isn't the most popular!" and "boo hoo, we don't rule the desktop or business world" and then turn around and make comments like this.

You either want the 'product' to be popular and wide spread and usable or you don't. Whether or not they contribute isn't important. Are you suggesting that someone' s grandmother should just take whatever offering linux shoves at her and not have the right to complain about anything at all, because she hasn't submitted a kernel patch yet?

Seriously. Get off it, people. These attitudes are PRECISELY why linux still fails to command huge shares in the various markets. The technical and business shortcomings of the linux software can be overcome. It's the shitty attitudes that need the most work.

I run a popular and completely free website and when people complain about something not working or wishing it worked a different way, I don't say "well fuck you - you haven't come to my house and written any code for me!" -- I fucking take it into consideration and try to fix it or improve on it as they would like.

Re:Well good!

[Seumas]

I love it too. You don't seem to grasp the concept that Slashdot is not a single human being with one viewpoint.

You must be new here.

There's a FAQ regarding Moderators, though.

Re:Well good!

[dfiguero]

People seem to confusse open source with free as in beer!

My code can be open source but I can still get paid to support/modify/add to it.

Re:Well good!

[indifferent children]

well with power comes responsibility

I don't think the problem is our lack of responsibility. We (the community) need to understand that *every* user contributes to the success of Linux. By donating their tiny portion of mindshare, those users convince commercial hardware and software companies that Linux is worth supporting. Their existence convinces web designers that there is life beyond Windows, and that sites should work with 'alternate' browsers (and not rely on Macromedia crap).

If you read community writings, you will hear that the 'Tragedy of the Commons' doesn't apply to OSS because our resource is not constrained. What needs to be stressed is that 'non-contributing' users really are contributing something valuable.

Re:Well good!

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent speaks the truth. Thank you. Us business users are PAYING folks like Red Hat and Novell to either do the development or to put the pieces together... and most of this comes from the Open Source community at large. It's disturbing to see this attitude.

I hate to say it, but can you imagine Microsoft spouting off "what have YOU done for me lately?" to a customer wishing to PURCHASE a BUSINESS SOLUTION?

Re:Well good!

[Frumious Wombat]

Look, this may just be the whining of some wound-up fashionista out of his element, but there is a kernel of truth in his complaint. While you *can* hack up some home-grown management tool to solve your problem, generally it's not a problem unique to you. What you (that's you as a business, not you the slashdot reader) want is a set of consistent management tools that people you hire have seen before, and that someone else maintains. You provide money, they provide software, and your business machines quietly hum along.

This is where companies such as IBM, Novell, and RedHat come in. They're willing to pay for people to develop consistent tools to make life easier in corporate environments. It's not that the OSS community can't, (look at the web-based integration of Ganglia in Rocks, which allows you to visually scan the state of your entire cluster), but that it often won't. I used SuSE for years, and it's only recently I've seen anyone come up with tools that worked as elegantly as YaST. It doesn't seem to be a priority, and that's a problem for busines.

Hopefully OpenSolaris will begin to catch on, and some cross-fertilization will begin. Consistency is not a flaw, and too much choice is not a virtue.

Re:Well good!

[Knara]

Way to totally miss the sarcasm there, bud.

Re:Well good!

[jedidiah]

What I want to know is just WHAT is supposed to be missing. If we're talking about those "serious business" apps, then what does Microsoft bring to the table that ANY Unix doesn't already deliver.

Let's take RDBMS applications. In this area, Linux is pretty much interchangeable with any other Unix in terms of features and interfaces. The you get the same basic interface regardless and you can pretty much buy all the same frills from the same 3rd party vendors regardless of (unix) platform.

For "serious use" software, just what's supposed to be missing?

Some particular app might be missing, or apps in general might be few and far between. However, this nebulous notion of missing "features" just seems like emptyheaded FUD.

Re:Well good!

[xrobertcmx]

YAST is good.

Re:Well good!

[spitzak]

Yes, one response is "go write it yourself, you have the source". Another response is "pay for it to get written!". I think the complaint is that for some reason people expect everything to be given to them for free. Nobody goes to Microsoft and demands a feature for free.

There appears to be a belief that software will not work on Linux unless it is free, as though that is some technical limitation or requirement. This is very annoying to companines and people like me who hope to sell stuff for Linux. Every time somebody complains with "there will never be kitchen-design software for Linux because nobody will write it for free" they are buying into this FUD. You are doing the same thing.

IT IS POSSIBLE TO WRITE COMMERCIAL SOFTWARE FOR LINUX!!!

Re:Well good!

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to say it, but can you imagine Microsoft spouting off "what have YOU done for me lately?" to a customer wishing to PURCHASE a BUSINESS SOLUTION?
No, but I also can't imagine RedHat or Novell saying that. Depending on how much money you give them they will fix your problem.
But expecting help from the community without giving back is almost like expecting Symantec to give you their AntiVirus program for free because you paid M$ for Windows already and you need it so much...

Re:Well good!

[g2devi]

> IT IS POSSIBLE TO WRITE COMMERCIAL SOFTWARE FOR LINUX!!!

Oracle, theKompany, IBM, and friends seem to agree with you.

Re:Well good!

[Anonymous Coward]

These attitudes are PRECISELY why linux still fails to command huge shares in the various markets. The technical and business shortcomings of the linux software can be overcome. It's the shitty attitudes that need the most work.

Actually I think the reason Linux isn't commanding huge market share is for the same reason OS X isn't commanding huge market share: there are some rather large corporate entities paying for it to be that way.

Now, if businesses decide that they'd like to pay for Linux to meet their needs, I'm all for it. But this attitude of "Gee, you Linux people are so RUDE to me! I demand that you do XYZ just like Windows, and if you don't then I'll just keep paying Microsoft!" is annoying to say the least.

Re:Well good!

[shywolf9982]

No. Linux fails not because of this attitude (which is just a loud minority among the community).
It fails because of its development model. Many problems of Linux comes from the fact that it ain't monolithic at all. It is founded over a large number of independent projects that, even if they do their best effort to tie things together, still have great problems in this.
Suppose for a second that Microsoft just programs the NT kernel, and lets another software house, that is completely independent from Microsoft, develop the graphic interface. And another one develop .Net, and another one developing filesystems etc etc etc. I bet that if some Microsoft executive is reading this he's gonna have shivers.
Said that, I'm not going to say that Linux development model sucks. But it surely has its advantages (one over all, high modularity and scalability) and its flaws (integration etc etc).
Also, the fact that many marginal projects are run by people who does that only as hobby is a main handicap in terms of reacting to users request.

Re:Well good!

[Seumas]

So there are no huge corporate linux entities?!

And do you really think that big businesses goes out an downloads a free copy of Knoppix or Debian rather than Redhat or SUSE with a huge support contract? These people ARE paying for Linux. They ARE supporting linux.

But clearly that isn't enough for linux zealots which is why I've stopped identifying myself as one. I just want linux to get a sizable foothold everywhere and spread. I don't really care who uses it for free and who doesn't and who has support contracts for it and who doesn't.

And nobody is talking about "linux people" being rude. We're talking about then crying in their milk like little babies because more people aren't using linux. Then when people explain why they haven't chosen linux for their company yet, they get all foaming at the mouth at the company. Either stop bitching about the lack of linux use or stop being an asshole when people make critical comments about linux in the context of "here is why we can't/won't use it right now".

Re:Well good!

[PastaLover]

I'm really tired of hearing people whine "how come linux isn't the most popular!" and "boo hoo, we don't rule the desktop or business world" and then turn around and make comments like this.

And once you realize it's not the same people making those comments you'll understand. The reason both types of comments are made is because there are those (crazy) people out there who really want linux to become a popular desktop OS. (I still don't get why?) And then there are those who don't care. I think with them are a hell of a lot of developers who just had an "itch to scratch" and went out and created something.

Personally, I don't mind writing a program and then sharing the code. But if I'm not getting paid to do support for it, I'm not gonna stand for people coming around to me and saying "Hey, this doesn't work, I demand you fix this for me", when it's not a bug but just their broken ass way of doing things. Don't like it, pay somebody else to do it. I think that's only normal. As soon as you're a paying customer, then you can make demands. (not to say that there aren't companies doing support, pay them and let it be their problem)

Re:Well good!

[Seumas]

Except nobody is going around saying "I demand that you fix this for me, even though I haven't paid for it". They're saying "This doesn't do what I want or have everything I want, so I'm going to use something else".

And to expect a company like Tommy Hilfiger to go into the software development business is silly.

And as mentioned several times already, most businesses DO pay for linux. And the companies they pay for linux from usually (always?) return something to the community. For example - RedHat and Suse.

Re:Well good!

[runderwo]

You either want the 'product' to be popular and wide spread and usable or you don't.

There's a difference between saying "I think Linux should do FOO because it would help me accomplish task BAR", and saying "Linux should be written in C++ if it wants to succeed" or "Linux needs a kernel audio mixer" etc.

In the first statement, you are describing a use case (the task you wish to accomplish), and merely suggesting a technical approach towards providing that use case. Maybe there's already a way to do what you want to do, that simply needs to be more well documented.

In the latter statement, you are simply saying "Well, I would have done it this way". That's great, but maybe the way it's currently done is for a good reason? People do occasionally make design considerations before coding away.

It's not constructive to say "Linux sucks because it doesn't have feature X" or "Linux sucks because it has a userspace audio mixer". It is constructive to say "Linux sucks because I can't use it to do FOO".

Re:Well good!

[richlv]

We (the community) need to understand that *every* user contributes to the success of Linux. By donating their tiny portion of mindshare, those users convince commercial hardware and software companies that Linux is worth supporting. Their existence convinces web designers that there is life beyond Windows, and that sites should work with 'alternate' browsers (and not rely on Macromedia crap).

oh. of i had modpoints... best post i have seen in this thread so far ;)

Liability

[Baorc]

I guess it's a matter of liability and who you can blame if something goes wrong. As well as Tech support.

Re:Liability

[olorinpc]

There is truth to that... people aren't comfortable if they don't know who to sue for sure.

Re:Liability

[Anonymous Coward]

i think the term youre looking for is "scapegoatabilty"

Re:Liability

[1001011010110101]

Hmn...all commercial software has a bunch of disclaimers on their license...good luck trying to sue Microsoft, for instance.

Re:Liability

[Baorc]

i think the term youre looking for is "scapegoatabilty"

Yes that would perfectly describe what I was looking for. It basically gives someone to bitch to.

Re:Liability

[jav1231]

This, in my mind, is a myth. People think that you can go to Microsoft and they will be liable. This is false. You CAN lay blame, but it is largely pointless. At best, this will get you a Microsoft shirt onsite who will help you through the issue. Did you lose critical data? Too bad. The EULA is setup to protect Microsoft. If you lost $150,000 in data you're not going to get that from Microsoft. But hey, you can blame them. I suppose that's all CIO's seem to really want.

Re:Liability

[Magada]

I hate to feed the trolls, but... Whoever modded parent insightful needs to get on the clue train, fast. Have ya ead an EULA lately, buddy? What liability are you yapping about?

Re:Liability

[Metzli]

That's very true. The suits aren't interested in freedom, open source, or whatever. They want software on which they feel that they can bet their business' life. They want to feel that there is someone they can call when thing hit the proverbial fan. They want all of this for what they consider to be a reasonable price. They want the "warm and fuzzies" that stuff will work, money will be made, and they won't be fired for doing something considered to be "out of the mainstream" of business.

Re:Liability

[QuestorTapes]

No vendor accepts liability. But if the corporate office decides to bring in their lawyers to talk to Microsoft's lawyers*, you're off the hook for buying Microsoft. If you tell the lawyers that the product is Open Source, and it becomes non-trivial to set up this kind of meeting, they get nasty.

It's an issue of perception; often the employees corporate likes best aren't the most productive, they are the -least- productive. But they are visibly in motion. Similarly, the vendors corporate likes aren't the most secure, they are the ones who are in motion.

--------------

* It happens a lot, with all major vendors. They never sue the vendor, but they will do the whole lawyer-to-lawyer meeting and whatnot. MS will promise a small bone, like a "Preview fix in ## days, only available to preferred customers. List price $250,000 (actual value, $3.50). For you, free." And the lawyers will tell corporate that "we put their balls in a vise, and MS promises a fix in ### days."

It's all BS, but it's effective CYA BS.

Re:Liability

[timeOday]

I don't think "predictability" referrs to computer security, nor to liability. I think it just means that the product line won't make big, unexpected turns, that they won't have to go shopping for a new support vendor too often, and that they won't have to throw out the whole system and start over because the industry "went a different direction" and they can't recruit people to work on it any more.

And to be fair, MS is a pretty good choice in those respects.

Who's ScuttleMonkey??!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Did slashdot axe some editors and hire some new ones?

Please tell me this one will actually edit and proofread articles or maybe check for dupes before posting.

job security

[OffTheLip]

Nobody ever got fired for choosing Microsoft.

Re:job security

[rheotaxis]

I choose Microsoft (I mean I choose to work there), and wait, they did fire me!

Re:job security

[Anonymous Coward]

Further proof that upper management is incompetant (ducks)

Re:job security

[James Youngman]

Apparently, yes you can get fired for choosing Microsoft.

Re:job security

[Chaotic Spyder]

That's Unfortunate

Re:job security

[Anonymous Coward]

no, but I got laid off because the tech departments increased cost of operation (due to adoption of windows) led to a few cuts here and there... (ie me)

the cost of licenses, the cost of removing spyware/viruses every day... it all adds up, and in the end they just couldn't afford it.

had they gone with Linux as I and our other tech had recommended I believe that much of that cost could have been reinvested in additional equipment, tech staff, and teachers for the tech department.

Re:job security

[pete6677]

Of course there was once a time when nobody ever got fired for choosing IBM. It seems like people feel comfortable buying what they know other companies are buying, since that must mean it's good. Only when they have a very compelling reason to switch do they usually do so. When IBM became too bloated and expensive compared to their competitors, people switched. Microsoft would do well to take notice of this and make sure they don't repeat IBM's mistakes, or Linux will suddenly look a lot more appealing to the CxO types.

Re:job security

[Anonymous Coward]

Its:

It's

Re:job security

[Anonymous Coward]

Its, huh?

Re:job security

[Anonymous Coward]

This is social proof in action. People, when confronted by uncertainty, tend to do what the people around them are doing. Other people must know something, right?

(Even if (usually, *when*) everyone else is doing just what you are doing, and no one in fact has any more evidence than you have.)

It seems to me, the trick for MS competitors is to reduce the uncertainty. Whenever MS is tested against one of the commercial Linuxes for just about any characteristic besides "can a monkey click on a GUI and administer it", then the evidence for Linux grows.

Say It Ain't So....

[endeavour31]

A corporation moving off of Linux to Microsoft! The Sky must be falling.

Let the flamefest commence....

It's the Wall Street Journal, people

[evilpenguin]

This is typical of the WSJ. They are quite simply baffled by Free Software and Open Source. This is a newspaper that will never understand the logic of Free Software.

It shouldn't be surprising that the article has this spin.

Not that I think it is "wrong," per se. These tools are something that some businesses want and need, but observe the core confusion in the piece: The inability to separate "Linux," the kernel, from the distributions that package all the software. These management tools exist, there are even closed and proprietary ones (look at offerings from IBM and CA).

WSJ simply needs a smack with the ole cluestick.

Re:It's the Wall Street Journal, people

[Anonymous Coward]

Isnt the real problem that people need to be smacked with a cluestick in order to know how to use open source properly.

People dont want to risk their jobs on uncharted waters. If one makes open source easier to use and understand it will seem less thretaning.

Re:It's the Wall Street Journal, people

[Otter]

[O]bserve the core confusion in the piece: The inability to separate "Linux," the kernel, from the distributions that package all the software.

Obviously, they're using "Linux" to refer to the Linux-based operating system platform, not to the Linux kernel. You know, like virtually everyone does, including virtually everyone here.

Smack with the ole cluestick, indeed.

Re:It's the Wall Street Journal, people

[Zemplar]

In addition, their chart showing RedHat's subscription sales decline could come from any number of things during that timeframe. My guess [hope] would be the uptake of Solaris 10 and/or the advancement of other completely free competitive enterprise Linux distros eating away at RedHat's growth.

Re:It's the Wall Street Journal, people

[Puls4r]

That was clear from the text of their article.

Users don't "demand" anything. They ask for things. Then the programmers prioritize and implement those features over some period of time.

Suggesting someone is "demanding" something immediately injects an element of fear into the article, and infers that open source has some impending disaster should they not immediately meeting those "demands". Of course, an article like this will be followed up in a couple months with another describing how Linux is descending into obscurity by not meeting customers needs and "demands".

It's classic make-news reporting.

Re:It's the Wall Street Journal, people

[evilpenguin]

I don't disagree with that.

I also (if you read my comment) don't disagree that tools like those called for are needed to advance the cause of corporate uptake. My issue is purely with the spin that "Linux could 'lose momentum.'"

It is part of the general "FUD-ish" pattern that has dogged Linux (and Free Software) since day one. It is part of the "It'll never fly, Orville" pattern. And that the WSJ would take that view should surprise no one. That was my sole point.

I took and take no exception with the facts presented in the piece, nor with the fact it might be a sound business decision to "unadopt" an open source platform.

Technical merit is not the sole criterion for tool use (in fact, I would argue, in a business setting, it is rarely high on the list of ciriteria at all).

I'll even go further. I'm not sure that Linux (using it in the sloppy distro sense, as you insist) wins on "technical merit" over any other given choice (except for the "programmer/text manipulation"-friendly sense that any *nix-like platform earns).

My desire for the cluestick has to do with the "all or nothing" mentaility. That Linux must be the sole platform in order to "win" a business. That somehow "losing momentum" means the platform "loses."

That simply isn't so. Especially for a Free Software platform. The tool doesn't go away because, for example, Red Hat does. That's the cluestick issue to me.

Re:It's the Wall Street Journal, people

[Dark Coder]

Not to mention the CxO not being able to read between the lines in "Get the Facts" campaign.

Indeed, smack with the ole cluestick.

Re:It's the Wall Street Journal, people

[DogDude]

And the people who the WSJ talks to are the decision makers. The ones who make rational decisions based on business needs, not some idealogical mumbo-jumbo about "information wants to be free". These ARE the people that Open Source advocates need to convince if they want to advance their agenda. Prosletyzing to sysadmins only goes so far. As both a business owner AND a techie, I understand the technical and moral repurcussions of using Open Source, but as a business person, I'm still not convinced that it's a good fit for our business, and we only use one or two open source applications that are not for mission critical functions.

If there's confusion, then these open source companies need to get off their ass and offer business reasons (ie: This will save you $xx on this and $yy on that). It's wrong to assume that every company has people that will go out of their way to investigate new products. Marketing is part of doing business, and if open source companies aren't willing to compete in the marketing arena, then Open Source will continue to be something used only by techo-geeks, hobbyists, and the occasional renegade sysadmin.

WSJ doesn't need a "smack with a cluestick", the open source companies do.

Re:It's the Wall Street Journal, people

[kurokaze]

Bravo, well said.

I'd mod you up if I could.

Re:It's the Wall Street Journal, people

[evilpenguin]

Just so you know, I do not disagree with you.

But there is a difference between "Linux" (as a platform, not just the kernel) and any given distribution of the same. A distro company can fail and the platform continue on merrily. It is the "tone" that brought out my "cluestick" comment, not the facts or assertions of the interviewees, which are just fine with me.

I also agree that it is the "executrons" that need to be convinced of a platform's risks and benefits if you want to penetrate the business market.

See my other response above.

It has to do with the fact that Linux (and other FOSS tools) will be taken up by businesses where they fit, whether or not there is "acceptance" at the top. Witness all the places such tools are used right now.

My "cluestick" comment has to do with the WSJ's obsessive need to place the products in a zero-sum game and to cast in terms of "momentum" between what must ultimately be the winning and losing platform.

I do NOT disagree at all that the amount of "penetration" any platform gets will be in proportion to its value and utility to a business. And that is just as it should be.

I stand by my opinion, however, that in general, the Wall Street Journal has a difficult time understanding FOSS, and continues to try to cast into the mold they know well: competing proprietary products. The fortunes of the commerical distributions rise and fall on that, but the platform does not. It has many users who do not buy it, and it will continue to be used and developed by those people. And that includes private companies paying people to do, even if every "distro vendor" goes out of business, because in many cases, the value is compelling to businesses. (I work for one such company that pays me to contribute some of my time a GPL'ed project because the company uses that product.)

I must admit, however, that I regret my original post because it was brief and glib and highly open to misinterpretation. I don't retract it, but I do wish I had elaborated my argument a little more and had not used the word "cluestick" at all ;-)

Re:It's the Wall Street Journal, people

[jedidiah]

Using "open source" is pretty much identical to using Unix. If you've ever used ANY unix, or your shop has ever used ANY unix, then there shouldn't be any problem. What problems you do have will be common to any Unix and won't be solved if you suddenly decide to use something commercial like Solaris or AIX.

Re:It's the Wall Street Journal, people

[Anonymous Coward]

>> This is a newspaper that will never understand the logic of Free Software.

Soooo... what exactly is the (fucking supposed) LOGIC of FREE SOFTWARE?

So, some project that takes many man years to think through, and design, and develop, and nurture, and test, and fix, and test again, and fix again (etc. etc. etc.)... ...is worth absolutely FUCKING NOTHING?

Where's the fucking logic there, boy?

I would happily smack you with a fucking cluestick boy.

Re:It's the Wall Street Journal, people

[DogDude]

First, you shouldn't apologize at all. That's the whole point of posting online: arguements/discussions.

I stand by my opinion, however, that in general, the Wall Street Journal has a difficult time understanding FOSS, and continues to try to cast into the mold they know well: competing proprietary products.

And this is really something that the OSS community has to overcome. They're advocating a completely foreign way of doing business, releasing products, etc. To everybody not involved in the OSS community (the vast majority of people), there's no reason to think that OSS is any different than traditional software. And yes, that's a huge hurdle to overcome, but ultimate if Red Hat or any other OSS vendor wants to sell software (or services), it's Red Hat's (etc) job to inform potential customers about their products. The WSJ is comparing OSS to proprietary software because that IS the alternative. It doesn't matter that they're different. They both serve the same needs. *Why* they are different is largely irrelevant to a business person. They want to know what piece of software is going to solve problem X.

History is full of good products that have come and gone because they were simply too foreign to their market, and the company's way of doing business was simply too strange to people. I don't think that it's either right or wrong, but that's the way it is. Expecting people to seek out OSS, and take time to learn, what is to them, just another software package, is unrealistic.

If the WSJ doesn't understand that OSS may have value even after the death of the founding person/company, then what that says to me is that OSS companies have not done their marketing job.

Case in point: My business is unusual. I own a pet supply shop/online business that does business very differently than anything else I've seen. It's OUR job to educate people how and why we are different than either mega-stores or traditional "pet shops", and we do it every day. I, in no way, expect people to simply seek us out. We have to do our legwork. We have to explain to people how and why we do business the way we do. Hell, even most of our vendors don't understand us. And of course, once our customers do "get it", they tend to be customers for life. My business is continually growing by leaps and bounds, but it was a hell of a struggle explaining it to customers. And, after all, most people don't come to us because we're different. They come to us because we're better than the competition. Most people don't care how or why we're better as far as our philosophy goes. They just know that we have the best products at the best prices with the best service.

Re:It's the Wall Street Journal, people

[OpenServe]

This is typical of the WSJ. They are quite simply baffled by Free Software and Open Source.

And here's why.. from the article: "How quickly open-source programs can narrow the gap with commercial software is a hotly debated topic in the computer industry." Note how they view "commercial" and "open source" as completely separate forces. Later in the article: "Instead of being written by one organization, open-source programs are developed and refined by informal networks of programmers, often on a voluntary basis." Here, they make the common assumption that all Open Source software is informally developed and devoid of centralized leadership and/or commercial influence. In reality, the exact opposite is often true of the best open source software today.

Ironically, the same cluestick is equally applicable to business rags like WSJ and the open source community at large: There is a huge need for more formalized, commercially-backed open source projects. Commercial does NOT equal proprietary.

Re:It's the Wall Street Journal, people

[4of12]

WSJ talks to are the decision makers. The ones who make rational decisions based on business needs, not some idealogical mumbo-jumbo

If their readers stick to some of the great reporting, then the WSJ role is as you describe.

The WSJ editorial page, OTOH, tends toward the IM-J you describe.

Re:It's the Wall Street Journal, people

[Hast]

I'll try to give my view on why "the problms with Linux/OSS" articles like this are completely irrelevant.

The most important thing to remember about OSS and the open source way of developing is that it doesn't need market shares. Not really anyways.

A closed source company may have a brilliant product which fails due to lack of advertising, misunderstandings or poor alignment of the planets. Why it fails isn't important for this example. What happens when that company closes their doors is that this product is lost until someone who remembers it takes it upon themselves to reinvent it. And this can take a lot of time and they'll have to fight the same battles all over again.

With OSS the product never dies. If the original coder(s) get bored and drop it the source is still there. If someone else comes along a year or so later they can pick up and continue the work.

That is (IMHO) the most fundamental difference between CSS and OSS.

The point of all this is that Linux (the platform) doesn't /have/ to grow. It doesn't /have/ to cater to users. It doesn't /have/ to make people understand.

A CSS however /has/ to do all these things. Because if it fails to grow and get more money it dies. Well, it doesn't really have to grow, it just has to make people pay up every year or so in order to keep people around.

Linux/OSS however will simply exists and continue to grow until people start paying attention. It may be that Linux isn't ready for the desktop (at least not at every company), but that's fine. It will just have to continue to mature over the years and before you know it there you have it. World domination! ;-)

Re:It's the Wall Street Journal, people

[DavidD_CA]

> WSJ simply needs a smack with the ole cluestick.

You can smack people with cluesticks all you want, but it's not going to get them to change their perception about Linux.

The Linux community needs to find ways to improve their product from all angles (including marketing, documentation, professional support, etc). Until then, the CIOs of the world will continue to feel how they do about Linux.

Re:It's the Wall Street Journal, people

[evilpenguin]

I'll feed the troll. Who said it was worth nothing? The value lies not in the product, which may be infinitely reproduced for free, but in the skilled developers who make the stuff. Most programmers do not work for software companies! Most work in engineering or MIS developing code that is tightly coupled to a tanglible product or to a the needs of a specific business. These people and their skills have value, not the "product."

There should be no reason that a business or a widget that has code in it should have less value simply because the code is freely available.

The code that everyone uses is the most likely to be of greater value when "Free," like spreadsheets and operating systems. What isn't likely to be Free is code that is of value only in a specific device or for a specific business's needs. Well, it might be Free, but by definition, no one else would really want it.

Free Software is, IMHO, a transition of value away from the code product (which only has value because of an artificial scarcity caused by the artifice of IP law coupled with the mathematical accident that compilation is tanatamount to encryption) to the skilled developer.

I develop (mostly) Free Software and I am paid quite handsomely for it.

If it weren't for the fact the compilation implies information loss, there wouldn't be anything but Free Software. Put it another way, what if the machines ran source code instead of object code? Who would be making the irrational argument then?

Backwards?

[syntaxglitch]

Shouldn't high-demand, nitty-gritty backend server stuff be where linux shines the MOST? Am I missing something here?

Since god knows linux certainly hasn't caught up with even Microsoft's subpar efforts in desktop end-user experience...

Re:Backwards?

[Aldric]

They do seem confused. Microsoft servers need constant attention just to keep them running, while a well set up Linux/BSD server can be forgotten about most of the time.

Re:Backwards?

[cyclomedia]

exactly, use linux for the server under the stairs an windows for your girlfriend's laptop. just a question of suitability for purpose. linux isnt (yet) suitable for normal people to use on their normal computers. not that windows is either, but she knows how to use that, if i told her that she had to login as root and edit a config file because something went fubar she'd look at me blankly and say "what?"

Re:Backwards?

[Bwian_of_Nazareth]

Que? Why would she need to do that? Is she fine with loggin in as admin (she does not run admin, does she) and running Regedit? Is she fine with booting to safe mode and running AdAware? Modern Linux distro is not more difficult to administer than a Windows box. It is just different. And this myth about config files and text editors... just because you have the option does not mean that you must do it this way.

Re:Backwards?

[syntaxglitch]

Isn't the girlfriend's computer what Macs were created for? ;)

Re:Backwards?

[51mon]

"Am I missing something here?"

Difference between reality and what people say?

Netcraft suggests it will be about another 8 months before tommy.com can claim equivalent stability for the new OS, given it appears their GNU/Linux servers "just worked".

My guess is new management wanted to change things to something they feel more comfortable with. Seen that at a lot of places, it usually plays merry hell with the service availability stats.

Not fiddling is the key to good availability, and IT folk are nothing if not keen fiddlers. I fiddled today and broke stuff, and I know better.

My desktop experience is fine. But then my desktop boxes have both been up for longer than the tommy.com W2003 servers, and I value that in a desktop. They would have been up a lot longer if I had them both on UPSes .

10,000 thousand people migrate their web services to Linux isn't news, 1 person migrates web services from Linux to Windows is news.

Re:Backwards?

[syntaxglitch]

Not fiddling is the key to good availability, and IT folk are nothing if not keen fiddlers. I fiddled today and broke stuff, and I know better.

Hey, if it ain't broke, you haven't fixed it hard enough, eh? :D

easy configuration?

[mattyrobinson69]

what the hell are management or msce's doing playing with linux anyway. employ techs who know what they are doing.

Re:easy configuration?

[malchus842]

Exactly. But to many of these managers who have spent the last 15 or so years in a Microsoft (or even MS/Novell) environment, Linux is black magic - and hiring "long-haired, bearded linux gurus" scares them.

They don't understand the system and are afraid that if something goes terribly wrong, they'll get blamed for chosing 'free' software as opposed to Microsoft. IBM used to play this game a LOT and win big contracts because people were so afraid to try new technologies from other vendors.

Re:easy configuration?

[1001011010110101]

That was exactly what I was thinking about while reading the post. I didn't RTFA, but still, I wonder how many of those "unsuccessfull" projects with Linux comes from not getting a good Unix/Linux admin to set things up, unlike Windows NT that anyone can configure (unsecured and unstable, most likely).

Lunchen budeget for CIOs.

[team99parody]

Eric Singleton, chief information officer at retailer Tommy Hilfiger Corp. His company had been running its Web shopping site, Tommy.com, on Linux -- but recently switched it to Microsoft software. He calls Linux "a great product," but adds, "it's got to get the final tier of reliability and predictability that I'm going to bet a multibillion-dollar corporation's future on."

Last I checked Google's a multibillion-dollar corp that actually bet on an OS. Tommy.com, a small fragment of a company that bets on perfumes is nothing of the sort.

Methnks Eric's disapointed that Oracle and MSFT have larger lunch budgets for CIOs than Linux, and doesn't really give a fuck about the "multi-billion dollar" part of the company that has nothing to do with operating systems.

Re:Lunchen budeget for CIOs.

[Datasage]

Google is not however using off the shelf distros. They have custimized thier own version of linux to do what they need. Not everyone wants to do that or has the resources to do so.

Re:Lunchen budeget for CIOs.

[Joehonkie]

Tommy Hilfiger is suddenly a company that makes perfumes? Maybe that, but also a whole lot more, and they are a pretty big player in the clothes/fashion biz, even if I had no interest in them. You can't belittle a company just because they aren't focused on delivering an IT product.

Re:Lunchen budeget for CIOs.

[wcdw]

To be fair, Tommy Hilfiger is not exactly a minor player in its field. However, I can't believe that its web revenue is more than a small percentage of its overall income - 'betting the company' is as absurd as 'multibillion-dollar corporation'.

And I can believe that the switch was because of larger lunch (and after hours) budgets, having seen it in operation too many times before. And, from his remarks, he was obviously well prepped.

Re:Lunchen budeget for CIOs.

[tobybuk]

Comparing against Google is not very fair, is it? Google spend VAST amounts of money on their IT - their IT is their Primary business. Lets compare apples with apples please.

And lets face it, I would hazard a guess this man is a lot more successful and knows how to build a more profitable company than you? So lets respect his views and use them as input into the next generation Linux Distros.

Re:Lunchen budeget for CIOs.

[Monkelectric]

Google is not however using off the shelf distros. They have custimized thier own version of linux to do what they need. Not everyone wants to do that or has the resources to do so.

Cluestick: Individuals can customize their own version of linux. Its not a big deal.

Re:Lunchen budeget for CIOs.

[kwalker]

More likely he lost his Linux team (Yes, one guy can be a "team" in managerspeak) and hired a bunch of MSCEs to replace the site.

Or farmed it out to a Microsoft-based development and hosting company.

Re:Lunchen budeget for CIOs.

[team99parody]

Exactly! I think you were unintentionally insightful.

The ability to customize an OS is *EXACTLY* the type of criteria important when "betting" a "billion dollar company" on an OS.

If you're "betting" a "billion dollar company" on anything less than the ability to control whatever you're betting on, you're an idiot - and Singleton certainly sounds like he fits the description for using that phrase.

For Tommy Hilfiger, the thing that they actually "bet the company" on, I guarantee you they have the ability to control their destiny. For example, to make changes in the formulas of their fragrences. With an attitude like his, I assure you that Hilfiger's board wouldn't let Eric anywhere near anything they actually bet the company on.

Re:Lunchen budeget for CIOs.

[team99parody]

I'm not belittling their company as a whole - just that they're misrepresenting themselves when Eric sugests that choosing a web server is a "bet the company" matter for Hilfiger.

If he said "be the company" on fashion designers - or china sweatshops - or ad agencies, he might have some credibility.

But the decision of what webserver to run is an insignificant matter -- and the discounts they got on their desktops, or the waiver for having pirated windows's, or the joint press release -- -- or whatever discount Microsoft gave them to incorporate them in their PR campaigns -- is worth far more than whatever the difference in direct-sales's that the OS running their web-server will have on the company.

Re:Lunchen budeget for CIOs.

[team99parody]

I wouldn't belittle perfume companies. Coty Beauty Lancaster Group, who bought the fragreence business of Unilever paid close to a billion dollars for that division - is an over $2 billion dollar revenue company. That's quite a bit larger than Tommy Hilfiger in its entirety, at under 2 billion.

But Tommy.com, the direct sales group of TH is TINY compared to that -- which is all that we're talking about running Windows. No doubt their financials apps are running something else, at least as a database, and at least there you could argue it's a bet the company decision for them.

Re:Lunchen budeget for CIOs.

[jericho4.0]

Googles business entirely depends on their IT infrastructure. Tommy Hilfigers does not. Maybe Google knows something about "the final tier of reliability and predictability", that Hilfigers, due to their position as a clothing company, does not?

Re:Lunchen budeget for CIOs.

[Knara]

You got manuals with your Windows CDs? In print? You know we're talking post- Windows for Workgroups, right?

Re:Lunchen budeget for CIOs.

[jedidiah]

Windows manuals?

You've got to be KIDDING.

The last time I saw a Windows/DOS manual of beyond a useless install guide was Windows 3.1 & MS-DOS 5.1.

OTOH, Redhat was shipping meaningful manuals with their distributions pretty much from the beginning.

A Windows manual... that's funny.

Re:Lunchen budeget for CIOs.

[torre]

Last I checked Google's a multibillion-dollar corp that actually bet on an OS. Tommy.com, a small fragment of a company that bets on perfumes is nothing of the sort.

Its one thing to be tech company who's business revolves around the technology and its another to be in a non technical business who uses the technology to support they're business. Google has a huge R&D department who are in charge of making new things and finding ways of optimizing they're performance. It also help that the people who started google are tech nuts who enjoy tinkering around with stuff. So if your going to compare two companies you better get the company culture in there two otherwise it's still apple's to oranges regardless how big they are.

Re:Lunchen budeget for CIOs.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't attack the ideas attack the company, that's what I say.

I suspect there'll be alot more abandonment with linux as companies discover that we need more than "you have the source, fix it yourself". That's more agenda than fact.

Sheesh, all these people are telling you precisely what's wrong with linux. Fix it or accept linux's position.

I run a small business, I use linux every day. I don't trust linux in business because I know that programs are hard to install and from one update to the next any program can cause problems for the whole system. I happen to be one person who believes that linux is more than the kernel and scapegoating the en-user apps by hiding behind such an idea is foolhardy.

Just fix the problems. We should be condemning the linux zealots and driving them out of the community because they are hurting the growth and potential if linux. If it weren't for them linux would have developed much farther. I don't desire to have them speaking for me and the linux community. They need to get job cleaning swimming pools or something like that and let linux move on and grow to its full potential.

What I'm saying is that you are stupid for letting the zealots run and speak for the community. Let's get more level headed people to help us direct the community and Linux.

Re:Lunchen budeget for CIOs.

[Locutus]

It's all explained in the last sentence of the article. It says that Microsoft jumped through hoops to help Hilfiger move from Linux.

End of story. Microsoft purchased this IT guy and is using them in their long running, anti-competition, "Get the Facts" lies.

And the Microsoft guy even says that their internal Linux lab is to learn about Linux so they can adjust their customer PERCEPTION and not their product.

LoB

Re:Lunchen budeget for CIOs.

[Locutus]

mod the parent up

Re:Lunchen budeget for CIOs.

[naelurec]

Manuals? haha.. Lets see.. I did some volume licenses of Office, WinXP and Win2003 Server. What did I get for my $$$? Well umm.. a FedEx'd letter of a webpage printout with a login and code on it.

That was it. No manuals, no software, no nothing. I had to buy the CDs separate ($25 a pop) and even at that, it wasn't the latest versions (it came with service packs and other updates on additional CDs).

Do I have a manual for it? Why sure .. I went to the bookstore and bought a manual, just the same way I did for FreeBSD, Linux and all of my other servers and apps.

The biggest difference is with FreeBSD and Linux, I generally get the latest versions of software (not having to install service packs right off the bat or research "slipstreaming" or other non-sense).

Re:Lunchen budeget for CIOs.

[Anonymous Coward]

Its one thing to be tech company who's business revolves around the technology and its another to be in a non technical business who uses the technology to support they're business.

If your business is dependant on technology to run, you better have someone on staff (or on a consultant basis) that understands it. Or would you dismiss their inability to handle accounting since they're not a finance company?

Re:Lunchen budeget for CIOs.

[torre]

If your business is dependant on technology to run, you better have someone on staff (or on a consultant basis) that understands it. Or would you dismiss their inability to handle accounting since they're not a finance company?

You miss the point. It is of course a necessity that appropriate people be on staff and is not disputed, but do you expect a fashion company to have and spend billions on a IT R&D department? I'd assume not, its not they're business. They're focus is the [rant]exploitation of cheap labor to maximize profits of an overpriced product[/rant]. To that end they're company culture is not geared around cool tech stuff but rather around people and showy fashion they tech is there to support this (assumption as I don't really know what the company culture is like there).

Lets take another example of the opposite side of the coin. Do you expect google to know which is the technically best option when it comes down to furniture? Or perhaps you expect them to know how it was developed and what features it may or may come with it and what type of guarantees and warranties may apply?... They could even consult a furniture procurement consulting firm however I certainly don't expect google to care very much as long as it gets the job done and is comfortable for they're needs. I would however expect a furniture company to know what the difference is and perhaps take a riskier approach based on they're knowledge, resources and skills. The underlying reason being that it's they're domain of knowledge and company culture somewhat dictate choices. Don't underestimate what people think, what people like and how a manager's bonus is structured. It plays a bigger role than any technical decision could.

Re:Lunchen budeget for CIOs.

[cg0def]

reality check ... There is no way to customize windows to do anything that it was not designed to do. So in that respect Linux and any other open source OS is superior. However, Linux is generally a pain to deal with and finding support personel is hard and costs more than the Windows counterparts. For a small fish like Tommy.com it might not be worth the extra time and money to maintain a *nix but they can serioulsy go to hell with comments like that. Plus a perfume maker has really no right to criticize software. ( ok he is a CEO but still ...)

Re:Lunchen budeget for CIOs.

[ad0gg]

NYSE has more money following through it one day than google has in whole year. 5 minute outage caused tens of millions of transactions not to go through. Kind of funny when IBM touted it as 100% guaranteed uptime. On the other hand NASDAQ runs on microsoft architecture and has yet to go down. The fact is now being sold to every CIO in america by the Microsoft's sales team.

Re:Lunchen budeget for CIOs.

[alienw]

I own some of their clothes. I've never once visited or had the desire to visit their website. The website is simply not a major component of their business. Maddox had a hilarious article where he compared his traffic ranking to that of PepsiCo, McDonalds, and so on. Apparently, people are more interested in reading about hairy balls than visiting Pepsi's website.

Re:Lunchen budeget for CIOs.

[Juggle]

Sounds like a new guy took over and rather than learn the ropes of what the company was doing decided to do things his way. While I don't doubt that big lunch budgets and trips to training courses in exotic places probably played a part - I suspect the bigger issue was Hilfiger hiring someone to manage a Linux netword who didn't like Linux.

IMB has info on their site about when they set Hilfiger up and it was a different CIO:

---cut here---
The eOneCommerce application plugs into the most complex environment with amazing speed. At Tommy Hilfiger, eOneCommerce implemented 15 legacy integrations, providing business-to-business, business-to-plant and business-to-employee functionality in under 90 days. "With eOneGroup and eOneCommerce, we got everything we wanted in a solution: rapid installation and rapid return on investment," said Ally Woo, CIO, Tommy Hilfiger.
---cut here---

Re:Lunchen budeget for CIOs.

[iabervon]

Google actually bet a million-dollar company on Linux. They're a multibillion-dollar corp now because it paid off. It's different to change infrastructure once you're already a huge company, because you've got a lot of people with procedures set up that have to learn new ways of doing things.

You actually mean that Sun and MSFT have larger lunch budgets for CIOs. What Oracle wants to sell you these days is actually Oracle on Linux (because Solaris is slow and expensive and Windows comes from their main competitor).

Re:Lunchen budeget for CIOs.

[Anonymous Coward]

A small fish? Tommy.com is the entire web presence for the Tommy Hilfiger brand. Don't be an ass.

Re:Lunchen budeget for CIOs.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but who the fuck buys cologne off the Internet?

Re:Lunchen budeget for CIOs.

[multiplexo]

Amazon is a multi-billion dollar corporation that bet the farm on Linux. For the last four years Amazon has run all of its webservers and all of its internal applications servers for customer service and the fulfillment centers on Linux systems. For the last two years they've been running all of their big iron databases that used to run on HP/UX boxen on Linux too. When I was there Amazon used RedHat, the only in-house modifications made were to the kernel, which were then fed back to RedHat. As far as I know they're still a RedHat shop.

Admittedly Amazon has an advantage because they develop all of their code in-house, but if you have the resources to do that and are in a situation where you have to then Linux is every bit as good as HP/UX, Solaris or AIX (and it's a lot easier to find Linux admins than it is to find HP/UX or AIX admins) and you don't end up being cornholed by Microsoft.

Re:Lunchen budeget for CIOs.

[daigu]

Tommy Hilfiger Corporation

             2004 Sales
               $ mil.     % of total
Wholesale     1,387.5             74
Retail          425.7             23
Licensing        62.5              3

Total         1,875.7            100

Given that they have a few dozen retail stores, I'd bet a sizable chunk of that $425.7 million is through their web site.

Re:Lunchen budeget for CIOs.

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that they have a few dozen retail stores, I'd bet a sizable chunk of that $425.7 million is through their web site.

And I'd bet you're wrong. See the line for "Wholesale"? That's where they sell to other retail stores like Lord & Taylor, Dillards, Marshall Fields, etc. And it happens to be three times what the Retail sales are. So something less than a quarter of their sales are through the web. I would bet it's more likely less than 1/8th.

Re:Lunchen budeget for CIOs.

[Anonymous Coward]

However, I can't believe that its web revenue is more than a small percentage of its overall income - 'betting the company' is as absurd as 'multibillion-dollar corporation'.

I read his comments a little differently. As the CIO he's not only concerned with web servers, he's talking about their entire infrastructure. Even more important to any manufacturer/retailer than the web is their ERP system, which is taking orders, doing POS, shipping, warehouse, vendors, general legder, payroll, etc. etc. You do that wrong from a technology standpoint, your company comes to a screeching halt. Ask anyone who has gone through a bad ERP upgrade. It is betting the business.

Re:Lunchen budeget for CIOs.

[wcdw]

Even if their website is 100% of their retail sales (which is absurd, given that they do have B&M stores),that's still 23% of their 'total income'.

If they make HALF their retail sales on their website, that's about the 1/8th AC posits. If web sales are, say, 20% of the total (which I still think is high, but is more realistic, anyway), that's less than 5% of their total income.

Which is pretty much what I said in the first place, though I do appreciate you providing the numbers to back it up....

Re:Lunchen budeget for CIOs.

[wcdw]

Ok, let's theorize that your interpretation is correct. In which case, to be switching that much infrastructure to Windows, it would mean the company had already 'bet the business' on Linux, or it would not have that extensive an infrastructure to convert.

Given that one poster - supposedly familiar with their operations - says they flip-flop every 6 months, I *suppose* your interpretation is correct. More likely, though, this is a tempest-in-a-teapot kind of story, and affects a very limited portion of their setup. IMHO, anyway.

Re:Lunchen budeget for CIOs.

[daigu]

I was not disputing your comment, just providing more detail. I also do not happen to think that - using your figure of 5% - that nearly $100 million is chump change. If you were a CIO in a company like Hilfiger that is built on branding, you would have to account for the branding as well as technical elements of your solution. To not do so would mean putting your job on the line, and most people do not do that unless there is a compeling reason to do so.

Clearly, Linux wasn't compeling - whether that was because it wasn't offered with lobster or not I do not know. However, I do think we should use Occum and assume the more simple answer. It did not fit his needs and he lacks the imagination to think of other circumstances where it might.

Re:Lunchen budeget for CIOs.

[wcdw]

Sorry, I do tend to get a little contentious; it seems to be a self-defense mechanism on /. ;)

I don't consider $100M chump change either -- but I might, if I was billing $1,800M...

And I think the original comment ('luncheon budget') is my answer to using Occam's razor in real life. What is beyond dispute, though, is that the article is high on FUD, and low on facts.

Personally, I'd have to speculate that this is because it is, in fact, a minor switch. I've yet to see an article with this type of bias (in either direction) which didn't go out of its way to make the project/effort larger than it actually is. If this had been e.g. a complete organizational change, I would have expected to see it trumpeted a lot louder. (Who, me? Cynical? Nah.)

I have to admit, though, that I was surprised to see the actual numbers. Still not a 'multi-billion' dollar corp, but some darned impressive revenue figures. Of course, if anything, I'm an anti-fashion diva, and yet even I likely have a TH-inspired piece of clothing or two. Ubiquity is a powerful attribute!

(BTW, and FWIW, most of the [non /. readers] with whom I've discussed this thread have basically said "I didn't even know TH had a website".)

Re:Lunchen budeget for CIOs.

[gromitcode]

1.8 billion is there turnover, so $100 million is a massive chunk of money for them. actual profit will only be a percentage of that 1.8 billion. so even if they make 50% profit on everything that is still more than 10%.

Re:Lunchen budeget for CIOs.

[Feztaa]

OTOH, Redhat was shipping meaningful manuals with their distributions pretty much from the beginning.

Unfortunately RedHat is no longer shipping a distro (ok, RHEL maybe, I dunno, but Fedora doesn't come in boxed sets and the nonexistant boxes do not contain printed manuals).

Re:Lunchen budeget for CIOs.

[Kjella]

And according to his own statements, it is the future of a multibillion-dollar corporation at stake here. So if he wants to put himself in the google class, then comparing him to google is completely reasonable.

Re:Lunchen budeget for CIOs.

[tobybuk]

I could make the same comparision with Google knowing knowing about Advertising as it is an IT company.

Re:Lunchen budeget for CIOs.

[daigu]

If you want to be technical, you could check out the 2004 annual report. Of the net revenue of $1.87 billion, $1.07 billion is cost of goods sold. So, you have gross profit around 43%. You then have to figure in operating expenses, taxes and so forth - which brings the figure down to about $134 million.

I'm sure there are minor differences in the margins between wholesale, retail at Hilfiger stores and selling Hilger through the web. But, I don't think they are enough to think that the $100 million of net revenue that were are assuming come from web sales would have a more significant impact on the bottom line of Hilfiger than there other channels. It seems unlikely at any rate.

(Why do I sound like an accountant?)

Re:Lunchen budeget for CIOs.

[daigu]

Definitely high on FUD. It would be good to hear a more measured analysis of why the choice was made. For example, I have read a few articles on Cendant's use of Linux to replace Unix for it Galileo reservation system. It is a truly huge project that basically came down to cost and the need to update an old system.

I can see circumstances where IIS might be a better solution for a particular situation - staff skills, legacy infrastructure or even because of the name recognition. But, this reads like something you would expect from a fanboy not a CIO making reasoned choices.

Buying the press

[merky1]

After reading it, the article could have been summarized as this...

Microsoft good... linux bad. Really, trust us... we're as independent as your checkbook needs us to be.

Heck yeah

[Safety Cap]

I'm sure Amazon.com and Ticketmaster, which both use the OS that lacks that "the final tier of reliability and predictability" are crying because they didn't pick windows.

Perhaps Mr. Singleton has been unable to find talented SysAdmins and Devs to maintain his systems and write his code?

Yes, Windows is easy enough for any reasonably talented monkey to configure (poorly). If I were running a multi-million dollar company, I surely would want some talent in the revenue stream, though.

Re:Heck yeah

[PlacidPundit]

Perhaps Mr. Singleton has been unable to find talented SysAdmins and Devs to maintain his systems and write his code?

My personal guess is that Mr. Singleton was fully able to cash a check from Redmond though.

Re:Heck yeah

[multimed]

I don't know that I would be using Ticketmaster as an example--I've been receiving spam from them for years--I've sent countless emails, closed my account with them, and actually talked to a CSR, everytime saying that they've removed my address from their database--though it might take a few weeks for the database to update.

I've tried to read the CAN-SPAM act but for the life of me, can't quite figure out what my options are--I'd love to collect a fine for every spam I get.

Re:Heck yeah

[jericho4.0]

Ahhh, but it's reliable spam.

Re:Heck yeah

[Safety Cap]

I used to work for a Ticketmaster Partner; we did much data integration with their systems, which are quite complicated and have extensive data mining capabilities. From what I remember, they are into the "spam for life" marketing concept.

I'd probably go as far as claim that they figure any fines they pay as part of "can [still] spam" as the cost of doing business.

The "few weeks to update the database" is a crock o' shite. Their stuff is real time---at least the adding data part is. ;)

Re:Heck yeah

[Feztaa]

The CAN-SPAM act is pretty simple to understand. CAN-SPAM means that they CAN SPAM.

"We suck, so we blame it on others" -tommy.com

[unsane1]

I've seen Tommy's internal operations (I interviewed with them a couple of times), and they have to be just about the most clueless fashion company in dealing with technology out there. They've had so much turnover that they've switched platforms on average about once every 6 months, and somehow they continue to choose worse solutions. Good god people, it's not that hard, eluxury does it, polo.com does it, what makes Tommy's opinion so worthwhile when it's their own fault they can't suceed?

Re:"We suck, so we blame it on others" -tommy.com

[hey]

I guess I'll have to boycott their stuff.
Oh wait, I'm a nerd - I have no need for their
preppy crap anyways. Jeans and EFF T-shirts for me.

Re:"We suck, so we blame it on others" -tommy.com

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh wait, I'm a nerd - I have no need for their preppy crap anyways. Jeans and EFF T-shirts for me.

Preppy? Here's the rule: If it requires that you see the logo or the brand, it's not preppy. In the case of TH, it's hoodlum. After all, that's who I see wearing that brand.

Re:"We suck, so we blame it on others" -tommy.com

[Anonymous Coward]

oh hell no, how much did you pay for the little horsie logo on the front of your shirt? (that's Polo btw)

Re:"We suck, so we blame it on others" -tommy.com

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, nobody's wearing Tommy Hilfiger, and that's the point.

What sells is a product with substance, which TH is not. It takes no talent to mate a pair of jeans with a white T-shirt and a crappy two-color flag logo.

If Linux wants to be successfully sold as a product or a brand, it needs to be sold as a product with substance.

Re:"We suck, so we blame it on others" -tommy.com

[bhiestand]

You missed the point of the article.

It was flamebait. It wasn't meant to be news or anything else, it was simply meant to start a huge discussion/whining session about why windows is better than linux, why linux is better than windows, why sysadmins are abused by their bosses, etc.

Oh, I get it, you actually READ the article...

Software doesn't need to be Open Source on Linux

[Shivetya]

Perhaps that is one obstacle that needs to be overcome, the perception that for software to suceed on Linux that it be open sourced. The first key benefit of Linux is security and integrity. The lowered cost of ownership one gets by not having to license the OS is quick to follow as an important part.

If we wait for the applications businesses want to appear as Open Source we may just as well forget using Linux in the first place. Not every company can see making money from meer support of a product, many need the initial sales and licensing. Sure someone might one day replicate product X, but how many companies are going to wait?

Missed opportunity?

[beq]

Tech Support, GUIs, and tools? Sounds like a business opportunity for open-source entrepreneurs to me... Oh wait, Red Hat, Novell, and others are already doing that.

Sounds more like Tommy Hilfiger Corp. got a really good deal on hardware and software in return for being willing to help out on the advertising front. And, of course, the WSJ jumps on the bandwagon as usual.

Re:Missed opportunity?

[Donny Smith]

>Sounds more like Tommy Hilfiger Corp. got a really good deal on hardware and software in return for being willing to help out on the advertising front.

How is that different from any pro-Linux PR that comes from IBM, Novell, RH and others?

Re:Missed opportunity?

[sammy baby]

The difference is that this was an article in the WSJ, not a press release.

Unless you're of the opinion that they're the same thing too, in which case, you're right. No difference at all.

Hey Eric

[Stonan]

PCs didn't have reset switches until MS Windows came along and if we're talking about multiple users I'd rather have an OS that was based on one rather than one 'fudged' from a single user system

Re:Hey Eric

[man_of_mr_e]

Uhh.. sorry. No. PC's had reset switches since some of the first clones appeared nearly a decade before Windows was anything more than a curiosity.

Re:Hey Eric

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

PCs didn't have reset switches until MS Windows came along

False.

My Kaypro-10 and Kaypro-2 luggables had reset switches, and they ran CP/M.
For those out of the know, CP/M pre-dated PC-DOS not to mention MS-Windows.

Re:Hey Eric

[Anonymous Coward]

Every Osbourne I ever had included a reset button. God knows it was easy to get stuck in a 'Redo from start?' loop with some of those games.

License agreements

[syntaxglitch]

Having someone to sue? Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most commercial software packages basically include in their legal terms a clause that amounts to "This software will do as it pleases, if it blows up all your computers and kills your grandmother, don't come crying to us"? Or is that only the case for home consumer products?

Re:License agreements

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but they don't normally write it in capital letters in the first paragraph of the license.

Combine that with management thinking "if this is free, there must be a catch, let's see if I can find it..." - I suspect more IT managers have looked at the GPL than at any proprietary license.

Re:License agreements

[Jondaley]

Yes, that is what I get where I work. IT told our CEO that we would have to open source our (non-web) app if I installed Apache on a machine.

He then asked for a list of all applications and their associated licenses that I would want to install. I was happy to oblige, and sent him the output of: dpkg --get-selections, and included the apache licenses, GPL, LGPL, and said if he had any problems with those licenses, or if he wanted others, I could send him those too....

Strangely enough, he never responded.

He continues to leave the unlicensed copies of Winzip on all 200 machines that he maintains.

Tommy Hilfiger Corp / Linux "product"

[bushboy]

Linux is NOT a product. Are these people born stupid ?

<i>it's got to get the final tier of reliability and predictability that I'm going to bet a multi-billion dollar corporation's future on.</i>

What a moron.

Interesting that Linux is good enough for the worlds biggest online retailer :-

http://www.google.co.za/search?q=amazon+linux&sour ceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=ut f-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:officia l

I guess Bill Gates buys Hilfiger brown loafers ...

Re:Tommy Hilfiger Corp / Linux "product"

[hey!]

Linux is NOT a product. Are these people born stupid ?

Yep.

And so were you and and so was I. The difference is we go over it.

Re:Tommy Hilfiger Corp / Linux "product"

[goldspider]

"What a moron."

Perhaps next time you should try "What can we do to make a more compelling case for Linux?"

Lashing out at potential customers when they don't choose in your favor is a good way to guarantee they'll never consider you again.

Re:Tommy Hilfiger Corp / Linux "product"

[bushboy]

Erm, I'm not selling the product ...

One would think the fact that the worlds largest online retailer uses Linux would be compelling enough.

There's more to this story than announced. I would say it's fairly obvious there's some nice hefty kickbacks in this for Hilfiger and the reason given is just a smokescreen.

Re:Tommy Hilfiger Corp / Linux "product"

[goldspider]

"Erm, I'm not selling the product ..."

True, but you are hardly alone in your disdain for non-Linux users. It's part of a pervasive holier-than-thou sense of superiority that the overall Linux user-base has assumed, and people resent that.

I personally have stayed away form Linux as long as I have because I don't feel like defending my qualifications as a computer user whenever I have a question. I can't imagine I'm alone in that sentiment.

Re:Tommy Hilfiger Corp / Linux "product"

[gromitcode]

"One would think the fact that the worlds largest online retailer uses Linux would be compelling enough." and for every example you can come up with I am sure MS can provide an equivalent. assuming kickbacks is moronic, MS are in enough of the fortune 500 companies to win there sales on proof. The linux community needs to learn from loses not simply abuse those that didn't choose them as being supid. Simply writing a lose of as "oh MS must have bribed them" or "there managers are stupid" is the sort of shit that will ensure linux loses grow.

Re:Tommy Hilfiger Corp / Linux "product"

[Feztaa]

Actually, I was born with a PhD and a chemistry set.

excuse me?

[thatedeguy]

'it's got to get the final tier of reliability and predictability that I'm going to bet a multi-billion dollar corporation's future on.' last time I checked, a microsoft server can't stay up for years at a time without babysitting. And something that is as stable as most linux servers are seems pretty predictable to me. I'm thinking that somebody told him this and he doesn't have the knowledge to call foul.

Re:excuse me?

[merky1]

If your linux box has one year of uptime, and it is a world facing server, you deserve to be fired.

If your going to base reliability off of uptime, then Linux and MSFT are about equal, given the number of kernel and app patches that come out for both platforms. Yes, you can quickly apply a patch to apache and restart it without rebooting, but your gonna spend the same amount of time in change control as a MSFT box. Now, come to think of it, MSFT might be onto something... If the OS has a built in reboot function, no need to call the change control folks, it's now a problem ticket, and can be resolved immediately...

Maybe they are on to something here...

Re:excuse me?

[thatedeguy]

If your linux box has one year of uptime, and it is a world facing server, you deserve to be fired. What exactly do you mean by that?

Re:excuse me?

[merky1]

Pick a service, and review the last years worth of vulnerabilities for it...

An admins job is simple. Ensure data safety. Leaving a server unpatched and vulnerable for a year should be grounds for dismissal.

Of course, I also think there should be signifigant fines for companies "losing" customer data.

Re:excuse me?

[thatedeguy]

"Pick a service, and review the last years worth of vulnerabilities for it..." I don't personally manage any "world facing" servers, but I kinda thought that that was what firewalls and rounters were for. While I realize that those don't stop it all, they do act as a preventative. Also, I don't think that taking a server down for updates and patches should be considered for downtime either. Of course, I seldom see linux/unix patches/updates that increase cpu load and memory load like microsoft frequently releases. "Of course, I also think there should be signifigant fines for companies "losing" customer data." I agree. Of course, there are some significant losses in trust and customer count for most of the companies that "lose" their customer data.

Re:excuse me?

[gromitcode]

a router or firewall will NOT protect a world facing server completely. firewall is only as good as what you let in and for most web servers etc this tends to be everything on port 80 or 443 and quite often on other ports for different services. So yes previous poster is correct, if you aren't patching then you should be fired. if you were correctly patching most linux distributions you would have had to restart your box about a dozen times in the last year. As for uptime excluding patches, there is little or no difference between MS or linux here, I run a datacentre with over 1100 windows boxes, the only time any of them have failed in the last 12 months is for hardware failure and one incident of the san driver screwing a cluster. uptime is pretty much great across properly managed linux or windows boxes.

Re:excuse me?

[ccp]

last time I checked, a microsoft server can't stay up for years at a time without babysitting

Last time I checked, a Microsoft server can't stay up for years, period.

Cheers,

Carlos Cesar

i know, i know....

[rwven]

I know we all hate to see anyone doggin on linux... To a degree they have a point though. If linux is offering free software and such but a lot of OSS apps don't have the needed/wanted features of the paid programs, a lot of people are still going to pay for the "non-free" stuff.

I will say though, that OSS apps are getting better and better about providing the user with what they would get if they were paying for a similar program. I'm not sure this post should really be titled about linux at all. it seems more of a concern of "quality of OSS software.

On the other hand, you find an OSS piece of software like firefox and you get a HUGE amount of customization potential and a ton of included features to boot... and EXTENSIONS!

There's two sides to every story i guess and to a degree they have a point, but on other plains the table is turned to a large degree. I find some OSS aps to be FAR supoerior to similar apps that you can shell money out on...

Re:i know, i know....

[shadowpuppy]

I've always seen OSS as having alot of potential for gerneral stuff. But not doing so well in the niches. Lots of people use Firefox and the Linux kernel so they don't suck. But if you stray to far away from that center things tend to suck in one way or another.

Re:i know, i know....

[rwven]

I'll agree with that. Take gaming for example. The closest thing to "gaming" is nezuis (or whatever the name of it is). It's "ok" at best. The framerate is pretty much cruddy on everything and the graphics just don't provide what the framerate indicates they should. However, there are a lot of cases in which closed source niche software sucks just as bad, so i guess there's a big picture too. I guess there's just a million cases of "this works great here but not here" items that you'd have to take into account when make a decision.

Oh certainly, it's just a battle of attrition now

[dogpuppy5]

This is the typical WSJ restatement of the obvious. The real question is how much truth there is to it. I'm sure that commercial companies like MS (and Sun etc..) can do better than open source when they really focus. A salary is a great thing.

But that doesn't mean it will work for them in the long run. I see the success of what the WSJ so quaintly calls "a program called Linux" as a way of forcing the big companies to offer real value. The tough question is who will win in the long run.

I'm sure that the big companies will be able to offer something extra for the extra price, but I'm not sure whether it will be enough. For every one person who chooses the Cadillac model from MS, there will be dozens who will choose cheap Linux. Given the success of Walmart, I'm not sure I want to bet on the earning power of expensive quality.

It's Free

[garlicbready]

1. it's Free!!

2. it's getting better every day as developers push more and more features that people want

3. did I mention it's free?

4. Profit!!

kind of reminds me of the story of the tortoise and the hare (or was it a turtle? I can never remember). perhaps that should be the tux and the hare

Re:It's Free

[denis-The-menace]

That would be the "Tux and the monopoly".

Re:It's Free

[Spy der Mann]

kind of reminds me of the story of the tortoise and the hare (or was it a turtle? I can never remember)

Yes, It's a tortoise, alright :)

I'm waiting for...

[robyannetta]

I'm waiting for the "Boycott Tommy Hilfiger" replies.

FYI: The world's still spinnin'

Re:I'm waiting for...

[idonthack]

On Slashdot? Dude, none of us wear designer clothes anyways. It would be like saying "Boycott Microsoft!!!"
---
Light is filtering down from above. Would you like to use DIVE?
Generated by SlashdotRndSig via GreaseMonkey

Re:I'm waiting for...

[Chemicalscum]

I already am - "No Logo"

Boring Boring boring.

[MrCopilot]

"They are a lot more liberal -- quietly liberal -- in releasing chunks of their code to the developer community," says Mr. Singleton

You know how hard it is to get source out of those linux guys, Thank You Microsoft for saving us from our multi-vendor lock out.

of Tommy Hilfiger, who said he has greater confidence in a single vendor in controlling the evolution of its products. "They jumped through a lot of hoops to help us out."

Translation:
PAYOLA and Deep Discounts. Sent out a few FAEs to help out Tommy boy. Pretty tuff for the KDE guys to do, but RedHat not able?

Re:Boring Boring boring.

[Anonymous Coward]

When RedHat take you to lunch, you don't even get starters :)

The sum total of the kickbacks they offered us for choosing them as our enterprise supplier (and we're talking a couple of hundred K here) was a couple of mousemats and some pens. But that's OK, because what I wanted was a quality OS with decent support, not freebie crap that doesn't help the company.

Descriptive kernel nuances..

[msimm]

Should really be the last of our worries. Chances are the mainstream will never get that and frankly, why should they?

Linux isn't ready for mainstream and I think the periodic reminders/check-ins are fine. Its good to get a veiw from the outside because we tend to get a little too wrapped up in the technical details for our own good.

So hand onto your clue stick. :)

The payoff

[jlrowe]

One has to wonder whether and if so what kind of a payoff or other gift they (tommy.com) might have gotten to present this interview. A cut in licensing costs? Just what is going on underneath the perfume?

Microsoft certainly isn't above doing that sort of thing given past performance.

Desktop changes

[mnemonic_]

How about some fundamental changes that make sense for Linux as a desktop, as opposed to a Linux for a server? You know, like giving normal users the ability to shutdown the computer or turn on/off the ethernet interface. I can see how these things make sense when running a system with 20 users who like to login from across the country, but for a home system used by a few people, they just don't work that well.

Re:Desktop changes

[fishbowl]

"You know, like giving normal users the ability to shutdown the computer or turn on/off the ethernet interface."

Sudo doesn't work for you?

Re:Desktop changes

[TobascoKid]

You know, like giving normal users the ability to shutdown the computer or turn on/off the ethernet interface.

That's down to your choice of distro. Try Ubuntu.

Re:Desktop changes

[SpiritGod21]

I use Mandrake and I have no problem doing either of those. Which distro are you familiar with?

Good enough for Amazon ...

[bushboy]

... but not for Hillfiger ?

Eric Singleton, you should change your name to Eric Simpleton

What a pathetically stupid comment to make from someone who evidentally doesn't have a damn clue what he's talking about.

Someone fire this jerk and get a chief information officer who doesn't have his head stuck in his butt.

http://www.google.co.za/search?q=amazon+linux

No Tech Support?? HUH????????

[Chaotic Spyder]

But there are distros that sell tech support Redhat, SuSE.. and you can also get Linux without the support or the closed packaging...
why must Linux = a specific distro??
Hint: That's what MS wants you to believe..
The beauty of Linux is Choice.. you can Choose to have a completely free Open OS and build what you want all on your own.. or you can choose to download what somebody else put together for you.. or you can choose to pay for what a bigger org as put together for you and use their support...
I wish these articles when weighing pros and cons of linux would touch on this.. it frustrates me to see comments like this regarding the lack of Tech Support for linux...

Mod parent flamebait!

[Spy der Mann]

I can't wait to see their contributions. Oh wait, you mean they are just demanding and doing nothing? Who cares what they demand then?

Wow, nice way to elude responsibility! Users are users, _NOT_ developers! How do you suppose they're going to contribute? (The only exception here is in programming tools, where users ARE programmers. But that's definitely NOT the mainstream)

If programmers want their software to enter the mainstream, they must realize they're making the software for THE COMMON PEOPLE. (RTFM should be a forbidden term). And I bet that most of the problems with linux user-friendliness doesn't reside in the poor programming ability of the coders, but rather in poor decisions in the design process. Will someone correct the decisions please?

Re:Mod parent flamebait!

[Anonymous Coward]

The previous poster ahead of you got it. They contribute money to the effort of getting their wants met in software. :)

Re:Mod parent flamebait!

[JabberWokky]

Corporations are not users or developers - they are a different category entirely. They have users inside and outside the company and hire developers inside and outside the company. Plus they do QA inside and outside the company and usually hire people to do second opinions on most critical infrastructure.

Most corporations have needs that are unique or are looking for an advantage and thus hire a large number of developers (either directly or through consulting firms). Those needs satisfy people who they hire to use the system they have built - the users are hired to the system as well as the system being built for the users.

--
Evan

Re:Mod parent flamebait!

[Perl-Pusher]

Wow, nice way to elude responsibility! Users are users, _NOT_ developers!

Wow, what a way to elude responsibility! When someone develops a program, gives it to you for free, also provides the source code so you can make changes add features you need etc. You respond by "demanding" additional freebees! I suppose it's like welfare, you get to a point where you start to believe a free ride on the taxpayers dime is your god given right. The ideal behind open source is a community project where I provide some expertise, others decide they can save a lot of development by adding them. IBM and Novell realize this. As for your "COMMON PEOPLE" when they start buying packaged distributions they then can "demand" stuff from their distributor, be it Suse, Mandriva or whatever. Or else they pay Microsoft and make their demands. But this article wasn't enven about desktop linux and "THE COMMON PEOPLE"

The transition may determine whether the technology will continue its momentum, or stall in the face of tougher competition at the heart of corporate computer networks.' Eric Singleton, chief information officer at retailer Tommy Hilfiger Corp., which recently switched its e-commerce site 'Tommy.com' from Linux to Microsoft software, calls Linux 'a great product,' but adds, 'it's got to get the final tier of reliability and predictability that I'm going to bet a multi-billion dollar corporation's future on.'"

Tommy Hilfinger is not the "THE COMMON PEOPLE" for christ's sake at least read the post! The article was so much crap.

Eric Singleton, chief information officer at retailer Tommy Hilfiger Corp., which recently switched its e-commerce site 'Tommy.com' from Linux to Microsoft software, calls Linux 'a great product,' but adds, 'it's got to get the final tier of reliability and predictability that I'm going to bet a multi-billion dollar corporation's future on.'

What is not stated is that obviously linux worked for them before the switch, they are a "multi-billion dollar corporation". They don't mention what incentives are being provided by Microsoft to make this little switch and public "endorsement".

And back to your "COMMON PEOPLE" youy asked:

How do you suppose they're going to contribute?

Try paying for those features, that's they way things are done in the proprietary software world too! If more people would buy distributions, then those companies can afford to add features. But then you didn't mention any specific features that are needed did you? You decided to bitch an inflame in generalizations such as "COMMON PEOPLE"!

Running on Linux

[tbedolla]

I may not help orchestrate the IT department of a billion dollar company, but I do for a 350 million dollar and growing company, and we are moving to Linux across the board, desktop, POS, and all servers, as we are looking for stability, minimum footprint, lower licensing costs for all software (i.e., OpenOffice, Firefox, help desk software etc) all while avoiding the constant bombardment of virus attacks against our architecture. Windows has not done this for us in a manner that is acceptable moving forward...and please don't respond about maintenance and patch management, because we've had to worry about far less patches and updates since the move.

Re:Running on Linux

[Zate]

are you guys hiring ?.. lol.

I cant wait for the the day I can work for a company who's not afraid to actually MANAGE their IT infrastructure instead of letting it manage them.

Re:Running on Linux

[glamslam]

You must have some VERY talent, well-paid people in this company. I bet they are good-looking and smell good, too.

Re:Running on Linux

[chris_eineke]

we are moving to Linux across the board, desktop, POS, and all servers, ...

Would you mind telling me what PoS system you will run?

Re:Running on Linux

[tbedolla]

Certainly, we are using a relatively new product called Siva

not just about opensource...

[Nexcet]

Windows doesn't have Unix... Enough said.

Re:Software doesn't need to be Open Source on Linu

[Durzel]

You make a very good point.

People seem to draw the conclusion that because Linux is principally open source, that no enterprise level support exists for it, and any application that runs on it is automatically free by association.

I run into this sort of thinking frequently at work, with management looking agast when I mention that, for example, CAs ARCserve for Linux *actually costs money* to licence. Fortunately since we've been buying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (and its associated support agreements) they've started to realise that it is just as enterprise-friendly as Windows.

I think people misunderstand the concerns of most businesses as well. Whilst cost is usually a driver, in my experience companies I've dealt with have had no problems spending money (often more than they need to) on Windows solutions simply because there is a perception that the full weight of Microsoft is behind it. As someone else remarked, no one ever got fired for buying Microsoft.

Gone a bit OT there, but there you go.

Fantastic News

[delire]

Funny, looks like they've been running Windows2003 since the year it was made - they already had a foot in that door. Note also the conspicuous presence of Solaris.

All that aside I think this is fantastic news. There are many things worse than growing pains, like for instance that GNU/Linux is in any way associated with such a pack of utter and complete tossers. You can keep your "All American" cologne, it reeks.

Silly Demands

[Apreche]

The problem is here that the demands the corporations are making are silly. What you get is a corporation that has problem A. They purchase a proprietary solution to problem A, but it isn't a very good solution. If they switch to Linux they expect to use the exact same shitty solution to problem A. Linux offers a better, free solution to problem A, but they demand to use the same proprietary, expensive and silly one that they've been using. Even if they are willing to make one change to save money, they aren't willing to make any other changes.

Here's a hypothetical example. A company has a whole bunch of windows workstations running a crummy custom VB app to interface with their database. They want to switch to Linux to save money and increase security. The VB app doesn't run so well in wine, because it's crummy. They could hire someone to conver the VB app into a web app that would be better in many ways. And the cost of hiring that person is less than the money they are saving by switching OSes. But no, they demand to stick with what they've got.

If you are going to explore using a different base you have to be willing to explore alternatives to everything resting on that base. If you are going to buy a new car, you can't expect that all the after-market parts on your old car will work in the new one. Some of them will, some of them wont. If you really need those parts you have to tought it out and get an equivalent part that is compatible with the new car. If your old car is rusted and busted, you've got no choice. So deal with it.

No one got fired for...

[saigon_from_europe]

'it's got to get the final tier of reliability and predictability that I'm going to bet a multi-billion dollar corporation's future on.'

In other words "no one got fired for purchasing from [instert name of some big company here]".

Now, when his boss asks why system does not work, he'll be able to say "you know, it is Microsoft", and boss will conclude that if multi-billion company cannot make it better, it is best you can get in the world.

That sounds logical, but our experience teach us that it is not the truth.

(Sligtly OT, I would really like that someone who is paid millions to do his (its) job decently. That would make this world much better place to live in.)

"Adopters" - not "Developers"

[Petersko]

I can't wait to see their contributions. Oh wait, you mean they are just demanding and doing nothing?

These companies are generally paying somebody, such as Red Hat. They aren't interested in development, nor should they be. They want to solve a business problem.

I can't think of a better way to stunt the further growth of linux than by ignoring people who can use the product but who don't want to develop.

Ever think...

[zoomba]

Ever think that maybe, just maybe, Linux didn't meet their current needs? Maybe it didn't fit well into their existing infrastructure or whatever? Linux is not always the absolute best solution to every IT problem that exists. Sometimes, a Microsoft product is the right choice based on what you're trying to do, who you have employed and what other systems you want it to work with.

Re:Ever think...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Sometimes, a Microsoft product is the right choice based on what you're trying to do, who you have employed and what other systems you want it to work with.

Occasionally this is true. Most of the time, however, a decision maker chooses Windows because either they know it and don't want to learn something new or because it is cheaper in the short term. Long-term planning is something that has gone the way of the dodo for most American companies. It is all about making money now, making contacts, scratching the other guy's back and moving on. High paid executives don't stay in one place these days, they make money, screw the employees and the companies long-term future, and move on. Hell that is even what business schools are teaching them to do these days.

So sure sometimes MS is the right solution, but more often it is the most advantageous solution for the decision maker and due to that, most people here discount those rare cases.

Tense error

[greenagain]

As Linux enters the mainstream, adopters 'WILL demand...

I suggest you read Groklaw ...

[MajorDick]

There is a great article there (the top article at this posting) that makes a VERY PROFOUND
And Accurate staement

Linux doent need Business, Business NEEDs Linux

Is the best way to paraphrase it...Oh heelll..Here ...

Defending the GPL Sunday, August 07 2005 @ 07:26 AM EDT I heartily recommend that you read Eric Laffoon's article in Open for Business. If it were allowed, I'd put every word of it here on Groklaw. Laffoon is the project lead for KDE's Kdewebdev module. It's the best answer I've seen to anyone who claims we need to ditch the GPL to ensure business uptake or that we don't need the GPL any more. "Is commercial software the salvation of Linux?" he asks. I'll answer that. Linux doesn't need business. It has an independent life and will take over no matter what. It's businesses that need Linux, not the other way around. Here are just two paragraphs from the article: To me FOSS as Richard Stallman has set in motion with the GNU GPL is about the greater good of humanity as opposed to the selfish greed of a few people. The GPL has insured the freedom of users while showing that the closed development model has real flaws. Let's not lose site of what's important. Our community provides the moral center at probably the most pivitol point in history. 500 years ago the printing press ended the dark ages with an unprecedented sharing of ideas. The internet offers dramatically more potential. Thankfully Microsoft was late to the party and FOSS was there to prevent them getting dominant control of the new international currency, information access. The battle for the freedom of access for us and our children is not over. We need to cooperate to insure the enemies of freedom don't overcome us, not attack those who should be our allies. Wars have been lost over just such foolishness.

In otherwords Screw the people who are "Demainding" blah blah blah, its THEIR duty to conform if THEY want to use linux , not OUR duty to make sure OUR Linux conforms to THEIR needs...

Re:I suggest you read Groklaw ...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not an exemplary article of the GPL's advantages, but a poorly crafted rant by somebody who lives in a fantasy world where valiant GPL-wielding cybernauts battle heroically against countless minions allied to the evil realm of Mordmond, which seeks to oppress innocent pieces of information forever.

Well, I apologise for injecting a small dose of reality into this lovely reverie, but for some strange reason I am compelled to (perhaps I've been bewitched by The Evil Gates, or am a foul troll).

The GPL is not a benefit to humanity, because humanity would be no worse off it it didn't exist. Open source software was around before the GPL entered the scene, and today's most popular open source projects do not use it as their license of choice. Anybody who doubts this should read the licenses for Apache, Perl, Python, PHP, Firefox, and Thunderbird, all of which are wildly popular, and have much more liberal terms than those of the GPL.

Furthermore, businesses do not "need" Linux. Computers were used in a commercial setting for decades before Linux appeared, and companies would be using just as many as they do now if it didn't exist. Even those that currently use Linux as a free UNIX-like OS to run web and mail services would be doing the same job with one of the other free UNIX work-alikes. Same computers, same jobs, different OS.

So, little sheep, follow this article's profound advice, and tell all those demanding people with fat bank accounts to conform or screw themselves. MS will be really delighted if you do this, because you'll be handing them cash on a platter in a way that none of their anti-Linux FUD campaigns have managed to achieve.

Linux Needs Hardware.

[torpor]

Plain and simple.

And, also, there is no such thing as "Linux", as in "Linux Desktop Build", or "Linux Distro-toy Blue", blah.

There are only builds of Linux. To assume that "Linux is _something_" and then defeat it with an argument is simply praying to straw men.

Sure, different groups, factions, cliques and charms of distributors out there are working on various efforts. But setting up this "Linux" thing and proving its 'wrong' is just attacking them all ..

What matters with Linux is, whats it running on? Is it running? Is it doing the job you intended for it to do? There are plenty of ways to go about getting Linux a solid YES for those last two jobs, but the first and foremost question is: whats it running on?

"Growing pains" of software is another way of saying "no hardware control". Microsoft is aware of this (XBox Hegemony). "The Linux People" seem to be overlooking it. Ignore pop-cult predictions, and build, build, build ..

All good Linux starts with a build. If you can't operate at a level of competence that allows you to build your own system and manage it under full control, starting with hardware, then what the hell are you doing in 'enterprise computing'?

"Hardware. Hardware, hardware, hardware." Linux starts at Hardware.

Linux like a ghost

[MECC]

It makes sense that PHB's (and their favorite newspaper) are confused by OSS. To them, its like a ghost because its built and maintained by a diverse community, rather than by a hierarchical mgmt structure. Since most of them are themselves dedicated to maintaining a mgmt hierarchy, the absense of such doesn't make sense to them. In the case of linux, they look for 'who makes linux', and see nothing recognizable - yet linux exists, and works very well, quite often outdoing its 'commercial' counterparts depending on what you want it to do.

To them, its like a ghost.

Re:Linux like a ghost

[otis wildflower]

Perhaps, but Linux to me is more like a baseline standard that provides a foundation for more interesting things on top.

For example, what if you had to pay, say, France, every time you used the term 'meter' or 'liter', or used those terms in the design and description of any engineering, manufacturing, geographic, etc. product? What if, to avoid such fees, you had to reinvent a whole new Metric(tm) system to describe such things?

What if you had to pay an annual licensing fee to speak or write the English language?

Granted, new refinements are made to standard measurments periodically, new 'hacks' are entered into language dictionaries on occasion, but in the end those standards are open and unencumbered. This is where I think Linux should end up, and how the perception should be formed.

Re:No Tech Support?? HUH????????

[Baorc]

Hey I'm not advocating anything here, I was just saying I guess big companies choose to go with paying products because if you need a patch (where the tech support comes in) they can code it for you, since with Linux and what not, *I don't believe* that their tech support offers patching. Of course I wouldn't know for sure. I think I was looking more for a word like "garantee".

Linux can't really garantee anything because it relies on the community (which can be (or is) reliable) while at Microsoft, it HAS to be reliable. Think of it as someone going "Hey this thing crashed/isn't working/needs a patch!" and then if it was Microsoft "Well you DID pay for the software, so we will offer you support blah blah" They don't have a choice it's not like they can hire someone to patch it for them, it's closed source as to Linux it would be "Well you did get it for free so patching the system is not our problem." But I do agree that they could help with the crash or the isn't working part.

I could be talking out of my ass though...

Reliability and Predictability....

[Rolan]

'it's got to get the final tier of reliability and predictability that I'm going to bet a multi-billion dollar corporation's future on.'

They can reliably predict that their Windows based servers will crash based on reliable and predictable conditions (i.e. The power is on.)

Surely that's what meant by reliable and predictable.... Someone bought into the Microsoft hype.

One thing I never understood...

[danielk1982]

is why people automatically assume that using an Open Source opertating system (e.g. Linux) implies using open source applications.

This is not how the world will work, and this is now how the world works now.

Whats wrong with moving to Linux and using X (where x is some proprietary application that is easy-to-use, well-supported and does the job you need it to do?).

This applies to the other path as well; Proprietary operating system and Open Source applications.

I've read studies comparing Windows/IIS to Linux/Apache.. yet I've not read any study comparing Windows/Apache and Linux/Apache.

No matter what some zealots will try to feed up, there is nothing wrong with having a mix that works for you.

"Predictability"

[z3r0w8]

He calls Linux "a great product," but adds, "it's got to get the final tier of reliability and predictability

So, I guess he is looking for a system that maintains its clustered uptime by arbitrarily failing over because well, why not?

Seriously, we run large clusters of windows servers for just exchange and rarely does a day go by without fail-overs or some other odd problem no one can identify.

Our unix stuff (including linux) runs forever and only fails when there is a real problem...

I just don't get it.

But TFA ends on highly positive note

[IceAgeComing]

My reading of the TFA is that it starts out with a few anecdotal problems, then it goes on to talk about how the future looks very, very good for linux.

non sequitur

[stinky wizzleteats]

Another story about the debate over Linux is ready for $WHATEVER?

Let's ally a little real-world here. There is no debate. People in the know really aren't having these sorts of conversations with each other. Discussions of the arguments themselves are invariably astroturfing.

• Linux needs to be easier to install!
  Like Windows is? Who installs Windows anymore? People are buying new computers because of spyware! Nobody fights with the licenses, third party drivers, etc. that are part of installing Windows.
• Linux has no applications!
  Any distribution of Linux comes with thousands of applications already included. Pretty much everything anyone needs is already on the damn disc(s). How many apps does Windows come with?
• Linux is not stable or reliable!
  What? We are comparing Linux to Windows here, right?
• Linux has no support!
  Tell you what. You call Microsoft, I'll go to the Gentoo forum. We'll see who gets an answer first.

These arguments simply don't exist in the logical sense. The business reality of Linux uptake basically goes something like this:

• Manager: All my other manager friends in all the other companies use Windows, so it must be good.
• Techie: I went to MCSE school and have a significant personal exclusive investment in Microsoft skills. I am therefore morbidly afraid of change. I will barrage anyone who suggests alternative suggestions with red herrings and FUD.

And that's the state of Linux today. It is better technology, has been for some time now, and is improving very quickly. Nobody credibly discusses weaknesses with the platform. Now it's simply about OS bigotry and organizational inertia.

Re:non sequitur

[stinky wizzleteats]

ally=apply. apologies

Re:non sequitur

[tclark]

There's another point you're leaving out. While the shills are busy slagging Linux, people in the know are steadily and quietly rolling out Linux systems that just work. When a Tommy Hilfiger - sized company adopts Linux, it's not news anymore.

Let's let the WSJ print whatever it wants to while the rest of us get back to work.

Re:non sequitur

[stinky wizzleteats]

Quite true.

hmmm....

[Daytona955i]

From the article:
"They [microsoft] jumped through a lot of hoops to help us out."

Uhhh.... yeah, and that kickback doesn't hurt either.

However the article doesn't talk about what tools they would like to see. Reliable? well I can name a few companies who think so....
Google, amazon, oracle, IBM.... but Tommy is much bigger than any of those companies.

Really I'm amazed at some of the compaies I do some support for. Their IT staff can barely install windows and I'm thinking this is one of those groups. Of course Microsoft will come in and help them set everything up if they help bash linux.

No news here, let's move on.

Re:hmmm....

[xtracto]

Ok ok ok ok...

I see a pattern here:
ll I can name a few companies who think so....
Google, amazon, oracle, IBM.... but Tommy is much bigger than any of those companies.


See the pattern? well, all the companies you mentioned are IT related companies. But, what about looking at companies which buisness is totally IT unrelated (you could say that Amazon is not IT related but again, tell me how did amazon started?).

What about Levi's, Silvertab, Guess? and other clothes brands companies? what about Starbucks chain? I really would like to know what does companies which buisness is not IT use.

Re:hmmm....

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, a norwegian furniture chain(Bohus) is using GNU/Linux for servers and clients, AFAIK

Re:hmmm....

[dhasenan]

How about Sears? They use AIX and Linux.

Re:hmmm....

[westlake]

Uhhh.... yeah, and that kickback doesn't hurt either.

Conspiracy theories are for losers.
To a CEO you sound like a whiny little kid always looking for excuses when you pitch these tales of woe.

Re:hmmm....

[Daytona955i]

Except I'm not talking to a CEO, I'm talking on slashdot where conspiracy theories multiply.

You sir, need to learn to lighten up and learn when someone is joking. Although there is some seriousness to it because I certainly wouldn't put it past Microsoft.

Re:hmmm....

[Daytona955i]

Sorry, I only named a few off the top of my head and I tend to think of IT related sites first because I use IT most of the time. I could care less about Tommy.com or any other online retailer. I did however find this interesting site: http://www.aaxnet.com/design/linux2.html

Some other companies using linux (from the site above) Oh, I took out Google and Cisco because they are tech companies and I took out Tommy Hilfiger because well, I guess they aren't using it any more.

Amerada Hess Corporation, BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit), Boscov's Department Stores, Burlington Coat Factory, Conoco, Digital Domain, Ernie Ball Inc., City of Garden Grove California, Just Sports USA, Kaiser Aluminum, City of Largo Florida, Lawson Inc. (Japan), Mexico City - government of, Mobil Travel Guide, Omaha Steaks, Panasonic, Raymour & Flanigan, Royal Dutch/Shell, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Travelocity, U.S. Army, U.S. Federal Courts, U.S. Postal Service.

To see what capacity each of the companies use linux, visit the previously mentioned site.

Finger pointing

[zappepcs]

is what this is all about. When the excriment hits the oscillating air movement device, companies want someone or some company that they can put their feet to the fire and blame them instead of taking the blame. Look at the recent personal indentification information losses. How many companies simply said "oh, sorry, we fscked up"????

Reliability and performance mean nothing if there is a group of people standing by waiting to rush in and fix company XYZ's problems when they happen, no matter if the problems are because of the software or not.

Reliability and performace translate to 'no liability' and 'we don't perform, you do' in the real world of business. When thousands or millions of dollars, not to mention customer experience, are on the line, company XYZ is the last one to want to take the blame, especially if there is a software maker they can blame on lost data or lost network function.

Linux simply doesn't provide companies with this easy out, and until it does, there won't be large scale adoption of Linux in the business world. As mentioned, because MS is so large, they often don't have to take the heat, so its a lose-lose for businesses.

I work in a field where there is a lot of proprietary software (some of it mine) and that is the case. The ROI (long term) is improved by having your own software teams, and managing the damage on your own, but that is not what businesses want, they just want to be able to throw money at the problem for a guaranteed fix. Its clearly bad business, but is the business model that software houses have been creating for decades.

I don't care how much outsourcing saves, it will never beat having your software knowledgebase in-house and ready to respond, not to mention having your finger on the check of those responsible for the code.

US businesses have pushed their responsibility out to others for so long, they are now addicted.... Changing drugs is as difficult as stopping taking them altogether.

Well, that's my tuppence worth

Re:Finger pointing

[The Woodworker]

So what you're saying is Linux won't succeed, as most companies employ idiots and pussies at the top levels. I would agree with that.

One demand I'd make...

[Cerdic]

Is for better user interfaces. A lot of open source stuff is started by people with *nix backgrounds who hate GUIs, and it shows. Some are so bad that even the Win32 port of the software is horribly clunky to use.

One good example is The GIMP. It's an art tool, but I doubt many artists would use it due to its unwieldiness. If it felt a little more like Photoshop or (my favorite) Paint Shop Pro, it would have a better chance of going mainstream.

This article talks about Linux being used for stuff like a corporate web server, and that is important in being a part of the 'mainstream,' but maybe some focus should be put into other typs of users, like the average joe.

This will probably be considered a troll, but

[artifex2004]

One can hardly take seriously staff of a company that thinks a reality tv show is going to give them "America's Next Top Fashion Designer."

Maybe it will, actually, because that's more about marketing than ability these days, probably. But they need to learn that style doesn't trump substance in the back office, at least.

In general, yes.

[smchris]

It is a shame to see a business switch from linux to MS (servers, even, I assume in the case of Tommy.com!) when I think linux is a viable desktop terminal for education and many business offices. At the same time, I've greatly toned down my voice for home use.

"Testing" isn't enough. "Documentation" isn't enough. Distributions need a "customer satisfaction" group. Badly.

tommyb2b.com

[Transdimentia]

Interestingly enough, Tommy Hilfiger's b2b portal was rolled out on Linux. Go figure....

In other words

[suezz]

""In a way, Linux is now perhaps turning the corner," says Eric Singleton, chief information officer at retailer Tommy Hilfiger Corp. His company had been running its Web shopping site, Tommy.com, on Linux -- but recently switched it to Microsoft software. He calls Linux "a great product," but adds, "it's got to get the final tier of reliability and predictability that I'm going to bet a multibillion-dollar corporation's future on.""

I don't want responsible of a product - if something goes wrong I want somebody else's job on the line not mine.

Typical CIO corporate babble. This just tells me I can't hire the people to do the job that needs to be done. I need vendors to certify my people and then I don't want anybody in my department to take any responsiblity for their job. I want to purely blame the vendor when something goes down. Then the vendor can blame the drivers you just installed - there was a bug in them - go get the new drivers and install them.

There, wasn't pointing the fingers so much fun. And nobody got fired. We wasted a lot of the companies time and money but we didn't get fired. And that is what matters most.

This kind of politicking goes on on every fricken day at my job - nobody knows how to do anything but point the finger at someone else.

CIO's like this need to get a fricken clue and take some of that money you spend on vendors and hire some people beside MCSE's that think they know what they are doing.

IT in corporations have become nothing but paper shufflers keeping track of Eula's. Far be it that they actually code/script anything. Just as long as you are trained on the latest "Intellectual Property" laws and you stay away from that open source communist software.

Oh ya I got to meet you for golf and that luncheon. Our vendor is taking us out for lunch and a golf game. Ya never got that with that open source communist software.

Ok, here we go again...

[DoctorPepper]

Hey WSJ and all of the other commercial corporations out there:

Linux was here, quietly serving up web pages and other such things before it got "noticed". It will be here long after, if it again drops off of the commercial radar.

Linux isn't here to solve your problems. Linux is here for one and only one reason: Because it "scratches" the itch of open source developers. If there is something that you want from Linux, and you can't seem to understand open source enough to know that you can take the source code and make the changes yourself, then I'd suggest you hire some open source developers to make those changes.

Do not whine, bitch and complain about missing features you want/need. It isn't about you, your company or it's needs. It's about the software and freedom.

If Linux doesn't fit you, then fine, go buy Microsoft or Sun or whatever, but don't sit there and complain, yet not do anything productive about it.

wow

[minus_273]

This is cool. I can't wait till it feels Charles in Charge. That catchy theme song will probably help in linux adoption. Now if we could just get facts of lift and i't theme song.

Re:Software doesn't need to be Open Source on Linu

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably quite a lot of apps that require a GUI will need to be open-source, though, due to the very rapid turnover in new versions of GUI toolkits and libraries etc - the alternative is for a vendor to produce new builds of their software for every distro, and every time a new version of a distro omes out. That, or statically link a ginormous bunch of libraries (or a small-but-feature-lacking bunch of older libraries) in with their app.

So get busy

[HangingChad]

calls Linux 'a great product,' but adds, 'it's got to get the final tier of reliability and predictability that I'm going to bet a multi-billion dollar corporation's future on.

Well bo-f'ing-ho. Linux has done just fine in the face of thousands of buggers like him wanking out loud about what Linux has got to do. I've heard that same oral excrement for years. It's not "there" yet. Well, it's still gaining market share so the community must be doing something right. Just don't expect the community to respond to the same pressures and concerns that business does.

From the article:

As use of Linux and other open-source software spreads, the largest buyers of computing gear are demanding a new level of service, support and functions from the software.

So just sit back on your fat hind end and wait for other people to bring about the changes you want. Why not take some of those licensing $$$ you saved and hire a couple programmers to make some of those changes? Heavens, don't do anything constructive. Just sit back and make demands. Enjoy the benefits but PLEASE don't feel any obligation to give anything back or spare some of your precious time and corporate billions to help with improvements.

That's the great thing about Linux, if you don't like something you always have the option to hire someone to change it. In a MSFT environment if you don't like something all you can do is hope the next service pack or next version will fix it.

I guess I'm really tired of this attitude that Linux has to jump through this hoop or that one just to satisfy some corporate weenie. Quit making demands and start making improvements you risk-adverse whiners.

Re:So get busy

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux has to jump through those hoops when Red Hat and Novell are charging serious money for Enterprise versions, and IBM want to ship it as a serious server OS. Of course, the onus is on them to implement all that hoop-jumping, not those who contribute their code freely, and therefore have no obligation to do things that these companies or their customers want.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Who Wants To Be Popular?

[blueZhift]

Hmmm, who wants to be popular? The thing that started and sustains the growth of Linux was the need to get something done. Linux is a great tool for getting stuff done, especially stuff that may be so narrow that there are not and never will be off the shelf shrink-wrapped solutions. Corporations that want to use Linux just need the smarts to invest in the staff they need to build the solutions they need if there isn't something already available. If they can't or won't do this, then they can keep paying Microsoft billions of dollars to essentially do that for them with Windows. That may be the best solution for some.

Popular or not, Linux isn't going away anytime soon. It's like that pretty girl who really doesn't care whether you like her or not, she's still pretty. (Ugh, that's pretty bad, but hey, it's Monday...)

Re:Who Wants To Be Popular?

[Locutus]

"Who wants to be poplar?" IT management does.

But in OSS there is no Visual Basic for IT managers so they can pretend to be a programmer, or MS Access so they can be a database expert... GNU/Linux is too hard,,, wwwhhaaaaaaa

To tell you the truth, I've seen people who can hardly fumble through on Windows, attempt to try GPL'ed software on Windows and it wasn't pretty. They've setup their department network but if the software doesn't install itself, give them a MS-Wizard, and icons to run it, they are lost.

IMO, Microsoft Windows is very much like McDonalds, only it fattens the mind instead of the body. Microsoft McWindows

I fully agree with what you stated. It fits niches well because it's flexible enough and those filling the niche are going to be somewhat technical enough to solve the problem. Given the right tools, flexible tools, and the know-how to use the tools, far more can be done with GNU/Linux and OSS than MS Windows.

And they are not going away because of that. And the fact that all Microsoft has is the desire to change perception and not the design or business practices it's so familiar with.

LoB

Re:Who Wants To Be Popular?

[shmlco]

The thing that started and sustains the growth of Linux was the need to get something done.

I'll get blasted for this, but IIRC, the thing that started Linux was the fact that Linus wanted to play with Unix at home, and couldn't afford a commercial version. So he wrote his own free version.

The thing that sustains it, makes dinking with it, and makes hiring admins for it worthwhile, is the same fact that it and its core applications are ALSO free.

Tell people they're getting something for "free" and they'll put up with quite a bit. And no, it's not going away soon.

It's the counter-culture alternative to the mainstream mega-corps, and too many people are heavily invested in that identity, and in the time and effort they've spent learning its arcana, and in simply getting it to work...

Re:Who Wants To Be Popular?

[nijk]

Someone's got a case of the Mondays!

Re:Software doesn't need to be Open Source on Linu

[fireboy1919]

I really don't think any company can make money from meer support of a product.

The problem is that meerkats, or meers for short, can't use computers. Further, they don't usually have any money to buy things with. You'd be hard-pressed to even find a meerkat that can talk. Companies hoping to make money from meer support are using a business model that's destined to fail.

Clearly the way to go is to make money from human product support. Dog, gorilla, or ninja product support are also possibilities, though these are much more shaky business models, and should probably be accompanied by other revenue streams.

Re:Software doesn't need to be Open Source on Linu

[minus_273]

there are many many who would disagree with you. specifically the GNU/Linux crowd.

Precisely

[BlackCobra43]

Linux is not in the game to be popular, it's in the game to be GOOD. Which was my point, but apparently that's trolling in a Linux topic ?_?

Adopters are 'demanding features'?

[Rogerborg]

Then they can write and submit them, or pay someone to do so for them. That's the way it works.

And NetCraft sez ....

[khasim]

http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http:/ /www.tommyhilfiger.com

Am I on the wrong listing or has their MAIN site been hosted? And hosted on Solaris.

http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http:/ /www.tommy.com

Seems that they JUST switched over to Windows and that they had JUST switched to Linux.

Come on. They've been on Linux for SIX MONTHS and they've spent THREE YEARS on Apache and Solaris.

Great. They've been on Win2003 for the past .... let's see, ELEVEN DAYS!!!!

Talk about rushing a story.

we missed the 12:05 cluetrain

[nomadic]

I can't wait to see their contributions. Oh wait, you mean they are just demanding and doing nothing?

Corporate guy: I need these commercial programs.

OSS zealot: Ditch those programs, you can get superior open-source alternatives for free, I promise.

Corporate guy: Alright, if you promise then I guess I will. Do you have an OSS replacement for this program?

OSS zealot: NO! MAKE IT YOURSELF YOU BASTARD!

Article in brief

[dr_dank]

Linux has finally reached the Kirk Cameron stage, but it has a ways to go before it hits Alan Thicke critical mass.

Re:Article in brief

[sharkey]

Wish it would hurry up. I can't wait to see Linux throw knives at Ricardo Montalban!

Linux biggest problem

[IdleTime]

is lack of marketing.

When was the last time you saw a commercial on TV for Linux? Microsoft?

Call marketing whatever you want, but further adoption of Linux has everything to do with marketing. The moment people start seeing commercials all over the place for Linux, it will spread.

Geeks have no function in the next step in Linux adoption, the marketroids have that task ahead of them. if this does not happen, Linux will forever stay a niche product, a nice one, but still a niche product in the same class as OSX. Pretty but useless on big scale.

Re:Linux biggest problem

[Profcrab]

This is the biggest hurdle Linux has to jump to grow in the consumer market. Unfortunately, since Linux itself is not marketed to a significant degree, for-profit software developers with large marketing budgets are not going to throw their money software developement or a campaign to sell software for an OS that is not on the consumer radar.

Linux is, however, an excellent OS for a corporation that can either take advantage of the OSS tools that have been made for it or has the inhouse staff to create their own tools for it. I imagine it is more a combination of the two.

It is also great for those that know their way around computers and search for all the OSS apps, tools, and media programs the community has created. Most consumers, however, are not going to do some of the work that goes with this. They are not going to compile code. If its not packaged, they are not going to use it. Frankly, OSX much greater change of giving MS a real run for its money if it gets hacked to run on a regular X86 system.

Flamebait ?

[PurpleXanathar]

The grandparent says "Windows will get hacked for sure" and is modded flamebait.

The parent says "If patched Windows will not get hacked" and is modded flamebait.

Maybe they are both just opinions ?

That's because MS DOS crashed.

[crovira]

How soon they forget.

EVERY Disc Operating System crashed.

They only became stable with the PDP-11 and RSTS-E. And the darn thing had toggle switches to do the IPL. The first machine to come without a panel full of switches was the Apple I.

Re:That's because MS DOS crashed.

[pamar]

Can't say about Apple I (never seen one directly) but I can assure you that Apple ][ had a Reset button, too.

It had a stronger spring under it so you wouldn't push it "by accident", and IIRC there was a switch on the motherboard so that you could decide to have to press CTRL+RESET together, for extra security.

Tech support

[Orne]

Let me fix it for you... I guess it's a matter of who you can contact if something goes wrong.

If I'm Tommy.com, I don't want to have to keep a linux C programmer on site just to debug an application that odds are they didn't even contribute to... Their hope for getting a repair is to (1) explain their problem publicly on a message board, (2) hope that someone out there reads their issue and (3) can provide a fix... meanwhile every minute their site is down is a potential lost sale.

Besides, a company like Tommy isn't going to program their own site anyway, they're going to contract out the design, lease out the hardware, and keep a few humans on site for tech support to take the CDs out of the trays when they do their backups. Everything else HAS to run itself.

It doesn't matter what you're running, it's how you keep it running... and Microsoft has the market on their side. There is a whole industry of 3rd party support for their products, providing a financial incentive for programmers to learn MS's systems and keep them running.

Linux needs to catch up by providing that level of support... They need the whole infrastructure, from low-cost training centers, to hotlines to get in touch with programmers, design suites and GUIs .... its going to be a while yet.

Re:Tech support

[Taevin]

It doesn't matter what you're running, it's how you keep it running... and Microsoft has the market on their side.

Interesting... If Apache is just SO hard to keep running that it takes at least one Linux C programmer on site to hold the thing together (although I really don't see what Linux or C have to do with web programming) and Microsoft is so easy that all you need is a pretty 1-800 number to make it all work, would you care to explain to me why Apache is running on ~70% of Internet servers while Microsoft's IIS is running on ~20%? Yes, it's true that you'll need someone who knows how to use and configure Apache, but how is that any different than needing someone who knows how to use and configure IIS? If you have to call some hotline to solve your problem, you're going to have to sit through a pleasant game of phone tag before you ever "get in touch with programmers" who will be unable to solve any issue with IIS (short of saying they'll build and release a patch sometime next month). If it's your website design team you're contacting... well that's entirely unrelated to the web server in the first place.

The fact is, in my experience, having a phone number to call is not all that helpful; what I can learn through that can be learned in half the time through the Internet. The only thing it's good for is making management happy but, IMHO, they should not be involved in the IT decision process to begin with (except perhaps for defining a budget limit).

Well, in any case I'm glad to know that millions of Linux C programmers are employed thanks to the use of this inferior F/OSS.

Re:Tech support

[WarmBoota]

I have to reply to this. I just did a SharePoint Portal Server install on a locked down Windows 2003 Server. The installation failed repeatedly. I called Microsoft "support" (this is Gold Partner support mind you) and got the following responses:

Perhaps you're using an expired evaluation copy to install.

We escalate the problem and get:

Maybe you could get an exemption from securing the machine and just use a vanilla installation

Microsoft's support is TERRIBLE. Paid support is a security blanket for CIOs, but when you really need it, how much better is a phone droid when compared with the software's author or a community of users working with the same application in real-life scenarios?

FWIW, the installation problem was caused by the restriction of SAM shares. We had to make the user a local admin in order to get the installation to complete.

Re:Tech support

[Bohiti]

(Insert standard disclaimer about supporting Linux and OSS but uses & supports Windows at work)

You've obviously never contacted Microsoft Premier Support with a "losing money" type of outage. You really get what you pay for with that 1-800 number. Tell them it's a business outage, and you'll get the Technical Team Lead on the phone for your product in a matter of minutes. These guys are really good. If necessary, they'll Live Meeting into your server to check your settings, and/or whip up a debugger version of some .exe or .dll to use.

I love that management is gung-ho about premier support. I never feel that my job is at risk if a Microsoft product goes haywire. (And they rarely do. It's always a misconfiguration or bad third-party driver).

Miss-Understanding of Linux...

[Anonymous Coward]

In my opinion, Linux is best suited for a group of OEM companies that have the talent to implement Linux effectively. For companies like "Tommy Hil.", where their in house talent consists of your typical point, click, and reboot crowd, Linux does not make sense. For them, I agree that a simple stupid Windows installation is the best route, or the more robust/reliable OSX server.

The future for linux, in my opinion, is not in users installing it on their existing machines, or buying servers that have it already installed. The future is in companies building application servers that are highly customized, and have a simple web interface that allows them to be easily configured. That way your not so sharp tech guys dont have to worry about what OS is running on their servers. It just works.

who cares?

[fitteschleiker]

1. linux is not a product.

2. linux is more stable than windows

3. if you want software that does something for your business either pay pay pay microsoft + proprietry vendor, or hire a competant programming staff and use gpl components to quickly build what you need. As long as you don't give the program to anyone else, you dont need to release the modified source code.

4. if you say fuck off, we are not a software company, then i say no you fuck off, back to microsoft + proprietry vendor and pay pay pay.
Most open source programmers are not itching to make some boring software specific to your needs, they make the software they wanna make.

5. oh and STFU

Uptime

[slashflood]

We should check Netcrafts tommy.com page from time to time. At the moment, it doesn't look so good for their new solution, but we'll see...

Uptime Summary for www.tommy.com

Max. uptime in days
Windows Server 2003: 12.18
Linux: 267.25
Solaris: 493.80

It's so simple, folks

[Mirk]

As Linux enters the mainstream, adopters 'are demanding many features found on commercial software, including a large variety of add-on application programs and management tools that are easy to use,' the Wall Street Journal reports

sigh ...

This equation is so simple that I cannot for the life of me understand how business types can not Get It. Open source software that is fun to write, gets written for fun. If people want open source programmers to work on stuff that is not fun, then they need to PAY THE PROGRAMMERS TO DO IT! That's all. Stop thinking that just because we've given you a free lunch, we owe you free dinner and cocktails, too.

Same applies to everyone who whines about Linux not being "ready for the desktop", because the OS hackers can't be bothered to build pretty UIs. That's because UI twiddling isn't Fun. So if you want us to do it, pay us - just like you would pay anyone else to do anything else that they don't particularly want to do.

Which is the complicated part of this?

Re:It's so simple, folks

[otis wildflower]

Same applies to everyone who whines about Linux not being "ready for the desktop", because the OS hackers can't be bothered to build pretty UIs. That's because UI twiddling isn't Fun. So if you want us to do it, pay us - just like you would pay anyone else to do anything else that they don't particularly want to do.

Agreed, but don't whinge when MS walks off with the desktop because Linux developers couldn't be bothered.

Nobody ever said World Domination(tm) would be easy.

what about autozone???

[Russ Moerland]

If memory serves, Autozone is one of those multi-billion companies that have bet the operation on using Linux in their point-of-sale system. Last time, I checked they were doing fairly well.

Granted, they were sued by their former software vendor after switching to Linux, but that's another story.

Is this article for real?

[Driadan]

"A program called Linux"
So now, the kernel of a lot of distributions is just a program... :S
About the people demanding add-ons, well you only have to hire someone to do it, or do they also want it for free? If they want it for free, then they'll have to wait until someone decides it would be nice to have such feature and develops it.
"final tier of reliability and predictability"
This does not have sense to me, what does that mean? which is the final tier? The forever-stable-operating-system? Well, I want one of those too! Seriously, it looks like a gratuitous statement.
"How quickly open-source programs can narrow the gap with commercial software"
It's that the only way? What will developers do when Open Source programs "fill the gap" with commercial software? They won't have anyone to follow, maybe it's better to follow one's path and imitate the good things of commercial software, but not by going one step after.
" customers can run Linux on less-expensive machines that use the x86 chip"
Does this mean they can reuse old computers instead of new ones? If so, then why they talk later about purchasing hardware? does that include the reuse of old computers? What about the BSD family? I believe many people says it's a good option for software also in x86 machines (though I never tried any BSD so I'm not sure about this)
"The operation is designed to help Microsoft better understand the competition and make its products work better with Linux."
Just one example
regards,
Driadan

Linux, the new scape goat...

[bornbitter]

It should come as no surprise that the WSJ should take the side of large corporations on this issue, and even less surprising that they lay possible blame for the slowing adaptation of technology to OSS.

The lager corporate model spends ridiculous amounts of $$ on R&D every year, only to milk the products, that they already have the assembly line in place to produce, for every red cent that the public will pay for. (This is why the HD/blue ray dvd format battle was even an issue. If they release them both, but with the lower spec discs first, they 'force' the public to re-purchase players and media all over again, creating a greater revenue for R&D already paid for.)

Blaming Linux and OSS for the possibility of slower tech adaptation and progress is a new trick though, I wonder what the take for the W$J is?

Curiously, I wonder if there is a possibility that Linux could stagnate progress? what do other /.'ers think?

In defense of mere mortal users

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to write a post that will certainly get me flamed, but it's Monday morning, and I'm cranky, so I don't care.

Yes, Linux is a great OS, but is it ready for mainstream use? The article says there are problems to it being adopted by some companies, and for people here to jump all over the author is ridiculous. Why? I'll tell you.

If a potential customer says there's a problem, then there's a problem. This isn't to say the customer is always right, but you will rarely sell something to someone over their objections, especially when you're the underdog facing an 800 lb. gorilla of a competitor.

Yes, Linux is free to obtain, but that doesn't make it free to use. If a company can set up a Windows server and run it without extra staff or training, but they need to hire someone to maintain a new Linux box, that's a cost. Yeah, I know, that would be true of any other OS, but for people to take the attitude of, "It's free. Take it or leave it," is pretty arrogant. (See the above paragraph.)

And before someone states that Linux is so easy, their grandmother can use it, no, it's not. IMHO, it seems the documentation for many packages is written for people already familiar with them, or at least for people with the time to tinker with them, time many people don't have.

To quote some lyrics from "Every OS Sucks" by Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie:

It's free!" they say, if you can get it to run,
the Geeks say, "Hey, that's half the fun!"
Yeah, but I got a girlfriend, and things to get done,
the Linux OS SUCKS.
(I'm sorry to say it, but it does.)

It doesn't suck, but it still needs work.

Properly patched...

[Svartalf]

This implies that you CAN get it properly patched...

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2140780/windows- 2000-wide-open

Re:Properly patched...

[Penguin Follower]

Yeah, no shit... I've got a Windows 2000 server here that I cannot fully patch, there's a particular patch that upon installation and reboot I get a blue screen of death halfway in the boot process. As such, I cannot install that patch. Firewall on the server plus ACLs on the router plus cross my fingers! heh.

It could be a hardware driver... problem is this machine is well... dated. Yet not that dated... It was common server hardware when Windows 2000 was released. I have the latest drivers I could find for the system. Just of the hell of it, I "acquired" a Server 2003 CD and tried to boot off of it. It locks up halfway through loading drivers... (blech!)

(FYI, it's an Intel server motherboard w/ 2x PIII 600E slot 1 procs. Has built in adaptec scsi w/ optional raidportIII addon card and I'm using the RAID5 functionality.)

how long is the list

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently nobody at tommy.com is smart enough to operate linux-based web search software (http://google.com/ and thier querries on MSN search didn't turn up the nightmare stories of converting HoTMaiL.com to NT, where they only turned out to need a new version of the OS and four times as many machines which were quite a bit beefier than thier free software predessors. Do these people honestly believe they will gain anything from switching to MS (outside of whatever Microsoft included in the deal that apparently included a press release)? The HoTMaiL.com fiasco really tells the whole story, that project didn't suffer from lack of funding, or unskilled implementation. How many MCSE's and developers did Microsoft put on that project, how far through a complete shutdown of that site did MS decide to wait for the next version of NT to actually implement the migration? Given a choice would you rather call Microsoft's or Red Hat's tech support? In other words is this anymore than a joke designed to prove that the Journal and its readers are morons, and won't know it when their intelligence is insulted? http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com/rejrev/pref- 1.html

The biggest issue with Linux in the server market.

[NetRanger]

What Linux really needs is a cousing to Microsoft's management console, which allows server programs to write plug-in modules that will allow a sysadmin to control multiple servers from a single program. Sure, you can edit text files all day, but the fact is, it's often much easier and faster in a graphical environment.

Frankly, with all the open source management tools out there, I'm surprised that there isn't something to this effect. Webmin is close, but not quite there.

User "are demanding"?

[linuxhansl]

I don't get it. This is *free* software. Either you use it (and like it the way it is) or you don't.

If you need something, either write it yourself and fund its development.

Well, you're right..

[Marc2k]

..except no one said anything about Open Source Software. The Hilfiger CIO called Linux out by name, and as others have pointed out, talking about the 'final tier' of an enterprise system and an operating system kernel in the same sentence is just downright silly. Non-FOSS Linux solutions do, in fact, exist. Again as others point out, has he checked out what RedHat, Novell, or IBM offer? I mean, that's the great thing about [most] copyleft-style licenses: you only need to release source for what you've modified to open source code.

While we're on the subject of Linux as a kernel, I remember a few years back when RMS was grumbling that everyone should say "GNU/Linux" instead of "Linux", and /. erupted in protest. Now everytime that someone badmouths "Linux" on the desktop or in the server room, everybody yells "BUT LINUX IS JUST THE KERNEL, STUPID!" That kind of irks me, I've always sort of agreed with Stallman on that point, to some degree.

what kind of link is that?

[xtracto]

http://www.google.co.za/search?q=amazon+linux

or
this

we really dont mind to know that you use firefox in its US english language and just put the words "amazon" and "linux" in the search bar ;)

Re:what kind of link is that?

[bushboy]

Troll.

Hilfiger was bought out by MSFT

[Locutus]

The guy at Tommy Hilfiger who was quoted in the article says at the very end that Microsoft jumped through hoops to make the switch happen. Boy, we've heard this one before. At the very least, these guys didn't leave that part out. It really tells the whole story.

It's all more of Microsofts multi-million dollar marketing campaign against GNU/Linux. Wasn't the Microsoft guy quoted as saying something about changing their customers "perception"????

More smoke and mirrors and WSJ.COM bought it or was bought...

LoB

FWIW

[Anonymous Coward]

Tommy Hilfiger is dinky compared to my employer, and it seems to be completely gaga for Linux. Of course, it can afford to hire high caliber in-house programming talent to smooth out wrinkles.

Some of our custom Apache modules are pretty sweet :).

Perhaps...

[Svartalf]

But in the context of your assumption, the CIO's comment of, "it's got to get the final tier of reliability and predictability that I'm going to bet a multi-billion dollar corporation's future on." that would NOT be the case. And considering that MS has flaws in their stuff that's nigh unpatchable (Something came up that renders 2000 wide-open vulnerable and may well be unpatchable- there's sure to be other stuff like it within XP with all that more code than 2k had in it...), it's far from the reliability and predictability that one would bet a multi-billion dollar corp's future on.

Re:The biggest issue with Linux in the server mark

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called basic shell scripting. You don't need a GUI to admin thousands of servers. You think google manually edits the config files of their 100,000+ servers?

Get a clue!

Chose MS, get fired.

[SysKoll]

You cannot get fired for chosing Microsoft.

Actually, that's not true. A certain large UK Westminster bank chose an all-MS solution for their back office and the project was a total, utter disaster. Eventually, the chief architect got fired and the back office was redone by MS competitors using Unix.

And don't forget the CardSystems PR blowup where the choice of MS machines to host confidential credit card data resulted in a massive compromise of CC numbers. Visa withdrew their business and CardSystems's future is iffy at best with 75% of their income gone. Heads are rolling in the aftermath.

So yes, you can very easily get fired for specifying MS.

No! I am Scuttle Monkey!

[Anonymous Coward]

I am really

Guess Who Is At Fault

[Petersko]

Kind a, thats why i lost all my data of 4 years because of the service pack 1 installer.

Actually, you didn't lose your data of 4 years because of the service pack 1 installer. You lost it because apparently you were too stupid to back up your data for four years.

You know, hardware fails too. FYI.

Point missed

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen a lot of posts, most of them seem to say "we don't need to conform to the users, the users need to conform to us". OK, I buy it. I've been in the IT business for 30 years and have watched the trends.

Let's face it: business wants cheaper, better, easier to use software. One little problem: you can only have 2 of the preceding.

If you want better software, you have to contribute. That's what it's all about. But the suits out there (WSJ included) don't get it. They're not used to the model. The "old model" was you hired all the IT genius you could afford, and these guys & gals crafted together a system that beat your competition. Or, lacking the ability to hire & retain that kind of talent, you paid exorbitant licensure fees to use software that (sort of) met your needs.

That model's deadder than a doornail, folks. Business wants some of the benefit of FOSS. (I'll bet RMS is laughing his a** off right now). But they seem to want something for nothing. Human of them, I guess. They're also missing the point that systems integration is going to be a key skill of the present & near future.

What all these posts are missing is the ultimate confluence of FOSS and commerce: somebody's needed out there to (re)write all that software that corporations have been addicted to or wanting for years. IT users (corporations) are sick and tired of being raped and held hostage; but the FOSS software inventory doesn't quite (yet) meet commercial standards. Opportunity, folks ... don't knock it. The people doing that work will not be the old "IT geniuses" who are now losing their jobs. Nor will it be those people with attitudes that say "don't expect me to conform to you".

The people eventually hired to do these tasks will be those who grok the Linux/GNU/GPL paradigm (very much borrowed from *nix) and they're going to have to work under the microscope of corporate legal staffs who exist so that your (common) bosses don't get sued for using GPL code. This, in and of itself, is going to be a paradigm shift: corporate lawyers don't grok the GPL at all.

If I had to guess, this was probably RMS' wet dream all those years ago: free software everywhere, provided through public channels by those who need it to others who might also need it. Gee, what a concept. Say what you want about RMS. His vision is finally coming true.

Betting your company

[mikefoley]

>'it's got to get the final tier of reliability and
>predictability that I'm going to bet a multi-billion
>dollar corporation's future on.'"

If you're going to do that, then you should be using OpenVMS. But I digress.

Betting a multi-billion $ company on any one platform
is a risky (to ones career) venture. It's no surprise, however, that "You won't get fired for buying Microsoft" worked in this case.

This comes from the same company...

[durbnpoisn]

that once actually insulted it's entire customer base by saying, "We create our designs with rich white suburban kids in mind, not black people and rap stars in the city!" (Paraphrased badly. But you get the point)

I think it's pretty clear from reading this article that this particular Information Manager is a lunkhead. My guess is he doesn't have much more than the basic qualifications to get that title. If he allowed himself to be so easily snowballed by Microsoft, he clearly is an ignorant fool.

I'd really be curious to hear how much of their money is now going to be spent to maintain this wonderful new bloated Windows system they just installed, compared to what it would have cost to stay with the Linux solution.

I'd really like to know that.

Linux is good for building custom software atop.

[kingradar]

In my experience, the beauty of Linux is how easy it is to deploy a custom application atop. I say this because all of the major components are open source, it is much easier to interface directly with the operating system. In addition, because there is so much open source code availible for the system, it is easy to find examples.

In the Windows world, everything is a blackbox. Your primary reference material comes from Barnes and Noble, and trying to find a piece of OSS that will run atop Windows, and accomplishes what you want is next to impossible. Whereas this is a disadvantage for custom software, its an advantage for off-the-shelf software. So if I'm Joe Bob Hilfiger, I know that the online shopping cart software I just downloaded will involve double clicking an icon, and going through an install shield. I then KNOW the thing will work with my installation of IIS/ASP.NET. You just can't say things are this easy with TAR balls, and having to compile the application yourself.

I believe this is why large enterprises are adopting Linux, and smaller enterprises are shying away. If I am Amazon, I can afford the programmers needed to create a custom solution for my website. If I'm a small guy, I need something that is off-the-shelf.

On a final note, I will say the knowledge level needed to write software on Linux is much higher. Windows has the advantage of VS.NET and the .NET platform. They call these Rapid Application Development (RAD) tools for a reason. They are easy to use. Take a Windows developer, and sit him down at a Linux box with a copy of vi, gcc, and man pages, and see how fast it takes him to write a simple application (let alone a GUI application). True the gap is closing with things like mono, and sharpdevelop, but the gap is still there, and it will take time to close it.

Trolling

[Ezdaloth]

This whole article looks like one of them "BSD is dead!' trolls. Neat trick to post it on the slashdot main page! ;-)

Re:Oh certainly, it's just a battle of attrition n

[AnObfuscator]

This is the typical WSJ restatement of the obvious. The real question is how much truth there is to it. I'm sure that commercial companies like MS (and Sun etc..) can do better than open source when they really focus. A salary is a great thing.

First, Solaris is open source now. ;)

Second, do you really think that Linux is being developed by just a bunch of geeks in their parent's basements, for free, in their spare time?! What, does RedHat (a multi-billion dollar company) not pay it's programmers? Does Novell not pay it's programmers? Does IBM not pay it's programmers? Hell, the "core" linux team regularly receives donations and corporate sponsorship. For example, the OSDL bankrolls Linus.

The idea that most of the development on Linux is done for "free" is a myth. Linux is where it is today because huge companies have poured billions of dollars into developing it.

Patched doesn't mean squat

[SgtChaireBourne]

Maybe your not trolling, but "patched" Windows boxes can get cracked by worms or other automated attacks. There are several examples every year.

Also, there are many problems with MS software which have been unaddressed for years and have no patch yet. You can find them if you are willing to look. These mean that even a patched machine can be exploited.

Patched merely means that some of the known problems are repaired. However, given the combination of poor quality control for the patches and the demonstrated willingness to bundle non-security related changes into patches, it occurs from time to time that the MS patches can occasionally break more than they fix. The latter is worse, patches should only repair what is broken nothing more. Save "upgrades" and re-configurations for a separate download. In reality most of what MS calls patches are really sneaky upgrades and or reconfigurations. That's fraud and perhaps grounds for a class-action suit.

Re:The biggest issue with Linux in the server mark

[Todd Knarr]

There already are things to do this. Most distributions come with a graphical system-configuration tool that does exactly what you describe for the major packages. There's no real need for another layer on top of that for remote management, any X11 app is automatically remoteable (X11 beneath the GUI simply doesn't distinguish between local and remote displays, so anything you can run locally you can run remotely).

Of course, I don't like the GUI tools for one basic reason: history. Not my history, the config file's history. If I maintain my config files directly, I can keep them in CVS and maintain a history of exactly what changed when in them. Comes in real handy when something suddenly breaks and I can go back and a) check whether the files being used match the last known versions I have, and b) review the exact sequence of changes to see what could have caused the problem. I haven't seen any management tools in Windows that offer this form of change history to me. If I'm managing multiple servers, I maintain the files in CVS on a central machine, make my changes there, vet them, then use rsync or rdist to propagage the changes out to the machines that need them and do any command sequences that need done before or after applying the change.

A final advantage of text files as the ultimate configuration source: I can edit text files just about anywhere. I don't always have access to a Windows machine, nor do I always have access to one with an open enough firewall to let me connect via the management protocols I need. I've rarely found anywhere where I couldn't SSH where I needed to, though, and if I've got a terminal window I can call up vi and edit those nasty, primitive text files from my cel phone if I have to. It's good insurance knowing that your admins can do anything they need to do any time they need to do it without having to worry about setting up a VPN or reconfiguring a firewall to allow the needed protocols through (or worse yet, not being able to do those things because the only network they've got access to doesn't allow taht).

Which 'Enterprise' Linux was Tommy paying for?

[Omega]

Their contribution is called "money". Red Hat and Novell actually prefer money to "You have the source! Fix it yourself!" fanboys...

That's true. Support usually costs money. I couldn't tell from the article, which Enterprise Linux distro and support system was Tommy paying for?

Just as long as you have a 2:1 ratio

[Anonymous Coward]

Properly patched and firewalled Windows box is at no higher risk then a Linux box.

Of course, because Windows' performance is significantly degraded by its required GUI, you need at least 2 Windows boxes to equal the performance of a single Linux box.

More, if you plan on using IIS instead of Apache for Windows.

Re:Just as long as you have a 2:1 ratio

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a blatant exaggeration. True, the windows GUI uses up some resources, but if it's approaching 50% of the available resources, you're running some ancient hardware. And actually, it'd have to be more than 50% of the available resources for a linux box to be equal to two windows boxes, as linux itself does use resources as well. Furthermore, the use of alternate shells, etc. for Windows can negate that performance barrier all but entirely. And if you're running windows, of COURSE you're using IIS. It's far superior to Apache.

Re:Just as long as you have a 2:1 ratio

[erth64net]

...of COURSE you're using IIS. It's far superior to Apache...

In what way? Seriously, I havent heard anyone claim that for years, I'm very intrested in what has changed...

Re:Just as long as you have a 2:1 ratio

[ChatHuant]

...of COURSE you're using IIS. It's far superior to Apache...

In what way? Seriously, I havent heard anyone claim that for years, I'm very intrested in what has changed...

Security?

And before you start rolling on the floor laughing, look here:

Apache 2.0 has had 25 advisories, of which 3 are still unpatched at the moment of this writing (one since March 2004)

IIS 6.0 has been affected by a grand total of 2 advisories, both patched.

Re:Just as long as you have a 2:1 ratio

[GrungyLotG]

Just because there are more advisories for a paticular product doesn't mean that it actually contains more bugs, just that more are being found. Judging from the fact that Apache is much more widely used (If memory serves, a very large percentage of servers run some version of it), and is open source--making bugs easier to locate. Personally, I have used both, and have had much worse problems with IIS than Apache, even when both were fully patched; although other people's experiances may vary.

Re:Just as long as you have a 2:1 ratio

[ChatHuant]

Just because there are more advisories for a paticular product doesn't mean that it actually contains more bugs, just that more are being found. [...]Apache is much more widely used [...] --making bugs easier to locate

You're right, of course: widespread usage is a big factor in bug discovery. Be careful though: applying the same reasoning to Windows vs. Linux may cause serious karma damage.

Re:Just as long as you have a 2:1 ratio

[Anonymous Coward]

.of COURSE you're using IIS. It's far superior to Apache... ... pray tell us how internet information shover can be run on a non bgOS platform. Apache is available for many platforms, but like virtually everything that comes out of lugburz, you have to run stupid "what the fuck is a script" win32 API bathgatesOS to run IIS, therefore it's quite MOOT that it's supposedly superior, according to mr. astroturf redmond bill gates fellater.

Shouldn't the 'bill gates monopoly oversight committee' (hmmm what ever happened to that) be monitoring the amount of lugburz astroturf in here?

Re:Oh certainly, it's just a battle of attrition n

[mrchaotica]

Not to mention the fact that the "expensive quality" market already belongs to Apple...

Re:Software doesn't need to be Open Source on Linu

[sharkey]

You'd be hard-pressed to even find a meerkat that can talk.

Hakuna-Matata

Inflammatory use of language

[Lifewish]

I agree that it's essential for the open source community to keep the functionality coming. I suspect the grandparent would probably agree with you too when he's not feeling pissed off at companies apparently "demanding" things of the community without any obvious indication that they were giving anything back.

More likely

[jav1231]

It's far more likely that Microsoft bought into Hilfiger. Offer some low-cost licensing, sprinkle some software (Great Plains, anyone?) and you "make them an offer they can't refuse." The TCO starts looking pretty good when Microsoft is willing to lose some money on the deal. After all, look at the publicity.

Program vs Program

[sobachatina]

"A program called Linux" So now, the kernel of a lot of distributions is just a program...

It makes sense if you think of the word "program" in this context doesn't mean "executable" but rather a system as in "Buy my miraculous 5-day weightloss program!"

Re:Program vs Program

[Driadan]

Actually, I thought at first the goal of calling it program was to make it understandable to the audience of the article which, probably, was not supossed to be Slashdot readers.
Anyway, thanks for the tip! ;)
regards,
Driadan

Re:No Tech Support?? HUH????????

[revengance]

while at Microsoft, it HAS to be reliable

You must be new to microsoft software.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Here we go again

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, I am not a programmer. I am not even certified on anything. However, I have worked with computers for years (over 20 years to be exact). Here is an end user's perspective: Bottom line: Microsoft makes it easy for the dumb schmucks such as myself to load Windows from scratch and get up and running in no time at all. Bottom Line: Linux does NOT have the driver library that Microsoft has so therefore is not as compatible with the different hardware out there. What kind of hoops must I jump through to get my friggin internal Intel Wireless 2100 working. Heck, I had to dig out my Aironet 340 card just to get online with Linux. Let's not even talk about the difficulties out there when it comes to loading software compared to Microsoft. At least with Microsoft, I download an app, I open the install package with a dbl-click, and I am running my new software in less than a minute. Now go try that with Mozilla Firefox upgrades. Why the heck should I have to go change mod so that I can execute a program? That's just stupid. I think the main point of this story is that Linux is not mainstream ready like Microsoft is. When I can go to a website and install an application straight from the web site via a plugin install, or when I can click on any video file without having to jump through hoops to get it to run, then I would feel secure enough to switch entirely to Linux. And just for the record, I am writing this post from a Linux machine so I am not entirely without knowledge. I just know there are huge usability differences between Linux and Microsoft. And when it comes to usability: That is the key factor in my decision process.

Commerical Linux software?

[slapout]

"How quickly open-source programs can narrow the gap with commercial software"

Maybe what Linux needs is commerical software.

Re:No Tech Support?? HUH????????

[Baorc]

I said it *has* didn't say it *was* or *is*.

Oh well then

[Anonymous Coward]

Tommy Hilfiger Corp., which recently switched its e-commerce site 'Tommy.com' from Linux to Microsoft software

Well if its not good enough for the worlds largest manufacturer of ghetto clothes for thugs, then I guess it shouldn't be good enough for me.

Where does Fugu stand? How about the Martha Stewart web site? These are the barometers of technology right?

Installing Windows patches

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

But is it as easy to keep Windows patched as it is to keep Linux patched?

I dunno. Joe User on Windows can set a single switch in Control Panel (WinXP SP2 even warns you if this isn't done) and then the machine will download and install patches from MS automatically with no user intervention. Experienced users who want more control can customise this by flicking that switch to a different setting and explicitly approving download/install of individual patches. System admins can update business machines centrally if required.

I don't see how keeping Windows patched could be any easier.

Re:Installing Windows patches

[PsychoSid]

Most people don't run Windows XP in their server rooms.

Re:Installing Windows patches

[rabbit994]

Both Windows 2000 SP4 and 2003 Server come with this option as well. SP1 on Windows 2003 even comes with a pretty firewall with GUI and everything. At least take a look at your Windows servers before commenting.

Re:Installing Windows patches

[colinrichardday]

Any reboots?

Reliability: Only Windows and Linux are players?

[Spinlock_1977]

'it's got to get the final tier of reliability and predictability that I'm going to bet a multi-billion dollar corporation's future on.'

It sounds like this guy thinks the only choice in "high reliability" is between Linux and Windows. A better education in the computing landscape would serve him well.

If it's really reliability and predicatability he's after, he should explore older, more mature operating systems. Obviously this is not his goal, so it makes you wonder which MS salesperson stuffed those words in his mouth for convenient regurgitation.

Tech Support doesn't mean reading from a script

[Anonymous Coward]

You're quite right that with Linux "tech support" does *not* offer patching (the exception being Oracle's support for their DB on RedHat Enterprise Linux where they will actually write a Linux patch if that's what is needed to fix a problem).

What RedHat and Novell offer at their top-most level of "support" is: advice on how to get past install problems, advice on how to configure your system, a notification service to let you know when the Linux maintainers (not themselves) put out a new patch, help in creating a reproducible test case that can be submitted to the Linux maintainers as part of a problem report, help in filing a problem report to the Linux maintainers.

Handy stuff, but pretty much it boils down to reading from scripts when you call with a problem (i.e. "Level 1" with a smidge of "Level 2" support in the terms used for real Tech Support).

What has being Open Source source got to do with

[peginald]

Quote: 'How quickly open-source programs can narrow the gap with commercial software'?

What has that got to do with the success of Linux? Open source projects exist for all platforms. Commercial products exist for all platforms.

What would make me switch 'full time' to Linux would be most of the programs I actually pay for being available on the platform - I noticed Nero Burning ROM is now available, which is one of the ones on my list (yes I know OS near equivs exist, but I like it).

Re:Software doesn't need to be Open Source on Linu

[spitzak]

Absolutely agree.

Too many people complain that Linux users say "go fix it yourself, you have the source". They completely miss the fact that along with that solution there is "pay somebody to fix it". This idea that code will not run on Linux unless it is free is the biggest piece of FUD out there.

Linux Has Power Though!

[PhYrE2k2]

Not true, just by the sheer number of people who loathe MS, you're guaranteed a greater number of attacks will be geared towards the MS platform than Linux.

That really all depends. For viruses, Windows can get more because there are more Windows-destined virii. Fine. For botnets where you need thousands of machines attacking and doing whatever the owner pleases, yes Windows drones are better due to their sheer number on broadband connections and corporate networks.

But for attacks? I'd disagree. Think of the power when you take over root at an ISP, network provider, or corporate Web server. Often many-procesor servers on reliable servers with dedicated IPs that almost never get rebooted? Personally I'd do a lot more with a Linux box than with semi-access to someone's desktop.

So _AUTOMATIC_ attacks- yes go to windows.
But _MANUALLY_ attacking computers- better go for the target that will give you the most benefit.

For reference, I don't do any of these things, but think of the power of a compiler.

-M

odd

[dogolopee]

Working in a somewhat corporate environment, I've noticed that the requirements for IT professionals in a number of places usually involve Microsoft certifications and knowledge of windows apps, but little to no knowledge of linux. A number of Universities that give degrees in Computer Science and Computer Engineering and even networking offer little training in using linux. In the Tommy case it is probably that none of the IT guys have the linux background to customize thier distro to the needs (or wants) of the company. It came down to being easier and faster to just pay for windows in this case. The alternative could have been spending months to retrain current staff in linux or months to hire new people. That is time the company just didn't want to invest. Unfortunantly knowing linux is not a requirement for getting a degree or a job within the IT field.

from many other discussions...

[zogger]

...not from me, just what I sort of remember, it's an autocad like thing, exchange, personal tax/finance stuff, something better than the gimp that will do as much as or more as photoshop, sync software, and hardware compatability out-of-the-box. And apps that are cross-distro easy to install and keep patched and up to date by about anyone.

And games for at home use. And a lot of bosses play games at work, so I wouldn't underestimate how important games are for over all consideration in the "enterprise". They may not admit it, but it's there.

I know there are examples that sort of do that stuff, but if you go back and check why people are still on windows, those get mentioned a lot.

Me, last personal complaint (I am not a business so above softwares don't apply) I have is hardware, that is still dismal, even if you check in advance. Stuff that is marked as "works in linux" might still require quite a bit of googling and downloading and tweaking to make work half way. A lot does, a lot still don't.

Re:from many other discussions...

[jedidiah]

To the filter: ;-PPP

[SCREAM] Except this argument isn't about CHEAP commercial software. [/SCREAM]

Re:from many other discussions...

[zogger]

I thought it was just commercial windows software in general?? As in "what keeps people on windows" the most.

BOYCOTT!!!

[Daimaou]

That tears it! I am never going to buy a Tommy Hilfiger product again!

Who's Tommy Hilfiger?

Is this a joke? no seriously!

[Jesus IS the Devil]

I've been using Linux for the longest time, but after countless times where I've had to downgrade to a lower version (Fedora/RedHat) due to incompatible/non-existent SCSI driver support I'm in doubt as to whether Linux really is ready for an enterprise environment.

Does it not strike one as ridiculous when an older kernel, and thus Linux distribution, actually provides support for many SCSI adapters while newer ones just don't?

Here's what I had to do with my latest install. I was trying to install Fedora 3 on a server with a LSI Logic SCSI card (built-in to the motherboard). The damn thing wouldn't see the SCSI adaptor, and thus the drives. No driver updates could be found anywhere. I searched everywhere.

So I tried Fedora 2. No go. Then RedHat 9. Voila! Now it works. Now isn't that charming...

tommy!

[smithcorona]

well if tommy isn't using it! we'd all better stop.

Definition of opinion.

[Belial6]

Opinions are subject, and will change based on who is making the statement. Both of thes comments are statements of fact, and are either correct or not correct. Whether windows will or will not get hacked does not change based one who made the statement. Thus, they are not opinion.

Only one demand from me...

[swordgeek]

Documentation!

Clear, concise, complete, comprehensive, current documentation.

Tommy H. Fscked up

[Anonymous Coward]

That Tommy H. went to mickeysoft for a web server, citing security as a feature of mickeysoft is a dumbfsck decision. If he were my CXO, I would fire him (kick his butt out the door, and sue him for damages to the company). With Linux, I can get millitary grade security and stability (quite literally). I can get security enhanced Linux (courtesy of the National Security Agency: http://www.nsa.gov/selinux), and on top of the most-popular-on-the-internet Apache web server, lay down network level security via Fort-Knox-For-Linux, courtesy of the Space and Surface Warfare Command Center, San Diego (U.S. Navy: http://fortknox.sourceforge.net/). I know that Linux can perform extremely well on multi-million dollar computer hardware in the most demanding environments (http://www.forbes.com/home/enterprisetech/2005/03 /15/cz_dl_0315linux.html), so with all of the compelling data, I would fire his sorry self, sue him for damages, and beg the Linux distributor to come back. He is either an idiot, or a paid marketing dummy, or both, and shouldn't be in charge of anything more demanding than official pen click-tester.

Re:Software doesn't need to be Open Source on Linu

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know where you are (or where your head is at), but it isn't in reality. There are a lot of very professional companies that use a complete OSS software stack (not just OSS but FREE too!!). Example: Apache 2.x is the #1 web server on the internet (Netcraft is keeping score) with 3.5 times as many users as the bug-ridden microsoft IIS, second MySQL serves as a very powerful back-end (NASA seemed to think so), next run it on Linux with PHP. For content there are a number of sources, but TYPO3 seems one of the best (Daimler-Chrysler, 3M, Volkswagen, GE and others seem to find it as their site content-management system of choice), see: http://www.typo3.com/Customers.1229.0.htm. I don't know where the words "non-professional, or not adequate come from, seems a bit bizarre actually!

What Holden Caufield calls those companies/people?

[r_jensen11]

Prostitutes

On a serious note, I'd much rather have the F/OSS and Linux communities embracing people that cry out for my features, as they will attract corporate attention. Who knows, maybe we can see 3d Studio Max natively under Linux, so we can have a professional CAD program to compete against Maya (and don't ANYBODY mention Blender, as that's not professional)

Okay - Ante Up!

[Master of Transhuman]

'it's got to get the final tier of reliability and predictability that I'm going to bet a multi-billion dollar corporation's future on.'

Spend a few million (hell, a couple hundred thousand!) of that money on supporting the guys and projects willing to write that stuff. It's chickenfeed and everybody benefits.

It's that simple. Invest in commercial software or invest in OSS. Start trading long-term benefit against short-term convenience.

Oh, wait, US corporations aren't known for that.

Kernel space or User space

[jawahar]

Is it possible to design the OS such that it allows users to configure which piece of software should run in kernel or user space during installation

duh tommy duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, that paragon of pop-culture idiocy tommy hillfucker switches from linux to bgInc. A glowing endorsement of, I don't know!...

Good thing the 'CIO' went back to his Gartner whitepapers and impacted his leverage to grasp the low-hanging fruit and the end of the day, realizing a soup to nuts solution to information lifecycle management with an abiding vendor commitment.

doy!

Re:Software doesn't need to be Open Source on Linu

[Feztaa]

You might run into some trouble if you decide to start a company based on ninja product support. After all, the purpose of the ninja is to flip out and kill people.

*Anecdotal* evidence: the best kind of evidence

[Feztaa]

People seem to draw the conclusion that because Linux is principally open source, that no enterprise level support exists for it, and any application that runs on it is automatically free by association.

Once, my grandmother had a garage sale. One of the things she was trying to get rid of was an old vacuum cleaner. It still worked perfectly well but she didn't need it any more, so she decided to give it away for free at the garage sale. On the first day of the garage sale, nobody took it. On the second day of the garage sale, nobody took it. On the third day of the garage sale, she decided to sell it for $25 and it sold in the first hour after changing it's price.

Lesson learned: Nobody wants anything for "free", if something is free of charge, it must have something wrong with it. After all, if it was worth using, they'd be charging for it! Nobody is stupid enough to give away something good for free, right? Right?

a linux t-shirt/website isn't a complaint box

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't just complain to everyone involved with linux.
If someone who develops Foo doesn't take complaints, expect him to tell you to fuck off. Why? Because the FAQ tells you so.

If you want to complain, complain to the people that want to hear it.

Re:Software doesn't need to be Open Source on Linu

[fireboy1919]

Yeah, but you won't have any trouble finding replacements for anyone you lose because ninjas are totally sweet. Everyone wants to work for ninjas.

Re:Linux is good for building custom software atop

[Anonymous Coward]

Very good post.

You're right on point with the RAD issue.

Microsoft dev tools allow for non-technical types to jump in and start creating apps without much drama.

Linux on the other hand requires one to be able to configure apache by hand (as most GUI tools allow only limited control, or are just wierd, hello yast).

On top of that, researching, downloading, installing, configuring, tinkering with a dev tool will pretty much kill a non-technical type's mood.

Small Business owners simply don't have the resources or will to spend on the type of 'trial and error' that most opensource alternatives require.

On the other hand, the time it takes for a Win 2003 server to boot, is enough to make one find religion.

Novell and IBM are bridging the gap. But alas, whatever solutions they do provide, the 'free' versions will more than likely come with a limited set of tools and options.