Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
I guess it's a matter of liability and who you can blame if something goes wrong. As well as Tech support.
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.
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.
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?
Stop the MS machine!
"Simplify, simplify, simplify!" Thoreau
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?
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
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.
-Brendan
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
The GEEK shall inherit the earth...
Their contribution is called "money". Red Hat and Novell actually prefer money to "You have the source! Fix it yourself!" fanboys...
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
'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.
A Linux flavor for every Month!
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
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?
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.
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.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
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.
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.
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.
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...)
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
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.
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 ?
It's because of his sig. When someone asks to be modded "+/- N whatever", the mods usually oblige.
To the mods: +5 insightful, please. ;)
If you need something, either write it yourself and fund its development.
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.
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"!
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.
"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.
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.
'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.
- The Kessel run is for nerf herders. I can circumnavigate the entire Central Finite Curve in a lot less than 12 parse
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).
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!!!