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.'"
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?
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
It's because of his sig. When someone asks to be modded "+/- N whatever", the mods usually oblige.
To the mods: +5 insightful, please. ;)
"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.