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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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.

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

[James Youngman]

Apparently, yes you can get fired for choosing Microsoft.

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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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?

[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

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

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

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.

"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?

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.

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

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?

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: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...

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.

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: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.

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.

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?

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: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.

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.

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?

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: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.

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: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.

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: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.

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

Properly patched...

[Svartalf]

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

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

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.

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

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"!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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!

[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.