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

[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

[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

[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.

job security

[OffTheLip]

Nobody ever got fired for choosing Microsoft.

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

[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

[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.

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.

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.

"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.

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...

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.

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.

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: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.

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.

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.

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