Slashdot Mirror
Windows Drives Company To OpenBSD
Barry Lyndon writes "Computerworld reports that the nightmare of windows is driving PriceWaterhouseCoopers, one of the world's largest accountancy and business consulting companies, to OpenBSD and open source in general." From the article: "'My predecessor spent too much [so] I was told not to spend any money.' When asked what argument he used to convince management to use an open source solution, Uemura said: 'They didn't have an argument because they said don't spend any money.' 'They trusted me,' he said. 'The whole office was relying on one domain controller which was dying.' Uemura said a lot of work was done 'behind the scenes'. 'My experience is that if something has to be done, just do it - don't ask! They will thank you later,' he said."
Even if the software is free it seems to me that the most expensive thing is always the developers, training, implementation, etc.
~S
From the article it seems to me that they are mainly moving the servers to OpenBSD, not the actual workstations. From a user point of view this should be seamless, with their existing programs still working for the large part. As for the retraining cost; it seems the guys in charge already are fairly well versed in the OS, so retraining cost should be minimal.
Right, now thats said lets have no more of this "what about the hidden training costs?" and "will the programs still work" which seems to be the ususal comments for any switching to Open Source solutions.
Most of the time the people higher up have no idea reguards to technology. I have been in the situation where something had to be done to either get off of an NT Server solution, or to re-implement a Windows Network that was drowning fast. In every situation I deployed a Samba/GNU/Linux solution and no one actually cared as long as it worked - and they always work better than any MS Solution (IMO)
The only place that actually asked, I gave them 2 quotes, one with a $8500.00 price tag for the server software alone, and one of $4500.00 which included a Dell PowerEdge 2800 w/6 SCSI drives....Guess which one they chose.
Why would they do their taxes on a firewall?
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
So they replaced some (not all) of their backend systems with OpenBSD systems. Primarly security systems (firewalls) because Checkpoint on the windows systems was not working real well.
There is a significant DUH factor there.
Now it would have been real news if they had replaced all their backend systems as well as their desktop systems with open source alternatives. That is serious news. But no, like most companies out there they just have a mix of unix like systems along with their Windows based servers. It would be interesting to know if there is any company at all that runs purely Windows systems (or for that matter purely unix like systems). I doubt there are any. So running a mix of systems is pretty much standard. Sure the percentages will vary. As such this is not really big news.
Wake me up again when they have switched all their clients or even a significant portion of their clients to open source alternatives. That will be real news.
2) This is a firewall in Japan.
3) What PricewaterhouseCoopers uses for tax accounting is not something you want to be doing your taxes with.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Perhaps you could if you took a more professional approach. Have you performed any serious analysis regarding such a transition? Can you show that there would be definite savings? Don't forget to cover non-technical issues, such as how long it will take for users to adjust, and how easy the adjustment period will be.
/. gUy said it K00! leTz switcH 2day!1!@!!" Instead, provide them with an analysis that focuses on how the transition will benefit them directly, be it in increased productivity or decreased expenses.
Often times managers are more than willing to consider improvements, just as long as you're providing solid, reputable evidence to back up your claims. Don't waste their time by saying "Omg Linux oR 0p3nbSD is SOOOO rOx beKuz sUm
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
For this guy, things worked out. Maybe it's more like "just do it if you know what needs to be done and are sure of your success".
Then again, there are some managers who dislike anything that's not their idea or at least didn't require their blessing. If that's who you work for, though, I'd say get the hell out and find someone who rewards productive risk-taking and successful initiative. If you're the *head* of your IT department, you should be given a fairly serious amount of control over how things are done, *especially* if you've been tasked with taking over a high-cost failure, as this fellow was.
I suspect our friend here had perhaps a bit more buy-off from upper management than it appears. He was probably instructed to "fix it, don't spend money, and don't bother us with the details". Does the fact that he succeeded without a load of bureaucracy bother you, or is it the adoption of OpenBSD ( no problems with corporate use there, BTW ) that bothers you?
Again, I'm agreeing with you generally- going it alone is often a poor choice - but inaction is fairly often worse than action, and it's hard to argue with success. People tend to view successful execution of an independent plan as "initiative". It's only "insubordination" if you fail. The lesson? Don't fail.
The point of this story is that PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS started using OpenBSD! This is a BIG FOUR accounting firm! Every IT exec in the world can now say "If it's good enough for PWC, it oughta be good enough for us." So this is a big win for open source.
PWC advises many Fortune 1000, Global 1000, what have you on IT issues; there is a chance that this sort of internal use of open source software will lead them to recommend use of OSS to their clients. The C-level decision makers are talking to PWC and others, and probably not reading Slashdot.
"Lack of technical competence coupled with the arrogance of power, as usual, leads to no good end."
I am the IT Manager at the company where I work. We have a few servers running copies of Windows for which one of the previous IT Managers was careless and lost the original media and licensing information. If the server breaks, I have no valid product key to use for them. They also happen to be running services that can be transparently replicated using Linux. Take a guess what they will be running should they break irreparably during business hours.
Guess what my boss (the CEO) will say when he finds out I fixed it without having to spend any money. "Good Job." Guess what he will say if he asks how and I tell him. "As long as it works."
I know this because I've already gone through this once with an FTP/Web server.
Sometimes putting out fires requires you to go off the beaten path in order to fix the issue. You might be surprised at how PHBs respond when the issue is fixed quickly, didn't cost anything in the process beyond the labor that it would have taken anyway and instantly became a more secure solution (provided it was configured correctly).
That is the problem with big corporations, no one wants to put their asses on the line. You have a solution, you ask for your boss to aprove, he don't want to put his ass on the line and ask the superior, and this goes on and on until someone simply says "no" or it gets to the CEO. Corporations buy from MS because they can, on the theory, blame them for problems.
I believe that this man had balls, and he solved the problem that his predessor could not solve (and probably got fired). He puted his ass on the line, if he had failed he would probably be fired. But he did not, he had confience that this would solve the problem and he did.
Im getting tired of this days that anyone is trying to point fingers to everyone else, for problems that are probably their. And this is happening all over, from the crusade against video games to the xxiaa with their crusade against their customers.
[]'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins
^[:wq
I have to agree with the guy quoted in the article. DON'T TELL THE PHBs.
Don't waste your time doing a cost benefit analysis. Don't waste your time trying to educate them. They've got other things on their minds, and they won't really understand it anyway. They have their job, and you have your job.
It's one thing if you want to try linux on the desktop or some other radical solution, but switching to a Samba fileserver or a Linux router/firewall? They don't need to know. As long as their files are where they want them to be, when they want them to be there, you'll be fine.
Was at a business once, where I was trying to talk the CEO into using a Linux solution, an idea to which he was VIOLENTLY opposed, said Windows had worked great for him. So eventually, I gave in and drew up a Windows solution. He wanted to know if it was goign to have all the functions that the current system had, and was leery because I was using a different version of windows.
So we went back into his "server room" (think ventillated broom closet) to look at the machine...Which turned out to be headless, which surprised me a bit, as it was supposed to be an NT box. As it turned out it WAS like an NT box in that it had an NT sticker on it, and NT rhymes with 7.3, as in Redhat 7.3 (uptime 518 days), running on a PIII coppermine with so much dust on the heatsink that I wasn't quite sure what it was at first.
Needless to say, he went with a linux system, and now he brags about it all over the place. I learned my lesson...Don't start talking software with the bosses. You'll only make more problems for yourself. If you don't absolutely HAVE to justify it to someone, don't do it.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained...
The safe thing to do is ask. When you're told "no" or given the indefinite "we'll think about it", you're stuck.
But, if you're sure of yourself and know you can do it - then give it a try. Sure, you might fail, and lose your job, but that's a risk.
In studying succesful people and organizations, the one thing that seems to stand out is that none of them ever did things "the way they're supposed to", and they tended to put everything on the line for a shot at success. Sure, they sometimes fail, but they keep trying, and they are willing to risk everything.
There's a poster on a wall here, in a building named after the athelete who said it that sums it up pretty well:
I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career.
I've lost almost 300 games.
26 times, I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed.
I've failed over and over and over again in my life.
And that is why I succeed.
Playing it safe gets you a steady paycheck and a steady job. Taking risks may get you burned, but it may also lead to great success.