Slashdot Mirror
Dealing with Corporate FUD About Linux?
Lumpy asks: "After this morning's IT conference call, Linux was once again attacked here in the company by the upper management as 'a threat' to our company security. With articles, like the recent one from Information Week, fueling the Upper management with outdated information and half truths, how does an IT professional defend his position and educate upper managers to take those articles with a tiny grain of salt and trust their experts? Should we as professionals expect to be attacked for our decisions, even though Linux has prooven itself (time and time again), for over 5 years in our company? How do you deal with all of the baseless claims, that your superiors may read in the mainstream media?"
Be honest and matter-of-fact about it. Tell them the truth and hope that they are smart enough to realize how this will help the company.
You can say impressive things without lying. For instance, you can say (if it happens to be true): "I trust Linux for my home computer and all my important files." That alone means alot. Or you can say "if I were asked to place a $1000 bet on a computer OS that would run without getting infected with viruses or crashing for a whole year (while connected to the net!) I would place the bet on Linux instead of Windows."
Or, you can point out other projects/companies. For instance, according to top500.org, in 2005, 390 of the top 500 super-computers were using Linux. That means that 78% of super-computers run Linux. For instance, the world's most powerful computer is IBM Blue Gene, and it uses Linux for its I/O nodes (more info here). Also, Google's gigantic, powerful, and distributed search engine runs using over 60,000 Linux machines (more info here, here, and on Google's Research page). The fact that big, complicated, and highly successful operations use Linux shows what it can do. In the case of Google, it shows that they trust it to deliver the security they need.
You can urge them to get a second opinion. For instance, tell them to look over Secunia's report on Windows XP compared to Ubuntu 5.10.
Ultimately, however, all you can do is provide them with an honest assessment of Linux' strengths and weaknesses, and point out in what ways the media reports are wrong. If they respect your opinion, then they'll make the right choice. If they refuse to listen to reason, then there is nothing you can do. People who are more interested in media sound-bites than expert discussion are essentially impossible to convince of anything they don't already believe. Don't waste your time, and don't buy company stock.
Prrroooof is allllll you neeeed. If you can prroooove it iss reliabble, then they shouuld take you forr your wooord.
These were the other topics on the conference call
-Reminder to keep up with the latest COBOL and FORTRAN standards. Sharpen those programming skills.
-A notice that the Data General minicomputer is going to have its batches put onto the new IBM System 36.
-A work crew is going to be on floor 3 pulling Arcnet cable through the walls. Since there's asbestos in the walls, it may be disturbed. Hint: a lint brush can take asbestos right off your suit if some should land on you.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Powerpoint. Like it or not, if upper-management sees it in Powerpoint then it is the God's truth.
One never knows when one might need a rotten tomato... - King's Quest IV: Heir Today, Gone Tomorrow
Title from TFA: "A report warns of security vulnerabilities, raising the question of whether the open-source model can provide bullet-proof software"
What you might say: We get reports of security vulnerabilities on Microsoft products on a weekly basis, and there is unfortunately no such thing as bullet-proof software. Just recently Microsoft opted not to release an automatic update related to a virus before the virus went active, which would indicate that, contrary to what comes out of the PR department, Microsoft's commitment to security is not significant.
(I know the last sentence can be somewhat deceptive and there's more to the story, but if they're going to flap their lips when they're clueless, I doubt they'll catch it).
Wrap up with: No, Linux isn't perfect. There is a risk of vulnerability in every product. Microsoft, Apple, Unix, Linux, all of them carry some risk. It's our job to assess the risks and find the safest, most secure software that meets the company's productivity needs. It's what we do every day.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
Just how does one proove oneself?
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
Hold your ground and respectfully disagree. Then seek out reputable reports backing up your position. If you are right and you respectfully, calmly and clearly explain why to others you will almost always prevail.
set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
--Mike--
You can always play the "Yeah, Windows 98 was MUCH more secure than that!" if they're dealing with reports on Linux that are old enough to warrant it... Anything where Windows is reasonably secure (which is pretty much anything in the last three years) I'm willing to bet that Linux had good ratings as well.
ConsultingFair.com
I'd start by asking them where they were told this, what factual data they were shown to support this claim, and why they should trust the company presenting the claim instead of a company like IBM.
Of course all that sounds nice in theory but probably won't work IRL, but it's a start.
If your upper management is still believing FUD about linux after all this time, there's nothing you're going to say to them to disuade them. These guys just like believing garbage. You say you've been using linux for 5 years in the business, so someone must believe in it. Just ignore what the upper management is saying since it doesn't sound like they're micro-managing things down to the level of "we aren't using linux, period". Continue to make the right decisions about what OS to use and justify them with good evidence. Don't worry about the personal opinions of upper management, since they shouldn't be making those technical level decisions, and they should know that.
On a personal note, at one job I had the CTO once said "we'll never use Linux in the Enterprise". About one year later we were running ten low end linux servers to replace a single, very poor performing AIX machine. The CTO ate his words and admited the mistake. A lot of these guys just like to talk big just so people think they know what they're talking about.
AccountKiller
Linux has prooven itself (time and time again), for over 5 years in our company? How do you deal with all of the baseless claims, that your superiors may read in the mainstream media?
Show them the proof within your own company. If it's proven itself within the company already, then don't direct them to outside reports showing how great Linux is. Gather data proving how great it's been within the company. If you can show remote breaking statistics, for example, and no one has ever gotten in, you can show it's great at preventing breakins. Management will care most about what's happening at their own company. Show exact proof that it's working there.
Developers: We can use your help.
Ask them if they've ever read a media story about something they knew a lot about. Ask them how much of it the media got right. Ask them why they think it would be any different with respect to IT.
-- Alastair
Go on the offensive! Ask them why the efficiency consultant still doesn't understand what they do here. Or you could point out that they should stick to making decisions in the area where they are experts.
Honestly I have never really had a problem with the FUD. There are so many articles and studies surrounding Linux that its fairly simple to dig up better studies, or facts showing why the biased ones are biased. Or you can simply do demonstrations. The tricky one for me is the more experienced/educated users. Windows admins that have been doing it for some years are much harder to convince of the merits of any *nix based OS. I know alot of /. folks don't like to think about it...but there really are some very sharp people that only use Windows. Most of the ones I run into latch on to one little gem of Windows knowledge and tout they are experts, but I have run into quite a few that really do understand the ins and outs of that operating system very well and can get it to impressive things through registry manipulations and other things.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
Of course, the facts won't be found in your average MS website. Simply add to your blog, journal or whatever. Also, I'd suggest start hosting "open source" and "Linux" seminars during lunch. I've done it. In the past year or so, weve gone from zero linux servers (out of several hundred) to twelve full-time production RHE servers. I know it is a small amount, but it is a start.
The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
There are many reasons, but the one I've encountered most often is fear.
Upper management, usually, did not get there by taking big risks. They don't want to lead the herd.
They will take any excuse to avoid Linux until enough other companies and people they know are openly using it AND saving money.
Until then, no matter what you say, they will focus on whatever "facts" and opinions "justify" their fear.
The so-called analysts are NOT. Plus, there's the SELinux distribution promoted by the NSA, and it's as secure as Fort Knox. (well that's what you can say. And certainly your boss can't contradict the NSA, can he? ;-) )
Fight the FUD with benefits to the company for switching to linux. Here is a nice list of 25 reasons to use linux in your organization from the linux information project. They also have a list of success stories with links for companies that successfully switched to linux.
There's more to security than just using Linux. Did they see an example of something that was configured insecurely? Or are they truly just quoting stuff they read in magazines and on the internet? If showing them how they're mistaken doesn't work, maybe they'll shut up if you start tossing some FreeBSD servers into the mix. Or maybe you can just boldly state that Linux has given you far less trouble than Windows as far as security, flexibility, performance, scalability, and reliability are concerned.
Even that doesn't mean a business is completely out of the woods regarding Linux security. Customers could be using an unpatched Linux-based network-connected multifunction printer or have on their network an obscure tool that a programmer found on a Web site and is using unbeknownst to anyone, leaving the door open to problems. "All it takes is one mistake to open the entire enterprise up," warns Alan Paller, research director at the SANS Institute.
There's a lot here about how something "could be" going on that's a security hole on a Linux box, but no mention that the same thing could just as easily be a security hole on a Windows box. There's also not one, single word about all the other things that could be security holes on Windows that don't affect Linux, such as opening attachments from strangers, browsing to the wrong website and so on. FUD, and nothing else.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
At the company I used to work for there is no way any IT managers would mention Linux to their peers and no way that we would ever get any budget money for anything "Linux". But, as old servers were replaced or other PCs became available our department slowly started creating small, useful web apps, MySQL databases, etc. Eventually these apps made their usefulness expand beyond the IT department into the other departments.
As these users (managers, etc.) began to see the usefulness and robustness of these solutions eventually they learned that they were low cost, very stable and flexible solutions that helped the corporation. Oh, and BTW they eventually learned that they were Linux servers. They immediately gained respect.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." - Shepard Book Quoting Malcolm Reynolds
Nobody ever got fired for buying from IBM.
:)
Simple as that IBM is pushing it. Linux is so not fringe anymore that anyone with a brain knows that it is a viable alternative for servers.
Companies that sell Linux distributions and offer support.
RedHat
Novell
Companies that sell servers with Linux installed.
IBM
Dell
SGI
Sun
Companies that use Linux
IBM
Google
Oracle
The idea that Linux is some kind of hippie hacker commune is so 90s...
There might be good reasons for your company not to use Linux but security really isn't one of them. If it is you should probably be running OpenVMS or OS/400. I dare someone to hack that
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
and show them this http://management.itmanagersjournal.com/print.pl?s id=05/04/01/2112246
OLD NEWS :)
;-)
Enough time has passed, I can now freely say this out loud about my previous employer
Seems now, the fellow wanted me back, but was offering shitty pay, a few months ago that is.
Overall, man said he was switching to linux, and they got contracts, where I'd have to even have TS clearance. I'd love to help move an entire half of a state's government machines to Linux but sadly, I'm NEVER working for that outfit again. I fear being entangled by contracts far too much. I also have bills to pay, taking a pay cut to go back to all the stress is simply not worth it. He wanted me bad enough to offer a raise, but he still couldnt match or promise me guaranteed employment.
In regards to the topic at hand.
Let them know about security, let them also know that what you hear from M$ salesmen is not necessarily true. Also, remind them TWO KEY TOPICS.
TOPIC ONE
Closed Source vendors only reveal the holes they are FORCED to reveal because they've received publicity, via exploits or proof of concept exploits. Open Source projects see note1, on the other hand, publicize any holes and POSSIBLE holes and they usually have a MUCH faster turnaround for a patch and one that works, as we can all remember how well some of the M$ patches work.
note1 notice I said projects vs vendors, OSS ppl don't sell you anything, you CHOOSE to use it, and nobody takes your lunchmoney because of it.
TOPIC TWO
Remember that the biggest issue with windows is that it was a one user system, non network aware, and designed for absolute integration. You cannot remove a component easilly without breaking several (if not the entire system). Remind them also that the biggest issue with integration is that an attack only needs to target the lowest trusted component. This is why "userland" apps in linux behave differently than desktop apps in windows. Linux is, at heart, a Unix and so is BSD, and thus the apple os X, but that is another subject. Which means Linux is inherently a capable server, designed as such, and also designed to be modular, which means you can kill the front end, all of its subprocesses, and restart it, without rebooting the machine and killing any work any non front end users might have been doing via SSH or some other custom app you might have.
Since most users have to work as local machine administrator, as opposed to domain administrator, Windows automatically allows the user to install software and modify any non domain specific settings. As should be obvious to anyone, the moment a user runs a virus or trojan, or spyware and what have you, the local machine admin has been compromised. Windows XP, even after many "fixes" to the well known "Shatter Attack" see note2 STILL suffers from this vulnerability.
note2 a windowed program with even a guest account with NO privileges can hijack any root process running inside another window. To this day winlogon is a system/root process that still suffers from this problem, and you cannot disable it and STILL use windows, there are slipstreamed cds with NO graphics console, but they are pure servers, and have to be command or remote administered, no pretty front end for users.
In the end while Linux and BSD may have their flaws, at the very least they are more quickly fixed, the fixes are more than just a port block, like the Microsoft solution to Winnuke (which was a popular script kiddie port 139 icmp attack) or just plain lies (as is the case, apparently with the Shatter Attack. Granted for Shatter attacks to work, the user running the trojan must have guest access or better to the machine, or trick a legitimate user into running a compromised app but, heh, use your imagination. How often do foolhardy users run things they are not supposed to such look at porn, download "bonzi buddy" or "weatherbug" or any such crap? Spyware and trojans get around via users themselves since real hackers have better things to do, like write code for linux
~D
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
That is an exelent question we all should think about. Maybe providing real [facts] against microsoft's [facts] might help, thought it's not essentially good option.
Trying to tell them to do otherwise is bad thing, and with all respect they should be proven wrong with some real statistical information.
-Seeing the problem is ½ of solution-
Ask them if they realise that most of the ISPs on the planet use it for various tasks, ranging from proxy servers, to DNS servers to authentication servers.
Or just quit and get a job somewhere where "management" listens to the suggestions made by the people who are paid to know this shit.
smash.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
it's the ol' "Nobody ever got fired for recommending IBM". That ploy secured decades of over priced support/software/hardware contracts. Bill has updated this technique for the PC industry.
If you want to play with cutting edge linux stuff find a friendlier shop because until the higher ups are gone you don't stand a chance.
FWIW
You may have to tailor your response to your specific business - and phrase it in terms that they understand.
Most people are willing to spend a little more money for something that they feel comfortable with. I can only think of three ways to budge them off that position:
- to convince them that it really isn't a "little more money",
- to shake their confidence in the old, or
- to get them to feel comfortable with something new.
As a straw-man example, I do not go to the cheapest gasoline station in my town - I spend a few pennies per gallon at a different station. I know the faces of the staff, they know me, and I've never had a problem with them. It is more convenient for me to stop there, than it is to stop at the cheaper stations. I could move, however, if:As I was composing my example, I was luke-warm at best to the idea of trying something new - I said that "I might shift my business". Simply having Linux in-house and humming along safely falls into that luke-warm category, but it is still easy for upper management to decide that they want to head back to their comfort zone. Thus, it takes one of the other two items (cost or loss of faith in the old) to really get Linux deployed.
I recommend focusing on bottom-line cost. If you can show them just how much money they (can) save by having Linux perform certain tasks (say, 3000 machines x $100 per year in support contracts), then you have something tangible that they can focus on ... money that would otherwise be available to go into their own pockets.
I recommend against focusing on past security problems, as that is assuming that tomorrow's problem will be like yesterday's. Trend analysis is taking previous performance and projecting it into the future - effectively an educated guess about the future. However, much one says about the which OS has a better security record to date, the fact remains that both operating systems are under constant assault, and the next "I had to shut down my business because of the Q13 worm"-type problem could very well be for either OS. The worst-case price of clean-up will be the same, no matter where the problem occurs.
...although, as a true Linux believer, would you have to run powerpoint on WINE?
Google is "free" to use as a search engine, but any company that can "report revenue of $1.919 billion" for a single quarter can probably afford to pay the staff. I wouldn't advise asking your CEO when he last made almost two billion in a four month timespan, though.
Linux is "free" (as in price) if you get no assurance and minimal support. If, on the other hand, you want EAL4-rated Linux (certified for commercially-sensitive and confidential information for Government use in Europe and the US) with 24-hour support, fine-tuning of hardware and software, etc, then you pay a bit more. Same software, different parameters.
I'd argue that there are examples even the dimmest PHB can understand - some have been around long enough to just be accepted, others are so stinking rich that the arguments self-evidently don't hold.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
...it happened for me too... I asked them if I should take our brand new EVA 8000 to the junkyard 'cause HP are now using Linux as the engine in the SAN switches.
They instantly shut up and have been quiet since...
--
[Space intentionally left blank]
to upper management. Setup meeting where your manager meets with uppper management to explain what has been done in the last month to tighten security.
TOP DSLR Cameras Reviews of the top DSLRs
You just have to love the fact that when it is an article on Windows vulnerabilities, you all jump on it and proclaim how terrible Microsoft is. But when it is on Linux it is outdated and half true.....
...I got the hell out of there.
Bob
Listen to my latest album here
Looks like it is time for you to find a new employer.
If they are completely clueless (believing everything your read or see on TV probably fits the bill), you are jeopardizing your long-term financial security by staying on with a company that is obviously moving towards bankruptcy.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
Every business exists for one, and only one, purpose. To make money for the owner. (not as cynical as it sounds. Even in non profits, if they run out of cash, they go away.) In all my years of gainful employment, everytime I argued for something because it would be 'better quality' pretty much fell on deaf ears. If I framed the argument that 'we'll make more money' or 'we'll spend less money' ears perked up. Frame the quality argument in 'reduced support costs, reduced maintenance costs, greater server workload efficiency resulting in $xxxxx savings in the first year alone' and I immediately got a reply. I still may not have gotten what i wanted, but at least i was able to present my case. In your case you can add the point that the only company that makes money selling Microsoft is Microsoft. In linux, IBM, RedHat, Novell, and plenty of other companies make money selling Linux. Frame your argument by talking about what your manager is being evaluated on (how much money he/she is making/saving the company) and you will have a much better chance.
-- There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Ask them to install Windows on a machine while it is connected directly to the internet.
That should be fun.
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
I have had lengthly discussions with some of my old workmates at Microsoft, and my new ones here (at a "Microsoft zomby") and they always try to laud how Microsoft OS is so much better and more secure. We even have some Linux servers here.
When I start hearing about all this, I simply say, "See Secunia (http://secunia.com/) and then come talk to me."
Basically, Secunia breaks it all down to # of vulnerabilities. Then they break that number down to # of critical, etc.
While some versions of Linux have more vulnerabilities, they have far fewer CRITICAL vulnerabilities than Windows. And the Time to Fix the vulnerabilities in Linux is measured is in days, not weeks or months as it is in Windows.
All the reporting is done. Graphs and colors, enough to appease any "higher management" or "executive"...
--E--
Isn't this exactly where Apple used to be ? Wasn't it the "experts" who pushed the windows line (on the basis that it ensured they stayed employed) Wasn't it the "experts" who derided the TCO studies showing Macs were a better financial choice ? Well congrats everyone, its all come back to bite you on the A$$ because all of the anti-mac FUD pushed by the "experts" is now being applied to linux, and all the reasons why the FUD is wrong is being dismissed by the management whom the "experts" have so successfully trained to be pro-windows.
No wonder it's a losing battle...
You have a nice time making money and solving business problems.
... Standards and Practices !
"Life in all it's rich variety
Give a little take a little
But by the inevitable law of the vampirific process
They always take more than they leave"
Bill Bouroughs
PenGun
Do What Now ???
STATISTICS!!!! They all love statistics, don't they.
Well, I proved it this way:
We were using el-cheapo boxes for serverhardware, I created a reporting feature for hardware breakdown with the possible reporting of OS, kind of hardware (Maxtor IDE disks of 40G or 80G) and RAID configuration.
The Software RAID-1 configuration for Windows had 200% more harddisk breakdown with permanent data loss (backup or no recovery) over the same period of time over the same amount of boxes. Actually only 10% of the Windows boxes had their RAID setup intact after a crash of a single harddrive while for the Linux boxes it was over 90%.
Then I pulled statistics of the ticketing system for trouble reports and it concluded that tickets connected to Windows servers were 500% higher and that the resolution time was about 60% longer compared to the tickets connected to the same amount of Linux servers.
Although results for your company might differ, it is going to be similar to my conclusions.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
When selling Linux to corporate america, you just CAN'T do it using geek speak.
Managers use the same english words, but when you are a manager, your goal is to confuse and misdirect. NEVER take what a manager says literally, or try to respond to it logically. Managers make decisions based purely upon gut feeling and emotional reaction, then rationalize the decisions with vaguely related reports and misapplied studies.
Here are some simple translations:
Management Speak(M) to Engineerish(E)
1M) I'm concerned about linux security
1E)I dont understand linux and it makes me feel insecure
2M) I've heard that linux has security problems
2E) A rival vendor's sales rep in an expensive suit told me linux has security problems, I need someone in a more expensive suit to tell me he was wrong
3M) No one supports linux
3E) If a linux server crashes there is no linux sales rep to yell at and blame it on
4M) I need more data
4E) I want the information reduced to powerpoint slides and presented by someone with a nice butt in tight fitting clothes(gender varies)
5M) Lets discuss the issues involved
5E) I'm afraid to make a decision until the whole industry stampedes in that direction
6M) Is this the right business decision?
6E) Can I be fired for doing this?
"Sic Semper Path of Least Resistance"
This was debunked quickly.1 42317870
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20051231
They are using those numbers as the bases of their arguement that linux is becoming less secure. Those numbers are not just for linux but also AIX, Apple, FreeBSD, Solaris, Linux, and a few more OS. Also the list has a ton of flaws counted more then once.
Chances are, anything you try to say, no matter how hard you try, will not matter to them.
They are of the 'spoonfed' corporate-mindset type, and will not listen to you, as you are on the bottom of the ladder as they see it, or a 'maverick' as I've been deemed. lol =p
I am suffering in a similar situation, and currently looking for a new job, and I suggest you do the same, as it will never get better, unless you become the manager.
Linux has made many independent contractors and small businesses very successful, not to mention governments, NASA, and big corporations like Google.
I know this move may sound like career-suicide, but if your boss wishes to flush money down the drain in software licenses (generally with the excuse of 'vendor support'), simply because he reads to much cnet or whatever, then you should perhaps consider going above his head (if possible), for 'the (financial) sake of the entire company/organization.
the only permanence in existence, is the impermanence of existence.
Linux(Score:-1)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 09, @06:38PM (#14682898)
Its obvious most people here run Linux, just because it's Linux - not because they are trying solve any type of business problem or make money or anything. In the end they will spend hundreds of needless hours to have to learn how to do something in Linux compared to Windows, well, just because its Linux.
Get a life!
(wasting words on a troll, but I feel compelled to somehow...)
No, not JUST because it's Linux...
I only run Linux as I was exshausted from the self flaggelation of trying to keep a Windows box up.
I gave up in 1994...
Based on what I have seen on many many Win boxes over the years I have had to fix, it hasn't really improved THAT much (overall) on the Windows side of the aisle, some things better, some things worse.(PnP works, but now you have a regisrty... Ugh)
Linux has shown very steady improvement in most all areas, at a seemingly ever increasing rate.
I recently started building up a server here. Our system network is predominantly Novell with a good portion of Active Directory. We have one RedHat server as a SPAM filter and this new box would have been only the second official Linux server.
...then SUSE Linux Enterprise Server is the right choice. If however you are a Linux enthusiast looking to evaluate some of the latest "bleeding edge" Linux technologies (perhaps not quite ready for prime time) then SUSE Linux Professional would better suit your needs." This makes it sound as if only the Enterprise servers are secure and reliable enough for business applications, which is not the case.
There were cost concerns so I recommended Suse Linux 10.0 Pro as Novell owns Suse. The stakeholder in the project thought that was great, it allowed her to avoid a Windows licensing hit.
Well, I am in the Web Development area and not the Network Support area. I do work with servers, but predominantly the web servers. This box was to be a web authentication proxy, as such was given to me.
There was a lot of mis-communication during the process, but one of the things that came out of this was that our web services manager is saying that we need to install Suse Linux Enterprise Server 9 on this machine instead. I am fine with this except for the way she approached it. She quoted the Novell comparison page with "If you are a busness looking to deploy a hardened, supported operating system,
So, in this instance, Novell (Suse) is misleading their customers as a marketing strategy.
Bosses make decisions based on relationships and trust. When they don't know a subject, they seek the advice of trusted experts to help them understand it so they can make an informed decision. If you have worked at developing your relationship with your bosses, if you have shown them articles and facts, if you have stated your expert opinion succinctly and they have rejected it, then they simply do not recognize you as a worthy technical authority. It is time to resign and move on. Your vision is just too different from theirs for them to trust you. I hope you can find a place where you will be happier.
English -- gotta love it! / The engineers refuse to refuse the rocket until the refuse is removed from the launch pad.
...about poor spelling on the Slashdot front page.
BUT...this isn't a good career move.
Mo Ron
(AC to avoid the deserved ridicule.)
design the most evil Windows virus ever, which combines all known techniques and some more, send it in a mail with a title like "free naked teens", but in a way that it has to be clicked on to infect to the management and watch the desaster. After all employes got this virus e-mail from the Management they can either admit that they clicked on the mail (admitting that they are stupid and incompetent) or they can say that this only happend due to the insecure Windows.....
I know it takes 10 times as many 'doze boxes to do the work of one UNIX server, but 10 Linux boxes? That must have been a heck of an AIX machine.
you had me at #!
*ahem* Sorry. Just... doesn't work like that in big companies. None of the ones I've worked at, anyway. Yeah, Maybe I've just had a streak of bad luck, but that's my experience.
It would be pointless. Don't waste your time and energy.
Throw some money around, preferably bundled in rubber band and post up some pictures with you and some hot chicks on the wall at your office/cubicle/basement space with desk.
If the above doesn't work, hit them over their head and sprinkle some crack/coccaine over their body.
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
no one ever got fired for buying M$.
"Gentlemen. We have to protect our phoney-baloney jobs."
Mel Brooks, "Blazing Saddles"
Some people won't notice the truth even if it bites them on the ass!
Good luck!
Like the inimitable Groucho Marx, I would never join a club that would have me as a member.
Winning the argument depends on first explicitly defining the terms in a way that is advantageous to your position.
Start out with a proposition that everyone can agree on, like, "We depend on our operating system to do the following things: Minimize support costs through superior uptime, minimize hardware costs by providing more computing power per CPU cycle, realize long term cost benefits by providing superior computing resources throughout the company at a lower cost per seat." This is just an off-the-cuff example.
Then use metrics from your own organization (if they're not available, guesstimate), comparing the cost of meeting each of those goals. Historical data presented in a before and after comparison format can be quite valuable in showing people that you're not advocating Linux because you have an ideological attachment to it, but because it does the same job less expensively. Arguments about quality will go right over their heads. Intangibles such as, "It makes us all happier to use Linux because we don't have to run around fighting fires all the time," don't register with most O-level folks. Stay focused on apples to apples comparisons, and always compare costs.
As many others have pointed out, some managers simply won't listen. However, giving up isn't the answer either. At least present your case firmly, without rancor, and in as broad a forum as possible. Don't go behind the manager's back, but try to get other people in on the meeting. That way even if this knucklehead doesn't listen to you, you'll probably convince a few people. When they run off to other companies after the knucklehead brings the company crashing to its knees, you'll have a decent chance of connecting up with one or more of the smart ones who listened to your pitch and understand what you were conveying. The way I look at it, you're playing a long-term game here. It's not just about convincing the knucklehead, or saving your company's IT department from waste and annoyance. It's also about clearly establishing that you know what you're talking about, and you're able to clearly and professionally articulate your knowledge.
Regardless of whose advice you take, I wish you good luck! It's never fun trying to manage up.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Doesn't sound to me like I'd want to trust my precious financial or personal data to such a "pretty good" level of trust.
... design being the begining.
Look at why Linux can't get a higher rating....
But then neither can any other OS except one designed for security first and foremost.
Is it possible to get a higher rating? Yes. At an enormous cost. But yes it is.
What is the cost? Years and millions. And a committment to do security right from the begining
I don't think convincing the PHBs to use free software is as big a problem as a few years back; just show them the number (money saved). A bigger problem I can see is the management do not want to give anything back to the community; they just want to be a leech for as long as possible. For example, in where I work, we are not allowed to contribute the local mod we made to some free software back to the community.
Note: local private mod is permited in GPL.
5 years ago, when Bush came into office, he shut down the FBI from giving out information about cracked system except where required by law (basically, if a customer's CC is stolen). Just before that, a friend and I were going to start a web site that tracked these and then showed the relative risk to users. Since 40% of the https space was windows, then you should expect somewhere around 40% of all the stolen CCs. But it turned out that Windows accounted for more than 99 % of all stolen CCs (and this was in 2002; I think that windows now accounts for about 1/3 of https space).
So, pick up the report from Netcraft that shows the % of OS on the https sites (you have to pay for it). Then go to news.com and look for all the past stories of stolen CCs. All of the ones that I check for the last couple of years, turned out were Windows (more than hundred over the last 5 years).
Here is one other interesting test. Look at the netcraft of all the major banks and CC shops. Then look at all the CC processing sites that lost 100's of thousands of CC's. A few of the processing sites that were cracked (one in arizona, Florida, and nebraska) were running MS. Yet the CCs companies run *nix. Says a lot right there.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Managers get promoted by being political competitors and impressing others. Sometimes it will happen that
>The CTO ate his words and admited the mistake
but don't count on it.
Maybe a good tactic is to leave them room to change their minds without having to admit error. You could say something truthful like "Linux is evolving almost too fast to follow and we might find a different landscape if we look again in six months". Or maybe schedule a review for when they're looking down the barrel of Vista upgrade costs.
Tell them ok let's open the firewall for 24 hours and see who is left standing.
Got Code?
Should we as professionals expect to be attacked for our decisions, even though Linux has prooven itself (time and time again), for over 5 years in our company? How do you deal with all of the baseless claims, that your superiors may read in the mainstream media?"
One of the easiest ways to defend the value of Linux in the enterprise is to just show how much Microsoft licensing for the same implementation would have been had you been using it instead of Linux.
--My signature is six words long.--
Whether it be my decision to use Linux, or my decision regarding anything else in falling under my job description or the tasks I'm given. I simply state that I was hired to do a job and trusted to make a decision or perforam a task. If you don't trust me to make that decision, or perform the task, if you don't trust my expertise, then get someone else to do it.
I have yet to be fired or let go because the powers that be either didn't trust me or decided I wasn't expert enough to make the decision or perform the task. In addition, I never make a decision without doing the proper homework to back up my decision, and I make the data to back up my position clearly available to those in charge before I implement the solution.
PGA
Take note of all of his points and the points from the article and then email upper management your regular "security synopsis" making sure you address all those points. You could make him aware during the meeting that you have read that article and that your systems are already secured against the issues raised. But don't attack the credibility of the publication, story or author, it could be embarassing for him. The security synopsis shouldn't look like a rebuttal, but rather a professional and never emotional business document. You should let upper management slowly come to that conclusion themselves that the publication is hype, once they see that time and time again, you can show that the points of the stories do not apply to your setup.
Make sure you read what he reads and include those security issues in your regular security synopsis which you send well in advance (days) of these meetings which upper management attend. He will be less likely to address something as being an issue if you have already addressed it as being irrelevant. There will be less egg on face if he is the hysterical type and you won't be in a position where you have to get him to back down from something he said to the firm.
I should not need to mention regular updates to management, because it should be a given. Management needs the info so that they can manage the big picture. If you don't give them the info, then they go looking for it in the best places they know. And since they're not techie types, that's publications put out with advertiser interests. Microsoft advertises a LOT in the sorts of publications that management reads.
At least not on my planet.
They are not free like beer, and they are not free like speach. If anything, they are free like taxes.
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
... will never listen to anyone beneath them in the corporate food chain.
Making a lot of obstructionist noise will only paint a bulls-eye on yourself, as a malcontent and troublemaker -- probably a security risk as well.
How to distinguish between ignorant top management and the clued-in variety
Good top management would have asked down the org chart to the IT group whether there was anything to the issues raised in those articles, and would have done so off-line rather than during a conference call. After all, they should have confidence in the abilities of their IT staff, and should reasonably expect them to know more about this area than they do. Ignorant doofus top managers assume that they are the ultimate in every regard, and have no need to consult anyone -- after all, that's why they're paid the "Big Buck$".
In the words of Roy Schieder (Chief Brodie in Jaws), "You're gonna need a bigger boat."
Go and get an IBM marketeer (or a pack of them) to educate your top management about the virtues of Linux in the corporate environment. They have credibility that you will simply never possess, and are well-trained in the fine art of "Account Control". Just ask your top management for an opportunity to bring in a representative from a Fortune 50 company to put on a small presentation about Linux, in order to get a "business perspective" on the matter.
The downside is that you will give up any voice in what kind of hardware you run. But that's not such a big downside, as IBM makes good stuff. And with the sort of management you have, any thoughts you might have about your influence is an illusion, anyhow.
I expect that some sales minions have already managed an end run up the org chart, and the source of all the anti-Linux FUD propaganda is either Microsoft, or some Microsoft-oriented consulting firm plotting to seize a firm grasp on your company's IT budget.
You need to fight fire with nuclear weapons. Bring in IBM.
Mark Shuttleworth is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. He owns Canonical Ltd., the company behind Ubuntu Linux. So who cares how, or if, Ubuntu makes money?
What's sad/amusing is that some of the PHB's asking these questions, as if they were sharp business analysts, work for gigantic corporations -- BellSouth or other RBOCs, humongous insurance companies, etc -- that could easily support a Linux distro all by themselves if they only had a tiny spark of imagination and verve.
That word is Google.
Tell your upper management that, if Linux is good enough for Google, which is one website that needs the ultimate in network security, it is good enough for your company.
Do the same -- it will be much more in volume...
:). I can even remember some management being surprised when new services were always available instantly when needed. Email was brought in-house, DNS, ftp [virus updates for Windows clients], posting files to private web pages, so on and so forth. When questioned they were more happy with the cost ($0 for Linux based solutions) than the "how".
Every time you see a [Microsoft Windows] article telling of some new flaw found -- save it. Every time they release a bulletin [and a patch] -- save a copy of those too. I did this for years for just such a defense in "my logic". The sheer volume you throw back at them may make them think twice -- and do it diplomatically when you do. Even suggest going over their article to understand the half truths, lies, and it will help eliminate their FUD.
I've been doing this -- its a simple print/preview (save-as PDF -- you are using a Mac yourself, correct
The show-down did come in the not too distant past over the companies 401-K plan -- I quickly used the same tactic to show them how insecure Windows was which is what they wanted to post our plan on (IIS). Allowing employees to make changes themselves online as necessary was their money-saving short sighted goal -- it SCARED THE HELL out of me as it was MY MONEY in play as well.
As head of IT I put my foot down and simply said "no" -- and if it was allowed to go through with upper management that 1) they have been warned and 2) I was no longer going to be in the 401-K plan. I also happen to know (as I did the audits) that I was ranked in the almost (but not quite) "top-heavy" equations and my pulled out would have cost them to not to be able to save quite so much. But I digress, and that is of another issue.
I would also question -- are there are Windows servers there now? How much time is spent maintaining them? How much down time? I know with a Linux based farm that the maintenance is easy and I've well exceeded 99.99% uptime every year. During normal business hours it's been easily 99.999%...
They are arguing against Linux (and for Windows) based on the fact that Linux is open source and *MIGHT* be open to vulnerabilities? Are they saying Windows IS secure?
Someone hit these guys with a cluestick.
Always leave the enemy an escape route.
Otherwise even if you win it will be very costly - since the enemy will know there's no retreat and will fight to the end.
I think your approach is a lose-lose proposition. Its bad enough, but not untypical, that management is making inherently technological decisions without understanding their business ramifications. Making the debate with management on your technology turf might let you "win" a battle but you've already lost the war. An approach with a far better liklyhood of long term success would be to push those technical decisions down to the IT level with clear business directives that would help drive those directions (preferably with some objective metrics of how well those directives are being met). This way the technical staff can communicate the impact of technology decisions in business terms that management can more readily understand. Thereafter, management can impact technology decisions by altering their business directives rather than making specific product choices they have no concept of. If you can accomplish that then when a manager reads an article out of a magazine and gets a brilliant idea the tech staff can say "thanx for the suggestion".
Good luck!
...might be, "If Linux is so bad, why do the NSA and US Army use it? Why are Intel shipping hundreds of millions of Farmer PCs based on it in China? Why are the Brasilian state bank's ATMs run on it? Why are Norway moving 100,000 students to it? Why is it used in Satellites and aboard Fred? Why are IBM and Novell switching to it across the board? Why is the European Union moving to Linux's most popular document standard (OpenDocument) across the board? Why is the $100 laptop project using it even though Microsoft offered them MS-Windows for free? Why do Google and Akamai, the biggest search and content-cache companies, utterly rely upon it? What's the matter, those organisations not big and important enough for you?"
On second thought, scratch that last sentence.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
This question comes up all the time.
"My boss is a total idiot and doesn't believe anything i say even though i'm the professional and he gets his information from cereal boxes."
The answer is always the same, you need to get a different job.
Then you will hear people complain, it is not possible, you can't do that, that is not realistic. They probably have a job just like you.
Other people who have not worked at such a place in many years just laugh. Because they figured it out a long time ago. What's taking you so long?
and send them a link to site that installs spy-ware. Then ask them if they are ready to convert the enterprise to Microsoft Windows.
By using Linux, I'm saving money on installation costs, CACLs and registration fees. I've trimmed down my development costs by using eclipse. No more helpdesk ADO/MDAC version issues that cost money to support.
:(
I've also saved a boatload of cash by switching the sales/marketing team to OpenOffice. We output all our client documentation using the OpenOffice PDF print driver.
With the savings, we hired two new programmers and have doubled our marketing budget so more people know about our products. We have one Windows machine left in accounting for Quicken
Food for thought.
Enjoy.
It's just the normal noises in here.
I gave up in 1994... based on what I have seen on many many Win boxes over the years I have had to fix, it hasn't really improved THAT much...
Windows is a lot different than it was in 1994. I'm calling bullshit. You simply haven't seen that "many". That's a fabrication.
Well...
I've played this game before. Twice actually.
The first time, the boss wanted to convert from BSDi to WinNT. Bad choice, I said, but I was a lowly tech then.. I ended up leaving after the migration was done. Not too long afterwards, they started migrating back. The company, on the verge of failure, sold.
The second time, we had a decent size network running Linux. I was happy with my happy network. It did it's thing very well.. One of the boss-type people wanted Windows. He likes Windows. We should have a Win2k AS network.. I refused. I refused. I refused some more. Luckly, I was in more of a position to refuse now.. It was a battle of wills. I gave all the reasons not to. I gave the few reasons to switch. In the end, I grew tired of the battle. "Fine, we'll switch over to Windows. Licensing will cost $xxx. We'll need x extra techs, and y more boxes, and z more space."
You know, all those damed x's y's and z's add up. He was reconsidering.
"We can have everything migrated over in a month, and stable sometime after that. I strongly recommend against it, but we can start the migration as soon as you get the licenses, and hire staff to do the migration and support the whole mess."
It never migrated.
Sometimes you just have to give them exactly what they want, and let them realize the mistake all on their own. If the company fails because of it, but you had given strong reservations against it, it's not your fault. When the company dumps, buy the machines from them for pennies, and start your own hosting company.
Just kidding about the hosting company. Get on board with the next company, and see if they're any smarter. At very least, you can use your experience as a warning to them.
"Oh, you want to migrate to Windows? That's why the last company I was at failed. Here's all the reasons....."
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Winning the argument depends on first explicitly defining the terms in a way that is advantageous to your position.
...
... because arguing tends to ruin working relationships and because overpowering positions tend to leave the other party feeling less than confirmed.
Arguing with a superior is rarely a healthy career move. Positional Bargaining is rarely sucessful unless your position is overpowering
End Result: Potential unemployment or the potential glass ceiling to advancement.
It would be far better to find common ground and work from there without resorting to arguing from a position AND solidify the working relationship with one's own superiors. It's far easier to get what you want from superiors, who may not have the technical knowledge you have, when they actually like you!
Integrity is what you are when nobody is looking.
The problem isn't that the upper managers are misinformed. They are always misinformed. Any upper manager that thinks somehow they are impervious to lies and half-truths are fools.
At our company, we let people make their own decisions. If they need more hardware or money or resources, they have to go to their managers and get the required resources. But if its new and it doesn't cost any more than what we are already spending, then you get to try it out.
Let me put it this way. Who should decide what kind of car you drive: Your boss, your wife, or you? Who is best suited to make that decision?
Then try this one: Who decides which algorithm you implement to solve some of the engineering problems you encounter? Your boss, your wife, or you?
And let's go one step further: Who decides what language you should use or what OS you should run on?
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
I'd suggest collecting magazine clippings and/or URL's about other major companies that have successfully switched to Linux and Open Source. Here's a few links to get you started.
s p
m l
2 ,00.asp
Etrade:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1916119,00.a
Amazon, Ebay, Wal-Mart, Dell, American Greetings:
http://www.forbes.com/2002/10/08/1008linux.html
Cendant:
http://www.cio.com/archive/070105/cendant.html
Merril Lynch and Credit Suisse First Boston:
http://www.forbes.com/2002/03/27/0327linux.html
Boscov's
http://www.forbes.com/2002/07/17/0717casestudy.ht
The Chicago Mercantile Exchange:
http://www.baselinemag.com/article2/0,1397,182800
Make sure you let your manger know not to trust Ziff Davis Media for any information regarding computers as they are really good at making FUD. I've made it a personal policy to not pay for any of the FUD they make & to read any of it only when someone else posts about it on /.
It would be far better to find common ground and work from there without resorting to arguing from a position
You're assuming an equal relationship between the parties. Most of the time you are not given the opportunity to seek common ground where the power relationship is disproportionate. I'm not suggesting that as a subordinate you should attempt to have disagreements with your superiors. Of course, you want to seek common ground and find ways to make everyone happy.
But in a situation where it's one OS or another, you do have to advance a set of reasons in favor of your position if you want to do the right thing for the organization. If your argument (that is, the rationale you have articulated) is disregarded, play ball and do your best to help the team, of course. Sniffling in the corner won't help anyone. But seeking common ground at every turn won't necessarily lead your boss to respect you, either.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
First they hire you as a professional, then they treat you as an ignoramous. This can't be. Tell the suit that if he doesn't trust your judgement, the very one he hired you for, he should resign giving his own bad judgement as the reason.
Be realistic:
Few companies are willing to put Linux on the general desktop. The staff expects and is comfortable in Windows. Personally I can't imagine not having Excel in my toolkit just as I can't imagine not having bash et al.
Nonetheless, I maintain that every company can benefit from an appropriate Linux deployment. You may not need to develop a lot of expertise initially. File, publish, print servers and router/firewalls are available as OTS appliances. They're configured through a simple web interface so they don't need a monitor and keyboard. They are cheaper, smaller, easier to use, lower maintenance and more efficient than a Windows server of comparable performance. You can also benefit from hiring Linux. Contracting out for services that Linux does well (such as email, security and networks) could be another low risk way to save a bundle.
Bad management is rife to the point of being the default. Especially when people with no IT background whatsoever get decision power over IT stategy, vendor selection and the choice of development model, applications, platforms and network infrastructure common sense leaves the building.
;-)
The problem is that you and I have to eat, that is used against you keeping you working on stuff that is suboptimal, wastes vast amounts of resources and is frankly a complete waste of time.
Worse, as far as I can see at the moment, consultancies then grab the good guys that are sellable - and make these guys write supporting docs for those managers. Reason? Money - if it goes wrong the IT staff gets blamed and guess who gets to fix the problem..
You don't need to look far either to see evidence of that. Look at many failed government IT projects, and look at how most banks operate (troll bait: and just look at how many still use Windows in the back end
The problem is that a clueless manager will need you to fail to look good so you're going to get a lot of 'advice' so *you* then 'have failed to improve' - and they'll get another victim.
Insert
From parent's sig: I drive an SUV -- and I'm actually pretty proud of the fact.
Why?
Not trolling, just a honest question.
Free as in mason.
The biggest thing for PHBs and CxOs is to just get them out of the mindset that Computer ? Windows. There's only a single choice on desktop platform these days - it's either Windows or it's a UNIX-alike. One of these market shares is on the up[1], one of them is on the down. Where does a progressive company want to be?
[1] We know Mac OS X is on the up (great gains on the desktop, a slow burner on the server end). We know Linux is on the up (improving slightly in the desktop space and a powerhouse in the server space) and if neither of these float your boat then there's the Beasties (Open, Free, Net) and a couple of minor distros like Solaris, HP-UX, AIX...LOL
There is a strange lack of cohesion in the way managers think. On one hand they trust the company's very future in the hands of their employees; but on the other hand they don't trust those very same people to be able to form a qualified opinion about something in their area of expertise. Is it a version of 'It's in the news, it must be true'?
What they should do, when they read that kind of article is to think 'I should ask my own experts about this before I put my foot too far down my throat'.
I work in the technical division of the largest financial groups in the world. Our upper management are big Linux fans. It can leap buildings in a single bound, write award winning operas, and is a cure for the common cold. Linux is to be used for everything except the desktop.
Consequently, our highly reliable RISC hardware has been ripped out at impressive speed, to be replaced by racks and racks of IBM blade servers. These things are basically vertically-aligned laptops and crash more or less continuously. Remember the old gag about how their were no French-made computers because they hadn't figured out how to make them leak oil? These ones do, from the hard-drive ball bearings.
In reality, the argument in favour was commoditisation. Replace the expensive, high-end hardware and software with off-the-shelf components that are nearly as good. This was sold to the management by IBM consultants. This is important, because it gives the management someone to pass the blame to. IBM can be blamed if the strategy is seen to fail.
-- Nick "Hallo this is Beel Gates, und I pronounce weendows as
With Open Source, every blackhat and cracker has instant access to the source code; and can spot potential vulnerabilities and find ways to exploit them. And a bad guy who finds an exploit might choose to sit on it for a long time, milking it gently without wider discovery; after all, the act of revealing an exploit carries the very real threat that it -- and the exploiter -- will be dealt with. At the same time, every whitehat and Concerned Citizen also has instant access to the source code; and can spot potential vulnerabilities, alert the world to their existence and have them patched. {Sometimes the fix is obvious enough so as a patch can be deployed within a matter of minutes, but hours is more likely.}
The probability of an exploit being discovered by a good guy is greater than the probability of the same exploit being discovered by a bad guy, by the same ratio by which good guys outnumber bad guys.
With closed source software, all the bad guys are looking for exploits -- but most of the good guys aren't. And if the proportion of good guys who are actively probing for exploits is less than the ratio of good guys to each bad guy, then the probability of an exploit being discovered by a bad guy actually becomes greater than the probability of it being discovered by a good guy.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
But what is the death rate of companies who already survived those first three critical years? Few companies in fortune5h are younger than three years, if any. Most companies will die young, and few companies start big. Those 90% of companies simply never had the chance to become big or stay small.
So, compare small mature companies with large mature companies.
In my town there's a very small shop selling paint. It's 125 years old and still going strong. I don't think MS will be selling anything in the 22th century. About the paint shop, i'm not so sure.
Trust me, I work for the government.
One thing which really should put to a halt IMO is people who play sysadmin and want to install Linux because... Its Linux! In my experience this is a display of incompetence in which case the upper management may be more right that you realize. However, then its not Linux which is the key of the problem... So do you want Linux or do you want Unix as a counterpart to Windows. If you simply want to ditch Windows (a motivation which, in itself, can also be dubious) you could broaden your search. Management wants business assurances? Try going Sun.
It may be extremely surprising, but some people have never heard of Linux. I have personal examples of this: one time, at a meeting, there was a discussion about security and viruses and people spoke of Microsoft and Apple. When I brought up Linux, I was surprised to hear "Linux? I've never heard of such company. Where is it from?"...
" ... How do you deal with all of the baseless claims, that your superiors may read in the mainstream media? ..."
Well, a good manager might use what he reads in a magazine as a talking point; he read something that made sense to him as it was presented and wants your input.
Despite the language, which you may read as "foregone conclusion based on FUD", really means more along the lines of "people say this, I hear things. I think we need to stay on top of our industry and I have concerns about our future business, because that's my job. So, tell me again: why do we do [insert practice/policy/tools here], and isn't it time to take a look at [insert alternate practice/policy/tools here]? "
And he wants you to tell him, because he hired you to tell him stuff about your area of expertise, because that's your job. So, tell him.
Or, he may be a PointyHair, who dances with devils and wants everyone else to join in, and you need to look for a new job.
Hopefully, you already know the answer to that one.
Anyway, I'm not suggesting a Slashdot Question isn't a good start. But, don't panic. He's just asking questions; what happens depends on you and your answers, not what some clueless writer was able to sell for $ 150.
Ten cheap, lightweight Linux servers is a fair swap.
J.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
I loved nearly all of the answers. I loved the technical ones as they filled some of my own gaps. To sell FOSS to managers, make up a scenario and tell them what it will cost them to switch all your company already runs on FOSS to MS and what it will continue to cost. (Including security patch-work) Do a profit projection and compare with a (bypothetical if needed) competitor who switches/switched fully to FOSS. BR kubitus
I've found that at the CIO level, the people are so
out of touch with reality you can tell them anything.
Just tell them that you have been buying all those
x86 machines with windows, and that is what they still
run. Tell 'em that openoffice is Microsoft's answer
to thier monopoly lawsuit problems, and KDE is a new
look for Windows Vista.
While this doesn't mean all of CERT runs exclusively on linux, they don't ban it, and use it to authoratatively sign their official security advisories. Not an official endorsement by CERT, just an official adoption.
Cisco also has been signing their security advisories using linux as well (from a recent advisory):
Again, not an official endorsment, just an official adoption. In both the examples of CERT and Cisco, I've yet to see them sign advisories using windows, even though GnuPG runs just fine on windows. How they're using linux, of course, isn't clear from just the sigs, but that they are using linux is, and they are clearly showing a preference when it comes to authoratative public announcements.
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
Give you manager the Microsoft support number and have him/her try and get someone to help with that critical NT box I'm sure you still have(we all do). That should drive the point home.
Dobo
There seems to be two things that no one seems to have mentioned and that would be the biggest problems in the organisation I am in (which is currently upgrading everyone from NT to XP).
1. We have many applications for different parts of the business, each of those applications has been procured, with a support contract. Most of these applications are only supported for runnning on Windows XP. Imagine the cost of not only replcaing the OS (even with a free one) but renegotiating the providers' support contract along with installing the linux-ported software. In many cases the application used is critical and has no Linux equivalent, so new business processes would have to be created (which is a massive task).
Having unsupported software wont work either as most large organisations have risk registers, disaster recovery plans etc and critical software that could break with no one to fix it would be too high up on any risk list to consider. Especially as the organisation I am in is the public sector and we are pretty much obliged to make sure that we are covered.
2. The other thing that would be massive to the cost of changeover for any business is training, not just retraining the support/IT staff to know which IP addresses to free up or anything technical, but the users many of whom are only IT literate enough to know how to do what they currently do, on the current software, changing to XP will cause them alot of trouble but not too much as most things are very much the same. And of course most people have Windows at home so familiarity is a large factor in training. Yes Linux may be easy to use and I would like it here, but I am IT literate and could learn to use a spreadsheet program that isn't Excel. Most people could not (at least fast enough for the business not to suffer).
If this were really happening, what would you think?
Shunkworks... like its always been
> Which is more likely to be in business in five years, Home Depot, or Joe's Contractor Shack?
Actually, the answer "Joe's Contractor Shack" isn't as dumb as it sounds. A few years back, before there was a Home Depot in my home city, it was DIY Home Warehouse that was going to put the "Joe's" out of business...right up until they failed and were bought out by Home Depot.
When I was growing up, you could count on three things: death, taxes, and AT&T will -always- be your phone company. And then they weren't.
> Microsoft has a FAR higher probability of being around in five years than,
> say, Red Hat, which is the strongest player.
Higher, no argument. Far higher, I might argue. Not because MS is likely to disappear, but because the same factors that make it unlikley MS will disappear work to make Red Hat stable. Not as strongly, but in the same way.
MS is solid; but it's also vulnerable in ways Red Hat isn't, just like AT&T was vulnerable in ways MCI and Sprint weren't; apples and oranges.
When will opensource pussys stop trying to suck up to the powers that be? Who gives a shit if they get rich off of your cool no charge software--it's them that will get rich, not some IT dork. These are the same people who sit around and talk emotionally about the direction of their company when the company(the executives and share holders) would fire them without a moment's notice if they thought it would make them an extra few dollars. Free Software Forever
Just hunt down a few lying journos and kill their entire families. Ancestors, descendants, distant cousins. After all, it works for Microsoft.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
The US Library of Congress. gov
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=www.loc
Googleg le.com
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=www.gog
Forbesb es.com
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=www.for
Wall Street Journal. com
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=www.wsj
New York Stock Exchangee .com
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=www.nys
Ford Motor Companyd .com
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=www.for
Better yet, go through the Forbes 500 list and see just how many of those companies use Linux, Solaris, or any other *nix that is open-source or has had open-source underpinnings. Check the web servers, the MXs, etc. I see a couple that use Windows web servers but I'd be willing to bet that they have an open-source item somewhere that's publicly accessible.
Relative to most people here, I guess I'm lucky/spoiled.
The company where I work (a large, telecom equipment company) has embraced Linux. Virtually all new designer desktops are Linux machines - Redhat 8, RHEL 3/4, etc.. In addition, most new-ish products coming down the pipe use a home-rolled version of embedded Linux on the target hardware.
We still require Windows, though, for e-mail, documentation, test-set GUI software, etc. For that, everyone has VmWare installed on their boxes.
If what is said in the magazine articles is FUD, then just refute it. Show them the evidence (objective) that things in the article are incorrect. But be honest as well if there are items that are correct or have merit in the article. Tell your management about these things, but then let them know that you and your coworkers know how to deal with these issues or they can be dealt with by doing x.
But I fear from reading your posting, that you have an emotional attachment to implementing Linux in your workplace (using the word attacked) and believe they should not have an issue with Linux because you said so. Remember, your management's current pay and their future career are dependent upon the solutions that you implement and they fear that there will be no one to place the blame on if some worms ravages their environment because of some shareware (I know the difference, but many of your management don't) product was insecure. What is the saying, "No one ever got fired to choosing [IBM|Microsoft|Oracle|...]". There are people that your management can blame when something really bad happens, but telling the shareholders that the company lost $X millions because some coder in Hong Kong didn't fix the bug in his implementation of the network code you used to implement the accounting system won't cut it.
Be careful not to let your fondness for Linux cloud your judgement.
In the real world of technology, there is no perfect solution (read: every solutions has problems), there are just better solutions. Make sure that as a technologist you are recommending the best solutions, even if those might not be Linux. Business is a continual cost verse benefit analysis with a healthy shaking of risk in there. As a business person, if I can spend some money and buy what I perceive as an insurance policy for my company (or my career), then I want to transfer as much risk as I can.
Major premise: Management has already fscked up everything they could get their hands on.
Minor premise: Linux is something management could get their hands on.
Conclusion: If management learns about Linux, they'll break, co-opt, nerf, and generally screw with it in such a way that you'll be made miserable.
Solution: Publicly opine that Linux is a passing fad while secretly doing all your best work thereon, including your private projects that keep you productive and employably mobile. But most of all, support the anti-Linux VP who's getting the kickbacks from Microsoft and join him in snorting coke off the bums of hookers in the champagne-filled jacuzzi.
"Offices all over the country provide free coffee. How do Starbucks make money?"
"Books are free to read at the local library. How do book stores make money?"
"Water is free, it falls out of the sky. How do the people who sell bottles of water make money?"
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
A Ferrari is pretty exotic to be a common computer, maybe it's more like a high-end Sun.
From Neal Stephenson's essay about computers, "In the beginning was the command line":
---
Imagine a crossroads where four competing auto dealerships are situated. One of them (Microsoft) is much, much bigger than the others. It started out years ago selling three-speed bicycles (MS-DOS); these were not perfect, but they worked, and when they broke you could easily fix them.
There was a competing bicycle dealership next door (Apple) that one day began selling motorized vehicles--expensive but attractively styled cars with their innards hermetically sealed, so that how they worked was something of a mystery.
The big dealership responded by rushing a moped upgrade kit (the original Windows) onto the market. This was a Rube Goldberg contraption that, when bolted onto a three-speed bicycle, enabled it to keep up, just barely, with Apple-cars. The users had to wear goggles and were always picking bugs out of their teeth while Apple owners sped along in hermetically sealed comfort, sneering out the windows. But the Micro-mopeds were cheap, and easy to fix compared with the Apple-cars, and their market share waxed.
Eventually the big dealership came out with a full-fledged car: a colossal station wagon (Windows 95). It had all the aesthetic appeal of a Soviet worker housing block, it leaked oil and blew gaskets, and it was an enormous success. A little later, they also came out with a hulking off-road vehicle intended for industrial users (Windows NT) which was no more beautiful than the station wagon, and only a little more reliable.
Since then there has been a lot of noise and shouting, but little has changed. The smaller dealership continues to sell sleek Euro-styled sedans and to spend a lot of money on advertising campaigns. They have had GOING OUT OF BUSINESS! signs taped up in their windows for so long that they have gotten all yellow and curly. The big one keeps making bigger and bigger station wagons and ORVs.
On the other side of the road are two competitors that have come along more recently.
One of them (Be, Inc.) is selling fully operational Batmobiles (the BeOS). They are more beautiful and stylish even than the Euro-sedans, better designed, more technologically advanced, and at least as reliable as anything else on the market--and yet cheaper than the others.
With one exception, that is: Linux, which is right next door, and which is not a business at all. It's a bunch of RVs, yurts, tepees, and geodesic domes set up in a field and organized by consensus. The people who live there are making tanks. These are not old-fashioned, cast-iron Soviet tanks; these are more like the M1 tanks of the U.S. Army, made of space-age materials and jammed with sophisticated technology from one end to the other. But they are better than Army tanks. They've been modified in such a way that they never, ever break down, are light and maneuverable enough to use on ordinary streets, and use no more fuel than a subcompact car. These tanks are being cranked out, on the spot, at a terrific pace, and a vast number of them are lined up along the edge of the road with keys in the ignition. Anyone who wants can simply climb into one and drive it away for free.
Customers come to this crossroads in throngs, day and night. Ninety percent of them go straight to the biggest dealership and buy station wagons or off-road vehicles. They do not even look at the other dealerships.
Of the remaining ten percent, most go and buy a sleek Euro-sedan, pausing only to turn up their noses at the philistines going to buy the station wagons and ORVs. If they even notice the people on the opposite side of the road, selling the cheaper, technically superior vehicles, these customers deride them cranks and half-wits.
The Batmobile outlet sells a few vehicles to the occasional car nut who wants a second vehicle to go with his station wagon, but seems to accept, at least for now, that it's a
[dials wife] Honey, I just read on Slashdot something about Home Depot going out of business. We need 2x4s and sheetrock for the new rec room! Meet me at Home Depot in the mini-van! Bring the tape measure! Wait. First I gotta go post this on Fark. Holy Crap!
They must be stupider than I thought.
I think you need to get the point across that any pop-media is not reliable, for several reasons. They pander to their advertisers, they sensationalize, their writers are just that *writers* they are not experts in technology - at least not anymore.
I don't care if the tech-pop-media is occassionally pro-linux, it's not reliable. You need to make the point that the company should make decisions only on *reliable* data, as opposed to that crap spewage.
You need to get them away from the IT "RAGS" as their only source of IT information, they use "shock value" to sell an issue. You can almost always find an article by the same publication that contradicts a previous postion (sometimes event the same author).
Use your vendors to help back your position. For instance I got my Oracle, IBM and HP reps together to support our Linux push. All they had to say was x% of their growth was in the Linux space. Belive it or not, if you have a good relation with a vendor, your management will be very willing to hear what they have to say.
Also, take a look at this article, it really says it all. http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/free_issues/is sue_10/convince_management/.
Hope this helps and good luck. Just remember don't recommend a technology just becuase it is cool, management hates cool!
You state that "Linux has prooven itself (time and time again), for over 5 years in our company". Perhaps you need to amplify that. For example, if it's providing email services find out how many emails Linux handled, or how much data it routed, or how much down-time there was, or how many server patches were needed, or how many reboots were required.
You need to communicate what it is that Linux does already and how it stacks up.
For all I know your pay-roll file server is a Linux box and a statement that reads like: "Well for one, you got paid yesterday because the Linux server was doing what it's supposed to do."
I should point out that you should not lie and make up stuff because it will come and bite you.
|>>?
You're assuming an equal relationship between the parties. Most of the time you are not given the opportunity to seek common ground where the power relationship is disproportionate.
...well if that is true then the opposing side may do exactly the same thing as you and do as much as possible to "advance" their "position" which is exactly why positional bargaining is seldom successful in maintaining healthy relationships between a superior and a subordinate.
"Arguing with a superior is rarely a healthy career move." is exactly what I started my post with, so NO I am not assuming an equal relationship!
You wrote, "you do have to advance a set of reasons in favor of your position if you want to do the right thing for the organization", of course you are still saying that advancing the "position" is the thing to do
After all you do not want to alienate your boss so much that your zeal for arguing positions creates self-inflicted barriers to getting what you want in the next project or decision that needs to be made.
Integrity is what you are when nobody is looking.
Nah, not when they can do the same with programming as they did with hardware and OS!!
'Capitalists of the world, unite! Oh
Remember, executive types don't want to think about complex technology issues. They want to think about golf.
I think the best way to get Linux even thought about, is not to try to change OS 1 year after an upgrade. Wait a little until upgrading comes back onto the table (in the mean time, prepare your arguments), and then drop in Linux as a viable alternative, giving both technical and fiscal reasons why it is much a much stronger choice then any of the competitors
You can't tell the train where and when to stop, you've got to wait until the train stops where it wants, when it wants