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 With articles, like the recent one from Information Week, fueling the Upper management with outdated information and half truths, how does an IT professional defend his position and educate upper managers to take those articles with a tiny grain of salt and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?"
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.
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'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.
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
"It *is* always going to be easier to stick with what you have already."
Damn, and I was going to mod this thread....
I think you're almost on target, but not quite. The easier decision is to stick with what you've got, and it's often much safer to avoid changing horses in mid-stream, but it is not always easier to stick with what you've got.
Case in point: A large government agency in the country where I live had incredible problems managing its Internet traffic, to the extent that sometimes messages would take over a day to cross from one department to the other. The delays were mostly due to a bottleneck caused by placing all the content, spam and traffic filtering on the same box. An acquaintance of mine quietly installed a(n experimental) Linux box on the network to take up some of the slack, and even though traffic problems were significantly reduced, the decision was made to spend USD 25,000 more to beef up the existing system, because 'That's what we know.'
In other words, a conservative viewpoint with regards to technology is good, but it can lead to situations where the well-trodden path isn't nearly as efficient as clearing a new one. As a wise man once said, 'A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.'
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
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
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.
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 #!
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.
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.