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 With articles, like the recent one from Information Week, fueling the Upper management with outdated information and half truths, how does an IT professional defend his position and educate upper managers to take those articles with a tiny grain of salt and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?"

Comments

my advice

[kebes]

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.

Re:my advice

[Captain Sarcastic]

That's pretty much what I tried. The down side is when the boss asks, "OK, so if it's free, how do the people who build the distro make money?"

This isn't quite as pointy-haired as it might sound. With some of the monkeyshines that went on during the dot-com craze, with various companies bragging about their respective cash burn rates, many managers want to have an idea that the company who is providing the software will be around in X number of years.

Of course, another approach is to point out that, "Well, you know, MS-DOS worked just fine, and nobody had complained about the 80-by-25 character cell screen... so how come we aren't still using it? Because [at this point you will want to sigh - DON'T!] Windows 3.1 did things well that MS-DOS was only marginally capable of doing."

Of course, depending on the manager, they might look at you funny when you mention "MS-DOS", but bear up...

Re:my advice

[grcumb]

"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.'

Also on the conference call

[Profane MuthaFucka]

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.

One word...

[Ustice]

Powerpoint. Like it or not, if upper-management sees it in Powerpoint then it is the God's truth.

Fight fire with fire

[egarland]

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.

Dealing with FUD

[db32]

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.

You ARE the linux expert.

[Spy der Mann]

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? ;-) )

Give them reasons to switch

[danmart]

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.

Define "free".

[jd]

Local phone calls are free, but AT&T and Bell aren't exactly poor.

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.

Learn Management Speak

[couch_warrior]

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?