Slashdot Mirror
Three Windows to Linux Migrations (and Vice Versa)
daria42 writes "In this extended article, ZDNet Australia goes under the hood of three enterprises that moved their back end servers from Windows to Linux and open source software. Two of the companies ended up eventually going back to Microsoft, with the third one still going strong with Linux."
This sounds like a pretty expensive procedure of going to Linux, and then eventually switching back when you find out that it isn't working for you. I think that with the right people, with the right knowledge, that it would be a good change for those involved. Buy you don't have to move everything all at once. Maybe just stop using windows for new things, and then eventually move the old stuff, or not. There's no reason to take down a working server, and try to replace it with something unfamiliar. replace little things, one at a time, and keep what's working for you. If you try Linux mail servers, and you just had a better time with Exchange, then leave exchange working. But if your database servers are performing better with Postgres, then leave that in place. There's no reason why you can't have a mixed environment.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
So we have a breakdown of 3 companies, 2 switching from Linux to Windows, 1 from Windows to Linux. Is there any great wisdom to be gleaned from this? The only bit I can come up with is that you use what works best for you with the infrastructure you need to support. It's easy to say Linux will work well for everything but that's just not realistic. It's also safe to say that Microsoft sucks universally, yet there are plenty of sites running SQL Server and IIS that seem to be doing ok.
If you're smart, you analyze your needs and then add 50% for growth and ask yourself if the infrastructure and technology you plan to use can handle it. It's simpler than getting caught up in the Microsoft vs. Liunx battle for supremacy.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
TFA exposes the "problem" in both instances that the company reverted back to Microsoft:
Lacking skill set
Under that scenario, any OS switch would fail. You can't blame Linux (or Windows or any other OS) for that problem. Linux should be viewed as Linux, not Another Windows. You need proper IT support.
Some of the problems were simply lack of knowledge. There were complaints of having to claim 3 passwords for VPN access and not utilizing a worldwide-accessible central information store. That's just laziness.
Read The Fine Article more carefully. The businesses they're talking about didn't use Microsoft Windows. They went directly to Linux and have been running it for a long while. Coffey, for example, had standardized on Mandr[ake|iva] back in 1999. They came to the eventual conclusion that Linux wasn't meeting their needs, and so they went shopping. They (unsurprisingly, yet frustratingly) settled on Microsoft software.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Perhaps it's just me, but it seems like these companies weren't applying Linux quite the intended way. Linux isn't a magic plaster you can throw over your IT problems, and frankly, I'm sure it does need a little more maintenance than Windows, but it seems like the people that set these systems up didn't put any thought into their infrastructure.
Storing emails on the desktop isn't a problem that Linux creates. Windows seems more akin to something that says "This is the best way to store emails", whereas Linux is more like "Where do you want to store emails? It's up to you. I can't give you any advice." I'm sure these company's Linux-based experiences would have been much better if they did a bit more planning into the structure of the services in the first place.
Forgione's version: The IT staff didn't know how to use Linux. For some reason we didn't think hiring competent staff would be a good idea.
What do you think?
I agree. Most free software can also be run just fine on Windows, so it would be a good idea for any organisation switching to slowly replace each server with free software before migrating to Linux. Once everything is running free software on top of Windows, switching to Linux should be fairly painless.
For one company it was all about Exchange and Sharepoint. Which are two weaknesses with Linux right now.
Thunderbird is a great email client as is KMail. I use Thunderbird as my email client. What it lacks is the intergration of calendering that Outlook plus exchange offers.
You can talk all you want about how a Calendar should be a stand alone program but Outlook as made the intergration of of the two very useful and in some cases mandatory.
I have looked and looked for a good open source alternative and couldn't find one that was currently complete and worked for both Windows and Linux.
Sharepoint also doesn't have a good open source alternative.
Not every company needs these programs but it seems like a good number do.
Now the other company that complained about needing three passwords for it's vpn? Well they sound like they needed someone that knew how to setup LDAP.
Here would be a great project of an Ubuntu like disto. A small business server that included LDAP for a single sign on, Samba, a Sharepoint like portal, a CRM like Sugar or Tiger, optional VPN, and mail server with calendaring integrated right from the start.
I want one.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Obviously they missed step 1 in the Windows-to-Linux migration strategy. Go through the resumés of everyone in IT, and fire anyone who's top qualification involved the letters "M," "C," "S," and "E."
And hire the next applicant in the door who only wants to know if free Mountain Dew is a company benefit and has a beard.
No wonder they failed; they forgot the basics.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
I hate Microsoft as much as the next slashdotter, but being an IT manager, I wouldn't want the headache of using one OS.
Linux has its advantages. I was able to scale an old Windows 2000 server, Windows NT Server, and a useless company proxy server into a single, consolidated Gentoo System. Does that mean I want to switch everything else, including our accounting databases over to Linux? I couldn't handle the headache. Microsoft's AD is easy to use, we have 2 2003 DC's, including one Terminal server. There is no way I would use something line Wine to get Great Plains working with any sort of consistency. They work reliably as they are now, upgrading to service pack 1 was easy, and managing user accounts is simple (not saying account management in linux isn't).
To the company's that switched from one OS to another, mixed environments are easier, at least for me. Each OS plays an important role, and has advantages/disadvantages. Sure, you had to pay $1,000's to buy Windows software, but you would probably spend that much hiring Linux guys to come in and support your system because there isn't enough expertise to handle these systems. It's a two way street I have found.
Any sort of penetration into
There's nothing new about the phenomenon, either. I remember research back in the 90s showing that Macintosh users were all familiar with Windows, but that Windows users were mostly completely ignorant of the Macintosh.
In other words: Mac users who said that Windows sucked, generally did so from a position of knowledge, whereas Windows users who said that Macs sucked, generally did so from a position of ignorance. I expect it's still the case today, and I wouldn't be surprised to find out that statistically, it's also the case with Windows vs Linux in the enterprise.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
In the linked article, 2 out of the three companies migrated to Microsoft solutions based on services available from Microsoft because their internal IT departments didn't have the requisite knowledge to keep entirely open source solutions up to speed with regards to internal growth. The third company remained with Linux as a result of Linux services offered by Sun as part of a package with new Opteron based servers.
The other interesting bit is that a key part of decisions made in all three cases was the available software. The first two companies went with Microsoft because of Sharepoint. The last one stayed with Linux on Sun hardware because of 64bit J2EE.
In looking at the numbers, both of the organizations that went back to Windows had over 1,000 employees, and the other example listed had a little over 100. Both "back-to-Windows" orgs cited complexity as one of the reasons for the return to Windows. Is it possible that Linux developers have been too focused on each individual app rather than how the apps interact with each other? Who is responsible for the overall vision?
A simple example would be deciding on your e-mail system. Sounds easy, right? And it is. If you know - in advance - what sort of e-mail system it is you actually want. Just saying "e-mail" doesn't tell you very much. If you need a great deal of power in the mail processing engine, you're probably going to want Sendmail. If you need to blast through vast quantities of e-mail very quickly, Postfix is a better bet. If your company is relying on Exchange services, then you're looking at something like Open Groupware. If you aren't using Exchange clients, but do need similar services, then OpenXchange might do what you want.
That's just for e-mail! Then you have to think about all other intranet services, which have a similar level of flexibility. Internal web services with static web pages will be better off driven by Tux. Java servlets, these days, really mean Apache, as they're the ones mostly working on that capability. Basic scripting with reasonable power and reasonably dynamic content would probably mean Roxen.
If you want virtualization, you've three entire tiers - total machine simulation (vmware), heavyweight containers (xen) and lightweight encapsulation (vservers). If you want to admin the box, do you edit the config files, use Red Hat's scripts, use Linuxconf, or use webmin? And the list of options goes on and on and on.
On the one hand, the choices give an aware user a fantastic level of power and almost superhuman control over their system. On the other hand, it means that you cannot approach this with a turnkey attitude. This should be no great surprise. You can drive a roadcar with a turnkey attitude and expect to get from A to B in one piece. This isn't going to work in a Formula 1 racing car or an X-15 experimental aircraft. Why should it? If you act as though these are all one and the same, your efforts to transfer over WILL fail. This is not a limitation of these vehicles, it is a failure to recognize that simplifications that are true in one case won't hold for the general case.
Let's look at one of the big complaints I've heard for Linux - a lack of wireless card drivers. How many of those who are complaining have actually looked for additional drivers? My guess is that half the complainers have not, and that the majority of those would find that a project just as madwifi would provide the drivers they want. There are a few others listed on the Linux WPA Supplicant page. "But we don't want to install 3rd party drivers!" That wasn't the complaint - the complaint was that the drivers didn't exist. If I can find the drivers, and they DO exist, I will have zero sympathy for those who then come up with further excuses - because if the complaint has to change each time it's proven wrong, then all it is IS an excuse.
My guess is that almost every single case of a company "needing" to switch from Linux to Windows will - on closer examination - prove to be a case of nobody bothering to figure out what the company actually wanted, OR nobody bothering to figure out how to get Linux to provide it. There will be VERY few cases - although such cases will happen - where Linux really isn't a good fit, which is a limitation of Linux, but I seriously doubt that more than one in a thousand migrations from Linux to Windows fits into that category.
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)
After reading the article (yep, I did read it), it seems to me that for the two companies that switched back to Windows, the Linux-switch was not very well planned and the needed skillset was not there. The switch back to Windows was on the other hand very well planned.
/ The Arrow
"How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
While I'm a Linux/UNIX guy through and through, I understand times when Microsoft makes sense. If your core comptency is Windows, why the hell would you switch without expecting growing pains.
Having said that, and not begrudging the first two companies for switching in the least, let me point out a few problems I see (based ONLY on the article body) that stood out:
Austereo:
"For example, remote users struggled to grapple with a virtual private network (VPN) login system that required three different passwords to establish a connection"
- I'm curious what VPN solution they were using. I would think that from a pure cost perspective, going with a hardware VPN solution that provided hooks for existing authentication integration would have been a wiser choice.
""We were assured that there were procedures and processes you could follow to recover down to the individual message, but when it came to reality, it was a lengthy process and an absolute nightmare.""
- This is most definately a problem with most entirely opensource solutions. Zimbra has integrated message level restore into its product but having dealt with most open-source imap solutions, I have a feeling the solution had to be developed in house. I know how to read maildir filenames but YOU tell me what the hell email this is:
1145900957.V804I55c4037.mail.servername.com:2,
""Importing our network environment and applications onto a new platform required some fairly specific skills," he adds, "and those skills were not abundant within the group."
- This is the crux of the problem as mentioned earlier. I don't think they had the skillset on hand to manage the infrastructure.
The other problem I see near the end of that page is that they did a full desktop migration to Linux. This was probably the biggest mistake they made.
Coffey:
"The way they set up their Linux-based infrastructure had promoted the silo mentality; information wasn't stored in any sort of intuitive manner, and it wasn't easy to access information across the various geographical areas. If you weren't in the Brisbane office, for example, you couldn't access that information. There was just nothing from the information point of view that was encouraging collaboration."
- Poor design can happen in Windows just as Linux. This isn't a Linux-only problem. Sounds like a lack of planning or initiative to do things right from the start. I understand that business moves fast but you end up shooting yourself in the foot and having to redo things if you don't think about these things up front.
"After four months, Microsoft Active Directory and Exchange Server 2003 had replaced now-discontinued Linux servers to provide a consistently managed, centralised messaging infrastructure across 20 Coffey offices. "Previously, all the e-mails were effectively stored on the desktops and there was no central location of the data," Parsons explains. "That's a nightmare both because of litigation, and because of duplication across the company and all the problems that duplication brings."
- Sounds like someone needs IMAP and not pop3. There are also plenty of turnkey email solutions for litigation archiving as well. Most of these implement a SMTP gateway to your existing system.
""They initially thought Linux was going to be a cheaper platform," he says, "but as soon as they started to expand they became aware that the hidden costs of Linux were all over the place -- not only in real dollar terms, but because they weren't using the environment intelligently because of the [limited] skill sets.""
- Again it looks like another case of lack of skillset available.
Wotif.com:
Nothing specific jumped out at me. One thing I thought was interesting was the amount of planning(!) that went into the switch. I also notice mention of actual vendor support contracts.
"Wotif's strong adherence to plain-vanilla J2EE development"
"Oracle10g Standard Edition"
"We did a very critical pilot for th
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
Their problems were that they wanted features they weren't finding in Linux, but did find in Windows.
WRONG. The problem was that they weren't aware that Linux-based systems acutally COULD do what they wanted and a Microsoft marketroid came along and showed them how it could be dome with Windows. Both examples of the reversion to Microsoft showed all the hallmarks of "you don't knw what you don't know"--not only did their IT people not know how to make Linux work for them--they weren't even fully aware of the capabilities of open source systems.
The articles mention one comany migrated to Linux 3 years ago, the other seven years ago. Did they really keep up with the fast-moving world of open source? In the anecdote about the company that stuck with Linux there was a fairly siginificant mention of upgrading both hardware and software, but in the other cases little to nothing was said about upgrading. It is entirely possible that the latter company was still runnning on their original Mandrake 6.x (or whatever it was in 1999) platform. Were they expecting their Linux systems to be magically immortal? If they implemented a Microsoft system in 1999, do you really think they'd be happy with NT4 and the big pile of manure that passed for Exchange Server at the time? I seriously think not.
I think the final solution of migrating (back) to another platform was too drastic, and that these companies dropped the ball when it came to examining the open source alternative. Three passwords to log into a VPN? Email boxes stored on clients? Lack of collaberation tools? COME ON! You can set up a Linux server to allow a Windows client to log in without any extra passwords. It isn't hard to set up a secure IMAP server using Postfix to manage mail server-side either, and there are "Exchange replacements" that may fit the bill if you need to do mare than just manage email centrally. There are a bazillion "portal frameworks" out there, and Subversion can be used as a collaberation tool for more than just computer code. I know this can all be done because I've done all of that myself. These people are lazy and uncreative and didn't even try to find a more elegant approach to solving their problems. Instead they let a Microsoft salesman sell them a sledgehammer to drive in their 10-penny nails.
These stories also underscore a problem with the Linux community as well, however. Microsoft made themselves readily available. They have an education programme that turns out MCSEs faster than rats can breed. The Windows brand is everywhere and they make it very clear with every release "what's new". Where were the Red Hat and Novell people when these Linux shops were struggling? Why isn't red-hat more agessively marketing and expanding RCHE certification? What about LPI? And as far as marketing goes, IBM has done a bit but Linux is far from front and centre, and the marketing presence of Red Hat and Novell is next to nothing in comparison to Microsoft's mega-campaigns that contain heavy dollops of information (or mis-information in some cases). Yes, MS is the big man on campus and has the resources to pull all this off the best, but it's going to take a huge marketing and support effort by the Linux community to make sure we not only convert more people to Linux but to retain them as well.
The main problem I see from the two companies that went back to windows is a complete lack of planning on the initial Linux install. As someone else has pointed out, the Windows migration seems to have been planned out to the letter whereas the Linux migration was carried out in the heat of evagelical ardour, never a good thing. If the Linux migration had been planned out as well as the Windows migration appears to be, would they have had the same issues?