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."

Comments

There and back again... A Hobbits tale

[CastrTroy]

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.

What works best

[Billosaur]

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.

Re:What works best

[hey!]

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.

I think it's interesting to contrast the foci of the switchers.

The Linux to Windows switchers were looking for an OS that was an all-around general purpose operating system to support a wide array of day to day internal IT uses. The problem they have is scaling up their Linux support to keep all the endless bits of software they organization needs working together. The "network effect" applies here: there's lots of companies with their needs and (low level of) resources, and those companies by in large use Windows. Therefore vendors in the Windows space address their needs to do a wide variety of things good enough with limited staff expertise.

The Windows to Linux switcher was looking for the best platform to host a single application they were designing. The consumers of the platform were, in effect, the development team, which was small and a higly focused center of expertise. They are looking for maximum performance and stability to support a universe of software they define. Joe Blow in accounting having to put three passwords in to use the VPN is quite low on their priorities, compared to, for example, hitting an unanticipated wall in the performance curve.

In short, the Linux->Windows switchers viewed software as a support function -- back office stuff. The Windows->Linux switcher viewed software as a line function -- outward facing stuff.

Of course a sample of three is nothing. But anecdotally, it's intriguing.

Skill problems

[__aaitqo8496]

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.

Re:Skill problems

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree completely. Any of what was described is workable by Linux. I know, because I've done it. The fact the the heads weren't willing to put the effort into it is their own fault. I would be more than happy to run my business on MS, but the fact is, it is NOT a stable or safe environment. I got so sick of the reboots and viruses and support of so many desktops that I went to RedHat and a central Xserver. I almost put myself out of a job as their are some days that I get NO support calls because everything just works. It's too bad that more companies can't be willing to put forth the effort because, in the long run, it would only make open source, or Linux in general, more robust and ready for an "Install and Work" OS for business.

Using Linux correctly?

[Rekolitus]

"Previously, all the e-mails were effectively stored on the desktops and there was no central location of the data,"

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.

David Braue

[dajobi]

Anyone know anything about the author of this story? That first story, the one about Austereo, looked kinda schilly to me, especially comparing what the author wrote to the quotes from the interviewee. Compare:

After three years with Linux, however, Austereo began reconsidering its choice as continued growth in the company led to increasing complexity within its IT strategy -- exposing the limitations of the Linux-based environment in some very painful ways.

This time around, things are working much better, with a full range of Microsoft server applications providing a deeply integrated, highly effective IT infrastructure that has significantly improved productivity and transformed information management within the company.

Working with Microsoft consultants, he and his team sat down to map out their future infrastructure and found that their requirements could be easily met using an integrated suite of applications built on top of Windows Server 2003.

After thorough discussions, Austereo committed to a move away from Linux onto an architecture combining Microsoft SharePoint Server, Exchange Server and SQL Server as well as Office 2003 and BlackBerry-related add-ons like the BlackBerry Enterprise Server. It was a hard decision, but even Forgione concedes he was impressed when comparing the company's existing and potential computing environments.

To:

"Importing our network environment and applications onto a new platform required some fairly specific skills, and those skills were not abundant within the group. As the business started to grow and we realised we needed to provide additional services to help people accomplish their day-to-day tasks, it became a very obvious and glaring issue."

"The problem was that just one or two people in the group [out of 15 IT staff] could do that, and it was hard finding people who understood that [open source] isn't just about playing with these tools, but delivering something."

Braue's version: Linux wasn't good enough, a Microsoft "solution" was required.

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?