Slashdot Mirror
Advocating Linux / OSS to Management.
An anonymous reader writes "I'm the Senior Developer at a fairly large agency, we're currently a 100% LAMP shop, but I've heard a reliable report through the grapevine that the management a few levels above our office wants to standardize our region on MS .NET. As I'm sure most of you can appreciate, to do such a thing would be... counterproductive, and I could really do with a hand conveying this to a manager whose only real knowledge of Linux is "if it's so good, why would you give it away for free"?"
The difference between a professional and an amateur is that amateurs work for the love of it and professionals work because they get paid. Sort of the difference between a spouse and a hooker. Which side does MS fall on?
.. Blub falls right in the middle of the abstractness continuum. -- Paul Graham
Don't be fooled by management's official reasons why they don't go with Linux or other open source software. It really just boils down to FUD.
There's still a prevalent image of Linux and other open source software out there as just hobbyist software. The reason I hear most often cited for not considering open source software at my company is, "There's no one to hold accountable if it breaks." Even when I point out companies that offer paid support--people to be held accountable for making sure the software works--they still chant the "hold accountable" mantra. Those companies aren't big enough, they may go out of business any minute now, blah blah blah.
It's really disgusting sometimes. I've seen software come into our environment that I know for a fact and can demonstrate is crap, and offered alternatives for it. I'm told, "That's all fine and good, but when the software we're going to use breaks, we'll have someone to sue over it." Of course, that doesn't really happen, we always just end up suffering for several years until the next version comes out or some other closed-source competitor comes in and convinces management that they're the way to go instead. Having people to "hold accountable" (which they never are) is more important to my company than having something that actually works.
I don't know what to suggest. Another trait of large companies is that they won't do something until everyone else in the world is doing it. Once a company reaches a certain size, there's no longer a culture of trying new things and trying to separate yourself from the competition; it becomes an unrelenting strive for mediocrity. Right now, everyone else is moving to .NET, so that's probably where you'll end up, regardless of what is best for your company. About the only chance you have is to put together a pretty Powerpoint presentation showing that switching to .NET will cost a billion dollars. Make costs up if you have to. The problem is that if you show it will only cost a million, they'll still do it anyway just to be on that magical .NET bandwagon, and you'll need a ridiculously large cost to justify not doing so.
If I go with open source my [insert vendor name here] won't take me out for expensive 'business' lunches and golf days anymore. Oh and I might have to give the Yacht back...
"That's all fine and good, but when the software we're going to use breaks, we'll have someone to sue over it." :-)
MS's licenses specifically state that the operating system is not guaranteed to work for any purpose. You could at least write an angry letter to Linus Torvalds and he'll usenet how stupid you are.
I like Linux, btw.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
You're forgetting the part that, after the install, he's stuck with it as a developer / sysadmin. So anyone who has MS software ordered upon them will give a fuck as it affects them in their work for as long as they'll stay in their current job. Therefore it very much is his problem and if he wants a less frustrated future he should indeed act now.
If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
1) Migration to a totally different platform costs money, lots of money.
2) If it works, why fuck with it?
This will put the onus on your manager to explain why he wants to use so much money to move to windows. Any reasons he can give at that point should be easy to shoot down.
Question: Ask him if he charges his children for the parenting he gives them? Must be worthless, then, right?
Question: Ask him how it is in the company's best interests to spend money on something you can get for free?
Question; Ask him how much he thinks it would cost to convert over, and then give him an estimate of what you could do with the money on your existing LAMP platform.
My guess: FEAR. It seems to me he's afraid that *something* *will* go *wrong* and he wants to be able to Cover His Posterior. (See: Sarbanes-Oxley Act.) Address his fear by pointing out the REALITY of what happens WHEN something goes wrong.
Of course, he could mention about coding a work-around, but that holds true for either platform. It's a non-factor.
It might help to also point out that with LAMP, it is possible to be pro-active and actively search for vulnerabilities. Seeing as others would have the same interest in safety, this has already been done to a some extent, but you still have the option of doing this yourself. With MS .NET, you're screwed. It's closed source and there's no way to investigate what problems are there. Security by obscurity? Right.
Testing for vulnerabilities: There's a big difference between what is POSSIBLE with: Black Box (.NET) vs White Box (LAMP).
Still, with a bug in .NET the manager can say it's a bug with Microsoft and wave his hands around it. Sounds good, but in the meantime, his hands are tied, and
the brown stuff is still hitting the spinnie-thingie. With LAMP, he CAN do more than just wait for a fix... and any fix that can be implemented in less than a month is a win compared to Windows.
I know I waved my hands around some in the preceding, but the manager really doesn't care HOW your code works, or even WHAT your code is written in. He's just looking at an abstract "applications that do FOO". Speak to him at his level. Get him to be specific about his fears. For each one, address what could be done with either platform. Provide a reasonable time line. Keep harping on having to wait for MS to get back to you with a fix, while, with LAMP, you could have already constructed one.
You haven't been approached yet to look into it, right? Then take a small part of your infrastructure, just a few servers. Add license costs, hardware upgrades and so on. Don't forget porting and an extra admin to do the work. You'll end up with a pretty big number very quickly. Then send it up to your management chain as a proposal for a diversification. Don't mention that you heard rumors about a switch or anything. Just sell it as an idea someone in your department had and you wanted to do a small trial.
:)
Its simple. I helped a friend do it at his company. We took about 10% of the infrastructure - the cost came out to be around 250K in hardware and licenses and about 1.6M for porting. Of course it was denied. Then, a few weeks later the official directive came in and my friend responded with something like "ok, I'm confused. I just got turned down for a small portion, 10% at a little less than 2M, and now you want me to do everything?" Never heard from them again
Too bad I can't take credit for that idea - I got it from a bunch of guys that did the same where they worked and their proposal cut the whole talks about a transition short... Important thing is you show you looked at it before you were asked to on your own will. Otherwise you'll just be pushed aside as a Linux fanatic or something like that. But if they see you already looked at it and management already said it is too expensive, things look very different.
Peter.
If I was your management, and I saw the remarks you've made, I would make sure you were no longer at the company in a matter of days.
... and if I was your management, I'd make sure you were no longer at the company in a matter of minutes. No severance package, no golden handshake, just clear your desk and eff off.
It's attitudes like yours that are gradually sinking all aspects of the engineering industry, not just software. Forget actually coming up with a system that works, just make sure it's cheap and has a lot of buzzwords to sell. Never mind that the people that do the work - that keep *you* in a job, don't forget, that make the things that make the money - are telling you that you're getting them the wrong stuff.
Don't try and advocate that Linux be the only thing that ever gets used anywhere. Instead, adopt the attitude that there are some applications where Linux offers tremendous benefits, with others where it really doesn't. If you already use Linux yourself, you should be able to identify where those are. Above all, if there are any individuals at your workplace who do not want Linux, accept it. Do not try and force it on them.
Do not mention "freedom," or any of the FSF's rhetoric as one of Linux's supposed "strengths," because it isn't. Mentioning it will only cause you to be perceived as wierd and probably threatening, and will alienate whichever muggles you attempt to speak to about it. People want to be able to perform computer-related tasks. They generally do not want to become political activists. End of story.
Realise that although you yourself might be an ardent Marxist, most muggles aren't. What that means is that if something is considered valuable, they expect a dollar value to be assigned to it. Don't attempt to fight this, either, because doing so will simply mean again that you are seen as weird, and the person you're talking to is alienated from Linux. Instead, tell them about one of the companies that have put Linux in a box, but that aren't signatories to a Microsoft agreement, (Red Hat comes to mind) and explain that said company offers support as well, so that management won't feel as though installing Linux means trying to do something that they have no knowledge of, alone.
Try to figure out how to come across as normal in general. That means that you're clean, that the FSF doesn't get mentioned, and that none of the other meaningless abstractions that you might foam at the mouth about (but which normal people again don't care about) don't get mentioned either.
If you focus purely and solely on what Linux can do for management on a technical level in a few key areas, you will have a chance to sell it to them. Forget the rest, (in terms of philosophy/politics etc) because management will only view that as bullshit, which, (despite what you might think) it genuinely is.
Let me give you a suggestion what I hope will be more constructive.
/. won't solve anything.
Firstly, I'm going to discount the "fancy lunches" thing. I don't think it's as prevalent as some on here would have you believe, and even if it is in this case it's not the kind of thing you can easily fight against. This leaves us with "managing the business properly".
Any (sane) business owner/high level manager doesn't spend any serious quantity of money unless there is a clear business benefit. Remember those words: "Business benefit".
Now, a business benefit boils down to one of two things:
1. Helps the company make money.
2. Helps the company save money.
Every other reason, once you've drilled down far enough, ultimately boils down to this. For example, "Reduce risk to the business in the event of trouble" is just another way of saying "There's a strong chance that if something goes wrong, it will cost us a small fortune. This purchase either reduces the likelihood of something going wrong, or it reduces the size of that "small fortune". In other words, it saves money."
This, by the way, is precisely why management often have trouble understanding why software would be given away for free ("where's the business benefit?") and also why most of Microsoft's FUD has been along the lines of "Windows costs less than Linux".
Understanding this means that you can now ask yourself/your manager what the perceived business benefit of such a move would be. There is a possibility (unlikely but not entirely unknown) that there is a genuine business reason you haven't considered which, with the best will in the world, does provide a solid business reason. If this is the case: live with it or leave. You were employed to do a technical job, not preach a religion.
If not: get organised. List the pros and cons of each solution (including your current one), emphasising the things which are likely to be of concern to those higher up than you.
Getting upset and having a moan on
" a manager whose only real knowledge of Linux is "if it's so good, why would you give it away for free"?"
"Because the best things in life are free - you PAY for crap like Windows."
Ask him is he things solaris or java or aix are "unprofessional" products. Versions of all those available for free downloads - heck, Sun sent me the install dvds for opensolaris for free. Then ask him why he thinks that a few thousand programmers working at Microsoft can beat out a world-wide network of programmers, many paid by industry leaders like IBM and Novell, whose work is peer-reviewed!
Would he feel confident if his doctor started recommending non-peer-reviewed cures and drugs? Does he like the idea doing away with the notion of a fair trial by a jury of his peers? Would he trust an airplane, a nuclear power plant, his fridge or toilet if they ran Windows?
Then tell him that he really needs to get with the times - his attitude is stuck in the '80s. - that's 1380, when everything was run by guilds with "secret knowledge." Lincoln freed the slaves in 1863, and since then, people want more and more of that "freedom" in all parts of their lives.
1) Donated Time
A lot of OSS is donated time; there isn't a strict corporate deadline to meet where things get duct-taped just to keep PHB happy and get the project done.
2) Peer review
If something sucks, it is noted. Even when something doesn't suck, people will say it sucks and many eyes will be on it.
3) Source code
You get full access to the source code to PROVE how it is handling your company's assets. If you don't like it, you can presumably change it, when you want it changed.
4) Robust development base
Typically, people working on OSS software do it because they love the work - not the pay. This equates to a system where people have a vested interest in how well the system works.
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
Start looking around for other jobs.
The issue here isn't about .NET vs LAMP, or proprietary vs open source. I would give the same advice if the decision had been the reverse, ie switch from 100% .NET to LAMP.
Basically your company's upper management is going to make a huge decision without any input from developers. If senior developers like yourself weren't consulted before the change, it's unlikely they have a migration plan that is more detailed than "1) Switch from LAMP to .NET 2) ???? 3) Profit!". Is this a company you want to stay in?
It all depends on how individuals see the world around them. I think managers, who are mostly business school educated, don't see the world the same way the rest of us (developers) do.
Actually most managers do not have an MBA. Many have undergraduate degrees in science and engineering. Also, I'm in an MBA program right now and there is no shortage of engineers and IT (including admins) in my class. Some of my professors who have decades of real world experience in strategy and marketing at major corporations have undergraduate degrees in electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, etc.
They probably don't understand why someone would work for free or why someone would volunteer at a soup kitchen.
That is an extremely ignorant statement. There is a lot of charitable work being performed by business schools, fund raising, volunteering, etc. Additionally, a couple classmates actually work at non-profit research or charitable organizations. I know several that made donations of their time to various charities before entering business school, and who have also continued to make such donations despite having far less spare time now that they are back in school. The school also maintains a list of local charities that could use help in some area of business.
You are engaging in the same ignorant stereotyping that many around here complain of with respect to how geeks, and technical issues/people in general, are portrayed on TV and movies.
Most of the managers would never think that work could be fun unless it payed lots of money. Manager-types chose business school just as a way to get more money, it was a pretty good shortcut -- you go to school, pick business as your major, party for 4 years with buds, and then one of their dads hires you as a manager -- the system works great
That is also a fairly ignorant statement. I have BS and MS degrees in CS. Except for 2nd year calculus and theory of computation I am routinely using more advanced math in marketing classes. Yes, I was completely shocked. Yes, I used to hold the same arrogant and erroneous opinions you now hold.
Developers became developers because they like to write software. Most found ways to get payed for it, but they didn't dream of reaches first, then thought that becoming a developer would get them there and chose 'computer science' as a major in college (those that did do that, probably ended up switching to 'communication', 'business administration' or 'comparative literature' before the 2nd year.)
Bull. The vast majority of CS graduates that I have interviewed basically got into it because someone told them it was a good career path. It is difficult to wade through the applicants and find those truly have an interest in the work. Also, donating time to an open source project does not necessarily identify those with an interest. Some of the more savvy career path types realize that this is an easier way to get something on the resume outside of classwork.
Also, some individuals donate time to FOSS for non-altruistic reasons such as ego, improving credibility/reputation, getting some experience in an esoteric area before applying for a job, etc. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with this. Just that your are romantically naive about FOSS developers.
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
Maybe he cares about the company he works for? Maybe he, like most of us, just gets irritated with doing something that is detrimental to everyone simply because he is told to by someone with less understanding than he has. Who are you to tell him that either of those is wrong?
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
That's a lousy argument in a business environment.
The theory that big busineses are all about reducing costs is an oversimplification. Some small businesses worry about keeping costs as low as possible, but generally this is not a major issue for the big ones because they essentially control their markets and can charge whatever they want. The consumer is picking up the tab, so who cares about costs. Take the US telecoms market for example. Does anyone honestly think they're trying to control costs. If so, then why is the US so pathetic in comparison to the global market. Large corporations are just as wasteful as the large governments that they've taken over for in so many industries like telecoms that used to be heavily regulated. There's no efficiency added in this transition, just a new social model. What big businesses do is not to cut costs at every corner. No, what they do is whatever is best for the business ecosystem that they are a part of.
To know what that is, you need to understand some of the core principles of business. There are two particularly important categories of costs from a business perspective regardless of size and those are labor costs versus capital costs. Theses costs are not of equalent from a business management perspective. Labor costs are under constant pressure because they drag businesses down. Labor costs are the enemy of business and as a manager you always look for ways to reduce labor costs so as a worker you might get the idea that cost controls are what business is all about. But that's only half the picture. The other side of the coin is capital costs. Capital costs, on the other hand, are actually a good thing if you run a business. If you understand this you understand that there is a genuine fundamental resistance to open source in business for reasons that are much more complex than simply whether or not it costs more. Open source cuts capital costs and empowers labor which is not a good thing from a business leader's perspective.
And I'm not blaming the managers here. The people who make decisions in a company are just as much trapped in the game as the lowest level janitorial employees. They have to compete against other companies using the rules that companies play by and thus they need to make their decisions according to the laws of capital and not according to what makes sense or what they think is right or wrong. Often times business decisions do not make the slightest bit of sense from a practical perspective and yet they work from a business angle.
So arguing about whether Microsoft costs more is really not going to make much of a difference. The point is: even if Microsoft does costs more, it can cost a thousand times more and still make sense from a business perspective because it is counted as a capital cost and capital costs are good from a business perspective. Look at how US telecoms are still committed to an extremely costly ATM infrastructure in an on-going effort to block out VoIP. Clearly, reducing costs, especially capital costs, is not a major goal for large corporations. Labor costs, on the other hand, those make sense to cut. Ask your boss if he would like you to take a cut in your wages and I'm sure he'll totally see your point.
Air is free, and it seems pretty good to me.
I suspect upper management is more concerned about basing a business on software that has no support, and that seems like it could go off in any direction on the whim of its authors and the company would be left in the dark unable to do business.
Most corporate types want assurances. they want to know that they will be able to get supply of the things they need (in thise case: OS, computers, developers).
From their limited knowledge they aren't certain that Linux will support computers that come in next year, then what do they do, base their business on older stuff and try to migrate over to something else at the last minute. The aren't sure that the guys working on Linux might just decide it's boring and quit working on it, suddenly there is no more free OS anymore. again they have to adapt the business at the last minute.
none of this is true of course, but this is the sort of impression I have gotten talking over with business types that didn't want to adopt linux or wanted to switch away from it.
There is a feeling that Microsoft will always be there, and that they will always be ready to sell you the software you need for your business. which is somewhat true, but not entirely so.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
That won't work in any environment I've worked in, and I work in higher-ed. In my experience, upper management doesn't care so much about bugs - unless it's a customer-critical bug (system down, or business impacted) in which case the vendor provides some kind of fix. Provided you're on a support contract of some kind, of course. Other bugs, and my management has usually responded "all software has bugs". (And certainly, management doesn't want to get into the business of providing fixes for someone else's bugs - you're committing developer resources that are probably needed elsewhere.)
Here's an example: It was a challenge to deploy Linux and other OSS at the enterprise level at the Big-Ten university where I work. What did I do to get "open source" supported by upper management? Support. We purchased RHEL entitlements, and the director and CIO were reassured that we'd get patches, etc. Since we're in higher-ed, we purchased RHEL-Academic entitlements for about half the systems we run (anything where we have pretty much own the core application stack - we run a lot of web applications, for example.) Academic doesn't give us the ability to call in for help - but again, we own the core application stack, so bugs tend to shake out during testing, or else are identified as a bug in application and fixed by our own developers. But we do get patches, updates, etc. In the case where we run full RHEL (not Academic), we're running applications delivered by third-party vendors (PeopleSoft, IBM, etc.) We never wanted to run into a situation where the third-party vendor says "this bug isn't caused by our app, it's in our OS - call your OS vendor", then we have no one to turn to. With full RHEL, at least we can call Red Hat to open an incident.
What mattered to upper management was support. The fact that, we've only ever opened like 3 support calls doesn't matter to upper management. They still wanted (and want) to see a support contract somewhere. And they don't mind paying a reasonable fee for it. And it's good to support vendors like Red Hat and IBM, who support OSS.
Another example: we once tried to set up a fax gateway service that would support something like 20 faxes a day. Not a high-volume thing, so we had looked at some very nice fax software that we found as open source / free software, but didn't come from Red Hat (i.e. not supported there) and didn't have a support contract offered anywhere else that we could find. Response from upper management: no. Not because it was "open source" but because it didn't have a vendor supporting it.