Businesses Choosing "Community" Linux Distros

An anonymous reader sends along a PCWorld recap of a new study by the 451 Group, which claims that business use of 'community' Linux distributions is on the rise — distros like Ubuntu, CentOS, and Debian, as opposed to "corporate" packages like RHEL and Suse. The trend is most evident in Europe. The article points out examples in Sweden and Germany, and cites growing in-house expertise with Linux as one factor helping enterprises get comfortable choosing Linux distros without commercial support. Interestingly, the Swedish company mentioned, Blocket.se, has made a one-off support arrangement with their hardware vendor HP: "HP is really providing device driver and utility support it uses for customers running RHEL, but because the two distributions are binary-compatible, that support approach works just fine for CentOS. Blocket relies on its own engineers, systems administration, and software development to get its applications running on Linux. "

Comments

I saw that on a supermarket chain

[Night64]

In Brazil, some times companies use Debian as their main SO, and hire their own support.

Re:I saw that on a supermarket chain

[TheDarkMaster]

Or the user is your own support, like me (using slackware on work)

Re:I saw that on a supermarket chain

[monsul]

In Brazil, some times companies use Debian as their main SO, and hire their own support.

I must confess I have no idea how much "enterprise" distro charge for support, but I think that if companies are starting to use their own support, it must not be cheap. Maybe this should send a message to RH and company

Re:I saw that on a supermarket chain

[erroneus]

Part of the problem isn't just the cost, but what they will support. I have found in the past that reading and asking questions on forums is more helpful than waiting on the phone for a RHEL support person to tell me that the configuration I seek support for isn't supported. A lot of businesses are comfortable spending money for a support contract, but when they find the support lacking, they have to decide for themselves if it is worthwhile.

I worry about reports like these because while I'm a CentOS user, I realized that I am somewhat riding on the coat tails of RedHat's development efforts...actually, now it is RedHat/Fedora-Community development but still. What if this trend were to continue resulting in the end of RedHat? I would really rather not switch distros. I more or less started with RedHat (even though my first install was Slack) and I have learned a lot from it. I have existed within a RedHat/Fedora/CentOS environment all this time. Switching could be a pain.

Re:I saw that on a supermarket chain

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who's juggling OpenSUSE, Fedora, Gentoo, Ubuntu, Windows, and a few other boutique OSes, I can tell you for a fact that's not something you should worry about unless you hand tweak configuration files and have your /etc tree memorized. Anything short of that and migrating between distros will take you a month or two tops (assuming you're actively investing time learning the layout of the various administrative tools/menus.)

Quite frankly the configuration tools on redhat have changed quite a bit just between version 5, RH9 and Fedora Core versions.

Re:I saw that on a supermarket chain

[houghi]

If you think RedHat is great at what it does, put your money where your mouth is. It is not that there is a lack of distributions.

Re:I saw that on a supermarket chain

[drsmithy]

I must confess I have no idea how much "enterprise" distro charge for support, but I think that if companies are starting to use their own support, it must not be cheap. Maybe this should send a message to RH and company

Depends on the context. If - as we do - you only use RHEL because you need a certified platform for some other obscenely expensive piece of software (eg: Oracle), then the cost of RH's licensing is basically irrelevant.

Re:I saw that on a supermarket chain

[Night64]

I don't know what the prices are around the world, but in Brazil SuSe support prices are not particulary cheap. US$ 5000,00 per machine, on a 3-year contract with priority support, 24x7.

In Brazil, some times companies use Debian as their main SO, and hire their own support.

I must confess I have no idea how much "enterprise" distro charge for support, but I think that if companies are starting to use their own support, it must not be cheap. Maybe this should send a message to RH and company

Re:I saw that on a supermarket chain

[morcego]

Parent comment is correct.

Certification (Oracle, Dell, HPQ etc) is one of the major reasons to choose RHEL. Otherwise, I just use CentOS.

Re:I saw that on a supermarket chain

[blhack]

Admitted noob question:

What benefits does a Linux like CentOS offer over something like OpenBSD? I used to be a strong Linux supported, but recently have started using OpenBSD everywhere I can. Ports is good, as good as any other package manager I have ever seen, the install is VERY simple, package availability is there...

Is there something that I'm missing that makes the Linuxes so much better than the BSDs? They definitely seem to be more popular.

Re:I saw that on a supermarket chain

[IDtheTarget]

If Red Hat had a more reasonable price structure, they may get more revenue.

In my civilian job we use both RedHat and CentOS servers. Because we can't afford the RedHat fees for all of the servers on which we use linux, we pay RedHat for three "production" servers, and use CentOS for all of our "development" servers.

I'd rather pay RedHat for all of them, but considering that I always get better (and faster) support from the various forums and email lists than I do from RedHat (I get so TIRED of waiting on hold), I can't easily justify doing so to my boss. At least he understands that paying RedHat SOMETHING will help keep them alive longer, which keeps CentOS alive as well.

Re:I saw that on a supermarket chain

[erroneus]

Having never used a BSD, I wouldn't know. But are there things present to support all the hardware out there? Recently, this has been the case for Linux hardware support. So I can load Fedora on my laptop and play games with 3D graphics with my nVidia card -- does that exist for BSD? If so, I might buy another hard drive and give it a try.

Re:I saw that on a supermarket chain

[RCL]

You may try FreeBSD (if you are familiar with Unix) or DesktopBSD / PC-BSD (if your Unix journey started with Ubuntu). BSD are actually quite indistinguishable from Linux if everything you use is X applications.

The nice thing about BSDs is that they can be shipped with binary and other non-GPL kernel modules installed by default (because they use BSD license). The bad thing about BSDs is that video hardware support is poor (only FreeBSD boasts good 3D performance when using NVidia proprietary drivers - but ATI R300 series is not a good choice even for FreeBSD).

Re:I saw that on a supermarket chain

[stupido]

The main Linux distro advantages I see:
1) fully "packetized" distribution. I haven't checked *BSD in a couple of years, but you could not upgrade just about anything as a package. The arbitrary distinction between the OS and ports does not exist in linux distros.
2) better hardware support outside the pure-server world. Even in the server world, you get Intel to write Linux drivers for their hardware, but no so for *BSD. Dunno if this makes much of a difference.
3) you get a few non-FOSS apps like acrobat, flash etc. Presumably they run in binary compatibility mode on *BSD, but why bother?

Ports suck if you have to compile stuff on a low end machine. I've also seen broken port compilations that were really hard to fix. Never saw that with source rpms (as long as built them on the distro they were written for).

Re:I saw that on a supermarket chain

[styrotech]

As another OpenBSD fan, there are still things Linux does better IMO.

Linux still performs better - especially on todays multicore systems.

As secure as the core of OpenBSD is, it is only the core systems security that is looked after by the OpenBSD team. Unless things have changed recently (corrections welcome), security updates for 3rd party apps you've installed are your responsibility with OpenBSD.

Rebuilding for security patches is tedious compared to letting the package manager just download binary updates.

Re:I saw that on a supermarket chain

[Anonymous Coward]

$5k isn't very much. One support call where you have to send someone on-site will eat up that $5k easily.

Re:I saw that on a supermarket chain

[cgenman]

Selling support for an in-progress operating system seems like a diminishing business. If the operating system is being developed correctly, then the further along you get the less support you need. My recent ubuntu install was buttery smooth, without even the usual hassles experimenting with wireless chip drivers.

The ultimate goal should be an operating system that needs no support at all. But then how would Red Hat et al survive as a business?

Re:I saw that on a supermarket chain

[hardwarefreak]

Switching could be a pain.

Change always is. But change is inevitable.

Prepare thyself.

Re:I saw that on a supermarket chain

[WhiteHorse-The Origi]

I use both and I can tell you that Linux is more widely supported. You wouldn't see much difference between BSD and Linux if you're building a router, DNS server, etc, but when you start getting fancy, BSD becomes cumbersome. Imagine a laptop which runs Quake, webcam, chat with MSN, skype, etc, plus all the usual office junk and multimedia features(Linux wins here). Or try a server with some LAMPP, streaming audio/video, and some funky LDAP authentication backend. Linux is usually a lot eaiser to get running.

Re:I saw that on a supermarket chain

[Anonymous Coward]

And in Soviet Russia, Debian uses YOU!

(sorry, it was too tempting)

Re:I saw that on a supermarket chain

[Cryophallion]

If the operating system is being developed correctly, then the further along you get the less support you need

This is only true if software and hardware stops changing. For example, any time a cpu gets updated with new instruction sets. The kernel has to be updated to use those instructions, then the OS needs to get updated to use those calls, etc etc. The new wireless cards will need driver updates (and possibly further reverse engineering if the drivers are proprietary)

Software evolution means the same thing. As new paradigms and new ways of doing things (shared calendars, torrents) are created, the os will have to create new ways to interface with them (and as things become standard, incorporate that into the os, such as zip in XP, etc).

People will constantly need help to deal with ever-changing requirements and technology. That is the one thing that is unlikely to change.

Re:I saw that on a supermarket chain

[badkarmadayaccount]

1)the distinction between OS and the rest of the system is an ADVANTAGE. That way when you upgrade the OS, it doesnt automagicaly break all the apps. It (FBSD) is pretty much the most internaly consistent and back-/forward-compatible OS except windows. 2)No, it doesnt make much of a differrence. Of course, FBSD wont fully support something two hours after its released, like linux, but other than that, its the same. 3)

Of course, they run in binary..

Fixed that for you.

The reason for linux mode to exist in FBSD is to run propietary linux binaries. They are pretty much guarantied to work, otherwise maintaining it would be almost pointless. Btw, ever tried to hand compile something on linux and make it play nice with the rest of the system? Oh, the fun! Not a troll, just pointing out some things. My $0.02.

Re:I saw that on a supermarket chain

[troutsoup]

maybe buy into redhat products? you know, help them stay in business? just a thought.

Re:I saw that on a supermarket chain

[Tubal-Cain]

Or try a server with some LAMPP, streaming audio/video, and some funky LDAP authentication backend. Linux is usually a lot eaiser to get running.

Especially the 'L' part of LAMP.

network isp services

[eneville]

At the ISP I worked for, we used a mixture of Debian, OpenBSD and Windows. This was mainly for network tools. Generally there's little point in the "enterprise" distros since anyone who chooses their hardware wisely shouldn't really need that.

Re:network isp services

[betterunixthanunix]

Actually, there are plenty of reasons to choose a supported distro, even at a purely technical institution. For many organizations, it doesn't make sense to devote time or personnel to debugging system problems, and it often costs more to have an IT department handle everything than to have someone from Red Hat or Novell solve the problem. It is not just a question of hardware, it is also a question of software bugs, configuration problems, etc. Yes, any competent IT shop could take care of this, but that means devoting time that could otherwise be spent on business needs to solving little trivialities.

Or did you think the most successful financial companies in the world made an unplanned decision to pay Red Hat, Novell, Oracle, Sun, etc. large amounts of money for technical support, when they could have just done it in house?

Re:network isp services

[vlm]

I call astroturf on the above...

Actually, there are plenty of reasons to choose a supported distro, even at a purely technical institution. For many organizations, it doesn't make sense to devote time or personnel to debugging system problems,

Looking at the cost of labor, when you're working with low end stuff, it's usually cheaper to replace the hardware with something that is supported than waste labor time. When working with high end stuff, someone's job is/was on the line when they specified the equipment, so presumably they got it right due to careful research. It's a good question if there is a middle ground anymore or if that has been overlapped and eliminated.

and it often costs more to have an IT department handle everything than to have someone from Red Hat or Novell solve the problem

Usually the more people you involve the longer it takes. Realize that it is extremely unlikely that RHEL or Novell has hired author of the software that is having a problem, and probably not likely they have anyone with more experience than your own guys in your field of endeavor. It is also highly unlikely that you are having a problem with the distribution mechanism itself (bug in dpkg or apt-get or whatever). So, what it boils down to, is it more efficient for someone familiar with your local system to use google to find the answer, or to have your guys spend extra time explaining the problem to someone else, who knows nothing about your system, so they can use google to find the answer?

Or did you think the most successful financial companies in the world made an unplanned decision

Considering that virtually all financial companies are either bankrupt or going bankrupt due to fraud and stupidity, looking at them as a role model seems about a decade out of date.

Virtually all decisions made to buy support contracts are either:

1) Out of touch "pre google era" PHB decision

2) No internal skillset for something that is business critical, terrible is better than nothing at all.

3) Cascading interlocking licenses and requirements (you "need" oracle, which requires RHEL, so you "need" a contract) That is a bad economic structure which will eventually be worked around or eliminated.

Re:network isp services

[betterunixthanunix]

You missed the part where I noted that there is more to it than hardware. I would suspect that Red Hat rarely gets support calls resulting from problems in configuring drivers. Really, Red Hat and Novell are spending their time solving problems like, "How do we work around this bug in ksh? Are you going to submit a fix to that?" rather than, "This network card isn't working." In fact, Red Hat publishes a list of supported hardware, and presumably getting support from them for hardware not on that list isn't even possible.

Also, keep in mind that Red Hat guarantees no more than 24 hours for a fix or workaround for basic support, and one hour for their highest paying customers. That is attractive to a lot of businesses.

Re:network isp services

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason Oracle "requires" RHEL is because RHEL is a single, stable distribution maintained by experts, not 16-year-old whizzes, so Oracle can test on it and actually guarantee that your software will work (as in, if it doesn't work, they fix it for you or pay you, rather than you losing your business-critical DB). *You* try to go to the CTO of any reasonable business and argue that you're gonna use Google to solve problems when your shoddy system built of hand-picked hardware and hand-picked software breaks down. This idea that businesses don't need software support is absolutely ridiculous and it's really hurting the open-source community, by telling people that it's okay to provide incompatible distributions, libraries, window managers, ABIs for drivers, etc because someone will figure it out - unless your idea of a "business" is only a small website, a municipal government or a mom-and-pop store. I bet you that if only one or two Linux distributions existed, you'd see a *lot* more businesses on them, and you might even have stuff like Flash and Photoshop and Microsoft Office and so on because these guys would have a single OS to test on rather than every kid's own repackaging of Linux.

Re:network isp services

[Jorophose]

I work in small office.

We can't fit an IT staff member, let alone an entire IT department. There's a fellow doing "IT" but he works with our office and a few others that we work closely with.

Although shit never hits the fan (but I'm waiting for it any moment because of bad decision making by PHBs) and I'm able to resolve a lot of minor problems (they're a windows shop so sadly my experience is just helpful in trying to find a solution by exploring) I do believe a paid support contract would be worth it.

But then again, shit never hit the fan. So why should I pay for nothing?

Re:network isp services

[betterunixthanunix]

I should have been more clear, I was referring to large IT shops that must guarantee 24x7 availability for thousands or even millions of users, such as the firms down on Wall Street. Trying to accomplish this in-house is often more expensive for these companies than paid support from Red Hat or Novell.

Re:network isp services

[vlm]

You missed the part where I noted that there is more to it than hardware. I would suspect that Red Hat rarely gets support calls resulting from problems in configuring drivers. Really, Red Hat and Novell are spending their time solving problems like, "How do we work around this bug in ksh? Are you going to submit a fix to that?" rather than, "This network card isn't working."

No, I got that. Ironically RHEL would be far more useful at fixing the driver than fixing ksh, assuming the (numerous?) authors of ksh don't work at RH and assuming that their support group understands and can communicate how their developer group implemented their RH specific driver modules and module options.

Here's your choices:

1) Google for ksh and your error message, and either work around or fix ksh, depending on which solution better fits YOUR business requirements. Won't take long.

-or-

2) Spend quite awhile to interface with RH (license # site # phone queue time) then explain what ksh is (they might not know), why you're using it, what doesn't work, what you've tried, why you haven't used a better more modern full featured alternative like bash, what your specific business requirements are for a fix, etc. Perhaps EM and IM sensitive internal documents and files to RH for their review to reproduce the bug, assuming they can do so and/or have the will to do so. Then after a day or so of getting them up to speed on the problem, someone at RH googles for ksh and your error message, and works around or patches ksh whichever better fits RHs business requirements (which may or may not fit your business requirements)

#1 takes a heck of a lot less of your time and provides a solution that actually matches your business needs.

If the bug is so generic that it applies to widely used software on any server, then probably any "IT person" in the industry could help you, including yourself. If its a peculiar problem in a rarely used piece of software, all they'll do is get between you and google and the original software developers.

Re:network isp services

[betterunixthanunix]

Wow I don't know where to even begin. Red Hat's consultants might not know what ksh is? I guess you've never dealt with them before, either. Not only is there an existing bug reporting system (modified bugzilla), but they routinely send people to work on site for their larger customers, and those people are exposed to all sorts of sensitive documents. Red Hat is required by law to protect the privacy of their customers; I would sooner trust them than I would some random software developer who wrote a package that I am trying to use. Red Hat's employees spend all day troubleshooting these packages, without distractions from specific business needs within a corporation, and would arguably be better suited to solve problems with something like ksh than a typical IT employee. Red Hat currently employs thousands of developers, who can communicate with each other; if your IT department has thousands of developers, you are a very extreme corner case.

Re:network isp services

[Anonymous Coward]

Queue times are actually very low, and normally non-existant. It's pretty well-staffed.

Everyone in production support has at least an RHCE. They know what ksh is.

There is a fairly substantial knowledgebase that is great for known issues. Anyone can access this.

And as far as engineers calling in to Red Hat support for issues that can simply be googled... it's rarely that simple.

Re:network isp services

[lamapper]

...3) Cascading interlocking licenses and requirements (you "need" oracle, which requires RHEL, so you "need" a contract) That is a bad economic structure which will eventually be worked around or eliminated.

Great post...

The last one is the best reason to move away from a company if possible. Nothing I hate more in hearing that I must update A before I update B.

Even worse is having to update both A and B before I update C. Especially when all I need is C and I am technically competent to KNOW that C will run just fine without updating A and/or B.

I call that the Microsoft Roller Coaster and have gotten off. Never again will I be forced to update my operating system, only because I want to update only one application. Nor will my system be 'automatically updated' so that I am put in hell when it does not work. There is a reason its caused the 'bleeding edge' and anything in production has no business being forced there. This is a 'business decision' that each business should be able to make independently when it is cost effective for them to do so, without threatening their revenue stream.

Just say NO to Genuine Advantage, because it is anything but genuine and is definitely NOT an Advantage.

Ubuntu is corporate

[Local Loop]

How is Ubuntu not a corporate distribution? There is a
corporation developing and releasing that
product, even if it is loosely based on Debian.

Re:Ubuntu is corporate

[Paradigm_Complex]

It's best known for it's community. It's not unusual for a new member of the Linux community to be directed to Ubuntu's forums or wiki. While it's possible to get official support a la RHEL, many (I expect the majority?) of it's users treat it as though it's a "Community" Linux Distro. I sure do.

Re:Ubuntu is corporate

[Icarium]

Eh? They're referring to the target user base, not whether the distro in question is developed by a corporation or not.

Re:Ubuntu is corporate

[Kjella]

Community is a misnomer, more like "free as in beer" distros. I think calling CentOS a "community distro" is a stretch too, isn't a recompilation of RHEL that explicitly make no functionality or patches themselves anything like a community? I think it's the Ret Hat Linux story all over again, it was very popular because it was gratis and Red Hat killed it in favor of products they could make money on (no, Fedora is not a replacement for what RHL was). We'll see what happens this time around.

Re:Ubuntu is corporate

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is interesting that you said that. I run FC9 and whenever I have a problem and Google for it, the answer is 75% in the Ubuntu forums.

Before I'm told to switch: I don't want to write over my FC stuff and I just love FC's server configuration tools.

Re:Ubuntu is corporate

[Anonymous Coward]

In France, the parliament members have their PC on ubuntu;
but they're getting their support from a local company, and not directly from canonical.

Re:Ubuntu is corporate

[sloanster]

Yes, ubuntu server is indeed every bit as solid as RHEL or SLES, and enterprise support contracts are available from canonical. We're a SLES shop, but we've set up some ubuntu servers and are impressed with the distro. We'd love to roll out ubuntu on a large scale but the chief stumbling block is not any fault of ubuntu, but our old nemesis, the old boy network again.

Oracle is the chief obstacle here, as they are pushing their own redhat clone (or redhat proper), barely tolerate suse, and dismiss everything else. They quite arrogantly (you had to be there) remarked that they had "no plans" to offer oracle for ubuntu. While annoyed at their arrogance, I do trust that time and market conditions will have them singing a different tune. I remember oracle telling me in 1998 that they don't support linux, and that I should try sco. muahaha.

Even so, we're looking at using ubuntu for general infrastructure roles - smtp, ftp, ntp, dns, etc. On the oracle front, our national manager is just angry enough to look very hard at using postgres or db2 or anything but oracle.

Re:Ubuntu is corporate

[lamapper]

Yes, ubuntu server is indeed every bit as solid as RHEL or SLES, and enterprise support contracts are available from canonical. ...I remember oracle telling me in 1998 that they don't support linux, and that I should try sco. muahaha.

I was in a telecommunications company at that time, heavy Oracle, some DB2 and some other databases also. We were also a heavy Sun and IBM shop running IBM OS/2 and Microsoft on the desktops, except in development where everything was Unix, Sun and Solaris.

I too heard Oracle say that they would never run Oracle on Linux...thanks for the memory!

Another thought, as many developers look for new jobs, I like many, look for companies that leverage Linux. I have and will continue to say NO to Microsoft ONLY and Oracle ONLY shops.

Oh BTW, MySQL most definitely will scale, its fun to see companies wake up to this fact and migrate away from Oracle, saving hundreds of thousands in the process.

After over 10 years of living there (Microsoft especially and Oracle..) I can see the writing on the wall, and want to have a more prosperous and even more successful future.

A mixed Linux and "other" shop is okay too, as is a Linux ONLY shop. I see a future there!

However, if the company is not leveraging Linux to profit their bottom line, then I question the ability and knowledge of upper management. Perhaps they are simply too slow, which jeopardizes my job in the future.

In this, or any economy, I cannot afford to be put out of a job due to poor business decisions.

How it's supposed to work.

[haeger]

This is how things are supposed to work with linux, isn't it? You support your local economy by using local people, instead of sending money away to whereever the HQ happens to be.

I thought this was one of the strengths with linux. Let's see if RH or SUSE has a business model that works according to this reality.

.haeger

Re:How it's supposed to work.

[wrook]

I agree completely. What RH and SUSE and Canonical, etc, etc now need to do is convince companies that they can do the customization job cheaper than the company's in house staff. Every installation needs planning, modification and execution. Why not choose experts who do it every day?

The problem the big distros face is that they have been used to providing crappy proprietary style hand-holding support rather than giving a true service. If you read what Michael Teimann has written about his experience, you've got to assume he understands this. If Red Hat doesn't listen, well, it's too bad for them...

Somebody will figure it out eventually. There's a lot of money to be made.

Re:How it's supposed to work.

[betterunixthanunix]

Who said that is how things are supposed to work? Last I checked, the way things were supposed to work is that you are entitled to a copy of the source code for your software, which you could redistribute under the same license that you received. Where did local economies fit into that?

Re:How it's supposed to work.

[houghi]

Let's see if RH or SUSE has a business model that works according to this reality.

Not sure about RedHat, but Novell (with openSUSE) activaly sponsors openSUSE and has made it extremely easy to make an openSUSE basded distro

Almost all other tools are included as well, including the Build service which can be downloaded and is used to make the distributions from scratch.

So I would say they are at least very much aware of the reality. Also do not forget that these companies invest people and time in thinks like the kernel, KDE, GNOME and other OSS and Linux related projects.

It will not be the downfall of Linux if those companies go away, but it will leave a serious impact when the developers who are paid to work on Linux won't be doing that anymore.

Re:How it's supposed to work.

[Yvanhoe]

More precisely, with OSS you are supposed to get enough information to manage your own support.

Re:How it's supposed to work.

[Hatta]

That depends, companies like RedHat have been major contributors to all sorts of open source projects. If companies are hiring their own help, what are the chances that they're going to invest in the linux community the way RedHat does? If they're just using open source stuff in house, they're not distributing any changes, so they don't have to give anyone the source.

I'm not sure it's a bad thing exactly, you're right, this is why the licenses were written that way. Maybe it will just encourage competition, I dunno.

Re:How it's supposed to work.

[init100]

If they're just using open source stuff in house, they're not distributing any changes, so they don't have to give anyone the source.

In my experience, this is likely wrong, at least for bug fixes. Enterprises don't want to maintain separate trees for applications not part of their core business just for fixing a bug, so sending the bug fix to the developers is the sane thing to do, and at least this is what my employers have done.

Linux at the bottom, Mac OSX at the top

[MosesJones]

What I'm seeing across Europe is a growing use of not ABW (Anything but Windows) but WIW (What I Want). So developers are using Linux, and supporting it themselves, and execs are using Macs. A very common pattern is to see the "standard" corporate image run inside a virtual machine which gives access to the corporate email and other MS apps while the user spends lots of their time in the native machine doing their work. As a way to do "home working" this also works well as it means the corporate contamination of your home machine is limited to just the virtual image.

With more and more things being browser surfaced the need to have an MS box is reducing and people are choosing to use what they want and support it themselves. The corporate desktop therefore becomes virtual.

Personally I've a Linux laptop for Dev and a Mac OSX for the rest of my work, the Mac runs a windows VM for my corporate access.

This isn't a big religious thing its just that it works.

Re:Linux at the bottom, Mac OSX at the top

[jcn]

What I'm seeing across Europe is a growing use of not ABW (Anything but Windows) but WIW (What I Want).

I wonder, how does one observe the subtle difference between these?

Re:Linux at the bottom, Mac OSX at the top

[InfiniteLoopCounter]

What I'm seeing across Europe...

The real question is how is he seeing across Europe?

That does however answer the question - do Linux developers these days have big egos? (said half-jokingly as I have also developed some stuff in Linux)

Re:Linux at the bottom, Mac OSX at the top

[HangingChad]

So developers are using Linux, and supporting it themselves, and execs are using Macs.

I brought Ubuntu with me on day one on the new job. It's getting a warm reception. I tried suggesting Macs for the other execs and sales staff but they didn't want them. Some of the sales people want to stay with their Windows laptops, which is fine, we expected to support those anyway. The other execs surprised me by opting to move to Linux instead, even our CEO. I thought they'd be more amped about getting Macbooks, but no one really wanted one. That was a surprise.

For some of the older IBM laptops we're experimenting with PuppyLinux. Seeing if we can get some more mileage out of them. But Ubuntu is getting a warm reception. Even caught one of the staff borging the Windows box in the flex work area with a live CD. Hiring hasn't been any problem. I've managed to find some blue chip Linux/PHP developers for about the same as we were paying the Windows only staff. Maybe the current job market played into the ease of that transition, but we had some really good candidates to pick from.

Moving off Exchange was a little more choppy but we got it done. There was one Gmail gotcha that delayed our roll out for a week but we got past that. Another surprise was after people uploaded their old messages to Gmail was how fast they dumped Outlook. We had planned on supporting Outlook but most everyone switched over to the Gmail interface on their own, a few had already been using Gmail anyway.

Linux is completely capable as a desktop OS in the working world. We have saved quite a lot of money just in licensing fees. Not only could we find skilled Linux people, we found them at competitive local market rates. Where we had three Windows developers, today we have one OSS developer and we're still meeting our development targets. Now we're moving on replacing services running on the remaining Windows servers so we can retire them. The savings are significant. It's a big win for me, although at this point it's picking off the low hanging fruit. Still, it's some good fruit. We're standing up servers for the cost of the hardware. Rolling out some pretty sophisticated services for the cost of the developer. Our next area of consolidation will be cutting loose some of the outsource providers and moving some of those services back in house. You can do things like that when you're not blowing your budget on Microsoft licensing.

Re:Linux at the bottom, Mac OSX at the top

[drsmithy]

A very common pattern is to see the "standard" corporate image run inside a virtual machine which gives access to the corporate email and other MS apps while the user spends lots of their time in the native machine doing their work.

I don't think "common" is the word you're after here. I struggle to believe such an expensive and complex solution is necessary - let alone desirable - outside of a handful of corner cases.

Re:Linux at the bottom, Mac OSX at the top

[Anonymous Coward]

Moving off Exchange was a little more choppy but we got it done. There was one Gmail gotcha that delayed our roll out for a week but we got past that. Another surprise was after people uploaded their old messages to Gmail was how fast they dumped Outlook. We had planned on supporting Outlook but most everyone switched over to the Gmail interface on their own, a few had already been using Gmail anyway.

You moved your internal Emails (containing business-critical information and trade-secrets) to gmail? ARE YOU CRAZY?!

Re:Linux at the bottom, Mac OSX at the top

[MadMidnightBomber]

Google does corporate email accounts - http://www.google.com/a/help/intl/en/index.html . I'm kind of hoping the OP meant one of those.

Re:Linux at the bottom, Mac OSX at the top

[Anonymous Coward]

We had planned on supporting Outlook but most everyone switched over to the Gmail interface on their own, a few had already been using Gmail anyway.

So you were using a combination of Exchange/Outlook while at the same time some of your employees were already using @gmail.com accounts? Email correspondence coming from some gmail.com users, and some internal email domains? Doesn't seem to be a sound company or IT policy to me. Also some customers don't like the idea of their email to/from your company being hosted by a third party, regardless of who that third party might be (ie Google). This is especially true if your correspondence with external customers might contain confidential data such as trade secrets. As an IT administrator I don't like the idea of being at the mercy of someone else in regards to my data, but rather the IT department having full control of my employees data.

Re:Linux at the bottom, Mac OSX at the top

[zippthorne]

Google sells search appliances, perhaps they sell mail appliances, too?

Re:Linux at the bottom, Mac OSX at the top

[luwain]

I'm not surprised that "community distros" are becoming more popular in the business setting. I've always been skeptical of Linux's ability to steal market share from Windows, but I've just recently installed Ubuntu 8.0.4 on a home computer and work computer. I'm astonished. It's stable, installation was easy (easier than Windows XP or Vista), package management was easy, and device drivers were plentiful (device detection was perfect). At work, the OpenOffice Suite, Netbeans, Java, and Eclipse were adequate to perform all my work (inoperability with my colleagues using comparable Windows apps was good). At home, again, I thought I would probably finding myself switching back to windows to do certain things, but that hasn't been the case (I haven't tried to manage my iPod yet, though). I think it may actually be easier for business to move from XP to Ubuntu, than to go to Vista. I know that my brother, a CEO, recently upgraded his home computers, replacing his two XP machines with a MAC and a Vista Box. He's found it easier to get used to the MAC than Vista. I'm sure he would find Ubuntu easier than Vista.

Re:Linux at the bottom, Mac OSX at the top

[gparent]

It's rather obvious.

Anything but Windows is anything but Windows.

What I want is what you want, which might be windows.

Seriously, you couldn't figure that one out?

Re:Linux at the bottom, Mac OSX at the top

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux is completely capable as a desktop OS in the working world

BS. Support for Linux is more expensive than support for any other OS. You think a hardware manufacturer is going to hire a linux guy just to support you? Think about the current fucked up tech support system. Add in new linux users calling about support = chaos.

Hardware support is crappy at best. ISVs cannot target all distributions and end up fracturing the market targeting one or two distributions. Still no way out of dependency hell.

Kernel changes still break mission critical apps. eg. recent VMware fiasco. Some user level software requires kernel updates.

And who does the testing? Seriously who tests every kernel change or other software patch is actually going to work on the hundreds of different systems out there?

Linux is far from being a capable choice. Its an OK choice if you're ready to deal with stuff or have an in-house linux team.

Re:Linux at the bottom, Mac OSX at the top

[HangingChad]

You moved your internal Emails (containing business-critical information and trade-secrets) to gmail?

Yes, we switched to corporate Gmail. You have to trust someone. Even if we continued to run our own mail server the messages still travel through unencrypted relays. As mentioned above, many staff were already using POP to get their mail into Gmail anyway. Many companies and government trust RIM with all their text message traffic.

ARE YOU CRAZY?!

A matter of some debate in certain circles. Years ago I worked at a nuclear research lab but no side-side-side effects I've ever noticed.

Re:Linux at the bottom, Mac OSX at the top

[syousef]

Moving off Exchange was a little more choppy but we got it done. There was one Gmail gotcha that delayed our roll out for a week but we got past that. Another surprise was after people uploaded their old messages to Gmail was how fast they dumped Outlook. We had planned on supporting Outlook but most everyone switched over to the Gmail interface on their own, a few had already been using Gmail anyway.

GMail? Seriously? In a corporate environment? How's that going to work. Google gets all your data including the highly sensitive stuff, you're now dependant on a net connection for email, and Google can pull the service at any time. How are you mitigating these risks?

Re:Linux at the bottom, Mac OSX at the top

[PCMeister]

"Moving off Exchange was a little more choppy but we got it done. There was one Gmail gotcha that delayed our roll out for a week but we got past that. Another surprise was after people uploaded their old messages to Gmail was how fast they dumped Outlook. We had planned on supporting Outlook but most everyone switched over to the Gmail interface on their own, a few had already been using Gmail anyway."

Too bad you guys hadn't found out about the PostPath Email Server. According to their site, it's a drop-in replacement for Exchange, integrates with AD and has native support for Outlook. Note: Cisco has recently signed an agreement to acquire PostPath.

Another viable alternative would Zimbra. You can try a demo of their standard or AJAX-based web client without the need to register. While not a drop-in replacement for Exchange, it seems like an interesting solution if you want to keep email servers in-house and get away from Outlook.

Like other posters mentioned, I don't agree with moving your email servers to a third-party; at least in terms of security policies. If you wanted to move the servers off-site for whatever reason, server colocation would be a safer option; IMHO of course. To each their own.

Oblig. Disclaimer: I'm not associated in any way with either PostPath or Zimbra.

Re:Linux at the bottom, Mac OSX at the top

[PCMeister]

"At home, again, I thought I would probably finding myself switching back to windows to do certain things, but that hasn't been the case (I haven't tried to manage my iPod yet, though)."

Although I haven't tried this solution myself, apparently CrossOver Linux from CodeWeavers supports running iTunes. You might want to give it a try. Of course, make sure to have a good backup of your music and iTunes Library just incase.

As a alternate, you can try gtkPod, which runs natively on Linux. This article gives you a quick rundown on the program's features.

Good luck...

Oblig. disclaimer: I'm not associated in any way with CodeWeavers or the gtkPod project for that matter.

Re:Linux at the bottom, Mac OSX at the top

[HangingChad]

GMail? Seriously?

Yeah. Are you really surprised or being factious? It didn't surprise anyone on the board, no one even challenged the idea. One of our sales staff used to work for IBM, they didn't bat an eye. It's been well received. Staff like it, management is easy and it comes with Google Apps.

In a corporate environment?

Why would this surprise anyone? Google has corporate accounts and customers that dwarf us in size and mail volume.

How's that going to work.

You sign up, set up the accounts, do your migration planning, send out the notice and change your MX record to point to Google. Although there was one grindingly annoying incident that delayed our roll out for a week. One of those features that they should warn you about in flashing red neon letters.

Google gets all your data including the highly sensitive stuff,

And so does RIM, your ISP and anyone with a relay between you and your message destination.

you're now dependant on a net connection for email,

Just where is your mail going without an internet connection? We mostly IM around the office. I was even IM'ing with our CFO and her office is right next door. And we have redundant internet connections anyway.

and Google can pull the service at any time.

Why would they do that? Millions of people trust Google with their email, and Microsoft and Yahoo, Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T, RIM...it's a long list. Google isn't any less reliable than any of them. If Google sold our trade secrets of cut off our mail service I'd blog about it. The traffic alone would probably make up enough revenue to replace the loss of income from getting fired. They'd make me famous.

How are you mitigating these risks?

How are you mitigating the risk of getting hit with a meteorite? Google's probably a million times better at email than we could ever be. If I was really worried about it I'd use the POP features to create a message backup for all the accounts. But why? The important documents are kept on an encrypted partition and we run daily incremental backups. And we trust TrueCrypt for the encrypted partition.

I can't tell if you're joking or really questioning corporate Gmail. It beats the hell out running an Exchange server. What a freaking nightmare that was. License fees, administrative costs, anti-virus software subscriptions...bugger that. You can run the free version or pay for the premium service and get better support and some nice goodies. With some of the outsourcing of large amounts of data to foreign companies I've seen, using Gmail is a low-risk scenario.

Re:Linux at the bottom, Mac OSX at the top

[syousef]

Yeah. Are you really surprised or being factious?

Genuinely surprised.

Google has corporate accounts and customers that dwarf us in size and mail volume.

Do you have a corporate contract with Google? If so, I get it now. If not, corporate relationships with other entities are irrelevant.

And so does RIM, your ISP and anyone with a relay between you and your message destination.

That's why companies run internal email services, and if they have to run at multiple sites encrypt with a VPN. Where I'm from internal and external email are treated very differently. I even get a confirmation/warning when I send external email.

Just where is your mail going without an internet connection? We mostly IM around the office. I was even IM'ing with our CFO and her office is right next door. And we have redundant internet connections anyway.

Our external Internet link can be down but our exchange servers would still relay mail within the office. IM has it's place but it is by definition instant. Sometimes you want to speak to someone asynchronously but still urgently. Like "Hey Bob, go pull those accounts and get back to me ASAP". Sure you can use IM for that but it's not the same as email.

Why would they do that? Millions of people trust Google with their email, and Microsoft and Yahoo, Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T, RIM...it's a long list. Google isn't any less reliable than any of them. If Google sold our trade secrets of cut off our mail service I'd blog about it. The traffic alone would probably make up enough revenue to replace the loss of income from getting fired. They'd make me famous.

Companies fold or drop services.

How are you mitigating the risk of getting hit with a meteorite?

Now you're just being silly.

Re:Linux at the bottom, Mac OSX at the top

[hughk]

Exchange & LoNo servers have substantially more downtime than GMail. GMail is faster an d they have fewer issues with large Mailboxes. Google Calendar is great too.

As for the SLA, well if you choose to pay Google for their corporate service, that risk can be mitigated. Their free service is much better than many companies' in house services.

As for secrecy, well if you are Yahoo, Al Quaeda or the KGB, it probably isn't the service for you but PGP/GPG on top of GMail works fine.

Ubuntu Support Contracts

[isorox]

Ubuntu support contracts are available, same as Redhat, which is the reason we use ubuntu as our standard server, not debian. The other reason being our in house engineers are more likely to have ubuntu experience than redhat, as it's free and ubiquitous.

Re:Ubuntu Support Contracts

[betterunixthanunix]

Ubuntu is ubiquitous? That's a laugh. Ubuntu is popular on the desktop, but last I checked, it was Red Hat derivatives that were dominant in the server market.

Really though, good point about support contracts being a reason to choose one distro over another. That's what the article misses: for a lot of IT shops, support contracts are very cost effective.

Re:Ubuntu Support Contracts

[Anonymous Coward]

What, you can't find Debian consultants in your area? Or are you just lazy?

http://www.debian.org/consultants/

Also, HP supports Debian if you need a big corporation.

Re:Ubuntu Support Contracts

[linhares]

Ubuntu is ubiquitous? That's a laugh.

I wouldn't be laughing very hard. It was the dominant distro in 2005, in 2006, in 2007 and in 2008.

There may be a pattern in there.

Re:Ubuntu Support Contracts

[isorox]

Ubuntu is ubiquitous? That's a laugh. Ubuntu is popular on the desktop, but last I checked, it was Red Hat derivatives that were dominant in the server market.

Yes, in the U.S. Suse seems more popular in Europe. However anyone that has previously admined any linux box professionally will be able to deal with the Ubuntu/Debian way of doing things.

We don't employ those people. We aren't a computer company, we're a broadcaster, we employ broadcast engineers. They are most likely to have experience with Windows XP on the desktop, maybe OSX on the desktop. If they have ANY unix experience, it will be ubuntu, not Redhat.

We have so many interdependant systems that even when we have specialists, they lack the overall knowledge of the whole system to help.

Really though, good point about support contracts being a reason to choose one distro over another. That's what the article misses: for a lot of IT shops, support contracts are very cost effective.

We haven't got a single support contract with Canonical at the moment. Just the fact that it's possible is good enough my the layers of management across the 4 divisions and one outsourcer in my corporation that have their say whenever we connect a new server.

New Business Model?

[CustomDesigned]

What about the Red Hat business model? (A little arm chair CEOing here - clearly I'm not CEO material, but this is Slashdot.) Hopefully, it can continue to support a steady stream of businesses migrating away from Microsoft for some time. But what about when that runs out?

The self supported businesses will still need to obtain their in-house expertise somehow. So training and certification would be one profit center. Contract work like IBM does would likely become the core business. Having an inside track as the distro maintainers is a valuable selling point, so continuing RHEL is vital - but must now be subsidized by training and contract work.

Re:New Business Model?

[O('_')O_Bush]

Many defense contractors that work with classified materials are required to use an operating system that is accredited as compliant with DoD security standards. Becoming accredited is expensive on the order of millions of dollars per major release of the software. The only entities that can afford to repeat this process for every release are large companies offering enterprise licensed software. RHEL 5 is one of the distros that is accredited. Even when that stream of business runs out, they'll still have a large market with defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing.

Re:New Business Model?

[Anonymous Coward]

Certification is USELESS. if you hire based on that then you are making HUGE mistakes. Microsoft proved to the world that certification means nothing.

So stop being a proponent of the most useless thing on the planet.

Re:New Business Model?

[betterunixthanunix]

Not all certifications are useless. As a case in point, consider the fundamentals of engineering exam and the certification one gets from it, "licensed professional engineer." Passing that test is no joke, and LPE's are generally the sort of people you want to hire for engineering work (in some places, they are the only people you can legally hire).

Re:New Business Model?

[cetialphav]

Red Hat doesn't need to change anything about their business model. The fact that many companies are choosing "free" distributions, as opposed to "commercially supported" distributions, is simply a sign that the entire Linux market is growing. Red Hat's business is growing at an amazing rate and that will continue for some time to come. Basically, everyone involved in Linux sees their customer base growing because the entire Linux "pie" is continually getting bigger. If anything, people using these other distributions represent a great opportunity for Red Hat because it is much easier to switch from Ubuntu to RHEL than to switch from Windows.

The other place the CEO of Red Hat is looking for growth is to move from just the operating system to other parts of the application framework. This is why they have purchased JBOSS and other companies. Red Hat wants to provide an entire integrated application platform, instead of merely a kernel and supporting utilities. Just look at the kind of money thrown at companies like Oracle and SAP and it is clear that there is tons of money out there to be made. Worrying about CentOS is just a waste of time for Red Hat.

Re:New Business Model?

[Bert64]

Vendor provided certifications are useless because there's a conflict of interest...
It's not in their interest for the certification to be hard, it's in their interest for it to be as easy as possible to increase the pool of "certified" staff for their product. Be it Microsoft, Cisco, or any other vendor sponsored certification. They are all designed to promote the product, not train staff.

On the other hand, proper academic certifications as well as those sponsored by vendor-neutral organisations can carry somewhat more value.

Re:New Business Model?

[TheLink]

Centos is a way for Red Hat to compete against Ubuntu, suse etc.

Centos = "Use RHEL for free and get used to it". There is significant difference in the way Redhat Linux works and Ubuntu works.

If one day you want Oracle, SAP, Expensive Software that's only certified to run on RHEL, the cost of RHEL is nothing.

For my own home server I've switched from opensuse to ubuntu because I've got tired of waiting for yast software management (it's really really really slow) and waiting for suse to fix it.

But I'm not sure how Ubuntu will do if you're trying to install a few hundred RAID+LVM boxes with a particular config + software bundle over the network. Seems to be "uncharted territory".

Re:New Business Model?

[fostware]

Certification is USELESS. if you hire based on that then you are making HUGE mistakes. Microsoft proved to the world that certification means nothing.

I'd disagree

RHCE (along with the Cisco stuff) was one of the most stringent and practical exams for IT professionals. You have to know what your doing as one part consists of a pile of CDs and a "here, fix it..."

Now practical is becoming more popular as it'll stump the wrote-learning people that made MCSE such a laughing stock within the industry.

If the article quote is true...

[CrackedButter]

isn't that better for the economy overall than paying private company x for a complete solution. At least doing it this way keeps money and jobs nearby.

openSUSE?

[houghi]

openSUSE is also a community distro where Novell is part of that community (as well as the sponsor).

Re:openSUSE?

[IBBoard]

But that's openSUSE. The summary/article means Novell's SLED version of Suse, which isn't a community distro.

Re:openSUSE?

[Anonymous Coward]

openSUSE is to SLES as Fedora is to RHEL.
CentOS is built from RHEL, not Fedora so it's not comparable to openSUSE.

Ubuntu is "cummunity developed and supported"

[CustomDesigned]

The point is that businesses don't buy an "enterprise" version of Ubuntu for $800/yr to get support. The Canonical company sells professional support services and training a la carte.

licence management sucks donkeys

[Werrismys]

I use CentOS because it's less of a hassle. No RH's braindead subscription management.

Re:licence management sucks donkeys

[lucifuge31337]

No doubt. And the fact that using the only RPM package manager I have any interest in using (yum) ends up with them having an out on the support contract. We're a 30 server CentOS shop now. Mostly 5, but some 4 in there still. It works just fine, and, being a tech company, I just don't see the need for a support contract. And because its RHEL, all the stupid Dell DMI/Openmanage/firmware updates work just fine.

RedHat and SuSE's strategy backfiring...

[Junta]

Well, SuSE's distribution was always aggravating to those who wanted it for free (no free ISO downloads back in the day meant it was hard to install for free). RH was amenable to first-party free distribution until RH9, after which they decided this was their way.

Namely, both SuSE and RHEL have a 'commercial-only' distribution with those enterprise sensibilities and a free 'first-party' offering that is ostensibly an enthusiast endeavor which really translates to recruiting enthusiasts as testers. They bank on trademark/copyright of text and images to keep clones from looking *too* much like their first-party offerings. CentOS is from a technical standpoint, a clone (plus some other stuff, but the clone-only behavior is default), but distinguishable enough to preclude Vendor and ISV support (both don't want to go the linux support path alone generally).

Meanwhile, here comes Canonical. They truly keep the distribution and support model independent. They have rapid release cycles, but denote a more 'enterprise-friendly' LTS cycle underscoring things. Regardless, the distribution is free to download and distribute. So clients can prototype and train and even do production as they feel comfortable with doing so without support, and then when they do need support, the contract is available without reinstall or other drastic measures. Suddenly, the mark of whether another party will support it or not is not keyed on the distribution, instead requiring a Canonical support contract to be in place.

I think SuSE/RH's approach is botching the market. I know of a *lot* of CentOS installs going in to places that might feel more comfortable with the option of purchasing a support contract. Knowing the strict distinction between RH and CentOS, Ubuntu will be very appealing to those places. The absolute identical nature of free training/development/prototyping systems with low support requirements and production use is also appealing.

Re:RedHat and SuSE's strategy backfiring...

[houghi]

SUSE has always been free for download. In the beginning it was free 2 months after the boxed version. This has changed when Novell took over. They also have put YaST under complete GPL as well.

Now there is a more clear difference between the community distribution and the corporate one. SUSE is corporate, openSUSE is community/

Both can be downloaded for free. For SUSE the (security-)updates need to be payed. For openSUSE they are free.

Oh and it hasn't been SuSE for a long while now.

Re:RedHat and SuSE's strategy backfiring...

[Nevyn]

Meanwhile, here comes Canonical. They truly keep the distribution and support model independent. They have rapid release cycles, but denote a more 'enterprise-friendly' LTS cycle underscoring things. Regardless, the distribution is free to download and distribute.

Exactly, so Canonical does exactly the same thing as SuSE/OpenSuSE or RHEL/Fedora ... except they brand it with the same name (just putting a LTS sub-brand on the realistically supported version). They also don't support their LTS for as long as RH/Novell do their versions ... oh, and they also don't make any money or do any significant work to advance upstream.

If Canonical can keep making it as easy as possible to not pay them any money, and actually make money (and presumably contribute something back), it'll be a very interesting comparison (and I would expect them to win, long term, assuming RH/Novell continue their current model) ... but atm. it could just as easily be that Canonical are still in the "give stuff away, until enough people are using our stuff" mode for their long term support products.

Re:RedHat and SuSE's strategy backfiring...

[Junta]

Exactly, so Canonical does exactly the same thing as SuSE/OpenSuSE or RHEL/Fedora ..

No, RH and SUSE treat their enterprise variants 'special'. Hard to obtain and wording to make it sound like time-bombed shareware. Updates are not free, like LTS.

Also, at least in Fedora, major changes are made to a release between releases that Ubuntu would postpone for the 6-month cycle. Using Fedora, suddenly they've switched kernel revisions, broken your binary drivers, etc etc.

I hear what you say about more commercially prominent vendors able to hire more developers, but Canonical offers support contracts. In the linux world, vendors aren't selling the platform in and of itself, they are selling services and support built upon a platform and pretend they are selling the platform. Canonical offers support contracts, and I would be quite happy to continue to see the platform free and services/support be more traditionally commercial. Why pretend your platform is your product, everyone who evaluates Linux is perfectly aware of the true value proposition they are after.

Works for us

[drsmithy]

We use CentOS on pretty much all our 150-odd Linux servers, except for those that require RHEL to be in a supported configuration (Oracle DB, Oracle Appserver, Oracle Financials).

Of course, while we mainly do this to save money, out of the million-plus we pay Oracle, the few thousand in RHEL licenses doesn't even count as a rounding error (hell, compared to Oracle licensing, even the cost of the hardware is irrelevant).

Re:Works for us

[Ritz_Just_Ritz]

Works for us too. Typically, we keep one current RHEL license in case we need support and every machine gets a CentOS install. The RHEL license is our "last resort" option if we cannot fix a problem ourselves or get support from the usual community resources.

With that said, we haven't had to use Redhat's support in several years. It's more of a baby blanket at this point. At one time it was something held closely to our hearts, but over time we just kinda forgot about it...but can't bring ourselves to finally throw it in the dustbin.

Re:Works for us

[WuphonsReach]

Similar reasons here for switching to CentOS (from other Linux distros) for our servers.

It's a lot easier to find a local tech-head who knows RHEL and plop them down in front of a broken CentOS box then it is to find someone who knows (your favorite niche linux distro). Or at least there's far better odds that your local linux support shop folks will have heard of CentOS/RHEL.

Plus, if we every do decide to go all official-like... the migration from CentOS to RHEL should be fairly painless.

A Question of Investment

[16K Ram Pack]

Does this present a problem in terms of one of the models of open source? One of the things often discussed on /. is the question of profiting from working in open source.

What's often been suggested is that there's money in support, and that if you create some software, and have experience then supporting it, that you gain a competitive advantage. That the likes of RedHat, MySQL etc will be customer's most likely first port of call.

If companies are simply going to go to someone else, that then suggests that investment in open source software could go down...

Re:A Question of Investment

[houghi]

If companies are simply going to go to someone else, that then suggests that investment in open source software could go down...

It could also mean that more (local) people get involved and are closer to their customer so willing to solve the problem and investment in open source software could go up...

Instead of 100 developers in one company, you will have 1 developer in 200 different companies.

Re:A Question of Investment

[QuestorTapes]

> Does this present a problem in terms of one of the models of open source? One of the things often
> discussed on /. is the question of profiting from working in open source.

> If companies are simply going to go to someone else, that then suggests that investment in open
> source software could go down...

It's a legitimate concern; but looking at it from the standpoint of someone who has worked in corporate environments using closed source software, with support contracts, another possibility presents itself.

The possibility that many of the corporate supported distros overvalue the support they are providing. Maybe they offer support; but in the effort to reduce costs, they are still trying to provide "just enough" support.

Closed source is no different. Microsoft, Oracle, Adobe, Lotus...I've worked in companies that have had support contracts with all of them. For the extra money, you still get first line "would you like fries with that" support, followed by:

  -really long, painful, and time consuming- delays getting to speak to a competent tech, followed by:

  -really, really long- delays waiting for an "I don't know" response, followed by:

  -even longer- delays getting it escalated to an engineer or developer....

All to answer a question I can get an answer to myself in 20 minutes of reading the source code.

The real lesson, I believe, is that distro vendors wanting to sell open source need to -really- support the products for the money they charge. They can't just sell the package and punt the support; support has to become the business focus.

It -can- be done; I've gotten that level of support from closed -and- open source vendors. But -never- the big corporate ones. Only the smaller, hungry ones.

They lesson might be: "you can make money as a lean agile support provider for a custom distro; but not as a fat-cat BS-enterprisey vendor, selling BS levels of support."

Re:A Question of Investment

[williamhb]

Does this present a problem in terms of one of the models of open source? One of the things often discussed on /. is the question of profiting from working in open source. What's often been suggested is that there's money in support, and that if you create some software, and have experience then supporting it, that you gain a competitive advantage. That the likes of RedHat, MySQL etc will be customer's most likely first port of call. If companies are simply going to go to someone else, that then suggests that investment in open source software could go down...

Absolutely -- the fundamentals of open-source have a "prisoners' dilemma" in them. Everyone would be better off if everybody contributed to development, but each individual is better off free-loading off everyone else. X development has already, reportedly, stalled somewhat, despite having a bucketload of users. The financials, of course, are leading a lot of the industry in the opposite direction. For example, Google's core algorithms (and any other proprietary Web service) far from being open-source have a "you don't even get to see the object code" policy. But so many Slashdotters still consider Gmail part of an "open source" Linux desktop -- the devil's greatest achievement was to make you think he doesn't exist? (badly misquoting The Usual Suspects)

Red Hat have dropped the ball

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the contributing factors IMO is the degree to which Red Hat have
dropped the ball with their service.

Our company has used RHEL for a long time, but there is honestly
little reason to continue the subscriptions. The reasons are:

1) Red Hat Network:
- The speed is pathetically slow. It took me 39 seconds to login yesterday.
- See first point. Really REALLY slow.
- Large number of outages. Their scheduled outage windows are very large
    and IMO not necessary. If they need windows that large, then someone isn't
    doing their job properly with change management at RH.
- Scheduled outages hit us often (as they are based on North American after
    hours time and we are not located there).
- To work around speed required a ridiculous cost for RHN satellite
    (and it requires Oracle. Yuck.)
- Poor integration between subscription management and RHN. Trying to
    see subscription numbers is a PITA.

2) Subscription costs
- Subscription costs are still charged yearly. Even MS does monthly
    through SPLA.
- Cost is higher than MS Windows
- Only way for discounted subscriptions is to go through
    third party reseller. WTF would I want to deliberately put
    a middle person in when I was previously dealing direct ?

3) Support
- Their online support tool is horrible. The support response we
    get is usually pretty poor.

4) Other rant:
- WTF is the deal with installation numbers!??

"corporate" linux?

[louzerr]

We use SuSE Linux Enterprise Server (SLES) from Novell for many of our servers, and are very happy with how easy it is to maintain (a lease cycle for the hardware eliminates the need for upgrades). I would be extremely hard-pressed to even consider using a community edition for production servers - that corporate-level support is extremely important.

However, when it comes to the desktop, the community editions offer more modern features - Novell's SuSE Linux Enterprise Desktop (SLED), is several years behind the current Open Source SuSE.

If the linux desktop ever comes of age for the average user, SLED may offer a very stable, easy to use environment (at least for supported hardware). However, since Linux Desktop is still primarily a developer's game, the OSS version offers the bleeding edge developers like, and know how to cope with.

What's the headcount at these companies?

[r_jensen11]

I could see this happening for smaller companies, but for the larger companies, I can't see them switching over. Large companies *hate* change. And I'd imagine that it's the larger companies who are using the corporate editions, while the smaller ones feel comfortable with the community editions.

Re:What's the headcount at these companies?

[anomalous cohort]

I worked in a small company that used a software development project life cycle management application called SourceForge Enterprise Edition. You can download and use what they call the SFDE version of it if you have 50 users or less. This is a VmWare appliance where CentOS is the guest OS. We had no trouble with it whatsoever. We looked at what it would cost to upgrade to RHEL and, frankly, that was just out of the company's reach financially.

I have been writing business application software for over 20 years. SFEE is most probably the best life cycle application that I have run across but, ultimately, I was still unsatisfied with it. You have trackers and artifacts that you have to customize in order to get change requests and defects. It's kind of a round peg in a square hole deal. Trackers are too generic, too agnostic. I agree with 37signals that software should be opinionated. That is why I am "scratching an itch" by developing a real collaborative software development project life cycle management application.

I am calling this application Code Roller. This app has a lot of features.

• Users can collaborate on requirements, use-cases, test plans, designs, and diagrams.
• Documents can be attached to any of these kinds of items. Documents are managed with multiple taxonomies.
• All of these things can go through a software development friendly workflow process of review and approval/rejection.
• Time is managed through tasks and events.
• The user can also work his bug list.
• A dashboard style interface shows you at a glance what projects that you are working on and what teams that you are a member of.

For more information, please check out my white papers. I would absolutely be honored if members of the /. community would become beta testers.

Re:What's the headcount at these companies?

[Anonymous Coward]

go whore your stuff somewhere else. asshole.

"dupe"

[Anonymous Coward]

the study was discussed earlier at http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/09/0121210

IIRC...

[Junta]

I thought SuSE used to be download available, but only piecewise. In other words, you could do a live internet install or download packages individually, but from SuSE you would not have gotten a simple set of ISOs.

Anyway, now there is SLES and OpenSuSE, with the same relationship as RHEL and Fedora.

But you are right, both RH and SuSE can be downloaded for free with registration, with cutoff on updates. I wasn't even aware of this. It does ease some of the problems, but the simpler Ubuntu approach still seems more straightforward. A large chunk of commercial software pain is tracking entitlement, and coping with limited-period 'evaluations' don't exactly make that easier.

Re:IIRC...

[houghi]

SuSE (now SUSE and openSUSE) was available via FTP as ISO and as individual packages and as network ISO so installation over network was possible. Individual packages could be downloaded, although there was no real need to do so, as everything was on the DVD and CDs anyway.

Due to the large amount of packages and the increase in Internet connections, some packages are only available via Internet.

The main difference between SUSE and openSUSE is that SUSE will be having paid security updates for 7 years from the release date. No idea what you mean with 'evaluations'. If you want, you can run SUSE as much as you desire without any limited period. openSUSE is completely free, as are the updates.

And again now it is SUSE and openSUSE.

Most...

[Shads]

Most of the businesses I've worked for I've pushed Debian as the distribution of choice. The biggest problem I see in mixed shops with Linux is often times there is no standardization on a single distribution. The one company I worked for had: Slackware, Gentoo, Redhat, SuSE, and some custom homebrew... I spent 3 months standardizing everything over to Debian. I built a standardized install manual, made sure we had a repository up to date with the latest drivers for special hardware, and setup all kinds of custom system status tracking with cacti and snmp. Management liked the new system setup so well that they eventually got rid of all the windows servers except two who ran custom software that our company's programmers wrote years ago and we lost the source code for.

Debian's free, the support is spectacular, it's package management is *excellent*, it's upgradable, it's easy to manage, and it doesn't install a lot of junk that is unneeded.

I *hate* rpm. It makes me crazy.

Re:Most...

[ducomputergeek]

Ditto. When I started working here they had Windows a combination of Windows (POS, Laptops) and linux on the servers (Some Fedora, others Gentoo, CentOS, and a couple debain boxes). Basically the owner of the business had his IT infrastructure built over the past 4 years by different contractors, most students from the local university. So it was a mash up of whatever the flavor of the year was back when.

Personally, that has been one of my biggest beefs with Linux over the past 8 years is that every year a different distro seem to be the next big thing. At least until it gets to be too large and "mainstream/corporate" and everyone decides some other distro is the next big thing. It's just like the kid who developed the wireless access tool swore it wouldn't run on anything but Gentoo. I remember by the end of the meeting I had the code installed and running off my PowerBook.

When I started working here my first goal was to get everything running off of one platform. We evaluated several distros of Linux as well as FreeBSD on the servers/PC BSD on the desktops and it ended up everything was moved to OSX. Ironically, it was the only platform where everything just worked from top to bottom.

Re:Most...

[PybusJ]

One problem with standardising on Debian is that you don't really know how long your machines will be supported with security updates. Debian's policy for security updates is the release of a new stable plus 12 months, without a clear schedule of when that might be. Sure, for woody, this ended up being almost forever, but there's no way to plan ahead for this.

It looks like there's a new debian-stable just around the corner and your 12 months start ticking to get your whole enterprise upgraded,

Personally, I dislike updating working systems (software testing on a different OS version, taking hardware out of service etc. - yuck) and so I like to know the support envelope when I install. Preferably staying with an OS version for the expected life of the hardware.

At work I do currently manage a couple of Debian systems along with a mixture of Redhat and Ubuntu (plus a few SuSE). Over time, the Ubuntu has grown to dominate the desktop & workstations and users familiarity with it on the desktop means it's beginning to gain ground over RHEL on servers too. It's rpm free too. Maybe it's not as stable as etch, but I do like having a 5 year support span on the Ubuntu LTS releases.

John

Re:Most...

[badkarmadayaccount]

'Lost the source code'? bumer. Have you tried WINE?

Re:Most...

[badkarmadayaccount]

Have you tried NetBSD? FreeBSD might not work on everything, but for what it doesnt make friends with out-of-the box, Netbsd runs great as far as I know. Besides, even it can outperform OSX hands down. Why the heck did you lock your selfs in with apple is what worries me.

Re:It is easy to see the difference

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder, how does one observe the subtle difference between these?

It's not a subtle difference, it's an obvious difference. Compare:

"That's it, I've had with this piece of sh@t! Get something that works better than this!"

vs.
"Boss? If you want me to be productive, I need to be able to use an OS that I'm comfortable with, makes me efficient, and has a ton of already packaged useful software ready to go."
and

Boss:"Hey Joe, I'm not too good with the technical computer stuff. Can you give me some advice on what kind of computer I should use? I want Something That Just Works."
Joe: "Well, if you want something that just works and you don't mind a little extra for something with class, get a mac laptop."

See the difference? One person is pissed off and fed up with the failure of an OS and wants to find something that works better. The other folks either already know what they want or are asking advice from their technical staff to get something suitable for them.

Lighter weight distros

[SgtChaireBourne]

For some of the older IBM laptops we're experimenting with PuppyLinux. Seeing if we can get some more mileage out of them. But Ubuntu is getting a warm reception. Even caught one of the staff borging the Windows box in the flex work area with a live CD. Hiring hasn't been any problem. ...

Once the top staff notice that they using the computer for work rather than spending all their time fighting Windows, you can probably zap that last box, too.

PuppyLinux is good. There's also "Damn Small Linux" and "SliTaz" to try. Fluxbox on ubuntu (see also Fluxbuntu) is not too bad. I had it for a while on an old PII w/128MB RAM. It was fine except swapping between applications could take a second or three.

Re:Lighter weight distros

[HangingChad]

Once the top staff notice that they using the computer for work rather than spending all their time fighting Windows, you can probably zap that last box, too.

Most of the staff managed without any prompting from us. We were prepared for a lot of hand-holding that never materialized. Even with OpenOffice there hasn't been much. One question on how to do mail merge, I think.

The XP box in the flex area is supposed to be for guests and one of our vendors uses GoToMyPC for demonstrations and that doesn't work with Linux...that I know of anyway. And, yes, that's one of the vendors we're phasing out.

There is entertainment value in seeing the XP box sitting alone and unused in the flex area. Ultimately suffering the indignity of becoming the pedestal for the flex area scanner/copier and being periodically borged with a live CD. Poor sad little Windows box, nobody wants it. lol.

Puppy got the nod because it looks nice. I know that's not a great reason but if that smooths over the transition, fine. The laptops aren't that old. They have 256 meg of RAM and are pretty zippy running Puppy. The sales and execs probably use their Blackberries more than the laptops anyway. The only people with desktops are administrative, developers and support.

Re:Lighter weight distros

[Anonymous Coward]

Once the top staff notice that they using the computer for work rather than spending all their time fighting Windows, you can probably zap that last box, too.

If your staff spends their majority of their time supposedly fighting windows, maybe you should get competent staff that knows how to use a computer? They're obviously messing with things they shouldn't be if something broke.

Sensible in many situations

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're running a large compute cluster or server farm, it only makes sense to use one of the community distributions. Even with volume discounts, licensing and purchasing support for an enterprise release such as RHEL or SLES is prohibitively expensive. This is one reason why the Rocks clustering distro is well-accepted, as it's based on CentOS and uses unencumbered packages for just about everything.

Not according to GPL zealots

[Chemisor]

As we are constantly reminded by the GPL zealots, the only "moral" way to make money from your software is to release it under the GPL for free and then charge for support. The article gives a fine example, IMO, why this business plan will fail and if anyone makes money from your GPL software, it would not be you.

Works For Us ...

[saltydog56]

Several years ago we here at NASA replaced Solaris X86 with Red Hat Linux as the operating system for our PCS systems (Thinkpad laptops used as the crew interface in the Space Station's command and control systems) We are currently in the process of rehosting again, this time to Scientific Linux, a CentOS-like rebuild of RHEL done by the good folks up at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory. Certainly cost was a factor, but not the deciding one. From our perspective it is golden not to have to track how many laptops each of the various development groups (many of which are international) have it loaded on.

Re:Works For Us ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it would be inconceivable for the very expensive NASA program to have to track and maintain accountability of what software is running on the laptops that perhaps control those expensive projects.

I wonder what other statistics it's "golden" not to have to track, and how much it costs the taxpayers...

Re:Works For Us ...

[lennier]

You've never handled corporate software licencing, I take it? Pure pain it is. An administrative nightmare. Timed licences, demo licences, restrictive feature sets, yearly licences, two-yearly licences, monthly licences, per-workstation licences, per-user licences, simultaneous-connection licences, per-team licences, per-role licences, per-organisation licences, special discount licences, academic or industry partner licences which may or may not apply depending on which sub-organisation you consider yourself to be working for, leases, purchases, suppliers going out of business, dongles, keys, codes (any or all of which may be allergic to any other if installed on the same machine), replacement codes, upgrade codes, Internet phone-home licences, lockouts which can bring your entire business to a screaming halt if you're so much as a day late in renewing.

Every licence is potentially a single point of failure for your entire business and they all multiply, they don't add.

Every open-source, free licence that doesn't mandate its own version of bureaucratic tracking overhead is simply one less moving part to break. Yes, you still have to track security patches but you don't have to be forced into upgrades by artificial accounting deadlines or restrictive shrink-wrap agreements.

What *wouldn't* a reliability-focused industry like spaceflight like about that?

Applications

[CustomDesigned]

That is a good point. No in house team can expect to be expert on every application out there, so there will always be a market for application specific support. The trick is to see it coming an be ready with competitive offerings (as opposed to whining about the good old days like RIAA).

Exactly what I expected

[Anonymous Coward]

Once again Linus is right and I completely agree.

This is the endgame being played out...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the endgame of Linux and Open Source being played out. People and companies like Open Source because it is Free - free as in $$ - not because of some ideological philosophy.

Now that companies are moving off commercial Open Source which costs some $$ to completely free Open Source it will lead to the death of commercial Open Source companies.

With a bit more time companies like RedHat and Novell will figure out - or rather Wall Street will figure out - that there is no money to be made in Open Source and there would be no commercial enterprise of any repute left that would support these free Open Source software packages.

Once that happens businesses will find that no one will guarantee a timely fix for the problems they encounter on Open Source software since there is no company of repute left supporting it.

That's the endgame of this all - free software would be back to its status as hobby software meant for hackers and not meant for corporate environments.

And really that's fine and just.

In the end, free - as in $$, doesn't scale as no one gets paid and no one makes any money off that - it would be good to learn that lesson again. It has been 15+ years since death of communist USSR - time to relearn that lesson in economics again.

In fact, once Open Source is dead, jobs and salaries for software developers will rise as commercial software picks up again - so in the end, no one will really lose, other than communist, Open Source touting hippies, masquerading as software developers.

Ubuntu is corporate

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell, Ubuntu is a corporate distro just like OpenSUSE or Freespire.

Some distros may need goal redefinition

[Yfrwlf]

It seems like several companies are still trying the tactic of software exclusivity, the same tactic the console companies are waging on one another. (In that arena, it's pretty unfortunate, too, as a lot of it just comes down to how much money you're willing to pay for exclusives, and Microsoft has the deepest pockets, or so their accountants claim.) This is something that cannot and should not occur in Linux as it hurts everyone. Part of software freedom is software accessibility, so when a new driver is created for example, it needs to be modular and easily pluggable into any Linux or Linux-like kernel, quickly and without hassle (the point of modules). Some companies are going to have to face the fact that they cannot get away with attracting everyone to their platform just because they have a certain software title, or just because they have large repositories.

Linux should be Linux, period. You should be able to use the entire Internet as your Linux repository. If package managers want to keep these so-called "third-party" packages separate from the ones they officially support for support contract reasons, so be it, but do not take away my freedom to install any piece of Linux software I want easily on any Linux distro. Cross-distro Linux packaging is more than possible and should become a reality soon.

So, without these "exclusive" distro-specific software packages, what remains to define a "distro"? Well, of course it's what it was from the start, a simple bundle of software for the convenience of being able to find all the basics, or simply the software you want, in one place. Linux distros should never be anything more than software bundles.

Help with Linux defragmentation. Support more standard APIs for desktop and general Linux interoperability to give everyone more choice and thus more freedom.

Re:Some distros may need goal redefinition

[Yfrwlf]

Oh, forgot to add, how can distro companies expect to make money then? Same way they did way back when: commercial paid support to answer the immediate need of any company that requires it, though of course this can easily be done by any development team and should in no way be tied to a specific Linux software bundle because it should have nothing to do with it (companies being tied to specific Linux software bundles really are unnecessary), AND last but most importantly and mainly, should be behind specific Linux software projects, either closed source or open source, in which they can help promote, like MySQL or any and all of the rest of them do. IMO these software projects should be the main focus of these companies, for instance Canonical and various projects on Launchpad which they specifically support.

So, like I said, some Linux distro companies may need to redefine themselves, because profiting off the fragmentation of Linux isn't something that the Linux community will let happen.

Re:Some distros may need goal redefinition

[badkarmadayaccount]

What we need ia './configure&&make&&make install clean' GUI and development guidlines just enough to avid breakage when compiling. I think GoboLinux is on track, also I'm really excited with the prospect of using the p9 protocol, much like mainframe apps use IP at memory speeds. </soapbox>

Re:Some distros may need goal redefinition

[Yfrwlf]

Right, if there needs to be some new, better Linux software packaging formats, so be it, and as I pointed out some solutions are being worked on now. GoboLinux should be easily compatible with software installation, as of course one thing that makes it unique is the directory structure, and all pathing issues should be resolved by now so that everything is relative/special or *some* kind of solution for proper communication. You should be able to configure the package manager to put certain types of files where ever you want.

Whatever it takes to make Linux more modular and allows interoperability and proper communication between programs and packages and the system. More modularity means less fragmentation which means more freedom which means more customizations which means more Linux software which means more...

Re:Some distros may need goal redefinition

[badkarmadayaccount]

Ok, I get the point, now calm down, and let the surringe go. </joke>

Is it just me or...

[V!NCENT]

... isn't the sysadmin hired for supporting your company's digital infrastructure?

Support contracts? We are past the closed source era...

Re:Is it just me or...

[rantingkitten]

Even the best sysadmin is going to come across problems he can't solve quickly from time to time. Now, suppose you're some manager or executive, and there's a serious problem with some "mission-critical" server or other. Do you want to wait while he gathers information, checks forums, examines logs, tries this, and tries that? Or do you want to spend a little cash up front to know that you have vendor support to someone who probably has access to the people who programmed the thing in the first place? Your sysadmin may be good but that doesn't mean he has the time or the knowledge to dig through layers of source code in who-knows-how-many kernel modules and whatever else and do the debugging. As a manager, you shouldn't want to waste the time it would take for him to do that even if he could.

Another thing to consider for many companies is the board and stockholders. People like that feel better believing there's a chain of accountability and an infrastructure of support that extends beyond the local staff. Even if it's all a grand theatre production, if it makes the investors feel better, it's probably worth it in many cases.

Religiosity decsribes nothing here.

[jbn-o]

"What I Want" is just as much a "religion" as is pursuing software freedom for its own sake (a position often, and erroneously, called religious). Software freedom just works for me (and apparently millions of others).

Distro holywars again, RUN!

[TheDarkMaster]

OMG... Gasp! no... no... Distro holywars again, RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!! AHHHHHHHHH!!!

While under NDA,

[Anonymous Coward]

I can only say that my company, a Cisco software partner is using CentOS servers for Cisco's video distribution systems.

So let me get this straight..

[vistahator]

American business's with M$ malware assurance contracts are not installing Vista on their network? Say it aint so!

And this is increased

[Sycraft-fu]

By a lot of the OSS advocacy. One of the biggest things I see pushed is that OSS costs so much less because you aren't paying for licenses. Ok, cool, and true enough at the fundamental level. However, if you sell a company on Linux by saying "It doesn't cost anything," you are then going to have trouble telling them that you want $80-180/desktop/year to run RHEL (which is what it costs). Now it doesn't look so favorable against a Windows license. Even at retail prices ($270 for Vista Business), you break even in a couple of years and at OEM prices, or volume license prices (which is probably what most companies pay) after a year RHEL can be more expensive.

Now there are other arguments as to shy to pay for RHEL like the support you get, however the fundamental problems comes back to the "Linux is free," idea. If you sell the OS as being the low cost alternative, people are going to expect it to be the low cost alternative.

We've had this problem at work. In the past we've supported Windows and Solaris. We are now doing Linux support. However, the idea most students (this is a university) and professors have is that Linux doesn't cost anything, and you get to run any distro you want. This doesn't work in an enterprise environment. So we get people complaining about the fact that we want them to buy RHEL, even though we get a steep educational discount.

Having used RHEL and CentOS...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe there would be more usefullness in using RHEL if the support was worth a damn. We've only had one time we've relied on RHEL support, and that was to fix their damn buggy cluster suite. All other times, we'll raise a service call, then figure it out ourselves before the tier 2 support guys get back to us.

Netherlands

[DaVince21]

If I remember correctly, the governments in Rotterdam and Den Haag, two cities in the Netherlands, have switched to Linux a few months ago too. Reason: Windows wasn't stable enough. Heh.

Order of Business

[Windows_NT]

1) Create a support contract you don't intend on supporting. 2) ????? 3) profit!!! I see where RH and Novell are coming from.. They must be slashdotters!

The value of support viz the cost

[symbolset]

Reboot your computer. Now uninstall conflicting applications. Now reinstall the OS from scratch to isolate the problem. Replace all the hardware. Oh! It's clearly the other vendor's fault.

Because of the content of your post I'm guessing at that you've had a "support" call go differently than this at least once in your life. I have to ask: what are you doing that I'm not? No matter what HW+OS+App I have problems with, that's the inevitable response from the "support" if I can even get somebody that speaks English as their first or second language.

If you haven't had a helpful support person at least once in a long life of experience, why are you paying for support? You know it's a marketing myth.

If you need support for your HW/OS/Apps, hire people who really know what they're doing.

Geeks do other stuff too

[symbolset]

Inquire at the placement office of your local junior college the next time your office has an opening of any kind.

You'll find that there are a number or folks with a serious nerd factor who also are good at office admin, driving trucks, or warehouse work who BTW also can admin your Windows server, organize a solid backup regimen and build you a good corporate Golden Image with reasonable security. They'd be glad to dig whatever ditch you've got to dig as long as their title was "IT Administrator," or if you're generous, "Director of IT".

Geekiness is well worth the extra two bucks an hour. That's $4k/yr and you'll easily save that in external services. You'll probably need a new one every few years if your work environment isn't pure bliss (you did mention a PHB) but them's the breaks. If they mention Linux in the interview, that's a slam dunk. Linux geeks can do the Windows thing too (who can't?), but they know their fundamentals better than the rest.

They're also willing to take part time gigs while they're still finishing their educations, in case you haven't got room even for a full-time anything.

It's potentially evil to point out that they'll also work part time for free while they're still in school if you'll offer an adequate "intern" reference. Don't abuse that. That would be bad, and fishing for the bottom end gets you in a lot of trouble. Your IT admin has more effect on your operations than you would think possible. Your local laws may differ from mine so consult your attorney.

451 group webinar

[Anonymous Coward]

The 451 Group is a doing a free webinar on the topic tomorrow. Register here: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/831680436