Red Hat CEO Says Economic Crisis Favors Open Source

arashtamere writes "Red Hat president and CEO Jim Whitehurst predicts the enterprise open source software business will emerge from the economic crisis stronger than the proprietary market. 'I've had a couple of conversations with CIOs who said, "We're a Microsoft shop and we don't use any open source whatsoever, but we're already getting pressure to reduce our operating costs and we need you to help put together a plan for us to... use open source to reduce our costs." And we've had other customers literally looking at ripping and replacing WebLogic or WebSphere for JBoss ... I think we'll know in about six to nine months but there is no question that open source will come out of this in relatively better shape than our proprietary competitors,' he told Computerworld."

Comments

Yes young padawan... come over to the dark side...

[Lumpy]

I feel as if thousands of MCSE's cried out in pain and were silenced.

F/OSS BPMs

[Anonymous Coward]

There's also Apache ODE.

Re:F/OSS BPMs

[morgan_greywolf]

True. But Red Hat owns and supports JBoss, so, uh, what do you think they're going to be pushing to their enterprise customers?

but how will ibm make assloads of cash?

[doktorjayd]

as an engineer, with 10+ yrs in the industry, it still boggles the mind that closed source, proprietary software has such a stranglehold on the way businesses percieve 'value'.

all too often, you see a business with a couple of it 'support' staff, maybe developers too, and someone has a day at the golf course and comes back with 'great news, we've managed to secure a long term contract with IBM...'

i still loath cognos reportnet some 4 years after that guy came back from the golf course... whats that ? ibm bought cognos? greeeeeaaat!

Re:but how will ibm make assloads of cash?

[Anonymous Coward]

As a manager, with 20+ years in the industry, I have solved the mystery.

"Golfware" is a term I invented to describe any combination of hardware and/or software that is purchased after a golf outing. Golf is powerful stuff; it enables non-technical people to make far-reaching technical decisions without spending the time to learn the details. You don't see open source on the golf course, and you have to understand open source to effectively utilize it.

There are people who actually CREATE solutions and those who merely SHOP for them. The "creators" can only rise so high in the org chart. Inevitably, somebody with a non-CS background becomes the "creator's" boss. Such people are inevitably "shoppers".

Re:but how will ibm make assloads of cash?

[doktorjayd]

ha!

worst part is.. i play golf a couple times a week, and _never_ do i get in on these deals!

Re:but how will ibm make assloads of cash?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not duffing it with the right people. Also, don't win. Miss a few short putts if you have to. Lowers the prices in my experience.

Re:but how will ibm make assloads of cash?

[HangingChad]

as an engineer, with 10+ yrs in the industry, it still boggles the mind that closed source, proprietary software has such a stranglehold on the way businesses percieve 'value'.

Depends on the business. I got the top tech spot where I am precisely because of my background in both Windows and open source. Moving away from Windows as a host and development platform resulted in significant cash savings. We've even replaced a lot of our commodity workstations with Ubuntu and our productivity apps with a mix of GoogleDocs and OpenOffice.

Not only have we saved a lot of cash in licensing costs, but discovered that all the hype about increased training costs is just FUD. We haven't had any massive staff training costs, not even many calls to the help desk. The only ongoing annoyance is so many vendors want to use GoToMyPC and it doesn't support Linux. So we have to go scare up a Windows client.

Higher maintenance costs...FUD.

The line about paying more for qualified open source techs and developers is also FUD. We didn't have any problems replacing Windows only staff at competitive local rates. And our operating environment is so much calmer and more productive. You don't realize how much time you spend serving the Windows platform until you move away from it.

It's a pity it takes an economic crisis to get companies to look into a better way of doing business. You'll never make any progress taking advice from people invested in the MS platform, even if they're on your staff. The .NET developers said it would take us months to duplicate some of the systems they built, we did it in weeks. In one case days. We're down to converting the last couple core systems and the mood among the remaining .NET developers is grim. This is a bad time to be out looking for a job but I gave them a chance to get on board with the new order. We're shutting them down in the next couple months. Even the outsource vendors. I gave them the right answers the first day we met. Months later they're still trying to push .NET solutions.

Re:but how will ibm make assloads of cash?

[Timothy Brownawell]

It's a pity it takes an economic crisis to get companies to look into a better way of doing business.

The problem is that the rest of the time, the government is fixing the interest rate too low and putting a disincentive on any sort of real savings/investment. So people are made to only care about the short term (because they're penalized for trying to plan long-term), and they just can't be bothered to look around at what might be a bit scary but better in the long run.

Re:Yes young padawan... come over to the dark side

[Anonymous Coward]

Were they using the Billy Mays awesome auger to run cat5 near gas lines?

It seems he is implying...

[GuloGulo]

It seems he is implying open source solutions win on cost.

Has that ever been definitively proven (as much as such things can be)?

Re:It seems he is implying...

[Risen888]

Sure. 0 (not 0). Wow, that was easy.

Re:It seems he is implying...

[Dan Ost]

Categorically speaking, you can't prove it.

You can only prove it on a case by case basis. The exact same solution that saves one company money might cost another company more once you figure in required training, infrastructure, and staffing changes.

Re:It seems he is implying...

[Jason Earl]

Even Microsoft's case studies show that the price differences are relatively close, and they assume much higher costs for Linux administration and training than I believe is typical in the real world. For the most part college graduates these days are very familiar with Linux, and even MCSEs can learn without expensive training if they believe that the alternative is the loss of their job. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of scenarios where Microsoft has a distinct advantage, but if your shop doesn't have any Free Software in it, then you are almost certainly missing out on some opportunities to save some money.

More importantly, however, Free Software is much less expensive to acquire, and when money gets tight, that's a big deal. Given the choice of cutting people and cutting software licensing costs most CEOs are going to at least entertain the idea of cutting software costs first. No one wants to see their empire get smaller. RedHat has a lot of experience in that arena. The folks at RedHat are good at finding ways that Free Software can lower costs. To a large extent that's how it makes its money.

At the very least talking to RedHat will probably get you some leverage with your current software provider. Microsoft in particular has shown that it is more than willing to give price breaks to companies that are looking to switch. The more realistic your migration plans, the more likely that Microsoft will roll over on price.

Yes, but....

[russlar]

Has anybody checked the price of a Red Hat subscription lately? It ain't cheap. In fact, it's cheaper to get M$ bundled with a server than it is to get a one year Red Hat subscription, given that you need to renew (read= pay more $$$) each year, and Linux engineers can command more salary simply because there are fewer of them than there are Windows engineers (oxymoron, I know.).

So yes, open-source as a "whole" (Articles of Confederation-type whole) will do well in tough economic times. If Red Hat wants in on this, they'll need to either lower their prices, or perhaps rethink they're "software as a service" model.

Re:Yes, but....

[doktorjayd]

www.centos.org

( or - son of redhat )

presuming you havent built really crappy apps, one linux guy to install and configure, then let it just run in the background. java webapp? tomcat ! database backend? postgres ! ldap? etc...

of course, if your business demands up to the minute support, patches, etc, redhat can provide a reasonable service for a reasonable price, and will be pretty well binary compatible with your initial centos outlay.

Re:Yes, but....

[morgan_greywolf]

It's not as if Red Hat doesn't negotiate enterprise and volume licensing just like Microsoft. Since Red Hat is a much smaller company with lower overhead and a product that doesn't cost nearly as much to maintain thanks to the slave labor, uh, I mean, volunteer efforts of the open source community, they have a lot more wiggle room.

Re:Yes, but....

[Anonymous Coward]

The subscription gets you any new release while you're subscribed. For Windows, you need to buy the new OS. You can also seamlessly migrate to centos or migrate from centos if you want to try if it fits your needs.

Re:Yes, but....

[marcosdumay]

A Red Hat subscription was a similar price to a Windows 2008 (basic - I mean, Standard - edition) yearly payment with Software Assurance. The difference being that Red Hat does way more.

Or you were comparing that with Vista? Red Hat is a server system.

Re:Yes, but....

[schon]

The subscription gets you any new release while you're subscribed. For Windows, you need to buy the new OS.

Also, does a Windows subscription cover applications, or do you need to buy them (and support for them) separately?

OB car analogy:

It's like complaining that Red Hat's car costs more money than our MS's bare chassis. By the time you buy the MS Engine, MS Body, MS Wheels, MS Dashboard, MS Steering Wheel, etc, you end up paying more.

Re:Yes, but....

[corbettw]

and Linux engineers can command more salary simply because there are fewer of them than there are Windows engineers (oxymoron, I know.).

True, but you need fewer of them. The rule of thumb I've always seen used is 1:25 admins to servers with Windows, but 1:50 (or 1:100 if the guy's good) with Linux (on desktops, that ratios on both are around 1:50 or more, but then desktops aren't usually pushed as hard as servers). This may not be as true as it once was, I understand Windows Server 2008 has made some impressive leaps, including a full command line shell and SSH server. But that's the historical reason for Linux (UNIX guys in general, really) commanding more dough: better rate of return on each dollar spent.

Re:Yes, but....

[Ed Avis]

Does the cost of Microsoft Windows included with a server include a support subscription comparable to Red Hat's? If not, you are not comparing like with like.

The fair comparison is: Windows licence plus support contract versus RHEL subscription,

or: Windows licence with no support versus CentOS with no support.

Re:Yes, but....

[n4djs]

obviously you don't right the checks for your Microsoft Select or Enterprise agreement each year... do you think that Microsoft is giving it away support for free?

Re:Yes, but....

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. To have a complete mail pushing system you need to buy Windows and MS Office suite for all people in the company (not exactly cheap). If a Linux offering wants to get a foothold into corporate desktops, it is crucial for RH and others to get OpenChange stuff into shape and tart shipping exchange client alternative (later even the server stuff) based on native MAPI.

For the full scale assault (integration with AD servers, or even replacing them), we will have to wait for FreeIPA and Samba4 to mature a bit, but it is on the horizon already.

Re:Yes, but....

[Jeff Hornby]

From what I've seen of Windows v. Linux shops, most shops that use Linux are still made up mostly of techies while Windows shops tend to be more of a mixed bag. When I've been in Windows shops where the majority of people are technical, the ratio of techs to users seem to be much higher: in fact, in the same ranges that you have quoted for Linux.

What I'd like to see is a study comparing similar situations: average number of techs for businesses that are mostly technial or average number of techs for businesses that are mostly business (banks, insurance companies, manufacturing companies, etc.)

Re:Yes, but....

[plague3106]

Well, not only that, but replacing existing, working software that's already been paid for somehow saves money? Does WebSphere only come in a subscription flavor?

Sure, you can save on licensing with new systems, but don't you just end up paying for support from Redhat anyway? So, where's the savings?

Re:Yes, but....

[CrackerJackz]

You forgot the MS Airbag(tm)

You'll need those to survive the crashes ;)

Re:Yes, but....

[talcite]

I think you're comparing apples and oranges here. Redhat subscriptions include service and support. Windows server subscriptions don't. You're paying yearly because you're paying for the support, not the software. You can get the software for free by using CentOS.

Re:Yes, but....

[pembo13]

With RedHat's subscription you get support for quite a few applications besides the base OS.

Re:Yes, but....

[Anonymous Coward]

but the Microsoft car will give you more headaches per gallon...

Re:Yes, but....

[Kjella]

Has anybody checked the price of a Red Hat subscription lately? It ain't cheap. In fact, it's cheaper to get M$ bundled with a server than it is to get a one year Red Hat subscription, given that you need to renew (read= pay more $$$) each year, and Linux engineers can command more salary simply because there are fewer of them than there are Windows engineers (oxymoron, I know.).

I have no idea what the service level is so this is a serious question: Is the lowest support option, the one bundled with the Windows server license any good? Or is it more of a place you can open a ticket and maybe get an solution sooner or later or not at all? Where if your local support with the help of google can't find a solution, the ones you report it to are equally out of depth? Because I imagine there's quite a few that are really only interested in the license and would buy it no matter how poor the bundled support is, while noone would buy support from Red Hat unless it gave something. Since hiring a good support staff is expensive, I'm just wondering if this is an apples-to-apples comparison of what you're getting, or if you're comparing the 1st level of Red Hat support to the 0th level of Windows support and that equal service is actually one service plan up.

Re:Yes, but....

[ajs]

1:50 or 1:100 works for servers if you have a plan when you start. I've seen shops that need 1:20 because they started rolling out servers without a plan, and kept doing reactionary admin. Of course, that's true for both Windows and Linux, but I think Windows is ever so slightly more resilient in the face of half-starts, in that you have a fixed platform from which it's harder to stray. Once you have a Linux shop with 5 different software update strategies on 3 distributions with no centralized upgrade plan and developers who are hostile to some fraction of your installed base of distributions it gets much uglier.

Re:Yes, but....

[betterunixthanunix]

RHEL is also substantially more reliable than Windows, and requires fewer personnel to support (per server). For most businesses, a RHEL/JBOSS subscription will cost less in a given year than what it would cost to maintain a Windows Server/.NET IIS stack. In terms of other proprietary systems like AIX/Websphere, a RHEL/JBOSS subscription is substantially less expensive, in plain dollar amounts. Also, because of the staff that Red Hat can provide, some businesses actually switch from a community supported system like CentOS or Debian to RHEL, because it is cheaper than hiring another full time Linux admin as their business needs grow.

Re:Yes, but....

[corbettw]

To be fair, the same thing can happen in Windows shops. I've seen places with a mishmash of 95, 98, NT4, 2000, and XP machines, all trying to work together.

But you are right that some shops think being "Linux friendly" means letting multiple distros through the door. Screw that, pick one and go with that. At the very least, pick one package management system (apt, rpm/yum, whatever) and make it standard across the servers and desktops. Otherwise, nothing will ever get updated properly.

Re:Yes, but....

[johannesg]

There's a significant misunderstanding here, which is the following: price does not just say something about, well, price, it also says something about _value_.

If Linux is cheaper, it must be because it is not as good and therefore has to compete on price. If Linux is more expensive, it must be because it is really quite good and can afford to ask a higher pricetag.

Learn this lesson well: asking for more money means you are being more professional, and have a higher value product. It means you will be talking to the CEO instead of the junior IT person. It means more respect, more income, and more trips to the golf course for you.

Re:Yes, but....

[sorak]

Has anybody checked the price of a Red Hat subscription lately? It ain't cheap. In fact, it's cheaper to get M$ bundled with a server than it is to get a one year Red Hat subscription, given that you need to renew (read= pay more $$$) each year, and Linux engineers can command more salary simply because there are fewer of them than there are Windows engineers (oxymoron, I know.).

So yes, open-source as a "whole" (Articles of Confederation-type whole) will do well in tough economic times. If Red Hat wants in on this, they'll need to either lower their prices, or perhaps rethink they're "software as a service" model.

They didn't say they would survive...Just open source. Good luck with your slackware everybody.

Re:Yes, but....

[sheldon]

I think this idea of trying to measure admins to servers ratio is nearly impossible without addressing what the servers actually do. Database servers may require more work than web servers, etc.

Regardless, interesting anecdotal evidence...

The company I worked for merged with a sister company. We were a Windows shop and they were Unix. Their IT staff was amazed to find out that our Windows admin staff was three times more efficient then their Unix admin staff. Primarily because our staff had automated virtually everything, server installs, patch deployment, inhouse application installs, etc. Also they had built hundreds of custom applications, each with their own system for managing users and passwords, whereas our users had their Windows account. Since each business user may have to maintain several dozen username/password combinations, their staff was spending half of their time just setting up users and managing password resets and the other half installing new servers.

It's totally how you use the servers, not just tasks, but operations, development and so on. Piss Poor Planning yields Poor Results.

Re:Yes, but....

[gbjbaanb]

yep, RedHat licences cost more than Windows, but (apart from the other facts already mentioned) you only need to buy 1 to be fully licenced for as many desktops and servers as you like ;););)

You can happily run CentOS as much as you like whilst paying RedHat for the 'warm fuzzy' feeling of support that, chance are, you'll never ever use.

Re:Yes, but....

[illumin8]

Has anybody checked the price of a Red Hat subscription lately? It ain't cheap. In fact, it's cheaper to get M$ bundled with a server than it is to get a one year Red Hat subscription, given that you need to renew (read= pay more $$$) each year, and Linux engineers can command more salary simply because there are fewer of them than there are Windows engineers (oxymoron, I know.).

You may be right about us Linux engineers commanding higher salaries, but Red Hat is not more expensive than Windows to license.

Do this: Next time you need to buy an HP Proliant server, ask your HP rep how much it costs to bundle a 3 year Red Hat subscription/license with it. It's only a few hundred dollars extra for 24/7 support. This is lower than the cost of a Windows Server 2003/2008 license alone. Not to mention with the Windows Server 2003/2008 system you have to pay Microsoft an additional $300 per support incident. With Red Hat it's included in the cost of licensing/subscription.

The myth that Red Hat costs more for support than Windows is just plain FUD spread by Microsoft's marketing department. If you buy it straight from Red Hat and pay full retail price, then yes, it's expensive, but if you buy it from HP and they bundle it with the server, it's cheap.

Re:Yes, but....

[ozbird]

... you need to renew (read= pay more $$$) each year ...

You get a discount if you subscribe for three years rather than one.

Re:Yes, but....

[interploy]

...Or not use RedHat.

Seriously, how hard is it to learn a Linux distro? The first time I used Linux I was working as an intern for a small non-profit. The founders had brought in this desktop with SUsE on it to use as the website's server and run the office LAN. Up to that point I'd only used PCs and Mac and my boss was a hardcore MacAddict; neither of us knew anything about linux except that it was free. Basically they set it down and said "Make it work." We had it running a small LAN and serving the website in a couple of days. The internet and the built-in man pages were more than enough to figure everything out.

Obviously, the needs of a small non-profit pale in comparison to any larger company, but if two guys who knows zip about linux can setup a webserver and a network in a couple afternoons, then a team of professionals should be able to get things done.

Re:Yes, but....

[Yfrwlf]

Linux shouldn't have to be a walled garden. As soon as some standards bodies start pushing a package format like ODF was pushed, and managers are updated to be able to use the standard, there won't BE a problem with what manager or distro you choose, it'll just be a matter of choosing the Linux bundle of software that has what you most want to get you up and running the fastest. Sure, you might end up installing more dependencies, but that's to be blamed on the maintainers for library APIs for not having ones that are more stable.

Re:Yes, but....

[corbettw]

That would be nice, but it won't happen. For one thing, RedHat has invested a lot of time, effort, and money into the RedHat Network and Satellite Servers. They're not going to rewrite it all to support a new package management system. Not to mention all those RHCEs out there, who spent thousands of dollars on a certification, who don't want that to go to waste. To top it all off, there's enough ill will between the Debian and Ubuntu teams and RedHat that I can't see either of the former switching from apt to rpm. Throw in the mavericks with Gentoo and Slackware, and you can completely forget about any common package management system among the distros.

Re:Yes, but....

[Yfrwlf]

They have lots of packages they've compiled and made RPMs out of, yeah, but I never said anything about all that "going to waste". The package managers, all of them, need to be updated to support a standard, or basically more package file formats than they do now. Or, they can update the RPM format to be usable by other managers, if that were an issue. So, what you'd end up getting is either a refresh of existing RPMs possibly through a simple updater that converts them to the newer RPM version, or other package managers can now suddenly use those RPM archives, or RPM package managers go right ahead and continue to use RPMs, but are also compatible with at least one other format.

It all comes down to this: You can have accessibility and still have choice. I'm not saying force everyone to use one format, developers should always have the option to use several kinds, but standardize those kinds and make them usable by all the goddamn package managers so everyone can actually have access to software.

There are two things that should effect how much a package format is used: accessibility and feature set/performance. Accessibility means the package format is one that is easy to implement, well documented, etc, so that it can be easily adopted into existing package managers and see the light of day. Performance/power effects how much everyone wants to adopt it as well, but a format must have both to succeed, just like with video codecs or compression formats or anything else. VLC can play a zillion different codecs, we need package managers that can deal with the existing package formats or a mass consensus to update those formats.

Everyone's voice counts, so if you want cross-distro apps, stand up and say so, rehashing the stupidity of some developers won't do Linux any favors. Like I said, if good package formats had as much oomph behind them as ODF does, we wouldn't have a problem, cause there's dozens of programs that can use ODF, and it's not the only document format that is open and being utilized, either. (and shut up about MSOOXML cause it's not open) ;)

Re:Yes, but....

[Yfrwlf]

Sorry, what I meant by "mass consensus" was if you had a more visible push for that, package manager developers might actually start giving a damn about it more. But, regardless of how much of a push there is, if a package manager comes out that is compatible with multiple packages instead of using silly out-of-the-manager tools like Alien and such to convert crap, and can do it all natively, I'm switching to that package manager. If it means escaping the walled garden of one particular distro's opinion on my access to Linux software, I will switch in a heartbeat, I will even roll a distro that includes that manager as well as a good selection of default desktop software like Ubuntu does, maybe even the same ones they do, I don't care, and it won't matter anymore because users of my distro would actually be able to install any software they wanted to, so distro selection wouldn't be so important anymore which is the way it should be.

Re:Yes, but....

[Corrado]

Puppet could be the answer to the multiple system thing. It can handle different systems running different packaging systems quite well and update them all according to generic directions. For instance you could have it install a HTTP server on all Linux machines and on RHES it uses Apache and on SLES it installs Lighttpd. Puppet is completely configurable and (fairly) easy to use.

Re:Yes, but....

[corbettw]

I see what you're saying now. It's interesting, it would be nice if it could come to pass. If that's what you're working towards, good luck, it would benefit us all if you succeed.

Re:Yes, but....

[corbettw]

Someone needs to mod you Informative, I'd never heard of Puppet before but it sounds very promising.

Re:Yes, but....

[Yfrwlf]

Thanks, however the only once I know working on this is the Burgdorf Packaging API which is a low-level solution being sponsored by the LSB, and higher level solutions like Zero Install and Klik. Klik is very self-contained by using program "images" so it has sandboxing, and several other features. Zero Install uses "feeds" or URLs so it can get automatic program updates right from the source, and has various other features as well and will have sandboxing too eventually. Both systems are completely cross-distro and completely avoid dependency conflicts (something that should never ever happen if the package format was made well). Awww, you have two versions of libraryX you want to install but they dun wanna be both installed? It's called name one libraryX1.0 and one libraryX1.1 or something, sheesh. =P And tell the library maintainers to use a more stable API so that both aren't required! ^^

Any way, yeah, everyone, both developers and users alike, would radically benefit from having actually accessible Linux software, you could actually share the damn stuff for one thing with your friends no matter what "distro" they are running. One problem I think there is is that a distro would be more of a collection of software is all, and maybe a certain way the package manager was configured or the directory structure was configured or whatnot (something that should be easily changeable), but there would no longer be such segregation/proprietization of software. You like the network applet program Ubuntu uses and want it in Fedora? OK, well since it's all open source and it's all Linux, it should be easy to install it, if there were cross-distro binary packages, otherwise good luck compiling with all those dependencies, and if you're a "normal" user you're screwed and your choice is whether or not to switch to Ubuntu, and I think that's what Canonical and other companies want, and that shouldn't be the way things are, that problem should not exist when it's all open source software.

Linux use will increase much faster after this happens, and it will happen eventually.

Why is it seen simply as the cheap option?

[rhsanborn]

Why is it that every story evaluating open source as a replacement for proprietary software starts with, "We want something cheaper." It's encouraging that people are comfortable with the reliability and features of OSS that they are comfortable putting businesses on it. But I would be concerned as an employee at these shops that management had fully evaluated the the needs of the company with respect to these packages. I've seen it a few times already at places where I've worked where a manager says, "This is cheaper, lets get this." and then doesn't realize that he needed someone who actually knew how to configure and manage things like the Linux box it was going to go on, etc.

Re:Why is it seen simply as the cheap option?

[doktorjayd]

"This is cheaper, lets get this." and then doesn't realize that he needed someone who actually knew how to configure and manage things like the Linux box it was going to go on, etc.

clearly you've never been somewhere that thought oracle was a good idea either...

Re:Why is it seen simply as the cheap option?

[Anonymous Coward]

clearly you work in the public sector.

As all managers only understand MONEY £££ $$$
Does it do the job as cheaply as possible. And have They heard of it.

Re:Why is it seen simply as the cheap option?

[morgan_greywolf]

clearly you've never been somewhere that thought oracle was a good idea either...

In many cases, Oracle is a good idea. There are many cases where MySQL or Postgres will just not due. I've seen 96 CPU Oracle servers (actually CPUs, not just 96 cores) kicking around databases with terrabytes of data. How many Postgres boxes have you seen at that scale? I haven't seen any.

Re:Why is it seen simply as the cheap option?

[Ngarrang]

Cheap is a valid metric for evaluation. The employees will use what the company gives them to do the job the company asks them to do. These aren't personal gaming machines at your house.

I have found that combining Windows XP with FOSS is a good thing. You give people an OS they are know, along with software that doesn't cost you anything but the time it took to create the gold image.

My company saves money by buying our PCs used. We buy off-lease Dells for a pittance, and they already have the XP Pro sticker on them. Microsoft Tax? Not in this company. And we aren't talking about slacker machines, either. P4 with 2Gb RAM for a tad over $200 each.

Cheap PC + Windows XP sticker + FOSS = IT being able to buy more toys.

Re:Why is it seen simply as the cheap option?

[doktorjayd]

Does it do the job as cheaply as possible. And have They heard of it.

oracles response: ' oh, it will do it. now - how much you got? '

or even more damaging is when oracle puts a concerted effort into 'site licenses' where management several layers removed from actual technical knowledge listen to the oracle reps lay it on thick about 'real savings' and equate a need for a simple database feeding a short term website with a big-iron requiring 'enterprise' system.

then they go and bury some clause about penalties per non-oracle install in the organisation.

bastards! ( or even worse.. what kind of fuckwit would sign a contract like that?? )

that, incidentally, is why many governments cant move to open source - penalties from an existing contractual arrangement.

dont get me wrong, theres a time and a place for oracle (db, NOT the appserver), but for the _vast_ majority of apps, postgres &/or mysql will do the job better.

Re:Why is it seen simply as the cheap option?

[binarylarry]

Wow morgan, if you haven't "seen" them, they must not exist right?

Kind of like boobies.

Re:Why is it seen simply as the cheap option?

[morgan_greywolf]

No. My point is that Oracle scales very well and is trusted in the enterprise for enterprise-level applications. It's supported by major enterpise application vendors as SAP, UGS/Siemens, etc. It's a known quantity. Truth be told, until enough large enterprises are running MySQL or Postgres for applications on this scale, they will never be trusted for major enterprise-level applications. These databases are shared out all over the globe and if they're not running Oracle, they're running DB2 on an IBM mainframe. Downtime is simply not an option.

Re:Why is it seen simply as the cheap option?

[doktorjayd]

I've seen 96 CPU Oracle servers (actually CPUs, not just 96 cores) kicking around databases with terrabytes of data. How many Postgres boxes have you seen at that scale?

yes, we had a postgres instance running on a 32 way sparc, later ( after my time ) updated to a 64 way e2k machine at a multinational logistics company. keeping billing records ticking over. several tens of millions of $ per day.

cpu was never the problem - linux and postgres seem to manage that quite well ( across 32 gigs of ram i believe ), what got us in the end was the slow old disks in the e10k.

that particular example aside, i have also seen/been involved with the development of 96+ ( just to re-use your 96 number above) database backed apps where postgres ran on just the single physical cpu or dual at times, and again, postgres on linux just works and works and works.

would you be so kind as to suggest just the range of licence cost the above mentioned oracle array set you back?

i can give you a hint for the total of all postgres licenses i've shelled out for : $0

Re:Why is it seen simply as the cheap option?

[doktorjayd]

hi morgan,

i would like to buy one of your oracles, could you give me a quote on the price?

regards,

the management.

Re:Why is it seen simply as the cheap option?

[rhsanborn]

That works if you have the staff that understands the app and the systems it runs on/needs to run. Unfortunately, a lot of managers see "free" software and dive on that not understanding that they need people to maintain/support that.

Re:Why is it seen simply as the cheap option?

[Ngarrang]

That works if you have the staff that understands the app and the systems it runs on/needs to run. Unfortunately, a lot of managers see "free" software and dive on that not understanding that they need people to maintain/support that.

I am blessed to be working at a company with slightly smarter managers. I am the one with the weak linux knowledge. Half our servers are already linux.

Re:Why is it seen simply as the cheap option?

[marcosdumay]

"How many Postgres boxes have you seen at that scale?"

A 96 cores machine. Well, really none, since Postgres actualy does clustering, differently from Oracle that uses marketing newspeech to redefine clustering to mean what they do. With real clusters you can use cheap commodity hardware, no need for a supercomputer to run databases on.

Re:Why is it seen simply as the cheap option?

[morgan_greywolf]

I have no idea. But it wasn't my money. I was just being paid for my Oracle expertise. Very well, I might add. ;)

Re:Why is it seen simply as the cheap option?

[marcosdumay]

"It is cheap, so let's buy it!" or "It's expensive, so let's buy it (it must be good)!". Signs of great managers.

Re:Why is it seen simply as the cheap option?

[Anonymous Coward]

Disclaimer: I am a Red Hat employee

Cheap is the wrong word and not the one used in the summary either. Value, which is what an IT department looks at (or should), is an equation of price vs. performance. The higher the price the less value, similarly the lower the performance the less value is gained. Cheap connotates both a lower price and lower performance. Linux (and other open source apps such as JBoss) has shown to both be of lesser cost and higher performance than proprietary competitors. This also shows why people are willing to pay for something they can also get for free. For an enterprise, the added benefits of supporting constant development along with the piece of mind that there is someone who will fix your bugs goes on top of the performance column and is enough to offset the extra costs.

It is interesting to note that the article specifically addresses lowering costs in the first paragraph (and doesn't dwell on adding value). This is because in any buisness I know of the IT department gets a fixed budget and the less they spend on any one item means they can buy more of that item or use the money elsewhere. In a tight economy this is important but don't think they are going to trade in efficiency for price. Reducing costs always involves keeping the same level of performance (or expanding it) while bringing cost down, unless the performance is way above what is needed to run efficiently. Reducing costs without maintaining performance will ultimately end up costing more down the road either by adding unexpected costs or reducing the budget further because the company is not making as much.

The article does go into added value later on.

Re:Why is it seen simply as the cheap option?

[doktorjayd]

I have no idea. But it wasn't my money. I was just being paid for my Oracle expertise. Very well, I might add. ;)

so kind of you to bring the thread back on topic ;)

Re:Why is it seen simply as the cheap option?

[Anonymous Coward]

Products often enter a market on cheap side. RedHat can charge as Linux Server is no longer bought on ILC. Linux desktop surpassed Windows in functionality and EoU in the last year so presents an enormous opportunity for someone. (Any VC want to fund me? :-) Here's a book I did surveying the FOSS landscape in 2006. Its opensource. As each app matures the FOSS apps in the space will not have to compete on price but win due to superior features, RASUI. E.g. Apache, tomcat, mysql. GnuCash. OpenOffice. Evolution. I'd say all of these are superior for many user needs to the proprietary counterparts. amazing really. Just think how much FOSS will dominate all areas in the next two decades. While researching it I became very convinced FOSS is the future of software (http://sourceforge.net/projects/bizguide, 2006)

Re:Why is it seen simply as the cheap option?

[partenon]

No. My point is that Oracle scales very well and is trusted in the enterprise for enterprise-level applications. It's supported by major enterpise application vendors as SAP, UGS/Siemens, etc. It's a known quantity. Truth be told, until enough large enterprises are running MySQL or Postgres for applications on this scale, they will never be trusted for major enterprise-level applications. These databases are shared out all over the globe and if they're not running Oracle, they're running DB2 on an IBM mainframe. Downtime is simply not an option.

Am I safe to assume that Google uses Oracle or DB2?

Re:Why is it seen simply as the cheap option?

[RAMMS EIN]

``Unfortunately, a lot of managers see "free" software and dive on that not understanding that they need people to maintain/support that.''

That's probably because they have people on staff who are supposed to maintain/support the software the company uses. Of course these people won't magically be able to support whatever others decide to throw at them, but that is the case regardless of whether the software is open-source or not. And the solution is the same as always: either get your people to learn the new software, or hire new people who already know.

Re:Why is it seen simply as the cheap option?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because while OSS is sometimes superior in features sometimes its inferior and frequently its on par with closed source apps. So by the mantra of don't fix what isn't broken business stick to Windows.

  Price (and freedom) are truly OSS killer features.

Re:Why is it seen simply as the cheap option?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you could pay ahead some of the savings to the postgresql folks. I do, and I'm a single user on a single DB box. It's just a fabulous and solid product and I support them with my $, few though they might be.

Re:Why is it seen simply as the cheap option?

[EastCoastSurfer]

Please don't group mySQL (crap) and Postgres (great system) into the same grouping. As others have replied, Postgres is a very capable DB system.

I'm surprised that people use Oracle for installations as large as you have described. The largest database system I've used is a Terradata system running many terabytes of data.

Re:Why is it seen simply as the cheap option?

[j-pimp]

My company saves money by buying our PCs used. We buy off-lease Dells for a pittance, and they already have the XP Pro sticker on them. Microsoft Tax? Not in this company. And we aren't talking about slacker machines, either. P4 with 2Gb RAM for a tad over $200 each.

Cheap PC + Windows XP sticker + FOSS = IT being able to buy more toys.

So where does one get off lease dells? Besides ebay of course.

Re:Why is it seen simply as the cheap option?

[johannesg]

And yet, in many other places, Oracle is complete overkill. I see so many databases where there's maybe 150,000 rows in the entire database, spread over something like 30 tables, with the number of users in the 20-40 range. PostgreSQL is a far better choice for that sort of thing than Oracle - and a far more pleasant product to boot.

And I think you'd be surprised how well it scales. It can certainly keep 8 CPU's busy (in a meaningful way), according to various benchmarks I've seen (and I haven't seen anything beyond that, but that doesn't automatically mean it's bad either).

Re:Why is it seen simply as the cheap option?

[leamanc]

So where does one get off lease dells? Besides ebay of course.

Go to dell.com and find the link near the top for "Dell Outlet." You'll find all kinds of really good deals on used desktops, laptops and servers.

Re:Why is it seen simply as the cheap option?

[segedunum]

I have no idea. But it wasn't my money. I was just being paid for my Oracle expertise. Very well, I might add. ;)

Just think. If they weren't paying all that money to Oracle, for not all that much it seems to me, then they could have paid you even more ;-).

Re:Why is it seen simply as the cheap option?

[morgan_greywolf]

Please don't group mySQL (crap) and Postgres (great system) into the same grouping

Why not? Both are open source DBMS, right? Next you're going to tell me not lump Emacs and Vim in the same category. Both accomplish the same task, each have their strengths and weakness, and each represent a very different design. I don't see the problem.

Re:Why is it seen simply as the cheap option?

[gbjbaanb]

leasing companies of course.

We have a server room full of old servers that we arranged for a customer, after 3 years, said customer wanted new ones as the lease had run out, so we offered to buy them from the leasing company. They happily quoted us not that much, and we ended up with a room full of stuff.

We also received some networking kit that no-one knew how to use (turned out to be fancy cisco routers) that we sold to a networking company ... for the price we paid for the entire lot of kit. Our only problem is that we will have to pay to get rid of the servers in 3 years time when we do it again.

I'm not sure where the best place to find leasing companies is, but a good place to start might be those ebay sellers that only sell lots of BIN kit. Yellow pages after that.

Re:Why is it seen simply as the cheap option?

[EastCoastSurfer]

I hesitate to even call MySQL a database. Sure it's a database by the classic term of a collection of files containing records, but when the original creators didn't see a need for things like RI, constraints or ACID compliance I have a hard time calling it a DBMS. I mean really, it's similar to saying Access and Oracle are both closed source, pay for databases so why can't I just lump them together.

Re:Why is it seen simply as the cheap option?

[dvice_null]

> kicking around databases with terrabytes of data. How many Postgres boxes have you seen at that scale?

Yahoo claims that their 2 petabyte database is largest in the world. Guess what they are using? Yes, Postgre.

Re:Why is it seen simply as the cheap option?

[schon]

Both are open source DBMS, right?

So I guess you won't mind if I lump MS Access and Oracle together - they're both closed-source databases, right?

Re:Why is it seen simply as the cheap option?

[Anonymous Coward]

I work for a large company that uses Stellent content management system (now owned by Oracle). We had a performance issues and when Stellent was its own company their solution was to use Postgres. It turned out that Postgres had much much better performance on large data sets.

Hi Peter,

[drunkennewfiemidget]

If you could just go ahead and convert all of those windows servers containing all of our business value into linux, that'd be great, mmmmk?

Wouldn't it be cheaper for them to just stop upgrading to the latest and greatest and stick with what they've already got?

(I am a linux fan and don't even run windows, it just seems like it'd be more money and less cost effective to start switching over just leaving things alone).

Re:Hi Peter,

[Bert64]

It would be cheaper to stay with what they already have, if only it were that easy...

What happens when the current software reaches end of life? No patches, gaping security holes, nothing you can do about it... Have to upgrade, and possibly upgrade the hardware at the same time.

What happens when you need to buy new or replacement hardware, the old software may not run on it, or its license may forbid it, meaning you now have some new and some old. Will you be able to run old alongside new, or will you start having compatibility problems that will force you to upgrade everything?

If you move to open source, then future upgrades are a lot less painful, and its easier to retain older versions if you need to.

Re:Hi Peter,

[Gazzonyx]

Yeah, so long as you're not looking down the barrel of a critical app that is about to hit end-of-life without an upgrade path. For instance, anyone who had a critical in house application using COM/OLE when Microsoft switch to .NET. You've gotta' switch before you've got no safety net, so why not use it as an opportunity to switch platforms?

OTOH, to switch platforms solely for cost reasons, while said platform is treating you well, is fairly irresponsible and probably more costly than riding out your current solution to its EOL.

Re:Hi Peter,

[Anonymous Coward]

So.... how long would it take to re-educate all your IT staff & programmers for the new software? Or would you just fire them and hire someone who already knows the new stuff? Add the cost of doing either to the cost of converting all of your company's data assets over (as drunkennewfiemidget said) to the new format. Take that total cost, add 10% for unforseen costs involved with the whole process, and compare to what it would have cost to just stick to your guns and keep using whatever you were using before (remember, hardware costs/requirements will go up regardless which software you use, so those ought to even out, more or less). How much would you actually be saving if you came out ahead? Or would you break even, in which case, what was the point? Or, if the cost of adopting OS software turns out to be more, then you'd have done all that work for nothing.

Just saying.

Re:Hi Peter,

[Jason Earl]

A rip and replace is almost always going to be more expensive in the short run no matter what systems you are replacing.

However, if you are a shop that doesn't have any Free Software running in it, then you are almost certainly pouring money down a rat hole. There are plenty of situations in which Free Software is not only "good enough," but where it is best of breed. The folks at Red Hat have basically made a business out of finding those circumstances. Once you have Free Software running in your shop the cost of training and acquiring Free Software expertise goes down as well. After all, at this point you already have some admins with Free Software experience. Assuming that your Linux admins are competent and ambitious they probably are already experimenting with more ways to replace proprietary software. You also need to make sure that you advertise for Linux talent when looking for new hires (even if the position doesn't really require Linux talent). Kids coming out of college almost certainly have some Linux administration skills already, and if you ask for Linux skills with each new hire your existing staff (the brighter ones anyway) will see the writing on the wall and begin self-training in the new technology.

The real key to saving money with Free Software is to simply start evaluating it seriously every time you go to roll out new services. At the very least this will give you some added leverage with your proprietary software vendors. Microsoft, in particular, has been known to offer deep discounts to companies looking to increase their commitment to Free Software. However, this tactic only works if you can convince the Microsoft rep that you are serious.

Re:Hi Peter,

[marcosdumay]

Chances are most companies are in the same situation as my last employer. Their core apps are written on Visual Basic 6 and ASP. Both products don't exist for almost a decade, and making any change has a huge cost because of that. Also, new versions of Windows (at desktops, core servers and other services) disrupt the way things work all the time.

It takes a lot of work to stay on the same place when you use the MS plattaform. People experienced on FOSS have no idea.

Re:Hi Peter,

[Bert64]

Depends on your level of forward planning...
If you plan on migrating in the future, then you hire staff who can handle it, so any new staff coming in will be capable long before the migration actually starts.

The costs of retraining to a new proprietary product can also be high, as can the conversion to a new proprietary format. On the other hand, future upgrades to new open source products are unnecessary (nothing stopping you using the old versions) and upgrades to new revisions of already standardised formats will be a lot easier than going from one version of a binary blob format to another.

Do you plan long term? Long term, moving to open source and open standards will always work out cheaper, migrating away from proprietary will bring you long term benefits... Of course, in an ideal world you'd have started out using open source and thus benefit from the savings right from the start and not suffer any migration costs.

Do you intend your business to still be around in 5 years? Or are you concerned with wringing as much money out of it in the next couple of years and then let everything collapse - as many bankers seem to have been doing lately.

Also consider, high migration costs are often an intentional side effect of proprietary software, it's used as an underhanded tactic to prevent you from migrating away from them. Do you really want to support vendors who do underhanded stuff like this? I sure don't.

Hell yeah!

[cosmocain]

The year of the Linux desktop is finally to come.

...again.

Re:Hell yeah!

[Anonymous Coward]

For my family, it was 2007. We're talking about the linux enterprise here, not the desktop.

8 years ago..

[bigattichouse]

I had a customer who needed to start from scratch with a new business. They could allocate about $5k for the whole database server. I priced out an NT+SQL Server (what they requested), and then priced out a Redhat ($50 at the time) box where we spent the same $ on hardware that we would have spent on software... so they got a kick butt system with $4950 worth of hardware versus a piece of crap machine with $3000 worth of software. That company is now worth something in the 8 digits range. (Wish I had an equity stake now!) That server also served their needs for 5 of the 8 years until a hardware failure, and all we did was move Mysql/Apache and the source to an externally hosted platform.

Re:8 years ago..

[EraserMouseMan]

Large companies will gladly pay for an expensive system that comes with guarantee for support. Microsoft + Intel is a good example. If you have a hardware problem and call Intel they will solve your problem because the entire hardware stack is Intel (not so with AMD and others). Same with MS.

If you cobble something cheap/free together you'll likely have a hard time finding a support solution that will take your problem as their own and find a resolution for you no matter how long it takes.

Re:8 years ago..

[JohnFluxx]

You can buy support from Redhat as well

Re:8 years ago..

[doktorjayd]

If you have a hardware problem and call Intel they will solve your problem because the entire hardware stack is Intel

so the admin guys with MCSE's you employ to babysit your system guess its a hardware problem...and so the call intel.

whereby intel will direct you to the software vendor, who is clearly responsible for the ${fault} you have described. .. and such and such.

_or_ you could employ a couple of guys who know their way around f/oss, use commodity hardware and when a part fails, just replace it. if its under warranty, great, maybe get a fresh replacement part for the next one that blows. if not - meh.

all the support in the world isnt going to help if your raid array fries and the mcse's didnt back up the data....

my point is that if you have to have local support ( sysadmins, whatever ), then they should be able to handle 99 % of any problem likely to arise, the other 1% should be cheaper to just replace parts with - so what does ' vendor support' really get you?

Re:8 years ago..

[EvilRyry]

He priced out _Redhat_. If there's a problem with any of the software that comes with Redhat, you call Redhat and they will solve your problem.

Re:8 years ago..

[Bert64]

MS will often blame the hardware vendor, Intel will often blame the software...

What you really need is a system where the entire stack of both hardware and software is supported by a single vendor. Try looking at Sun, Apple or IBM. HP have some offerings too based on HP-UX and Linux, and SGI have supported linux offerings i believe.

MS don't offer hardware, and i'm not sure if Intel offer any kind of software support with their hardware (although they could easily support a version of linux running on their machines).

Re:8 years ago..

[guruevi]

Have you ever called Microsoft for any support? Get your credit card ready because just OPENING a support request will cost you ~$150 unless you have an Enterprise Agreement and even then, getting the information together they need before opening a support request made one of my previous employers break out his Visa card and bill it as a company expense. And I didn't know Intel made full machines that they support. Unless you buy an expensive machine from a vendor like HP or IBM, you won't get any level of support either (SuperMicro comes to mind) or yeah, you'll get some support (Dell) but they only know what any junior level sysadmin would know.

Buying Red Hat with a yearly support contract is cheaper in most instances since their yearly support cost as much as one support instance with Microsoft. Hardware isn't THAT difficult to maintain and support by any sysadmin worth it's money (any sysadmin even at junior levels that doesn't know how to diagnose a bad stick of ram or a failed hard drive should be fired). And if you want a nice combination of hardware and software support, cheap/free software and ease of use, get a Mac. Their servers are decently priced for what you get and their support is the best I have found so far in the industry (IBM actually has really good support too) and I should know I have a degree in electronics and have worked internationally for and with some of the biggest corporations in the world as well as large and small hosting providers and currently work in a large education environment, I know when someone is talking crap or is using a script on the other end of the line, I am usually transferred to second/third line support within the first few minutes of support calls.

Re:8 years ago..

[neurovish]

What if the Red Hat license was the $350 - $1300 / year of use that it costs now? Would that company still have chosen it?

Re:8 years ago..

[corbettw]

If you have a hardware problem and call Intel they will solve your problem because the entire hardware stack is Intel (not so with AMD and others).

Seriously? So if your RAID controller burns out, you can call Intel and they'll say something other than "Sorry, can't help, call your vendor"?

You buy a hardware support contract from the vendor who assembled the hardware, not from one of the component manufacturers. And the purpose of a hardware support contract is to replace faulty hardware after the initial warranty, not to debug the problem in the first place.

Re:8 years ago..

[the_womble]

1) Red Hat does support entire OSS stacks. Other people do as well. You can also switch more easily if the support is not satisfactory. 2) MS will not fix every single bug you find as soon as possible - it could be a disaster for you and low priority for them.

Re:8 years ago..

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh the situation you describe really depends on the company. At my last employer a major fault in a box that mattered generally resulted in a conference call with upper management and engineers from both $HARDWARE_VENDOR and $SOFTWARE_VENDOR wherein they got to blame each other until one convinced the other that it was their problem.

From that point it was a couple hours until $HARDWARE got replaced (including "we don't have a local part for you, so we're putting a guy on the next plane with one") or we got a custom build of $SOFTWARE that exactly matched our current deployed version (which was usually a version or two behind current) plus the fix we needed.

Big proprietary vendors really are capable of taking care of you in a way that their OSS counterparts (generally) are not. You just have to be willing to pay enough to basically employ all the people who are going to support you full time for the few hours/year you actually need them.

Re:8 years ago..

[RAMMS EIN]

``what does ' vendor support' really get you?''

Apparently, extra costs during normal operation, and extra costs in the event of failure, where you have to sit and wait for the support provider to diagnose the problem. And then maybe a free fix, if the provider decides that this is covered under their contract with you.

By contrast, without the vendor support, you have no extra cost during normal operation, and some of the people who would, in the vendor support scenario, be twiddling thumbs during downtime would instead be diagnosing and fixing the problem. And then you would have to pay for the fix.

There are a couple of scenarios where vendor support wins. For example, it could reduce your costs during normal operation, because your people don't need to be qualified to diagnose all possible problems - after all, that's what you have vendor support for. By the same token, if your people aren't as good at diagnosing problems as the vendor's people, vendor support may win in the event of problems, because they get diagnosed and fixed faster.

On the other hand, I prefer just having people who know the system well enough that they can anticipate and diagnose problems, and have spare parts on hand to deal with hardware failures. That way, I don't have to depend on a vendor for support, I don't have to pay the vendor for it, and I don't have to wait for the vendor to provide the support.

Re:8 years ago..

[Anonymous Coward]

CYA, somebody to blame, not my problem, etc.

Re:8 years ago..

[ibmjones]

I think you missed the point of the parent post - using free software enabled them to purchase hardware that allowed them to expand their business without any additional investment in their IT infrastructure (aside from the usual administration costs). By the time they outgrew their server, third-party hosting allowed them to move their business over easily and with no apparent significant cost.

8 years on a single server - that's an impressive ROI.

Re:8 years ago..

[EraserMouseMan]

I know it is bad form to reply to your post's children. But the parent's post is different from mine. The parent points out how the free/cheap & heterogeneous approach is a great fit for small businesses who are forging their way in new territory and answer only to themselves when problems arise. Which is totally fine and good.

My point is that with large mission-critical apps, any problem is a panic-button issue that needs serious attention by any & all vendor resources immediately. Sure, RedHat, MySql and other FOSS options usually offer support packagges. But it is fundamentally a different type of support comittment than what a Microsoft, Oracle or Intel can offer.

Foss support tends to be a best-effort, no-promise-of-resolution approach. MS, Oracle, Intel, etc is a, "If we don't help you reach a resolution on your problem you'll go with another vendor and our hardware/license sales will take a big hit."

The more $$$ on the line the higher chance that your vendor will make it right (Foss or not).

Re:8 years ago..

[Jason Earl]

Interestingly enough Red Hat gets better marks for support from its customers than Microsoft, Oracle, or Intel. In fact, Red Hat competes directly for support contracts against Oracle (which offers support on its own Red Hat-based Linux distribution).

In fact, I am pretty sure that a contract with Red Hat for OS support and PostgreSQL support (including escalation clear up to conversations with Tom Lane himself) would cost significantly less than a far less capable support package from Oracle. With RedHat if I don't like their service and support it's easy to switch to Sun, or Novell, or even Oracle.

Don't even get me started with Microsoft.

The beauty of Free Software is that you aren't paying for software licenses. If Red Hat (or whoever) wants your business they have to offer valuable support. As such, with Free Software you have tons of options and can pay as much (or as little) as you want for support.

Re:8 years ago..

[jonaskoelker]

but they only know what any junior level sysadmin would know.

I believe the technical term is "PFY".

Re:8 years ago..

[pnutjam]

I second this, support contracts are usually a pain in the ass, especially if the company providing the support is some behomoth. Chances are you have to work your way from incompetent tech all the way up to annoyed, condescending senior tech. They suggest all the stuff I've already done and might get back to me with an answer right after I find it on an internet forum.

I pay for hardware support, but save I'm very selective about where I spend my software support dollars.

Red Hat CEO Says Economic Crisis Favors Open Sourc

[mcgrew]

Red Hat CEO Says Economic Crisis Favors Open Source

No! Really? I'm shocked!!! Who would have thunkit????

Nobody got fired for buying Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's the problem. When the economy is in a downturn, people are going to cover their own asses and pick the "safe" option.

Re:Nobody got fired for buying Microsoft

[marcosdumay]

When the economy is in a downturn, the safe choice can quite likely lead to bankrupcy and, consequently, unemployment. Thus, it isn't safe anymore.

Re:Nobody got fired for buying Microsoft

[j-pimp]

And that's the problem. When the economy is in a downturn, people are going to cover their own asses and pick the "safe" option.

Most will, some will be smart and innovative. Some people thrive in times where economy is appreciated.

Great, but...

[AdmiralXyz]

I can't help but be a little peeved at this guy. Here is a situation where potentially thousands of people in the industry are going to be laid off because of this economic downturn, and all he can mention is how great it's going to be for OSS. I mean, I see his point and it may be a valid one, but he could be a little less gung-ho about it.

Re:Great, but...

[doktorjayd]

Here is a situation where potentially thousands of people in the industry are going to be laid off because of this economic downturn, and all he can mention is how great it's going to be for OSS.

well,

on the bright side - F/LOSS is priced with the developer in mind! all the poor windows mcse's will be able to re-tool themselves with nary a msdn cost amongst em!

Re:Great, but...

[rohan972]

Here is a situation where potentially thousands of people in the industry are going to be laid off because of this economic downturn, and all he can mention is how great it's going to be for OSS. I mean, I see his point and it may be a valid one, but he could be a little less gung-ho about it.

Maybe he's hoping to hire some of those laid off workers. I do see your point though, I warned a relative about debt levels, houses, etc. Now I'm keeping really quiet about it. It's a really hard situation for people who didn't know how to evaluate the situation and went with what seemed like good advice because it was popular, only to be stung.

That said, it has seemed obvious to me since reading the GPLv2 and seeing RedHat 7 where this thing (OSS) was going, and I've always been a bit surprised that most people don't see it too. Proprietary licences are designed to benefit the business, GPL is designed to benefit the user (and the users they distribute to, in perpetuity).

How hard is it to work out that the software distributed in a manner that it benefits people (customers) will eventually gain dominance over software that is distributed in a manner that restricts customers for the benefit of the distributor? It is very unlikely that any other consideration will outweigh that in the long run although they often do in the short term. Tough economic times require purchases to be evaluated more thoroughly, so yes it is likely to benefit OSS.

Likewise, how hard is it to figure out that if you allow corporations to produce the money supply out of thin air as loans that you are headed for financial collapse? Tighter regulation can do nothing to prevent the collapse of a financial system based on money that isn't worth anything.

Re:Great, but...

[Timothy Brownawell]

How hard is it to work out that the software distributed in a manner that it benefits people (customers) will eventually gain dominance over software that is distributed in a manner that restricts customers for the benefit of the distributor?

This is why BSD-style licensing will eventually take over the world, after proprietary licensing dies off and causes the GPL and friends to lose steam. ;)

Which is more useful to you as a developer? Code that demands to only be used with other code under the exact same style of mandated freedom, or code that can be used for anything (but you know that if you don't share, your potential customers will ignore you)?

Re:Great, but...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Weak. Your comparison is like comparing credit cards to debit cards. If your credit card is stolen, you have the full force of federal law restricting your losses to a max of $50. If your debit card is stolen, you have the full force the issuing bank's promises, not even contractually binding promises, to restrict your losses to a max of $50 and don't even think about getting reimbursed for NSF fees and any other fallout from checks that bounced after your account was drained.

Only fools and those with no money competency would choose a debit card over a credit card. Similarly only a fool is going to chose a vendor who makes promises over a vendor who is contractually obligated with federal law backing the contract.

Re:Great, but...

[gbjbaanb]

I'm not so sure its a bad thing. Most people just follow the herd, so this guy is shouting "Linux, dude! Its going to be bigger than you thought", hopefully many people who are going to be laid off anyway will listen, retrain to be FOSS-capable and then get re-hired in the new world order.

Ok, the new world order bit might be a little over-optimistic, but the message to re-train is serious.

Re:Great, but...

[rohan972]

How hard is it to work out that the software distributed in a manner that it benefits people (customers) will eventually gain dominance over software that is distributed in a manner that restricts customers for the benefit of the distributor?

This is why BSD-style licensing will eventually take over the world, after proprietary licensing dies off and causes the GPL and friends to lose steam. ;)

Which is more useful to you as a developer? Code that demands to only be used with other code under the exact same style of mandated freedom, or code that can be used for anything (but you know that if you don't share, your potential customers will ignore you)?

BSD gives you the freedom to release proprietary software based on others work, so that is attractive to the developer (next generation of distributor) but immediately that is done the effect on the customer is the same as any proprietary software. The only freedom BSD license gives is to allow the distributor able to make the software less beneficial to the customer than GPL'd software.

;)

Re:Great, but...

[Timothy Brownawell]

The only freedom BSD license gives is to allow the distributor able to make the software less beneficial to the customer than GPL'd software.

The various copyleft licenses can't generally be mixed (the most publicized example is probably how GPLv2-only code can't be combined with GPLv3 code), whereas BSD style licensing lets you mix the code with whatever you want.

Slacker machines

[Anonymous Coward]

And we aren't talking about slacker machines, either.

Slacker machines work pretty well once you get beyond the piercings, tattoos, and the skate shoes.

Not Convinced

[ehaggis]

I would like to believe that Linux would be positively promoted due to the economy. However, re-tooling an enterprise or SMB from MS and proprietary software to Open Source is costly and time consuming. There is an up front cost to be considered. The selling points of Linux and OSS are not necessarily bound with cost (although it helps) but with flexibility, stability and security. These three items, if working properly, should be transparent to the end user (and upper management). Thus the argument would be, "See, nothing is happening - isn't that great!"

What is often not offered by OSS is ease of use. That is in front of the user and the under trained IT guy supporting them.

As an employee for a non-profit, OSS has been a lifesaver but it will be difficult to find a replacement who will be familiar with the OSS applications and Linux.

Re:Not Convinced

[doktorjayd]

As an employee for a non-profit, OSS has been a lifesaver but it will be difficult to find a replacement who will be familiar with the OSS applications and Linux.

suggest walk into any small business office and see how visual basic for applications has completely anchored the business processes in that company, and will be there till the business dies.

in that regard, crappy custom apps are always going to be harder to 'pick up', as at least with OSS apps there is a much wider pool of resources available to help.

Re:Not Convinced

[AceofSpades19]

not necessarily ease of use, but familiarity. Is Windows actually that much easier then Linux? I doubt it, its just that more people are familiar with windows so it gives the appearance that its easier then Linux

Re:Not Convinced

[genner]

As an employee for a non-profit, OSS has been a lifesaver but it will be difficult to find a replacement who will be familiar with the OSS applications and Linux.

As an empolyee of a non-profit I call that job security.

I can see this working the other way...

[NoNeeeed]

A lot of businesses may become increasingly unwilling to take risks, such as radically switching their technology.

It's easy to take risks when business is good and there is plenty of cash sloshing around, but changing mission critical systems during bad economic periods will be seen as a bit too radical for many businesses.

Having said that, I think smart businesses will be willing to make the change in many cases, especially when there is an OSS drop-in replacement, or where they are implementing a greenfield system.

Paul

Re:I can see this working the other way...

[Shotgun]

No one would switch out a mission critical system just because times are hard. That would require personnel, and it's one of the things they're trying to keep a handle on.

However, there will be a lot of small projects, peripheral projects, that they will want/need to get going. When times are good, it is easy to say, "Sure, throw it on my Oracle bill." It's when times are slow that managers start looking at re-using equipment and squeezing the pennies until Lincoln screems. The extra Oracle or MS-SQL license isn't so easy to come by, and they look around for what is at hand that they can use for free. Once MySQL gets in there, it will stay. Some day, the peripheral system may be deemed mission critical.

Re:I can see this working the other way...

[Jason Earl]

No one is talking about switching out mission-critical applications--unless of course your mission-critical application happens to be running on Websphere. In that particular case, a switch to a far less expensive JBoss is completely straightforward.

If you take a closer look at the article you'll see that two specific situations are mentioned. The first is the use of a proprietary Java application server, and the second is the case of a Windows shop with no Free Software at all. In both of those cases Red Hat can almost certainly save you some cash.

While it sounds great for servers...

[MtViewGuy]

...It's still a not-so-great idea for home desktop machines.

Since servers tend to require a lot less in terms of end-user experience, you can get by with a lot more command-line operations to get the server to work correctly in the first place. That's why you see IBM being perhaps the world's largest distributor of "big iron" minis and mainframes that run modified versions of various commercial Linux distributions, since it wasn't that hard to port Linux to them.

But a home user desktop machine is a completely different thing altogether. For home computers, not only you do need full software driver support for various hardware out there, but also make it relatively easy for end users to update their operating system to support any new added hardware. While Linux is getting better at this it's still behind both Windows and MacOS X in terms to full-function support for hardware out there. I mean, does the Linux driver for the Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi series of sound cards offer the same full functionality as the Windows XP/Vista driver?

Re:While it sounds great for servers...

[rohan972]

My experience was quite different. My first computer was a second hand box with 95 on it. I was a tinkerer, didn't know anything about anything (malware etc) but you can bet I learned how to reinstall windows 95. When I first installed linux I would dual boot because I couldn't get everything working. After time I got my linux partition doing everything I needed but I was still messing up my windows install. I just stopped reinstalling it. My tinkering just never seemed to render my linux installs unusable. It's good as a home desktop OS and has been for years, depending on who you are.

Re:While it sounds great for servers...

[Larryish]

I mean, does the Linux driver for the Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi series of sound cards offer the same full functionality as the Windows XP/Vista driver?

Maybe you should ask the vendor why they don't support Linux...?

That would be FEW cases

[coder111]

I agree that there are cases where PostgreSQL or will not do. But they are not "many cases". In many cases, Oracle is an expensive overkill. In many cases Oracle introduces more overhead supporting the database than it is worth.

--Coder

Hah, look who's coming back now!

[paniq]

First we were afraid
we were petrified
Kept thinking we could never live
with Windows on our drives
But then we spent so many nights
hacking Linux all night long
And it grew strong
And we learned to carry on
but now you're back
your battle lost
I just logged on to read about you
urged by your bosses to save costs
we should have told Novell to wait
We should have raised our service fees
If we had known for just one second
you'd be begging on your knees

Re:Hah, look who's coming back now!

[poormanjoe]

If only I hadn't lost all my mod points in the stock market!

Funny +1

I've heard they've got legendary support

[Gazzonyx]

No doubt. Red Hat is the only company that I know of that will support other vendors apps to the point of fixing it themselves, or even having one of their kernel devs patch Linux. If fact, Red Hat is the only company that I know of that can really claim that they can get fixes for customers directly in to both the mainline Linux kernel and Samba. My understanding is they'll also support any of the products created by the thousands of vendors that are part of the Red Hat Exchange. Microsoft just can't offer that, even if they wanted to.

Re:I've heard they've got legendary support

[MightyYar]

I guess it makes sense... I mean, their product is support so it had better be pretty good. MS's product is more of the traditional model of software, with support added on so that they can sell more software.

Re:I've heard they've got legendary support

[Nossie]

how traditional? Up until the likes of Microsoft software WAS a service, written, mostly open and customized for its needs, Microsoft invented the software binary blob in a tin category... which is like a bad addictive drug.

At the very worst companies provided the option of source code, if you were willing to pay more.

Re:I've heard they've got legendary support

[MightyYar]

Traditional since the PC coming-of-age. :) Personal computers, IIRC, have always had binary-blob software available (and popular). Of course, since it was likely written in assembly anyway...

Why is it seen simply as the cheap argument?

[Ostracus]

Maybe because FOSS supporters have done such a good job with the "it's free" argument.

You're more right than you think

[windsurfer619]

I think everyone understands that it would be impossible to just wake up one day and *pop* everything runs Linux. It's just not possible.

The only way Linux will come to the desktop is in a slow march. All this article is describing is another step, another foothold that free software has on the desktop. The 'year of the desktop' isn't 'coming'; it's here. Just not everywhere.

Re:You're more right than you think

[LeafOnTheWind]

No. This is not the year of the Linux desktop. Next year is not. The next 5 years are not. Linux is still far too unfamiliar and unsupported for desktop users and the GUI is substandard. Linux will not be on the desktop until you truly never have to touch the command line. Ever. Even when something goes wrong or your hardware is unsupported (actually, it won't be on the desktop until linux is supported by all the major vendors).

On the other hand this is the year/years of the Linux server. Linux has been growing in the enterprise market for years now and it will just keep continuing to grow. Linux servers can be flexible, scalable, and stable with the right administrators and enterprise is the perfect area for Linux to mature in. There are numerous reasons why a Unix based system is good for server farms and Linux will continue to gain market share on those reasons.

And why not?

[maillemaker]

That works if you have the staff that understands the app and the systems it runs on/needs to run. Unfortunately, a lot of managers see "free" software and dive on that not understanding that they need people to maintain/support that.

And why wouldn't they think that? To me, there is still a whole lot of confusion revolving around "free software" and "open source". To me, they have always been synonymous. If I can go download it and use it legally for free, then it's free. You call call it open source, open wide, whatever you want, if I can downloaded it and use it legally for free, I don't care.

Now I'm learning that maybe it really isn't supposed to be free, it's a teaser, like 0% interest rates on credit cards. Sure, we give you this freeeeee software, but really what we are hoping is that you buy a service subscription from us. Well if I'm going to pay for the software, now I'm back to shopping around for the best commercial deal again.

Sure I have to have an IT guy who knows how to install and maintain the apps. This is true no matter who I buy the software from.

Re:And why not?

[dvice_null]

> To me, there is still a whole lot of confusion revolving around "free software" and "open source"

It is very simple actually. I represent you two C++ IDEs which are both build using the same technology and are build to do the same job. Older one of them is closed source but free. New one is free and open source.

The difference: The development of the closed source version stopped few years ago. Users asked the maintainer to release the sources so they could fix the bugs themselves, but that never happened, so they decided to build a new version in open source. Now the open source version has several developers and it is constantly improving and bugs are getting fixed.

I don't have to do fix the bugs myself, I don't even need to compile it myself, I can just use the open source version and yet it is better than the alternative, just because it is open source and _others_ can do the work.

random thoughts on this

[viridari]

On paper, RHEL is a tough sell against Windows. The pricing just isn't aggressive enough.

For CIO's with more foresight, migrating from Windows to Linux makes future migrations much easier. Since Linux is a very UNIX-y environment, it's relatively painless to move from one Linux flavor to another, or from Linux to another UNIX-y OS.

Migrating to or from Windows is the major point of pain. Once you can get away from Windows, it actually doesn't make a lot of sense to ever go back to it (again, because migrating the other way is so hard).

Linux, on the other hand, will run on every machine at the company. Everything from your cell phones to your desktops, x86 servers, midrange boxen, and mainframes. Your IT department can become far more efficient (read: less head count) managing UNIX and Linux across the enterprise instead of Windows on the desktops & low-end servers, something else on your bigger servers, something else on your phones, etc.

Re:random thoughts on this

[doktorjayd]

almost.

what they need to do is stop investing in vendor lockin.

dont write that new app in dot net, do it in java with open source libs.

dont use oracle/sql server, use postgres.

with that first step tidied up, moving to an open source app server running on linux is very simple.

or even moving to a closed source app server on linux. or aix. or solaris - your apps, if well written, will not need to change one bit.

Re:random thoughts on this

[Tsagadai]

Because on paper you failed maths. If you have ever called Microsoft for support you would know the difference between a support contract and a software license. It's not a hard sell at all.

Re:random thoughts on this

[viridari]

In fact, I have called Microsoft support in the past. And I found the experience to be one of the few gratifying aspects of being a Microsoft customer. Once you get past the costs, Microsoft support is (or was) truly top notch. Certainly much more effective than Red Hat's.

Then again, I haven't had to deal with Microsoft products in 3 or 4 years, and I haven't called Red Hat for support in about as long.

Re:random thoughts on this

[ion.simon.c]

Would you mention what did you called MSFT for, and what support were you provided?

Coincidentally...

[Trip6]

The Red Hat CEO also reported that the latest sun spots are a good reason to switch to Linux...

Re:Coincidentally...

[badkarmadayaccount]

Nah, Solaris seems solid enough to me. *ducks*

Penny wise, pound foolish

[mcgrew]

Where I work they buy recycled toner cartridges at half the price of new ones. The trouble is, you only get 1/10th as many pages before they peter out, and usually spill toner all over the inside of the printer, necessitating repairs.

I've found that managers aren't very smart.

There is argument about the cost of server software here, and seeing as how it's Red Hat speaking, that makes sense (I have no idea whether RH or MS server software is cheaper to run), but I don't understand why businesses are using Microsoft Office instead of Star Office. Is Star's spreadsheet really that bad? I haven't used it, I have no need for a spreadsheet at home and they use MS at work, but Star's word processor is as good for what I need (at home and work) as MS's.

Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft.

Re:Penny wise, pound foolish

[Trelane]

Is Star's spreadsheet really that bad?

I've used it exclusively since 2002. I think it works just fine.

Re:Penny wise, pound foolish

[mcgrew]

I has to be better than Quattro or Lotus. I imagine it would be good, I prefer Star's WP to MS's.

Re:Penny wise, pound foolish

[marcosdumay]

"Is Star's spreadsheet really that bad?"

Oh yes, it is. It is not that Calc is bad, but that Excel is excelent. You can bet Writte is better than Word, since Word is really bad and Write isn't bad, but the same doesn't apply to Power Point and Excel.

Note that most people shouldn't be using Power Point (ok, nearly nobody should) and most people don't need Excel. So, that doesn't apply to lots of organizations.

Re:Penny wise, pound foolish

[WuphonsReach]

Where I work they buy recycled toner cartridges at half the price of new ones. The trouble is, you only get 1/10th as many pages before they peter out, and usually spill toner all over the inside of the printer, necessitating repairs.

So start printing out the page counters every time you change the cartridge. Keep records of how many pages each toner cartridge printed. Give them data to backup a decision.

So true

[Gazzonyx]

Actually, if you think about it, support is just a money sink for Microsoft... it costs them lots of money and generates no extra business (if you're calling for support, they've already got your money, most likely).

Re:So true

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

MS sells support contracts just like everyone else. It is not a money sink, else they would not sell them.

Re:So true

[Kadin2048]

I think the term the GP is looking for is cost center. These are activities done by a company that do not directly generate profit themselves, but in some way (hopefully) enable the company to be more profitable, or to conduct its primary business activity.

To a company that sells software, support is very definitely a cost center. You need to have it, else people might not buy your software, but each additional dollar invested in it doesn't necessarily get you much of a return. On the balance sheet, it is always going to be in the red. This tends to encourage companies to spend the minimum on it that they possibly can.

Or switch for free

[Flagg0204]

'I've had a couple of conversations with CIOs who said, "We're a Microsoft shop and we don't use any open source whatsoever, but we're already getting pressure to reduce our operating costs and we need you to help put together a plan for us to... use open source to reduce our costs."

This makes Jim sound like a complete tool. People who want to save money by switching to open source solutions typically don't go to Redhat. You really want to save money? Switch to CentOS or Debian/Ubuntu. Those are free. In my experience companies usually use free solutions for the majority of their server fleet. For systems that require commercial support (Oracle, Weblogic, etc) they will use RHEL.

And we've had other customers literally looking at ripping and replacing WebLogic or WebSphere for JBoss ...

On a personal note.....DONT DO IT! JBoss blows chunks compared to Weblogic 10. If you want a cheaper J2EE solution, look at Glassfish its getting a lot of attention and having used the last stable version it is actually pretty good.

Re:Yes young padawan... come over to the dark side

[hairyfeet]

And you just hit the nail on the head as to why it will be hard for MSFT shops to switch. MCSEs are cheap and plentiful,whereas Linux gurus are the opposite. So while they can run a free Linux server edition and save upfront costs the first time they have a serious breakdown it is going to cost them. And the support contracts for distros like Red Hat(last time I checked,its been a few years) will eat any savings that they had from switching. Hopefully as cheap Nettops and Netbooks get more popular more when learn Linux and go into the field,but ATM Linux Server admins certainly ain't cheap nor plentiful.

Not trying to flame here,just stating what I've run into in the field. While there are some old Windows guys out there like me that love to learn new Operating Systems and all the little ins and outs,I have run into way too many MCSEs that if you took away WinServer would be as helpless as any non technical home user.

Cheapness is the consequence..

[Anonymous Coward]

..of competition. Number of companies that can bid on a change order to your proprietary software: 1. Number of companies that can bid on a change order to your free software: many.

Free market capitalism is just too efficient to ignore. Father Microsoft may have seized the means of production, but the economic pressures of returning to freedom will always be there, and it's going to be a constant effort to keep sweeping back the sea.

i was destined never to succeed in business...

[Anonymous Coward]

i never liked golf...

In other "news"...

[voltheir]

Ballmer says economic crisis favors Microsoft, and Jobs retorts that economic crisis favors Apple...

Re:In other "news"...

[Anonymous Coward]

At the very least far more companies will be skipping Vista and waiting until Windows 7 to upgrade. Which gives Linux more time to get its act together.

Of course he says that...

[malevolentjelly]

He's the CEO of a company with a somewhat untried venture trying to influence migration during an economic crisis! These people depend on investors not to jump off the train.

I believe an economic crisis will cause much more conservatism in the way companies run their IT. That may mean more sticking to Solaris or AIX for their servers and Microsoft Windows for their workstations, probably just not upgrading. Chances are they will cost cut by getting rid of jobs and not licensing NEW products instead of migrating their systems to a brand new platform. I would argue that a rise in fiscal conservatism (not the Bush kind) would be a boon to those outside of the OSS market who are not dependent on angel investor capital to make major innovations.

Open source is a product of a very experimental market that's just rolling with impossible amounts of investor capital, granting companies the kind of time to fiddle with it. As far as I know, most open source ventures and start ups are in the market of getting bought up by an actually profitable company like Google or IBM or Sun- and if they're conservative and the investors are strapped, then I would say there will be less innovation in enterprise class OSS and more in hobbyist OSS (eg gentoo).

Alternatively, with a lot of people out of work, there may be a surge in productivity in the more gooey and fun products like Ubuntu and compiz and Haiku with so many people bored and out of work. We shall see what happens with that in the future- that is, when the credit crunch finally comes for our jobs.

in the real world.....

[Nex6]

in the real world, the OS is mattering not as much as it once did. what is driving is the 'solution', or what are your mainline apps? an example is a shop that runs autoCAD, this is a MS only app the costs big bucks.

and for the server world, its the same you have companys with these huge investments in internal and external control apps, and starting over is not something they will do with out very long and carful considerations.

and even in shops, that are mixed and have heavy Unix presense there are issues becuase SUN and Novel support sucks. tho redhat is pretty good but; going with a full readhat solution is big bucks...

so, and you have to consider what apps you going to need. and writing everything over is not a good answer as some shops could have 20 apps....

 

Re:Yes young padawan... come over to the dark side

[Ihmhi]

Wait, so there's no like... LCSE? Why the Hell not, considering Linux is used on so many servers and is the backbone of a LOT of important hardware. Like servers for Steam games. (Okay, important to ME. d:)

Re:Yes young padawan... come over to the dark side

[interploy]

Is that really so bad? I've got my mom using Ubuntu and she's by no means a computer expert. If someone with a MSCE can't adapt to Linux, then I don't think they were worth holding onto anyway.

Sure, economic crisis favors Open Source

[melted]

It just doesn't favor paying for it when you can run it for free. I think if recession really kicks in, RHAT will be much more fucked than MSFT, because CTO's will drop those support contracts for a year or two hoping nothing will blow up too dramatically.

There are LPI certifications.

[Benanov]

There is, actually but it's not as well-known:

http://www.lpi.org/

I'm sorta slowly pursuing these. I think my favorite concept is that LPI does offer an Ubuntu-specific exam on top of the regular certifications you can get.

Re:Yes young padawan... come over to the dark side

[illumin8]

And the support contracts for distros like Red Hat(last time I checked,its been a few years) will eat any savings that they had from switching.

You're doing it wrong. The next time you need an HP Proliant server, ask your HP rep to bundle a 3-year Red Hat subscription/license with it. It will only add a few hundred dollars onto the cost of the server, far less than a Windows Server 2003/2008 license, and you'll get real support (1st and 2nd tier at HP, 3rd tier at Red Hat). Most servers are decommissioned after 3 years anyway.

The myth that Red Hat support is more expensive than Microsoft is just that, a Myth. With HP servers, I can get support for a few hundred dollars for 3 years. For Microsoft, several hundred dollars just pays for the software license. Support costs $300 an incident after that.

Re:Yes young padawan... come over to the dark side

[Anonymous Coward]

Therein is the problem as most real Windows admins know. Most MCSE's are useless as tits on a bull. and going OSS will show that in a glaring light.

If you go linux you dont need 12 MCSE morons around just 2 good admins. Yes you cant pay those admins the $12.20 an hour you gotta pay them a real wage, this irks the managers but it's a fact of life.

More FOSS macaroni and FUD, please!

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no way bad economics favor Teh FOSS. Who's going to keep that armada of highly paid consultants fed when there's no money to go around?

When people tighten their belts, they go with the most discreet of all options. Any company who knows what they are doing already has Windows support people... so that heavily favors adding more Windows-based solutions. It requires no highly paid consultants, no outside people, no goofy and uber-expensive hardware, and no crazy modifications to the network.

I feel a great disturbance in Teh FOSS, as if hundreds of Lunix zealots cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced.

It's a bad time to be pedalling radical and barely functional solutions right now. Dark times ahead for Teh FOSS, good times for solid and reliable companies.

Re:Yes young padawan... come over to the dark side

[Yfrwlf]

You're right, but it's in times like these when that shift happens, Linux and OSS in general will be in higher demand, employees will consider more getting training or experience with it all, that's how the market works, supply plays catch-up with demand.

Re:Yes young padawan... come over to the dark side

[Dr. Smoove]

There is, and I guess it would be correct to say LPI because it's a multiple choice test that any dolt can usually pass. The RHCE on the other hand is completely hands on and you have to have a little bit of a working Linux knowledge to pass it.

Re:Yes young padawan... come over to the dark side

[David Gerard]

Nah, they just hire Linux weenies. Kids are cheap. And it's not like there aren't a zillion of them.

Re:Yes young padawan... come over to the dark side

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about that.

It only takes one service at a time to get used to it - cumulative.

What the problem will be is interoperability with MS products that the business people know and love. I guess that's why RedHat has Novell.

Layoffs

[benjamindees]

That anyone in IT gets laid off during economic downturn just goes to show how fundamentally broken the IT industry in the US really is.

Information technology is a radically efficient time and labor saving device.

Yet instead of being used to automate and streamline the millions of worthless repetitive shite jobs in the information economy, IT is most often used to automate and streamline the jobs of IT workers themselves.

Instead of finding out what Suzy the secretary or Tim the accountant actually do all day (besides surfing the net), and using information technology to do their jobs more efficiently or to make them obsolete, Ishmael the IT guy instead sits in his cubicle working on outsourcing his own job to people and companies who quite frankly can't do it nearly as well as he could.

It's a fundamentally broken industry. And the reason it's broken has more to do with the current economic downturn than anyone will admit.

The Federal Reserve, the captain of the US economy, has a legal mandate to maintain "maximum employment". This does not mean maximum productivity. It doesn't mean maximum economic output. It means that one of the (three?) guiding principles of the institution that sets interest rates and prints money is to have the most number of asses* sitting in the most number of chairs every day from 9-5.

For this reason, the market leaders in any software category (Windows and it's ilk) are specifically designed around the average person, sitting in front of a computer and clicking on things, providing input, and guiding information processing. What this fails to account for is that the average person is a complete idiot, that driving the average person to work every day in order to sit in front of a computer is a waste of resources, and that (for the most part) using people for information processing just adds errors and complexity with no actual gain in either accuracy or efficiency.

So what we end up with is the few productive members of society, continuously bailing out the 90% of Americans whose jobs constitute little more than Fed-sponsored baby-sitting exercises, through a ridiculously "progressive" tax scheme and (when that isn't enough) direct bail-outs to the bankers whose misguided economic theories distort and pervert the prosperity offered by a truly free-market bolstered by a representative government.

Wash, rinse, repeat in almost any other industry and you will see the same pattern. Productive, revolutionary, labor-saving technologies are eschewed in favor of the latest ergonomic widget that will increase workers' output another 5%, "grow" the company and bring in more investment from the intellectually (and now factually) bankrupt morons at the Fed.

The information economy, nay the entire concept of economic prosperity itself, is simply no longer compatible with the depression-era ideal of full employment.

*not necessarily Americans' asses

Re:Yes young padawan... come over to the dark side

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree that desktop use of Ubuntu is very easy, your statement is pretty misleading. Most basic computer users can use a windows machine for basic things which is a good thing with basic Ubuntu users but we aren't talking about email and browsing users. Administering a computer is very different from merely using one. I doubt any low level computer user will know what to do if something were to go catastrophically wrong, which can happen on both an Ubuntu and XP machine. Would your mother know how to set up a NIS or Active Directory Domain server for multiple users to connect to? How well can she set up a file server and have users automatically connect to it based on centralized login credentials?

It's not all about merely having a MCSE know how to use a Linux system but rather having them comfortable enough to know how to solve a problem as well as build upon current Linux infrastructure.

Re:Yes young padawan... come over to the dark side

[infinityxi]

Linux weenies probably know how to do a few things here and there but I doubt many of them know how to correctly deploy advanced systems in a corporate setting. In fact with the trend of everyone and their mothers using Linux (not a bad thing) there are plenty of "Kids" that know how to install deb packages and even a few more that can fiddle around with modules but I doubt many of them will know how to install and maintain a properly functioning squid proxy, much less a NAS on demand.

Re:Yes young padawan... come over to the dark side

[Jorophose]

So why exactly don't these business edge linux into schools? Or the schools do the responsible thing and do that?

Imagine being a highschool where all your students could come out with enough linux knowledge to get a Red Hat cert if they wanted to, and the school subsidised because red hat was sponsoring or something, in exchange you work for Red Hat latter on, or they do exlusivity contracts or something. Well, even though you'll only get small groups of 5-10 people interested and actually do it, what's stopping somebody who might have a light interest from doing the program and getting a job as a redhat-certed admin? Or like an apprentice/assistant sort of position?

Talk about lucrative. I hear you guys make 100k+ easily. Imagine showing up first day of university with a corvette and money to burn. Of course when a lot of schools do it the overall wages will have to go down, or at least there will be lower pay levels (and that's not a bad thing, because you longbearded ones will be working for big tech companies you founded, and the newkids will be working the jobs at schools and stuff).

The problem is...

[bgibby9]

now Open Source simply looks like the shitty cheaper alternative to what they'd prefer to use. This isn't some much a victory, more so an eye opener for those who would dismiss Open Source applications simply because of a stigma. Anyhow, I'm just glad more people will see Open Source as a path to choose (not the only path - the right tool for the right job!) and expand our ever growing popularity!

Re:Yes young padawan... come over to the dark side

[Tubal-Cain]

12 MSCEs * $12.20/hr. / 2 competent admins = $73.20/hour.
Is that normal? I need to move into administration ASAP.

Linux on Flashdrive

[darrinallen]

My next project is to make a linux bootable flashdrive

Re:Yes young padawan... come over to the dark side

[phmadore]

ANd here we see another way that OS will benefit: lesser known Linux Gurus will get the chance to have dream jobs for slightly less than their counterparts. Hell yeah. A new job market comes out of an economic crisis.

Re:Yes young padawan... come over to the dark side

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this article's hitting upon part of WHY Windows VISTA sales have been so poor: At least in part!

(Not only that VISTA is a heavier in memory usage OS, & slower (slightly only after SP #1 for it + hotfixes) OS than XP/Server 2003 are, as to why its sales have been poor by way of comparison to expectations for it in the market by analysts etc.)

Face it - times aren't that great economically, especially in the United States of America, where people are losing jobs etc. et al left & right!

( ... & that means less "disposable income" is out there for those poor folks, & those that have their jobs are probably "saving for that rainy day", in case they too, lose their livelyhood).

Things like computer OS', having the "latest/greatest" is not of import, by way of comparison to having to pay the rent & buy the daily meal, by far.

Oblig.

[badkarmadayaccount]

Why not run Plan 9? *ducks* Seriously, from userspace, it aint that hard.

Re:Yes young padawan... come over to the dark side

[ACorvus]

Linux got me into the business and I'm going to stick with it. I agree there are a lot of weenies out there, but there are just as many on the Windows side. Every time I want to recruit to my team, I get dozens and dozens of CVs (after the initial HR weeding process) of obvious fresh-out-of-high school applicants who've got a couple of Diplomas (largely MS/Visual Studio based) but no real interest in IT of any sort - they see it as a stepping stone to Management (invariably the m-word is one of the courses they've done) and only shoved Linux on the CV because it was in the advert and they're chancers.

The very, very few that I employ are people who've tried stuff at home (doesn't have to be Linux, just something that shows curiosity, drive and a broader mindset - eg hacking their Xbox or deploying a media network) and are really enthusiastic to learn and progress their skills in the field. Even if some of these people are only partially aware of FOSS I can easily see their interest piqued once it's fully explained to them. Getting them to see the bigger picture in terms of enterprise integration is a matter of nurturing that as their experience grows.

The management-wannabees sometimes slip through when they're really sly but we have this thing called a probation period for a reason ;-)

Oh, and just to brag, my personal record for setting up a Samba domain with LDAP and an authenticated Squid proxy with an IMAP mail server (LDAP auth) stands at 2 hours and 40 minutes (it was an offshore business and I had little time before my flight home after installing all the boxes in a rack and setting up the 5 workstations and 3 printers). Much caffeine was consumed - but I guess that's a given!

Re:Yes young padawan... come over to the dark side

[Anonymous Coward]

Some MCSEs will learn linux in about6 to 8 mo.

It requires 1 person for 10 servers with Windows, and 1 for 35 servers when it is Linux / Unix. So there is a large benefit to switching.