Slashdot Mirror


Linux To Take Over Microsoft In Enterprises

shougyin writes "For years, Linux has enjoyed much of its success as a replacement for Unix. Companies turned to Linux to replace Unix servers, or for new deployments within a Unix-heavy environment. Linux is still king there, but it's starting to encroach on Microsoft as well. Big companies are planning overwhelmingly (76.4%) to add more Linux servers in the next year, and less than half (41.2%) of the companies are planning to add Windows servers in the next year. Even more interesting, nearly half (43.6%) are actively planning to decrease use of Windows servers in the next year."

237 comments

  1. Wow . . . by Drewcool · · Score: 4, Funny

    For a second, I read that as "Linus To Take Over Microsoft".

    1. Re:Wow . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      You mean you actually tried to read the headline before posting? Amazing!

    2. Re:Wow . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, the expression should be "overtake", which is much different than "take over".

    3. Re:Wow . . . by zerorez02301 · · Score: 1

      Funny, I just read an article that says linux is losing market share. I suppose the sky is falling and my Microsoft certs are worthless now. Any day now people will stop emailing and we will have no use for exchange servers. I have seen less fanatical pentecostal preachers than the linux evangelists.

    4. Re:Wow . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean you actually tried to read the headline before posting? Amazing!

      yeah, when I saw "Enterprises" I immediately though NCC1701-A through D and I thought "well, that's cool"

    5. Re:Wow . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, your Microsoft certs were always useless...HAH!

    6. Re:Wow . . . by zerorez02301 · · Score: 1

      I had to turn my dice profile off because of the job offers were getting annoying. How is linux treating you?

    7. Re:Wow . . . by davester666 · · Score: 1

      99.9% of the time, you can't read the headline and still get first post...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    8. Re:Wow . . . by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Same here in linux land. Exchange is not the only way to do email and not the best by far. Certs for anything are worthless though.

    9. Re:Wow . . . by Bert64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Vendor driven certs are worthless, wether they come from microsoft, cisco or redhat... Those vendors goals is not to educate people or even to ensure a high standard, they simply want more people out there promoting their products and having a large number of "qualified" cert holders helps more than a small number of "qualified and competent" cert holders.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    10. Re:Wow . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Here you will see how a Linux Web server can be made 5 MILLION TIMES faster than an IIS 7.0 + C# Web server:

      http://gwan.ch/

      Also, see the same software running on Windows and Linux.

      I don't know you, but I guess that enterprises are able to do the maths... hence the trend of dumping Windows for something (much) better...

  2. ActiveDirectory - the last missing piece by Cyberax · · Score: 3, Informative

    I know quite a few companies who run 3-4 Windows servers for ActiveDirectory domain controllers and a lot of Linux servers as AD clients.

    Once Samba4 is released, these Windows servers could be replaced as well.

    1. Re:ActiveDirectory - the last missing piece by rjch · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Once Samba4 is released, these Windows servers could be replaced as well.

      Samba 4 has been in various stages of alpha for the last five years - or is it six?

      Personally, I have considered a Samba 4 installation in only one place - a volunteer organisation that simply didn't have the budget for anything else. I'm still sniffing around for a surplus Windows Server license to replace it.

      For an alpha release, Samba 4 is remarkably usable. However the time and effort that I have spent installing Samba 4 would have cost this organisation a fair bit more than the cost of a Windows Server 2008 Standard license. I don't see that reducing a huge amount even when Samba 4 is released - there's a lot of configuration involved to get DHCP, DNS and Samba 4 talking to each other properly.

    2. Re:ActiveDirectory - the last missing piece by shitzu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      However the time and effort that I have spent installing Samba 4 would have cost this organisation a fair bit more than the cost of a Windows Server 2008 Standard license

      Perhaps. But imagine that you ditch windows servers altogether and save quite a bit from server CALs. Depending on the network size and configuration that could save a significant amount.

    3. Re:ActiveDirectory - the last missing piece by Nursie · · Score: 1

      What crap is this?

      If one group of developers can do it then there's no reason another cannot. Or was just that an excuse for AC mudslinging?

    4. Re:ActiveDirectory - the last missing piece by icebike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Any organization small enough to have trouble funding and domain controller Doesn't need one.

      Just because the only tool you know how to use is a hammer doesn't mean every problem is a nail.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    5. Re:ActiveDirectory - the last missing piece by Cyberax · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've installed Samba4 on a test site. Installation was quite easy, even considering the DNS integration. However, I couldn't manage to set up DHCP with dynamic DNS updates. Though I see that they are adding an embedded DNS server into the Samba4 distribution (as they did with Kerberos and LDAP servers), so it should be much easier in the future.

      Also, Microsoft tools for administration are seriously better than anything Samba4 has.

    6. Re:ActiveDirectory - the last missing piece by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      That's why development of Samba4 took about 6 years. Yet, they have succeeded. They replicated all the closed Microsoft technologies and right now they are finalizing the stack.

    7. Re:ActiveDirectory - the last missing piece by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It's just replacing one complex pile of LDAP with a different one no matter which direction you are going in. There is nothing magic about Microsofts implementation of it.

    8. Re:ActiveDirectory - the last missing piece by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean I too can build a Saturn V rocket with my unspecialized team of 3 engineers? Or that we can terraform a hostile world to support human life?

      Of course it's doable. As the GP wrote, the issues are time, stability, and compatibility.

    9. Re:ActiveDirectory - the last missing piece by gbjbaanb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      However the time and effort that I have spent installing Samba 4 would have cost this organisation a fair bit more than the cost of a Windows Server 2008 Standard license

      Does trhat count the time it took you to get trained in Windows Server 2008, Active Directory and all the other gubbins? IIRC there was a fair learning curve going from domains to AD. (and we'll ignore the cost of the CALs)

      This annoys me a little about Linux migrations, people say how much more it costs based on the fact that they already know Windows, then compare that to the time taken to not only implement but also learn the Linux equivalent. Now you've done it once, you should be able to put in another Samba4 system without any fuss, surely?

      and you can, of course, supply your config experience to the community - or to your own, ad-laden, blog. Might as well earn a little from getting people to come read what you did.

    10. Re:ActiveDirectory - the last missing piece by dhawton · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If your 3 engineers study rocket science, then sure! Any group of programmers could replicate AD, just like another group of programmers did when they built AD. The group that built AD were unspecialized in AD, were they not?

    11. Re:ActiveDirectory - the last missing piece by ewe2 · · Score: 1

      My problem isn't so much the learning curve of replacing one with the other - it's the competency of whoever ends up doing it. Whatever the business case, surely the majority of admins are going to be Windows-only: how is that going to succeed? If you have a business case and a good Unix admin, terrific. But I'm guessing that Microsoft isn't so worried about Unix servers taking over the enterprise because they have to get past the Microsoft-trained admin. He's going to raise hell with the CTO if he's forced to migrate servers, or worse, the job gets outsourced. SambaN+1 had better be awesomely user-friendly for it to be even seriously considered.

      OTOH, a future Samba with built-in dynamic DNS is going to rock my world.

      --
      insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
    12. Re:ActiveDirectory - the last missing piece by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This annoys me a little about Linux migrations, people say how much more it costs based on the fact that they already know Windows, then compare that to the time taken to not only implement but also learn the Linux equivalent.

      People do that because its the real life situation and *should* be considered - its not like the migration is happening from a blank slate to one or the other, its going from one to the other and thus the advantage of pre-existing experience in the familiar should be considered.

    13. Re:ActiveDirectory - the last missing piece by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Informative

      He is ignoring the cost of CAL's. I'm betting his entire shop is out of compliance on CAL's

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    14. Re:ActiveDirectory - the last missing piece by HangingChad · · Score: 1
      I'm still sniffing around for a surplus Windows Server license to replace it.

      I'm working at a small but growing office. We considered putting a Windows server in the mix, but with the CAL's it's just not in the budget. Once we got samba working there was no incentive to add it later. The registry tweaks for Windows 7 were painful at first, but once you get the process down it wasn't that bad. You do give up some functionality but save a lot of cash.

      Microsoft are the ones shooting themselves in the foot. Charging customers for a software license, then charging them more to actually use it for anything. Get rid of CAL's and we'll start looking around for a box to run the PDC.

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    15. Re:ActiveDirectory - the last missing piece by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      ah you miss the point slightly - the time it took to gain the experience on Windows needs to be factored in just as much as the time taken to learn the Linux stuff, otherwise you're not being fair in comparing the two.

      Anyone who is experienced in using Windows took time to get that, it wasn't free.

    16. Re:ActiveDirectory - the last missing piece by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      actually that should not be considered. That prior investment in Windows/AD experience is what accountants would call a sunk cost. Its time and money already spent regardless of how you move forward. If it is used as a justification to never change vendors or technology than its denying you opportunities for other cost savings, efficiency, and value.

      Unless you can't afford to make the investment in learning something new, already knowing Windows is a bad argument for staying with the platform if it would otherwise make sense to switch. Keep in mind M$ technology is developing all the time too and you are making a constant investment in continuing learning of those things, Exchange 2k7 and 2k10 certainly sent a lot of 2k3 and prior Exchange admins back to school so to speak. Sure lots of their prior knowledge was applicable but lots of the old rules were broken as well, in fact most of what was transferable is true about mail in general; so if there was a reason to look at a competing groupware product it should have been considered.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    17. Re:ActiveDirectory - the last missing piece by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to be confused.

      He's saying that "I'm a Windows tech, and it would cost money to train me up and then more to install Linux," doesn't actually mean it'll cost a lot to train that tech up and then more to install Linux. What he's saying is that "If a Windows tech says it'll cost money to train him up and then cost more to install Linux, get a Linux tech and lose the Windows one."

    18. Re:ActiveDirectory - the last missing piece by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      If its a volunteer organization with only 5 computers, theres not much way to be out of compliance with Server 2008 cals, since the first 5 are generally bundled (depending where and how you buy it). When someone talks of a volunteer organization without the budget for a single $500 copy of Windows Server, youre usually not talking someone with scads of workstations.

    19. Re:ActiveDirectory - the last missing piece by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because people *know* Windows because it's pretty much the bare necessity when you're a network admin. You shouldn't assume people have to get trained for Windows because they don't have to be. They're worthless if they aren't.

    20. Re:ActiveDirectory - the last missing piece by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For an alpha release, Samba 4 is remarkably usable. However the time and effort that I have spent installing Samba 4 would have cost this organisation a fair bit more than the cost of a Windows Server 2008 Standard license.

      That's because it's alpha. When it becomes ready for production, installing it will entail "apt-get install samba4" or some such, which a decent default configuration I would imagine.

      Getting FreeBSD 9/HEAD installed is also a bit of a chore because you have to cvsup and compile and .... But when it's "properly" released, all I have to do is pop in the ISO and go.

      The book "Samba by Example" will also probably be updated to give a bunch of new pre-canned scenarios that will get you up and running.

    21. Re:ActiveDirectory - the last missing piece by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no reason for that not to be fixed too, perhaps even fully automagic in the ubuntu package install script (with dependencies on the corresponding dhcp&dns packages)

    22. Re:ActiveDirectory - the last missing piece by hitmark · · Score: 1

      Just shows how effective the MCE program have been. Its basic level is is all about creating sales packages for AD installations.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    23. Re:ActiveDirectory - the last missing piece by Anarke_Incarnate · · Score: 1

      Network Admins do "NETWORK" stuff. They manage routers, switches, gateway devices, etc. Windows jockeys are not Network Admins. They are Windows Admins. They may be Systems Admins. Let's not cloud the waters any more than HR already does.

    24. Re:ActiveDirectory - the last missing piece by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      To a large degree, yes, AD is the missing piece.

      Pretty much everything relies upon Active Directory. Unfortunately, the s4 implementation isn't there yet for basic stuff, nevermind being able to use later versions of Exchange (which is, as far as I can tell, one of the only reasons why people are moving to 2k8r2 if they've already got a substantial 2k3 install base).

      Pretty much the whole picture seems to be moving towards "linux" in one form or fashion. Popular virtualization technology, aside from the awkward bare metal Hyper-V, all runs on top of a Linux kernel (Xen, XenServer, KVM, VMWare). Aside from that, there's MS's HyperV and Sun/Oracle's offerings, which don't have nearly the incentive to use.

      In many cases I've seen, even if someone is reliant upon AD and Exchange, they've already taken steps to marginalize their reliance: they've virtualized their AD and MSSQL servers; they've picked up things like Zimbra to replace Exchange (often transparently); and so on. I doubt it's happening so much in a corporate environment, but it's happening in a very big way in shops where there are 2-3 IT workers who have a little extra time (ie not running their heads off).

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    25. Re:ActiveDirectory - the last missing piece by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      I don't see that reducing a huge amount even when Samba 4 is released - there's a lot of configuration involved to get DHCP, DNS and Samba 4 talking to each other properly.

      It takes less than 20 minutes to half an hour if you've already got DDNS running on the network.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    26. Re:ActiveDirectory - the last missing piece by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Any organization small enough to have trouble funding and domain controller Doesn't need one.

      Are you saying that the client/server model does not scale below a certain number of hosts?

      I can see where a capital expense for an office of 5 or so people might be a bit severe, but where a domain is still necessary. Say, where there's a reason to have cleanly segregated user permissions/access controls (which Samba3 does not provide easily/without significant knowledge of how to set it up/reoccurring user admin costs).

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    27. Re:ActiveDirectory - the last missing piece by gstrickler · · Score: 1

      Any organization small enough to have trouble funding and domain controller Doesn't need one.

      He said nothing about it being small. Apparently you missed the part about it being a "volunteer" organization. Anyone who ever worked with non-profit or volunteer organizations understands that size and budget are two completely different things.

      Reading, it's not just for breakfast anymore.

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    28. Re:ActiveDirectory - the last missing piece by wshs · · Score: 1

      Server 2008 CALs have to be validated against Microsoft, much like any other product validation from them. This is new, where 2003 just trusted you.

    29. Re:ActiveDirectory - the last missing piece by spazimodo · · Score: 1

      One difference is that while there are some differences between versions, managing AD hasn't changed drastically since 2000 Server. Linux AD-like infrastructure constantly changes between versions so the knowledge you gained when you figured out how to set it up the last time is no longer useful.

      For example, the IDMAP options in smb.conf seem to vary by the hour so the how-to you're following from some ad-laden blog probably won't leave you with a working config. If you're lucky, google spidered a newer how-to quickly enough and you discover that the "rid_map" option was changed to "map_rid" and that blowupeverything=1 which used to mean "don't blow up everything" now means "why yes, please do blow up everything".

      --

      Fsck the millennium, we want it now.
      Millennium Crisis Line: 0890 900 2000 [calls cost 50p/min]
    30. Re:ActiveDirectory - the last missing piece by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Sysadmins write scripts and automate stuff, they do not use a mouse. Windows admins are operators.

    31. Re:ActiveDirectory - the last missing piece by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who gives a shit? Some network/system/windows/operator admins do more than you do apparently.

    32. Re:ActiveDirectory - the last missing piece by mpe · · Score: 1

      This annoys me a little about Linux migrations, people say how much more it costs based on the fact that they already know Windows, then compare that to the time taken to not only implement but also learn the Linux equivalent.

      Whilst ignoring that "Windows" isn't one thing and migrating between different versions of Windows may not be simple.

    33. Re:ActiveDirectory - the last missing piece by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

      Ha! You are saying because you personally are faster at installing Windows Server that Samba4 is worse? Sounds like you are good at Windows so that's what you want to install (at some license cost to the client), which is fair enough.

      What you are missing is that it was a shame the organization didn't get someone who was better than you at Samba. The labor cost would be the same and the licensing cost would be zero. There are certainly people out there who can do this stuff and *save the customer money* at the same time. Just doesn't happen to be you - so you should recognize your own point-of-view is affecting your product comparison so it becomes less objective. The lower long term cost *and* initial cost of Linux makes it better than Windows in the long-term (I know, I'm working on a Linux-based solution where the number of servers will easily exceed ten thousand) - in fact Linux was chosen (not by me) for this very reason, it is a much better strategic investment on this large scale.

    34. Re:ActiveDirectory - the last missing piece by mpe · · Score: 1

      He's saying that "I'm a Windows tech, and it would cost money to train me up and then more to install Linux," doesn't actually mean it'll cost a lot to train that tech up and then more to install Linux. What he's saying is that "If a Windows tech says it'll cost money to train him up and then cost more to install Linux, get a Linux tech and lose the Windows one."

      What proportion of "Windows techs" are Windows only vs the proportion of "Linux techs" who are Linux only?

    35. Re:ActiveDirectory - the last missing piece by mpe · · Score: 1

      I'm working at a small but growing office. We considered putting a Windows server in the mix, but with the CAL's it's just not in the budget.

      Note that added to the purchase cost of a CAL is the cost of working out when you need to buy one, the process of buying one (especially if it involves dealing with suppliers you don't usually deal with) and having to have a system to record what you actually have.

    36. Re:ActiveDirectory - the last missing piece by Anarke_Incarnate · · Score: 1

      And you say that knowing exactly what about I do? How do you figure that or back that up? You don't.

    37. Re:ActiveDirectory - the last missing piece by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      I never really liked the idea of dynamic dns updates, the ability to create arbitrary hostnames on the network is not a good one...
      Especially when there are still people foolish enough to use host based authentication (eg rhosts).

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    38. Re:ActiveDirectory - the last missing piece by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, ability to SSH into a computer just by typing "ssh mymachine" from anywhere (where IPv6 is present) is uber-cool.

    39. Re:ActiveDirectory - the last missing piece by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Any organization small enough to have trouble funding and domain controller Doesn't need one.

      Possibly not, but if Microsoft sells a server in that space (Small Business Server), and *nux doesn't, then Microsoft is going to get those sales. Whether or not they "needed" the server.

      Although, frankly, I think you're dead wrong.

    40. Re:ActiveDirectory - the last missing piece by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ouch. The burn-time on that failed rocket analogy could get him to Mars in two weeks.

    41. Re:ActiveDirectory - the last missing piece by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude who cares? You're arguing about the specific meaning of a term I used instead of having something to say. Really, who cares?

    42. Re:ActiveDirectory - the last missing piece by rjch · · Score: 1

      For an alpha release, Samba 4 is remarkably usable. However the time and effort that I have spent installing Samba 4 would have cost this organisation a fair bit more than the cost of a Windows Server 2008 Standard license.

      That's because it's alpha. When it becomes ready for production, installing it will entail "apt-get install samba4" or some such, which a decent default configuration I would imagine.

      One problem with this is that you're not just configuring Samba-4, but you also need to ensure that your BIND and DHCP configuration are set up to match as well, otherwise you'll end up with a partially functional setup.

      I did see someone else mention that Samba were considering rolling a DNS server into Samba-4 - if this does happen, this will remove a significant configuration headache resulting in a much simpler installation. Throw in an integrated DHCP server, and you'll be approaching the level of "apt-get install samba4". If this is the case, I'm all for it - like I said, I'm surprised and just how functional Samba-4 is for a piece of alpha software.

    43. Re:ActiveDirectory - the last missing piece by rjch · · Score: 1

      I don't see that reducing a huge amount even when Samba 4 is released - there's a lot of configuration involved to get DHCP, DNS and Samba 4 talking to each other properly.

      It takes less than 20 minutes to half an hour if you've already got DDNS running on the network.

      ...and if you're intimately familiar with the configuration of them and your distro of choice provides a late enough version of BIND. I first tried it with CentOS-5 and got a headache for my trouble. Attempting the same thing with Ubuntu 10.04LTS was easier.

    44. Re:ActiveDirectory - the last missing piece by rjch · · Score: 1

      Ha! You are saying because you personally are faster at installing Windows Server that Samba4 is worse? Sounds like you are good at Windows so that's what you want to install (at some license cost to the client), which is fair enough.

      Not at all. Whenever I need to put a solution together, usually the first thing I look at is open source. Unfortunately, when you are implementing a solution for someone who is paying you $120 per hour, the time involved in configuration becomes a significant factor as well.

      My other motivating factor for replacing Samba-4 with Server 2008 is maintainability. I've made the mistake of getting caught as the only person in a volunteer organisation capable of troubleshooting and/or configuring a system in the past. As that organisation grows, you find yourself receiving calls in the middle of the week demanding help when something breaks and can sometimes get quite nasty when you tell them you're at work and not in a position to help at that time.

      What you are missing is that it was a shame the organization didn't get someone who was better than you at Samba. The labor cost would be the same and the licensing cost would be zero. There are certainly people out there who can do this stuff and *save the customer money* at the same time. Just doesn't happen to be you - so you should recognize your own point-of-view is affecting your product comparison so it becomes less objective. The lower long term cost *and* initial cost of Linux makes it better than Windows in the long-term (I know, I'm working on a Linux-based solution where the number of servers will easily exceed ten thousand) - in fact Linux was chosen (not by me) for this very reason, it is a much better strategic investment on this large scale.

  3. Re:News for Nerds: by rjch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This week, bogus statistics pushing an increasingly boring anti-microsoft zealotry and a pro-"operating system that takes at least one more step than windows to run any popular application or game" agenda.

    I agree. Percentages are tossed around without any evidence or explanation as to how these figures were arrived at. Who was surveyed? What industries were they in? Why are they planning to add Linux servers? What function will these servers have? Why aren't they planning on adding Windows servers?

  4. Selfcongratulatory survey by arivanov · · Score: 5, Informative

    This survey is not statistically representative by all means. It is done amidst users that already use Linux and done by a Linux advocacy. I am no MSFT fan. I have not had a Windows machine in my house since 1997 (and even that was Win 3.x running under OS2 Warp). However, the reality is not as rosy as this survey would like us to see.

    First of all, the majority of Windows users are SMEs and they are Windows _ONLY_. They _WILL_ buy more of the same and that is a definite. A lot of the rest is desktop estate and its essential dependencies - Exchange and their friends. 95% of these will be buying more of the same. There are very few successful desktop migrations to account for anything more than that. Even that will be an underestimate. 99% buying more of the same is more likely.

    That leaves "enterprise" backend use which is pretty much what this survey is about. There is a lively migration racket going on there nowdays as most of this runs in the form of Java and friends on top of middleware stacks. Every 1-2 years the latest and greatest backend idea comes along with its migration programme. As a result servers and stacks get chucked out and replaced by others.

    There Linux is gaining and the numbers are about right. However that is a very small portion of the market and misrepresenting it for the whole market is to the very best disingenuous. Additionally, it also completely ignores the "Elephant In The Corner of The Room". The merger of Sun and Oracle has created a vertical stack which will once again effectively compete for their place under the sun (pun intended) in the server room. Any stats regarding enterprise migration that assign (Sn)Oracle a negative year on year growth are frankly wishful thinking.

    --
    Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
    http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    1. Re:Selfcongratulatory survey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That leaves "enterprise" backend use which is pretty much what this survey is about. There is a lively migration racket going on there nowdays as most of this runs in the form of Java and friends on top of middleware stacks. Every 1-2 years the latest and greatest backend idea comes along with its migration programme. As a result servers and stacks get chucked out and replaced by others.

      That may be true, but not everyone is going the Java/Linux stack route. And the one thing that I've learned from many years in the enterprise space is that nobody chooses an OS platform and says "this is our standard". They choose the application that gives them what they need, then let that dictate the platform. If that means Linux, then it's Linux. If that means Windows, then it's Windows. If that means AIX, well, you get the idea.

    2. Re:Selfcongratulatory survey by the_womble · · Score: 1

      Well if Linux is going to challenge MS for the SME business, some MS style marketing (which is exactly what this survey is) is likely to succeed.

      The other thing about looking at big companies, is that saying "this is what big companies do" is a great way to sell to SMEs. This may not be so true in technology businesses where start-ups have glamour, but it is true in most other sectors.

  5. Re:News for Nerds: by Pieroxy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Well, I just switched my home server from Windows to Linux this very week-end. That cannot be a coincidence, right?

  6. wake me up.... by batistuta · · Score: 4, Interesting

    wake me up when Linux starts taking over Microsoft in Desktops.

    I'm happy about it, but not surprised. As the old generation of IT admins go away, newer ones are more flexible and have ways of saving money without MS in the equation. Linux is not the only solution, but one competitive alternative. Different is the Desktop, partially because it is not baked up big companies like the kernel and enterprise tools are. Canonical is an exception, but sadly a more or less lonely one.

    1. Re:wake me up.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does anyone think Linux will ever replace Windows as a desktop environment? Current focus is away from the desktop. KDE and Gnome aren't any better than Windows in that regard. If anything replaces Windows, it won't go by what we call it today. OS X, KDE, Gnome, even future Windows*, can all be discounted.

      * Any major desktop change by Microsoft is unlikely to fall under the Windows product line IMO.

    2. Re:wake me up.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh, you can say that all you want, but what's going to replace it? The Cloud? That will fly only as long as the connection between the user interface device/computer and the server is uninterrupted. And I can't see that happening anytime soon.

    3. Re:wake me up.... by shougyin · · Score: 1

      Because, watching the underdog wipe out a Multi-billion dollar company, which, IMHO doesn't care about quality but only cares that you keep buying their products, would be a great day! Like watching James "Buster" Douglas beat Mike Tyson all over again!

    4. Re:wake me up.... by silanea · · Score: 1

      Sure. Wake me up when full-scale GIS and 3D CAD software are available from the "cloud". SAP is sadly beginning to buy into this bullshit.

      --
      Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
    5. Re:wake me up.... by Sique · · Score: 3, Interesting

      SAP R/3 was always a Three-Tiers-System, so it was "cloudy", before the term was coined. You have your big database server, you have some application servers hooked to the database, and you have clients which in turn connect to the application servers. When you connect to a R/3 system, it is never clear which dialog server you get connected to. That was so in 1995, and it is still so in 2010.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    6. Re:wake me up.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Next year is the year of Linx on the desktop! Again! No, really, this time I mean it!

    7. Re:wake me up.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you see cloud at all mentioned in the grandparent post? Why is your imagination so limited?

      If you can't possibly think of what can occur, then remember what has already occurred. Chrome OS, iPhone, and WP7 can all run offline local (web) apps just fine. Full 3D games are now officially running natively inside of Chrome using WebGL (search for Google's Web Store).

      Also, requests like yours demonstrate a need for separation of concerns. Consumers have no use for workstation-demanding application suites like CAD. Windows will _always_ exist for that purpose. But this purpose is harmful to the regular user... business interests are exactly why Windows is a bloated, huge and unstoppable mess. It does everything at once, and little of it well.

    8. Re:wake me up.... by silanea · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you see cloud at all mentioned in the grandparent post? Why is your imagination so limited?

      People who focus "away from the desktop" at some point end up with wanting to run everything but the driver layer in the browser, coming from some kind of all new, all fancy web-based platform. Ie. the "cloud".

      Chrome OS, iPhone, and WP7 can all run offline local (web) apps just fine. Full 3D games are now officially running natively inside of Chrome using WebGL (search for Google's Web Store).

      Great. We essentially get an operating system on top of an operating system that can run local applications that actually aren't really local but web-based but that can be run offline. Say what?

      There is a lot of stuff that can safely and easily be done via a web interface - consumer-grade web mail, relatively simple office applications, maybe media players etc. Then there is a hell of a lot of stuff for which I cannot see any net gain from moving those to some half online, half offline platform. This introduces more complexity and overhead than it brings savings, as I see it.

      And games? Sure, there are games that can be realised in a browser. Most large modern games cannot. And that is not going to change overnight.

      Also, requests like yours demonstrate a need for separation of concerns. Consumers have no use for workstation-demanding application suites like CAD. [...]

      This thread is about desktops in enterprise environments. Regardless, more and more "consumers" start reencoding video for their portable players or using other resource-hungry complex applications that have long been the domain of professional users. The technological standard is rising.

      --
      Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
    9. Re:wake me up.... by DrXym · · Score: 1
      Why does anyone think Linux will ever replace Windows as a desktop environment? Current focus is away from the desktop. KDE and Gnome aren't any better than Windows in that regard. If anything replaces Windows, it won't go by what we call it today. OS X, KDE, Gnome, even future Windows*, can all be discounted.

      Linux could have replaced Windows on the desktop. The reason it didn't, even with various golden opportunities (e.g. the Vista launch debacle) can be chalked up to a historical lack of interest in making Linux usable to non computer literate people. Perhaps dist makers like Red Hat etc. didn't see the pay off for setting Linux against Windows and certainly the smaller efforts like Linspire were pretty insipid. It has taken the concerted effort of GNOME, Fedora and Ubuntu to get to a point where Linux could be considered usable by mere mortals. But even now it still doesn't hold a candle to either OS X or Windows, especially with regard to game & multimedia support.

    10. Re:wake me up.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who focus "away from the desktop" at some point end up with wanting to run everything but the driver layer in the browser, coming from some kind of all new, all fancy web-based platform. Ie. the "cloud".

      I don't see what relevance this has at all. !desktop =/= Teh Cloud.

      Great. We essentially get an operating system on top of an operating system that can run local applications that actually aren't really local but web-based but that can be run offline. Say what?

      iPhone is two OSes? WP7 is two? Also, Linux isn't an operating system. There is no X server behind ChromeOS, so it isn't two either. You can already install local apps from the filesystem in Chrome proper (with a parameter tweak), so there's nothing web-based about them aside from technology.

      And games? Sure, there are games that can be realised in a browser. Most large modern games cannot.

      All games can be realized through the browser via plugins. It doesn't matter if we're talking about Quake1 or ARMA2 -- it's all the same. Chrome's approach isn't only WebGL+Javascript but native code execution. Link.

      This thread is about desktops in enterprise environments.

      No not really. That was your twist.

      Regardless, more and more "consumers" start reencoding video for their portable players or using other resource-hungry complex applications that have long been the domain of professional users. The technological standard is rising.

      I don't see what resource-heavy has to do with anything. After all, that's not a limitation on alternative desktop design. Oh wait, are you still talking about plain Javascript? You can already write (CPU-driven) managed client video decoders on Silverlight for various formats (WebM, Theora, etc) -- and that's just with the limitations of the Silverlight web platform. Add a GPU framework, a neutral bytecode format, native code abilities, and you can do almost anything.

    11. Re:wake me up.... by silanea · · Score: 1

      Great. Native code execution. Silverlight. Local apps from the filesystem. Point being exactly what?

      To me there are exactly two sensible options:

      1. Having native applications running directly on the OS without any huge layer in between, to reduce overhead and achieve proper integration with the local interface, or
      2. running remote applications in a browser or a specialised VM, to take advantage of portability, ease of updating and central administration.

      Anything in between combines all of the disadvantages of both options without realising all too many of the advantages.

      I somehow get the impression that you are talking about two distinct things: the evolution (or revolution) of the literal desktop interface - which I would love to see today rather than tomorrow - and the move from truly native apps to standardised VMs or other intermediary layers - which I have come to condemn.

      --
      Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
    12. Re:wake me up.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > wake me up when Linux starts taking over Microsoft in Desktops.

      That sounds like the sort of thing the goalpost-movers will be saying a lot. It's something they already do say a lot, when trying to be dismissive of any non-microsoft success. It's more amusing to consider the things they don't say anymore - the places where linux use was once a dream but now no longer surprising. Like in this discussion about enterprise stuff. Or in the past, embedded devices, netbooks, smartphones. In the very near future, tablets.

      A different unix already IS gaining on Microsoft in desktops and has been for some time now. Those Macs are running on the same hardware.

  7. I'm a Linux fanboy, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I thought it was very funny to see 41% called "less than half", and 44% called "almost half! :D

    Technically correct and true, yes, but I smell bias...

    1. Re:I'm a Linux fanboy, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even funnier if it were the other way around. :P

    2. Re:I'm a Linux fanboy, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was very funny to see 41% called "less than half", and 44% called "almost half! :D

      Technically correct and true, yes, but I smell bias...

      i am agree for that

    3. Re:I'm a Linux fanboy, but... by JAlexoi · · Score: 1

      Did you think that only MS advocates are biased!??!?!?!

    4. Re:I'm a Linux fanboy, but... by zerorez02301 · · Score: 1

      I have played around with Linux, but at the end of the day I didn't want to make it my career because it is a giant headache far too often. Because I have spent thousands and thousands of hours learning Microsoft products I will be resistant to deploying Linux in any place that makes my boss money. I haven't spent the time on it, nor do I want to. Life is too short to deploy Linux. I want family time.

    5. Re:I'm a Linux fanboy, but... by ender- · · Score: 1

      I have played around with Linux, but at the end of the day I didn't want to make it my career because it is a giant headache far too often. Because I have spent thousands and thousands of hours learning Microsoft products I will be resistant to deploying Linux in any place that makes my boss money. I haven't spent the time on it, nor do I want to. Life is too short to deploy Linux. I want family time.

      Funny you should say that. We have a Windows server team [2 sysadmins] and a Unix [Solaris/Linux] server team [2 sysadmins]. There are roughly equal number of servers/apps for each. The Windows guys are constantly working long hours and getting late-night support pages. As a Unix admin, I get maybe 1 after-hours support call ever 3-4 months.
      Life is too short to deploy Windows. I want family time [and sleep!].

    6. Re:I'm a Linux fanboy, but... by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 1

      There is an "Linux 'world domination' happening next week" on here almost every week. They all have the same bias and people jump on the bandwagon.

      Week 43 is going to be the week of the Linux Desktop.

    7. Re:I'm a Linux fanboy, but... by mpe · · Score: 1

      Because I have spent thousands and thousands of hours learning Microsoft products I will be resistant to deploying Linux in any place that makes my boss money.

      How many of those thousands of hours will become worthless when Microsoft changes something... Never mind that something which takes that amount of time to learn can hardly be called "easy".

    8. Re:I'm a Linux fanboy, but... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      So you are an idiot. Look at the windows to linux server to sysadmin ratios. Windows boxes are a major time waster.

  8. survey says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I could see both big and small companies reducing their amount of microsoft servers in the future for a couple of reasons.
    1) They are joining their BPOS cloud services and therefore have less need for their own in house MS production servers. Large % of big business is joining the cloud.
    2) The new server topology for exchange requires whole new separate servers or hyperv virtual servers for edge (either way its a separate server license) in addition to their CAS, hub transport, mailbox servers, etc.

    1. Re:survey says... by shougyin · · Score: 1

      I only see it with terms of cost, being that though it takes more time and knowledge/work to set up a Linux server, you don't have to pay for licensing. But I also believe that if I can make something free work for everything I need without having to spend $$$$$$$, then I'm all for it!

    2. Re:survey says... by JamesTRexx · · Score: 1

      We're not a big company at all, but I'm looking at implementing Linux servers for the small businesses in this area.
      One of the main reasons is they primarily need central storage and backup, and often get by with using a simple mailbox without the Exchange/Outlook features.
      For our own use I've set up one Nagios server for business contracts and one Samba server for use in the unsafe network area (repairing PCs, often infected by malware).

      --
      home
    3. Re:survey says... by shougyin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Have you taken a look at ClearOS?

    4. Re:survey says... by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      I'm a little unclear on why Nagios (which AFAIK is a server monitoring app) would have to do specifically with a file server that houses business contracts.

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    5. Re:survey says... by JamesTRexx · · Score: 1

      I've seen the website but haven't gotten around to run a test server with it yet.
      Looks very promising.

      --
      home
    6. Re:survey says... by JamesTRexx · · Score: 1

      o.O We can't have our contracts trashing all over the place, which is why we need to monitor them to make sure they behave.

      --
      home
    7. Re:survey says... by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Linux servers can be easily cloned; just like windows servers. If you are in an Enterprise environment chances are you have moved into virtualization.

      Having done that you build a couple images of GNU/Linux machines as templates, and then just clone them. Once you have done that you probably can boil it down to a few small changes like hostname, ip address, running net join ads, etc etc. At my last job I could have a new Linux AD member server up in moments ready and waiting for whatever application its going to host to be installed.

      I had templates for slightly more complex infrastructure roles as well. The extra config time should be a non issue in the enterprise because its something you are doing ONCE. If that is not the case you are already doing it wrong.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    8. Re:survey says... by rabbit994 · · Score: 1

      1) I haven't seen a large amount of companies joining the cloud. Most of Microsoft Online we sell around here are to really small businesses. Problem with putting a large amount of email in the cloud is that means ALL your email traffic is external. Send a 5MB file to 4 other people, 25MB right there. Add 200 people doing that and you can bring down internet with email traffic alone, not to mention if your internet dies your email dies. Only time we sell to larger then 15 is when they are mostly remote.

      2) Edge servers aren't required for Exchange. CAS/HT/MBX servers can be combined and you get "free" virtual servers with purchase Enterprise/Datacenter copies of Windows 2008. I know a larger company who replaced a bunch of little servers with larger Hyper-V and Enterprise/Datacenter licenses and came out ahead in server licensing costs.

    9. Re:survey says... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      It can be used to alert them to random conditions. Say telling a customer that their last 100 orders submitted failed because $mistake.

  9. Tail wagging dog. by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

    Really, does this work? I'm genuinely curious. I wonder if in the 2008 elections, for example, all the newspapers and media had reported that John McCain was ahead by a huge margin if he would have won. Does the "Linux Foundation" really think polling linux users asking about trends is going to mean anything, or do they think it's going to create some impetus in the market to move to Linux? Either one seems a bit daft to me.

    1. Re:Tail wagging dog. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It does, I saw it first hand in the Republican primaries in Florida. Out of the half dozen possibilities the local (and to some small extent national) media pulled the rug out from below 4 of them, and then focused on the remaining two for weeks. So ya It works.

    2. Re:Tail wagging dog. by Capt.+Skinny · · Score: 1

      Of course. No one votes for a candidate whom the media marginalizes.

    3. Re:Tail wagging dog. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did! :-)

    4. Re:Tail wagging dog. by gagol · · Score: 1

      It demonstrate that those who embrace open source software tenbds to use it more and more over time, thus it becomes a viable alternative in the eyes of those that has not started the transition yet.

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
  10. Who was surveyed? by benjymouse · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Who was surveyed?

    from the TFA:

    the organizations surveyed were picked by the Linux Foundation End User Council

    Next up:
    10 out of 10 randomly selected stock brokers want more deregulation of the financial system
    10 out of 10 randomly selected Taliban fighters don't trust the USA

    --
    Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*
    1. Re:Who was surveyed? by mldi · · Score: 1

      Who was surveyed?

      from the TFA:

      the organizations surveyed were picked by the Linux Foundation End User Council

      Next up: 10 out of 10 randomly selected stock brokers want more deregulation of the financial system 10 out of 10 randomly selected Taliban fighters don't trust the USA

      10 out of 10 Microsoft Execs claim Windows Mobile usage is far more than what anyone else tallies.

      --
      If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
    2. Re:Who was surveyed? by rjch · · Score: 1

      Next up:
      10 out of 10 randomly selected stock brokers want more deregulation of the financial system
      10 out of 10 randomly selected Taliban fighters don't trust the USA

      My point exactly.

  11. Re:The year of the Linux desktop? by Kilrah_il · · Score: 1

    And the other 18% are lies.

    --
    Whenever in an argument, remember this.
  12. Re:News for Nerds: by koiransuklaa · · Score: 4, Informative

    Don Marti tears the methodology and the point of the whole survey to pieces: http://zgp.org/~dmarti/business/hands-up-who-likes-me/

    This sort of surveys may have value but used like this they're just embarrassing.

  13. Re:/. is almost astroturf by LingNoi · · Score: 1

    Slashdot is a news aggregator. Not a news website. Also if you don't like the website or the comments then it's a simple choice. Leave.

  14. Re:News for Nerds: by shougyin · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is directly from the report. "This survey was conducted with members of The Linux Foundation’s End User Council, as well as other end users identified by The Linux Foundation and Yeoman Technologies. This report is being published at The Linux Foundation End User Summit, where many respondents will be in attendance. These companies include Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Bristol- Myers Squibb, NTT, Deutsche Bank, Dreamworks, ADP, McKinsey and Company, Bank of New York, Barclays Capital, AIG, the US Department of Defense, MetLife, CME Group, NASDAQ QMX, the New York Stock Exchange, Goodrich, and many more."

  15. Wow by Tim+C · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Ok samzenpus, what did MS do to you this time?

    Seriously, three stories in a row? Were they all really the best of the bunch in the submission queue?

  16. Well I tried to finish reading TFA.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I really did intend to finish reading until I stumbled upon the second paragraph.. "surveyed nearly 2,000 users picked by the Linux Foundation End User Council"

    I recommend a small change to the title of the article. "How not to conduct an objective survey assuming you expect anyone to take it seriously"

  17. what about proper ACL in Linux? by barinov2000 · · Score: 1

    well, maybe this should get fixed first: http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/22974/

    1. Re:what about proper ACL in Linux? by ratboy666 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Linux supports rwx/ugo file permissions, as well as ACLs. It really isn't a problem.

      The REASON that ACLs really aren't used much is that they are too difficult to audit. The specific problem in your referenced article can be solved with links.

      --
      Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
  18. Enterprises by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So thats NX1 , NCC-1701 , and NCC-1701D ?

    wake me up when they use it on Voyager

  19. My own statistics say... by dna_(c)(tm)(r) · · Score: 1

    62.6% of decision makers in SME's only know about the existence of Windows as a server OS.

    83.7% of decision makers would buy anything that is bought by the majority of their peers.

    4.23% of decision makers are fed up having to buy extra CALs for their Windows server whenever they hire people, 68.2% don't understand their licensing obligations or how the BSA can raid their premises as a result - and 53.1% wouldn't - frankly my dear - give a damn, even when they would understand the licensing.

    97.5% of marketing hype originates from the Microsoft camp - a tiny fraction from the Linux side, our POOTA 2010 (*) calculator had not enough significant decimals to describe it other than 0.0% but since this seems unprofessional, we put down the much nicer 0.0234%

    * Pull Out of Thin Air - model 2010

  20. I am a nonbeliever by prefec2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I do not trust such assessments as much I do not trust assessments which point in the opposite direction. As much as I would like to see OS prevail CS, I do not believe this will happen any time soon or even in the distant future (under the assumption that our economic regime will not change).

    Anyway, a major show stopper for small business to convert to Linux-based infrastructures is the SBS from Microsoft. Small companies have as a service infrastructure these SBS servers, which provide a mail directory service, calendars, address books. It provides web based access to these services as well as an Outlook integration. And it comes with share-point, which is also a requirement. And finally it works with all these smartphones, especially Blackberries and iPhones.

    Therefore a migration effort has to take into account that the same functionality has to be provided with better QoS. While better QoS ist not the problem, the same functionality is a serious problem. Especially when it comes to more detailed properties.

    But even worse, migration cannot be done in an overnight attempt. These always fail and in the end you loose a customer and they switch to MS for the rest of their lives. Therefore you need a soft migration strategy. And this is the key problem here.

    While you can provide most features with lets say egroupware (which is not such a good idea, a servlet based approach would be better) you still need IMAP (dovecot), SMTP (postfix) and LDAP to model the mail service. Egroupware can also provide these calendars. But how do you replace Sharepoint? And especially how do you integrate with Sharepoint? While you switch to webdav oder sftp etc. the client's clients will not switch (at the same time). So you still need to integrate both services.

    I have not seen any generic strategy for this problem. And honestly there are hundreds of thousands of small companies using SBS. And bigger companies use similar services.And the Blackberry-integration into a replacement infrastructure is very important as all these business guys use it.

    1. Re:I am a nonbeliever by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Sharepoint? Alfresco and KnowledgeTree are both better than SP. Exchange can be replaced rather easily by Citadel or Zimbra.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    2. Re:I am a nonbeliever by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      Will they work with Outlook? And the more important thing: Can they work side by side with the old systems?

    3. Re:I am a nonbeliever by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Don't know about Alfresco, but KnowledgeTree is only better than sharepoint at plain document management. If you want all the fancy "use it as the platform for simple web apps" stuff, you need to look elsewhere. Most Wiki software I've seen is great for making editable web pages, but lousy at being used as a platform for simple web apps. Closest I've seen to half-decent is TWiki, and it's nothing like as slick as sharepoint. No matter what you may think of it, that slickness sells.

    4. Re:I am a nonbeliever by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      Sharepoint ....what exactly is this doing on a small business server ?

      Not multisite - And why are clients trying to integrate with a companies sharepoint server...?

      It's just providing webservices and acting as a document repository ..... this can be done much better with other systems ..?

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    5. Re:I am a nonbeliever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On an abstract level you are right. However, when migrating the new service has to look similar and work similar (or even better exactly the same).

      I have seen too many small companies aborting the switch to Linux, because they had problems in the transition due to big differences in the service appearance and service integration.

      You cannot solve this by declaring it a non issue.

      What I am proposing is a manual like the ispmail howto for SBS/sharepoint migration for small businesses.

    6. Re:I am a nonbeliever by hitmark · · Score: 1

      How come any software from microsoft takes on the shape of a RAD system sooner or later? MS office with VBscripts, RAD. Sharepoint, apparenty a webapp RAD.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    7. Re:I am a nonbeliever by jimicus · · Score: 1

      I would say it indicates that what the world needs is a RAD environment that allows you to build both the user interface and most if not all of the business logic using nothing but a GUI.

    8. Re:I am a nonbeliever by hitmark · · Score: 1

      Sounds like what Google recently demoed for Android then:
      http://appinventor.googlelabs.com/about/

      Still, that is a targeted tool. What i refer to is how sooner or later such specific programs as a word processor gains the ability to be programmed for just about any task.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    9. Re:I am a nonbeliever by kitserve · · Score: 1

      Generic strategy for small businesses to migrate to Linux servers? Maybe not. It is definitely possible though, there a variety of Linux Exchange replacements out there at the moment (we've been deploying Zarafa lately, but there are a number of others - I think SOGo is a particularly interesting one at the moment). They're not quite as polished as Exchange but they do everything you mentioned, with the possible exception of Sharepoint (which I've never actually seen anyone use, maybe we're talking about different target audiences).

      Most small businesses that I've dealt with (a) don't have the internal expertise to install/manage a Windows server and (b) have glitches and annoyances in their Windows systems. The upshot of (a) is that they're paying someone else to support a server for them and they don't really care whether it's Linux or Windows, they just care that it works. As for (b), they tend to be pragmatic enough to realise that no computer system is going to be perfect, so if they can save money on licensing and support costs by going with a Linux server they're generally prepared to accept that it will not work identically to an Exchange setup. Unless there is some killer feature of SBS that they need they seem to be happy to adapt to some minor changes in functionality* in return for increased stability and lower costs.

      * "Changes" does not necessarily mean "reductions", for example Zarafa's web access is significantly better than OWA, and Zarafa also offers (for example) integration with SugarCRM via the Z-merge framework. I'm sure there are similar arguments to made in favour of the other current Linux groupware systems, Zarafa's just the one I'm most familiar with.

      --
      https://alephnull.uk/
    10. Re:I am a nonbeliever by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I would say the world needs people willing to step away from the very limiting GUI.

  21. Re:News for Nerds: by Netshroud · · Score: 1

    They probably got to it a little like this

  22. Re:News for Nerds: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Interesting enough, I was surprised to learn that some rather large institutions run their programs inside cygwin inside windows.... So all they are doing is replacing the windows machine with linux instead of running the java inside of cygwin, which makes perfect sense. As to why they were running the program inside cygwin inside windows to begin with, I have no idea.

  23. Windows servers? by loufoque · · Score: 0

    I thought they were a myth!

  24. Re:News for Nerds: by houghi · · Score: 1

    And they are only planning to do so. That does not mean that it will actually happen. I plan on winning the lottery this year.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  25. Three MS stories in succession? by Arancaytar · · Score: 0

    Is it Redmond Day?

  26. Re:News for Nerds: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Agreed on everything except the "operating system that takes at least one more step than windows to run any popular application or game" part. This is specifically about enterprise. The considerations of a server are not the considerations of a desktop. If someone is running Call of Duty on your server then there are larger problems than OS.

  27. survey not statistically representative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    "That's the word from the Linux Foundation's report on adoption trends. The report was conducted by the Yeoman Technology Group, and surveyed nearly 2,000 users picked by the Linux Foundation End User Council. The results released yesterday were culled from 387 respondents that are from the largest organizations -- companies with more than 500 employees and/or more than $500 million a year in revenue" link

    "The Linux Foundation, in partnership with Yeoman Technology Group, recently conducted a survey of 1,948 Linux users. This invitation-only survey pool was comprised of the Linux Foundation End User Council as well as other companies, organizations and government agencies selected by The Linux Foundation and Yeoman" link

  28. Single sign on? by jernejk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Do we have AD like single sign on at least for linux servers? No? How about clients then? No?

    Seriously, how do you guys handle root password management for servers? SSH is not the real answer here, IMHO.

    1. Re:Single sign on? by Sique · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know, about 30 years ago (1978 to be specific) there was this strange thing called "KERBEROS"... it still works. Single-Sign-On is a non-issue in the UNIX-world. It was solved 30 years ago.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    2. Re:Single sign on? by Stumbles · · Score: 4, Informative

      LOl, so true. The sad thing is Microsoft took Kerberos, bastardized it and changed the name to AD so most people are ignorant that "Single Signon" technology was not developed by Uncle Bill. But then most technologies gives Microsoft fits when they try to develop their own code. Anyone remember trumpet winsock from the early days of Win95? What a horrible POS that was and Microsoft finally threw in the towel and used the BSD TCP/IP stack.

      --
      My karma is not a Chameleon.
    3. Re:Single sign on? by ledow · · Score: 4, Informative

      Apart from the fact that AD was derived from a Unix technology that does exactly what you ask:

      Install Likewise Open. That's your client problem solved. My school has trolleys full of Ubuntu netbooks that log onto the wireless network and allow any AD login on any domain they are joined too. It took three commands I think (install the package, name the machine, join the domain). Kids don't even need to know that the netbooks are Linux whereas the rest of the school is almost all Windows. And, yes, I can use the Windows Administrators to do privileged operations by just sticking them in the right groups.

      Server is a bit more tricky but if you're keeping homogenous systems (Linux server, Linux clients), single-sign-on on Linux has been around for donkey's years. Server probably needs Samba4 if you want modern-Windows-clients on a Linux-only server.

      Next, please describe how to use MS-supplied tools to achieve the same (i.e. log MS clients onto Linux servers, or even Linux clients onto MS servers). It's hardly surprising that nobody really supports joining the competition, so homogenous systems are infinitely easier to support. But your claim as a unit is bollocks. Wanna come see a Linux netbook join an unprepared, untampered-with Windows-only domain run by a Windows-only machine with no Linux help server-side, and support SSO for all its operations (including initial login, printer access, fileshare access, even desktop icons etc.)? A group of 8 year old's here do it every day.

    4. Re:Single sign on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no idea how things are on the Microsoft side of things, but I did recently try to set up a Kerberos realm for my home network (for NFS authentication purposes). Long story short, I failed badly.

      Sure, I got the packages installed, but actually configuring the thing is an entirely different matter. The learning curve required is horrendously steep so I was reduced to matching config files. Except sooner or later all tutorials I found would make assumptions and offer examples which didn't match the vanilla config files I had, so no go.

      I ended up switching to Samba. Not that Samba configuration is any easier, mind you. But at least for Samba I could Google and find drop-in replacement config examples that actually worked (plus I managed to make some sense of it in the process, which is always a nice bonus).

    5. Re:Single sign on? by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

      What is more, Microsoft got sued by MIT (and lost) due to the way they did Kerberos. Much the same way they tried to "embrace and extend" Java - and got sued for that too. How many people know that? FWIW, in my experience Novell/SuSE has the *best* linux setup in LDAP/Kerberos and integrating the features to talk with MS networks.

      --
      C|N>K
    6. Re:Single sign on? by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Actually its pretty damn easy to do what you are asking with kerb5. 1997 called they want you lame Enterprise SSO argument back; which I would point out at the time was bunk too because there was yellow pages back then and it worked fine.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    7. Re:Single sign on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this really informative? The stack from Windows NT 3.5/95 was not based on BSD. The one they licensed before that was a BSD derivative which is why many of the utilities remain.

    8. Re:Single sign on? by kitserve · · Score: 1

      Server probably needs Samba4 if you want modern-Windows-clients on a Linux-only server.

      Not true, we just migrated one of our clients from a Windows SBS to CentOS, allowing domain logins via OpenLDAP and Samba 3. It works with XP and Win7. The initial setup was a little tricky, the clients certainly wouldn't have been able to do it themselves, but then like virtually all small businesses they don't know enough about Windows Server to set up a domain on that either.

      --
      https://alephnull.uk/
    9. Re:Single sign on? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      SSH with keys. If you want kerberos use that.

    10. Re:Single sign on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kerberos != AD

      Active Directory is a Directory Service, aka LDAP.

      Kerberos is an authentication protocol, something that Active Directory can leverage (instead of LM/NTLM/NTLMv2).

  29. Re:News for Nerds: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe it's a correction, the situation has always been like that, and the previous numbers were nothing more than microsoft FUD

  30. Re:News for Nerds: by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 1

    "+1 Googleplex, Funny" link to a Young Ones clip in that blog post. Awesome...

    --
    (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
  31. Useless unless *nix replaces Desktop. by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While Linux is certainly the much lower costs option vs. MS, the real issue should be about Security. The problem though, is that many of *nix, is the fact that since Windows is so easily cracked. And once cracked, they have access to SSH keys and/or passwords and the ability to place a snooper. Once you have access to being on ANY TYPE BOX, it is over. It is simply a matter of time before it is fully owned. This does not matter if it is windows, Linux, OSX, trusted Linux, trusted Solaris/AIX/HP-UX, or even a os/390.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Useless unless *nix replaces Desktop. by arndawg · · Score: 1

      implying that admins leave SSH keys around on desktops for end users? That doesn't have anything to do with OS, that's just stupid.

  32. High redhat costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    RedHat support cost is killing the opportunity to increase linux in enterprises... Windows licenses are cheaper!

    1. Re:High redhat costs by yanyan · · Score: 1

      Then get Centos. Essentially Red Hat, but without the support you have to pay for.

    2. Re:High redhat costs by Dan+Ost · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How much do windows licenses cost and how much does RedHat charge?

      --

      *sigh* back to work...
  33. Actively reduce the number of Windows Servers.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's called server consolidation. I'm slated to decrease my server count by about 40% in the next 5 years. It's not to avoid Windows, it's to avoid buying those servers again in 5 more years. Hardware has come a long way and I've finally got the old geezers to change the way things are done around here.

  34. Re:News for Nerds: by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From what I have seen.. the "decrease" in windows installs is because of data center consolidation and closing of offices that had a BDC. Yes more companies are looking at linux solutions for the back office, But it's not the picture they paint.

    Windows is losing simply because of scaling. All companies are scaling back and if they reduce the number of servers at satellite locations, those are expensive licenses they will not have to pay.

    Granted, I personally think it's retarded as hell to shrink your network like that and remove BDC's.. I experienced that at AT&T in the early 2000's we removed BDC's from offices that had less than 1000 employees. office downtime went up because when T1's to the nearest divisional office went down, productivity at that office usually took a crap. a small BDC is cheap and can serve as the office print server as well as file storage. but no, all that moves from local to at the end of a T1 or a T3 and now everything is slow as hell. Every try to support 10 users on citrix over a T1? It's painful for everyone involved.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  35. john gotti also became unsuccessful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    similar tactics yield similar results. there's only time, space & circumstance, which can only change. ayn rand may have written her book (the softwar gangsters' 'bible') a little differently had she known just how much we really do need each other. our inattention to that simple direction will be our demise. there's still a LOT of poisonous (to lilfe) randoidian 'thinking' & behaviors (selfish) festering around our trustdead 'leaders' decision making processes, no?

  36. The devil's advocate by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 0
    Speaking as the devil's advocate, I must remark that:
    • "Planning" for Linux is a good point in negotiating fees with MS.
    • Inept management caused by inexperience will increase system management effort. (There are so many blithering idiots out there thinking UNIX-like systems can be managed just as sloppy as Windows systems. Letting run anything under root. Chmodding 777 anything they find. Barbarians!)

    OTOH: A good UNIX-like admin-policy allows you to administer large or even huge amount of systems at a fraction of the cost compared to Windows.

    --

    I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
  37. Sure! by closer2it · · Score: 1

    ... and Duke Nukem Forever it's coming soon! Sheezz...

  38. Windows 7 to blame ? by martyw · · Score: 0

    Windows 7 software feels like a downgrade (UI wise) from XP and from the technical perspective they decided to not allow the old NT/XP drivers that control our machinery to run in Windows 7, so we would need to rewrite them using the new WDK7, again that means throwing thousands of lines of code and QA testing out of window. Do they plan to do this with any future iteration of their OS? Shouldn't we really stick with something that have some predictability and permanency? Is there some NT or XP based Windows due in 2011?

  39. No yet by NetServices · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'm not a die hard Windows advocate but the fact still remains that it still has deeply saturated the marketplace. Unless Linux can gain share on the home PC in terms of usability and compatibility the end users will still be favoring Windows. Outside of the technical minded end users most just want to use something they know.

  40. Re:News for Nerds: by Pieroxy · · Score: 2, Funny

    Thanks! That's the point actually.

  41. Samba4 for Linux networks by Compaqt · · Score: 1

    Would you care to comment on whether Samba4 is useful only for replicating MS technologies in the network, or also for use in a pure Linux/POSIX environment (UNIX, Linux, Mac)?

    Can you use pure Kerberos (not the MS version), or is that recommended?

    And can Linux Terminal Server Project tie into this in some way (serve an appropriate terminal image based on a Samba profile)?

    --
    I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    1. Re:Samba4 for Linux networks by Cyberax · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Would you care to comment on whether Samba4 is useful only for replicating MS technologies in the network, or also for use in a pure Linux/POSIX environment (UNIX, Linux, Mac)?"

      It's certainly useful. I'm using it in almost Linux-only environment.

      "Can you use pure Kerberos (not the MS version), or is that recommended?"

      Yes. It's possible to use Samba4 as a pure Kerberos server, and it works just fine. In fact, I've first installed OpenLDAP+Kerberos and then migrated everything on this test site to Samba4.

      A piece of trivia: it's actually possible to join WinXP into a pure Kerberos domain.

      "And can Linux Terminal Server Project tie into this in some way (serve an appropriate terminal image based on a Samba profile)?"

      No idea. Though I imagine that it should work.

    2. Re:Samba4 for Linux networks by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      Thanks for your insight.

      I guess Linux is close to solving one of the major pieces of the puzzle (directory services) that has it beat by Windows.

      I've always thought that if I ever got together with a few other people to form a company that we'd start out with FOSS right from the beginning and not have any Windows/Word/Excel legacy to worry about.

      Send PDFs to clients, not Word or Writer docs.

      And paperless, too.

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    3. Re:Samba4 for Linux networks by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      How do you get XP to join a pure kerberos domain? any howtos online?

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    4. Re:Samba4 for Linux networks by Cyberax · · Score: 1
    5. Re:Samba4 for Linux networks by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      I guess Linux is close to solving one of the major pieces of the puzzle (directory services) that has it beat by Windows.

      It's not. The reason everyone wants AD is not AD itself, but the stuff that comes along with it. In particular, the centralised configuration offered by Group Policies, for which Linux (and UNIX in general) has no equivalent[0].

      [0]By default. You can of course DIY your own centralised config infrastructure using something like puppet or cfengine, or even just simple scripts, but that's basically defeating the purpose.

    6. Re:Samba4 for Linux networks by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      Btw, I don't understand why Samba4 won't do what AD does. Once you have profiles, don't you have what you need?

      Or is Group Policy more than that? And if so, could you possibly give a 2-paragraph description so someone could be inspired to write the missing pieces?

      Is it stuff like checking a checkbox that says "Can't modify own wallpaper"? I guess something like that would have the frontend look something like a webpage with option/checkboxes, and the backend (for that particular option) would be config dot-files set to read-only, user-root.

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    7. Re:Samba4 for Linux networks by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Btw, I don't understand why Samba4 won't do what AD does. Once you have profiles, don't you have what you need?

      No. That doesn't give you anything more than the old Domain model did fifteen years ago.

      Or is Group Policy more than that? And if so, could you possibly give a 2-paragraph description so someone could be inspired to write the missing pieces?

      If no-one's been "inspired" yet to implement GPOs in Samba4 (or a UNIX equivalent for UNIX servers), nothing I write is going to change their mind. They've been around for a decade and the benefits are both compelling and clear.

      Is it stuff like checking a checkbox that says "Can't modify own wallpaper"?

      That's a very basic example, but yes. Group Policies are a centralised configuration management tool. Everything from controller wallpapers through power management settings to restricting what software can be run.

      I guess something like that would have the frontend look something like a webpage with option/checkboxes, and the backend (for that particular option) would be config dot-files set to read-only, user-root.

      There would need to be numerous implementation backends, to handle the different UIs and applications. Likely this is one of the reason's no-one has done it yet.

  42. Growing by Stooshie · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm just trying to think of some area of tech/i.t./communications where MS is increasing it's sales ...




    ... Still thinking!

    --
    America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
  43. The surprise is in the unreported (but implied) nu by kenh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As a poll taken by the Linux Foundation based on the answers of two hundred of it's largest members that responded, what I found suprising is that less than half of them plan on increasing their use of Linux - these are the biggest supporters of Linux, and 50%+ ARE NOT PLANNING TO INCREASE THEIR USE OF LINUX!

    These are Linux's biggest supporters (they joined the foundation, they replied to the survey, and they are of a certain size) - if half of them aren't increasing use of Linux, to me that is the interesting number. If 50%+ of the largest members of the Oracle Users Group said they were not going to increase use of Oracle DB that would be the story, why is the spin backwards here? Oh yeah, Linux Foundation wrote the press release, slashdot partitas it...

    --
    Ken
  44. Re:The surprise is in the unreported (but implied) by kenh · · Score: 1

    That last line should say "...Slashdot parroted it."

    My iPhone didn't think I meant to write parroted...

    --
    Ken
  45. The statistics given are meaningless by Just+Brew+It! · · Score: 1

    The article itself even admits as much: "Since the organizations surveyed were picked by the Linux Foundation End User Council, there's naturally going to be some happy Linux users in the bunch."

    While we're throwing meaningless statistics around, we might as well also toss in a mostly meaningless anecdote. I work in a small satellite R&D office of a medium sized company. Corporate HQ runs big iron (IBM) and Windows servers. The primary server and most of the desktops in our office run Windows, and always have (this office was opened in 2005, the primary server is still the original one). However, the last two servers we've added have been Linux-based, and two of the software developers have switched to using Linux as their primary desktop OS (I am one of the two who have switched).

  46. Re:News for Nerds: by postbigbang · · Score: 1

    There are consolidations, but also process validation through the use of Linux appliances, and the ease of licensing, and incredible ease of virtualization. The old days of Microsoft sales guys with the CEO on the golf course doing deals has met the reality of people with low budgets just rying to get a reasonable job done. Add in the posturing, the lawsuits, and being way behind in a market they actually helped to create, and Microsoft's incredible warmth (yeah, I'm being facetious) just doesn't do it any more.

    Ballmer needs a smart young turk (and not a Jonathon Schwartz type) to pound out a new vision, thin the ranks, and behave like a visionary geek instead of a bi-polar sales guy.

    --
    ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
  47. Re:News for Nerds: by Chuckie+Norris · · Score: 1

    and many more."

    Thats worrying

  48. Cloud advocacy is a mental disorder. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I unfortunately worked at a cloud startup for about a year. Besides being one of the shittiest contracts I've had, it was just outright weird at times. The stupidity was overwhelming, the buzzwords were constantly flying, and the cash sure as fuck wasn't flowing.

    I was in several meetings where grown men started to cry when others pointed out flaws like you've mentioned. After 25+ years in various sectors of many industries at many companies, I never thought I'd be in a meeting discussing a technology, only to have men who were in their 30s and 40s start bawling like babies.

    There is something seriously wrong with many cloud computing advocates. It's a religion to them, if it's not an outright mental disorder. If criticism of your technology will bring you to tears, you seriously need to find a much different line of work.

  49. Re:News for Nerds: by orasio · · Score: 1

    Windows is losing simply because of scaling. All companies are scaling back and if they reduce the number of servers at satellite locations, those are expensive licenses they will not have to pay.

    You are right, and that's one extra hurdle of using proprietary software. Accounting gets to tell you to lose your BDCs. That makes the software solution inferior, within your budget, to a platform that does not charge you per server.

  50. Environment Needs to be Considered by helix2301 · · Score: 1

    I agree with everyone when they say that statistics can be tossed around and manipulated. The one thing this article does not talk about is environment variables. For example a web hosting company might run an all Linux environment. Where some company's might have run all windows for there infrastructure and just have a few Linux servers for web hosting and utility servers. I know Cisco and Juniper have dropped Windows support on the backend and went with Linux support for logging and traffic monitoring.

  51. Re:News for Nerds: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know where these people are getting their numbers from....my survey of IT professionals says that 75% choose Backtrack 4 as the OS installation of choice, 25% redhat, and that 50% of organizations plan widespread migrations from the iPhone to the Andriod.
    (survey size 4, industry: penetration testing, average age: 23)

    1: decide desired result
    2: select people to survey based on stats I want ......
    3: Profit!

    Whenever I want to change the numbers, I just find someone to "survey" with the stat I want.

  52. Bias much? by bberens · · Score: 4, Interesting

    41% is less than half in one sentence, but 43% is nearly half in the next. I guess 42% is the hard cutoff by which we begin referring to the statistic in the affirmative vs. the negative.

    --
    Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    1. Re:Bias much? by cupantae · · Score: 1

      The writer expected the first number to be higher, and the second to be lower. What exactly is the problem?

      --
      --
    2. Re:Bias much? by Migity · · Score: 1

      Well, it is 42 after all.

    3. Re:Bias much? by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Half is 50%, therefore 41% *is* less than half and 43% is nearly half. But you could argue the other way round, 43% is also less than half and 41% is also nearly half as both values are over 4/5 of the way to 50%.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    4. Re:Bias much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure what sort of bias you think that shows. A more interesting point that could have been made is that more are planning on decreasing Windows usage than on increasing it.

    5. Re:Bias much? by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      The pretending that Linux[es] aren't Unix was my first clue that little meaningful was to be found here.

  53. Re:News for Nerds: by netsavior · · Score: 3, Informative

    weird, I work for one of the companies on the list... our web servers for customer front-end (not business front-end) run Linux and a very small amount of our analytics run Linux... Most of our Windows servers are virtualized, so maybe that is where the numbers are going askew... My department alone added something like 2000 Windows servers this year, and about 5 new Linux -- I would estimate about 50 of those windows servers were non-virtual. Now our existing Linux servers are upgraded significantly beyond what our windows servers run (more processors, more RAM), and in general we upgrade and patch Linux servers, but we never reconfigure hardware on windows servers -- we always replace/rebuild them (company standard policy), which really adds to the "new windows machines" numbers and makes TFA's statistic seem more and more made-up. I do not have exact stats for company-wide, but I can say the support team, the internal user base, the server footprint, the development staff, the administration staff are all orders of magnitude bigger for Wintel vs Linux/Unix/iSeries(which is one team)... In other words, I do not believe this survey, based on inside information about one of the companies listed.

  54. Re:News for Nerds: by zerorez02301 · · Score: 1

    And by deploying linux do they mean android phones, because honestly the last thing I want in my org is a linux server.

  55. Re:The surprise is in the unreported (but implied) by sempir · · Score: 1

    Maybe the damn thing is so good they don't need any more!!!!! :~ ) Nu.

    --
    A closed mouth gathers no foot.
  56. ...and even those who are still planning Microsoft by abarrow · · Score: 1

    ..are probably running them on big VMWare-based servers which runs Windows under, ummm, Linux.

    Anyone who has been in a large corporate data center knows the ugly truth - Microsoft servers still don't like to multitask. The usual response is to install yet another bit of hardware to run the smallest of applications. Bad for the environment, good for Intel and Microsoft.

    Hummmm, has anyone tried to sell Linux to corporations because it is good for the environment?

  57. Giving things stupid names by js3 · · Score: 1

    You know, about 30 years ago (1978 to be specific) there was this strange thing called "KERBEROS"... it still works. Single-Sign-On is a non-issue in the UNIX-world. It was solved 30 years ago.

    Another great argument for thinking a little bit before giving good things stupid names.

    --
    did you forget to take your meds?
    1. Re:Giving things stupid names by Sique · · Score: 1

      Kerberos is the hound protecting the entrance to the underworld. And KERBEROS is protecting the access to the underlying resources of a network.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
  58. so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2011 is the year of 'Linux in the enterprise'!

  59. They train themselves before they apply by tepples · · Score: 1

    the time it took to gain the experience on Windows needs to be factored in just as much as the time taken to learn the Linux stuff

    There is far more local competition among candidates for employment for a Windows sysadmin job than for a Linux one. So if there are people living within 5 mi (8 km) of your office who have already gained this experience and are proudly listing it on their resumes, that cost gets figured into the starting pay that your organization offers. So when switching to a different server operating system, your organization has to either retrain or rehire sysadmins.

    1. Re:They train themselves before they apply by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Ever look at the Server/sysadmin ratio for windows shops vs $n.x shops?

    2. Re:They train themselves before they apply by StuartHankins · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. We have approx a dozen Linux servers which I manage myself and 20-something Windows servers that take a team of 3 + me to manage. Our most critical stuff runs under Linux and those servers have by far the highest volume of transactions / connections.

    3. Re:They train themselves before they apply by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Ever look at the Server/sysadmin ratio for windows shops vs $n.x shops?

      A discrepancy that in no small measure is the result of the Windows sysadmins commonly getting involved in end-user support (either directly or indirectly), a relatively rare scenario for the typical *nix admin (outside of "shut up and reboot").

  60. Stable desktop OS by digitaldc · · Score: 1

    As soon as we get a free, stable, and useful free desktop OS...Windows is done. Ubuntu perhaps?
    According to PCWorld, the Linux Desktop is dead(?)

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
    1. Re:Stable desktop OS by DJRumpy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Considering that the latest workstation distributions are still plagued by basic install issues (blank screens, etc), it's still not ready. I got a chuckle reading some of the support forums and the responses that were being given to 'newbies' as if they really expected these folks to understand what was being told to them. Although it has advanced by great strides in the last few years, it's still not ready. The basic install should work universally across a wide range of hardware. Seems they are still having problems with improper ATI/nVidia drivers being selected. This seems to be a common theme for the last 4 or 5 major releases.

      If you install Windows, the chances are very rare that you won't get a desktop after the install. Even less so for OS X. End users don't want to deal with an OS that takes troubleshooting and 'technical' help to get it to even show something other than a command shell.

      They newest offerings are impressive, but still need a LOT of work.

      I think that an OS that spreads across both areas but reflects poorly in one (workstations), can effect it's perceived quality in the other arena (servers).

    2. Re:Stable desktop OS by petit_robert · · Score: 1

      >Considering that the latest workstation distributions are still plagued by basic install issues

      Hu? I have done half a dozen installations of Debian this year alone on different kind of hardware (standard desktop box, dedibox, eeepc, fit-pc2, you name it), and *all* of them where quicker than any install of windows I've ever done.

      In fact, it's amazingly easy and fast to have a completely operational Desktop with Linux, Office suite included. Sure you have to know a few things, but you also do for Windows, and the only reason it's considered easy is because it comes pre-installed.

    3. Re:Stable desktop OS by DJRumpy · · Score: 1

      No one is saying it's not fast, or a great OS. I'm saying it needs polish.

      A quarter of a million hits to Ubutntu blank screen and this has been a growing issue since around 8.0

      http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=ubuntu+blank+screen

      It's not an uncommon problem.

    4. Re:Stable desktop OS by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      The hardware support is not significantly worse than that of MS Windows. Windows works worse on old hardware than Linux, and Linux works worse on new hardware than Windows.

    5. Re:Stable desktop OS by petit_robert · · Score: 1

      >A quarter of a million hits to Ubutntu blank screen

      I'm curious to know where that figure comes from?

      Anyhow, according to google's group search (which still sports the page count), it seems that the windows blank screen is a much more common occurrence :

      http://groups.google.fr/groups/search?hl=fr&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&q=windows+blank+screen&sitesearch=&scoring=d

    6. Re:Stable desktop OS by DJRumpy · · Score: 1

      A general google search. Check the link I posted and look at the search result numbers, then look at the related searches at the bottom. This is not some obscure issue impacting a few folks. It affects a large number of distributions and is a common setup issue. Even a search within just Google Groups returns 92,000 hits for "Linux Blank Screen". No factor in that Windows has a 99% larger user base than Linux and those numbers look particularly bad.

    7. Re:Stable desktop OS by petit_robert · · Score: 1

      Is that so? I never heard of it before, even though I have been doing my daily work with various linux systems (including Ubuntu) since 2005. And I'm a software developper, so I pay attention to these things.

      That's not proof of anything, but I'm not sure *why* you are so adamant about raising this issue... I call FUD.

  61. Cost of acquiring an employee by tepples · · Score: 1

    If a Windows tech says it'll cost money to train him up and then cost more to install Linux, get a Linux tech and lose the Windows one.

    Firing and hiring is not without cost. Consider the cost of reading resumes, interviewing, training the new hire in your business's practices, and unemployment benefit payments for the employee whose position was eliminated.

  62. Re:The surprise is in the unreported (but implied) by PPH · · Score: 1

    Maybe the biggest Linux supporters have hit 100%. It would be difficult to increase their use much beyond that.

    It all depends on how you slice the statistics, Maybe times are tough and they just aren't increasing anything.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  63. Distributed Computing Environment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOl, so true. The sad thing is Microsoft took Kerberos, bastardized it and changed the name to AD so most people are ignorant that "Single Signon" technology was not developed by Uncle Bill. [...]

    AFAICT, what they actually cloned is the DCE:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_Computing_Environment

  64. Re:News for Nerds: by bigrockpeltr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    did it occur to you that someone has to be (in) the minority?
    i didn't read the entire article nor do i have any insider info like you do but if you take any survey and the report on the findings of said survey does not describe you then obviously you were not what the survey found to be the trend that emerged from the sample group.

    --
    $ unzip, strip, touch, finger, grep, mount, fsck, more, yes,fsck,fsck,fsck,umount, sleep
  65. Re:News for Nerds: by knghtrider · · Score: 1

    Per the first line in the full report linked to in the article:

    The Linux Foundation, in partnership with Yeoman Technology Group, recently conducted a survey of 1,948 Linux Users. This invitation-only survey pool was comprised of the Linux Foundation End User Council as well as other companies, organizations, and government agencies selected by The Linux Foundation and Yeoman.

    So, in essence, these are companies who already have Linux in place and are merely replacing Windows Servers with Linux Servers. This, by no means, is sufficient enough data to say 'Linux is taking over the Enterprise'.

    Move along, nothing new to see here.

    --
    In America today you can murder land for private profit. You can leave the corpse for all to see, and nobody calls the c
  66. Re:The surprise is in the unreported (but implied) by kenh · · Score: 1

    No shop of any real size (take the 500 employee threshold cited in the survey) is 100% linux not all desktops and servers, not even Red Hat I suspect. There are always certain applications that require Windows or Mac.

    Also, are these 100% Linux users not planning to expand/grow (more employees)?

    --
    Ken
  67. Should have read further by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 1

    You should have read further. The article summary pointed to another article that showed that the companies they were interested in were large companies and government agencies with $500 million or more a year in revenue and more than 500 employees. As such, their board did select users, in much the same way any pollster or survey creator selects users by setting the parameters or bounds of the sample. Now, as to whether this is valid, well, yes it is valid. It does not appear to be a statistical sample, though, which means you cannot extrapolate the findings to the population as a whole.

    What can be said is that in those companies surveyed, linux deployment is increasing at the expense of windows. The key part being "in those companies surveyed." If it had been a statistical sample, then the title of the slashdot article might have been accurate.

  68. Re:The surprise is in the unreported (but implied) by kenh · · Score: 1

    APOLOGIES!

    I got my numbers confused, instead of half, it's one-fourth of respondents, not half. I read this before my morning caffeine.

    The point is the same, as pointed out here: http://zgp.org/~dmarti/business/hands-up-who-likes-me/ this is the definition of a self-serving survey.

    These are current users of Linux, they tend to report bugs and contribute code at amazingly higher proportion than the general linux user population, are members of a Linux user organization AND choose to respond to the survey. Not one respondent that does not run Linux - you don't join a users group if you don't run the OS/application...

    If you want to survey the industry, reach out to the Forbes 500 and ask them what the run in the server room, on the desktop this year (as a percentage), and what they did last year and what their plans are for next year. That will tell you everything you need to know about the state of Linux adoption in the commercial sector.

    Any survey that equates General Electric's response with Pete's totally cool web design and PC repair service is meaningless.

    --
    Ken
  69. We just put in our first production linux server by zerofoo · · Score: 1

    We recently had our website redesigned, and our designers suggested we host at GoDaddy. I suggested that we host internally since it would save us $100/month, and thanks to VMware's ESXi, we've freed up a bit of hardware recently.

    We are almost completely a Mac OS and Windows shop. I ran Red Hat, Fedora, and Ubuntu - as well as Solaris all through college, so Unix is familiar to me.

    I have to say that setting up a LAMP server with SSH was a piece of cake. Our newest Ubuntu server distribution did almost everything for you. I didn't edit a single config file, and security updates are installed automatically - no manual CRON job configuration was necessary.

    We had to tweak some permissions, but it was fairly painless.

    Finally we snapshot the entire box once per week using VMware's tools as a backup - really easy.

    I've got to say, I've been away from Linux for a few years and was pleasantly surprised at how refined it has gotten. Microsoft should be worried.

    -ted

  70. Re:News for Nerds: by netsavior · · Score: 1

    hah actually no it did not occur to me, I read it as "these companies said this" which is not what they were saying at all. Hah reading comprehension fail, sorry about that... Carry on.

  71. Re:News for Nerds: by master0ne · · Score: 1

    This just in, 93.5% of all statistics are made up on the spot!

    --
    Noone writes jokes in base 13!
  72. Re:News for Nerds: by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    > So, in essence, these are companies who already have Linux in place and are merely replacing Windows Servers with Linux Servers. ...you make it sound like this is nothing but Linux Zealot startups when infact pretty much the entire Global 1000 "already have Linux in place".

    This is 2010, not 1998. Linux is not some fringe technology anymore.

    "companies that already use Linux" covers a LOT of territory.

    Slashot should do something with that goofy graphic that Oracle uses that has Tux in a bunch of armor.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  73. Virtual Servers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm curious how many of these Linux servers are VMware (yeah it's not really Linux) and XenServer.....

  74. Not necessarily true by lullabud · · Score: 1

    I've worked in SME's for the past few years and I've seen a definite, slow, consistent shift away from windows, though not necessarily to Linux. I get many, many requests for Mac computers.

    This, I think, is still a win for linux because of how much more close, even though significantly far apart, Mac OS and Linux are.

  75. Re:The surprise is in the unreported (but implied) by PPH · · Score: 1

    No shop of any real size (take the 500 employee threshold cited in the survey) is 100% linux not all desktops and servers, not even Red Hat I suspect. There are always certain applications that require Windows or Mac.

    Desktops, perhaps not. You always need to keep one or two around in case some idiot can't read the instructions and sends you proprietary content. But 100% Linux servers is do-able.

    Also, are these 100% Linux users not planning to expand/grow (more employees)?

    In the next year (the period the statistics cover)? Perhaps not. Times are tough.

    And then a shop that is 80% Linux figures they'll just add one Windows system for every four Linux ones, keepingg the Windows infestation rate constant.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  76. Shared hosting : linux dominates. by unity100 · · Score: 1

    and dominates BAD.

    most of the IIS servers generally happen to be the web outlets, extensions of small business infrastructures of small businesses. and they run 1-2 websites belonging to them. however, in shared hosting world, linux is de facto the king, and an ordinary linux box houses 100 to 200 websites, belonging to different individuals or businesses.

    the difference in between these, because shared hosts give 200 sites over one shared ip, and iis servers generally run a few websites, it seems like there are more websites being served by iis servers than they really do. on one side a linux server hosts and serves 100 different sites on one or a few ips, on the other side a iis server serves 2-3 websites over the same amount.

    moreover, microsoft makes deals with some hosts like godaddy to have their domain park page served from iis servers, to bolster statistics in that fashion.

    this is why microsoft always uses ipserver os linkage in statistics. even at that rate, unfortunately they are not able to boast anything. last i heard was what, 2 years ago ? now they arent even talking over ips anymore. seems like even that trick is useless.

  77. I hope this article is true by apexwm · · Score: 1

    I would love for Linux to start making a dent in Microsoft's server market. Who knows, maybe that will even help with Linux in the desktop market too. Personally, Linux has a ton of advantages over Windows. I say this while running both operating systems, and seeing Linux excel over Windows daily.

  78. Re:News for Nerds: by knghtrider · · Score: 1

    > So, in essence, these are companies who already have Linux in place and are merely replacing Windows Servers with Linux Servers. ...you make it sound like this is nothing but Linux Zealot startups when infact pretty much the entire Global 1000 "already have Linux in place".

    But that is exactly what this is, hype from a company that has as its' focus Linux. It's like reading a report from any 'think' tank with a particular political ideology; it's biased. If they desired to do a *true* study, they would have included companies without Linux to see what they plan to do as well. The statistics are biased.

    This is 2010, not 1998. Linux is not some fringe technology anymore.

    Really? Explain to me, then, why there are so few Enterprise level applications that run on a Linux Stack? I'm talking about software such as--Financial Back End processing (Windows or Unix--mostly Unix), Home Banking (Mostly Windows .NET Framework), Medical Software that does everything from Billing to keeping your Medical records at your doctor(back-ends running on Unix, front end on Windows), and a dearth of other software---including Electronic Voting Machines in the US.

    "companies that already use Linux" covers a LOT of territory.

    However, by failing to include companies that are not running Linux; the statistics are skewed and the report is still zealot propaganda.

    --
    In America today you can murder land for private profit. You can leave the corpse for all to see, and nobody calls the c
  79. Re:News for Nerds: by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

    Or you could use Samba and not pay out the nose.

  80. Re:News for Nerds: by Bert64 · · Score: 1

    If your replacing one server with another running the same os you aren't really adding any.
    It's also extremely common for companies to behave as you do, completely trashing and rebuilding windows servers rather than upgrading them - because windows installs tend to deteriorate with age.
    It's also more common to virtualise windows servers to keep applications separate from each other, and again on unix this is traditionally much less of a problem so its more common to have a more powerful server running multiple apps (not sure what your servers run, but you've already stated they're more powerful).

    That said, the survey quoted percentages other than 100%, your company could easily have been among the percentage that isn't planning on accelerating linux use.

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  81. Re:News for Nerds: by Bert64 · · Score: 1

    I find a lot of pentesters prefer gentoo, myself included... I wouldn't run backtrack unless i had an explicit need to do testing from a livecd.

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  82. Re:News for Nerds: by Bert64 · · Score: 1

    Exactly, they are talking to companies who already use linux, and the conclusion is that they have had a positive enough experience of their existing linux use that they are considering increasing their use of linux. They're not hiding who they are and where their data comes from, unlike many of the supposedly "independent" surveys sponsored by microsoft which seem to come out every now and again.

    It's also been many years since i've seen a large company which wasn't making at least some use of linux.

    A lot of businesses are afraid of linux because it represents "the unknown"... It's not surprising that having tried it in some areas and found it to be up to the task businesses are losing that fear and are now considering expanding their use of linux.

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  83. Doesn't NOVELL provide NDS to SuSE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought Novell's "NDS" (novell directory services) has been ported over to, or rather, works w/ Linux, via SuSE? Thanks for the correction in case I am wrong/off here!

  84. Re:News for Nerds: by mitgib · · Score: 1

    So what you are saying is it will take you 2000 Windows server to do the work of 5 Linux servers?

    --
    Being a spelling & grammar Nazi is a sign you do not poses the intelligence to contribute to the conversation
  85. Re:News for Nerds: by knghtrider · · Score: 1

    Exactly, they are talking to companies who already use linux, and the conclusion is that they have had a positive enough experience of their existing linux use that they are considering increasing their use of linux. They're not hiding who they are and where their data comes from, unlike many of the supposedly "independent" surveys sponsored by microsoft which seem to come out every now and again.

    My point is that it is exactly the same kind of biased reporting that we've always seen--Linux use is increasing---within companies that already use Linux. That's not Earth-shattering news; nor does it mean that 'Linux is gaining ground' on Microsoft, except within those companies who already have deployed Linux.

    What about the companies who have never deployed any Linux servers? This question was never asked, so the survey is just as biased as the ones from Microsoft. The data is mostly irrelevant, except with regard to companies already running Linux. The article reads that something like only 41.2% of the companies are planning to add Windows Servers in the next year. What if 82.4% of companies not running Linux planned to add Windows Servers next year? Using the same logic as the article, that would mean that 'Windows is still beating Linux.' That would still be a biased statement.

    There are lies, bloody lies, and statistics. All are identical.

    --
    In America today you can murder land for private profit. You can leave the corpse for all to see, and nobody calls the c
  86. Re:News for Nerds: by sapgau · · Score: 1

    Yeah, it has to be a little more subtle... not making the user feel that he/she has done something wrong and feeling at risk (we are talking html rendering here)...

  87. Re:News for Nerds: by DaVince21 · · Score: 1

    Actually, businesses are far more likely to pull shit like this.

    --
    I am not devoid of humor.
  88. Re:News for Nerds: by rjch · · Score: 1

    They probably got to it a little like this

    Perversely, I had this exact clip from Yes Prime Minister in mind when I made my comment in the beginning. :)