Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Why Not Linux For Security?
An anonymous reader writes "In Friday's story about IBM's ban on Cloud storage there was much agreement, such as: 'My company deals with financial services. We are not allowed to access Dropbox either.' So why isn't Linux the first choice for all financial services? I don't know any lawyers, financial advisers, banks, etc., that don't use Windows. I switched to Linux in 2005 — I'm well aware that it's not perfect. But the compromises have been so trivial compared to the complete relief from dealing with Windows security failings. Even if we set aside responsibility and liability, business already do spend a lot of money and time on trying to secure Windows, and cleaning up after it. Linux/Unix should already be a first choice for the business world, yet it's barely even known of. It doesn't make sense. Please discuss; this could use some real insight. And let's at least try to make the flames +5 funny."
If you've got things to do, learning how to operate a Linux system is low on the priorities. If people start finding hiccups because of the differences between Linux and Windows they'll rapidly complain to tech. support, who will soon fold under the pressure of people not being able to meet their commitments due to not understanding their workstations.
Linux isn't the top dog because it's 'more secure' than Windows, it's not the top dog because it's not as well known as Windows. I see more people using Mac in the workplace now, and with the popularity spike in BYOD I would suggest that if Linux were to become more user friendly, Linux would be slowly be adopted anyway.
We should remember that >60% of servers run Linux, versus Windows.
Funny, where I work we still use XP which is still the same rotting mess it was 10 years ago, the only difference is that it is wrapped in so much duct tape and so much time, effort and expense has been invested in it that the infosec people treat Linux and OSX as the same steaming pile of shit and it is really hard to break them free of it.
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
Office, plus things like Visio and MS Project. And I don't care how much someone argues, Dia is nowhere near a good a product to date as Visio. And there is nothing in the Linux world that even compares to MS Project. There are some apps with 'project' in the name that might even look a little like MS Project, but nothing that can compete. ERD tools are another thing. Yes there are a bunch that run on Linux, but even a mid to low price Windows offering like Toad Data Modeller is head and shoulders above anything you can find for Linux. And the multitude of financials software out there runs on Windows not Linux.
Software vendors simply don't want to deal with the GPL if it means there is any chance that they will have to give away the code they spent hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars to develop. You will find them occasionally making software that will also run on OSX, but again the license there won't force them to give away anything. And I know there is the LGPL, but it still has GPL in the name which rightly scares the vendors. And with the way some of the more rabid FOSS people are, vendors don't want the worry of a v4 of the GPL and/or something that deletes the LGPL, etc. Unless vendors can be guaranteed to make money on their investment they won't write top level code for Linux, and without top level apps, people won't use it... except for programmers who have made tons of decent apps to work on the platform they code entereprise apps for (not the client apps that the bosses use).
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
> corporate types want somebody to blame when things go pear-shaped
I think that's part of it, but an even bigger part is just sheer inertia. Budgets are tight, the economy is still struggling, and even though Windows costs a little more, a lot of PHB's figure they'll just hire people who know how to use Office and Outlook and be done with it.
BUT ... and here's the real reason I popped in here; I've been dying to say this for some time now. :)
I think this is changing. Our own company, as recently as three years ago, was still buying standard laptops with Windows and Office pre-installed. We are now migrating over to iPads and Android tablets. The privacy issues concern us somewhat, but I think this is going to increase in the future. People are willing to learn new "apps" to replace what they used under Windows, too.
I think Microsoft had better be very, very worried about this trend. Years ago, most people who bought computers demanded Windows on it. Nowadays, people buying pads and tablets and they are perfectly willing to use something other than Windows. Most significantly, when someone introduces a smart phone or tablet with Windows on it, the marketplace is saying, "ho, hum."
Especially among younger users, Windows is viewed as, "like, SO 1990." :)
Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
After 17 years as a IT engineer/architect working for Fortune 500 companies, I'm calling BS on this one. It's simply not true. Microsoft does offer bigger discounts as you purchase more of their product licenses. That is far different though than giving discounts if there is no other vendor's product in your environment.
Yes, very good bait and it'll be well received thanks to all the anti-MS sentiment here, but, umm, care to back that up with some evidence? I've also worked for some Fortune 500 companies. More to the point I've worked at smaller companies that nonetheless had enormous pull with Microsoft due to what they did (critical infrastructure). At one of those companies I was responsible for a couple of years for working with Microsoft on the licensing true-ups.
I can't even think of a company of that kind of size that wouldn't use a competitor's product in some way. They'd laugh if Microsoft said get rid of Linux or Oracle or whatever, because they couldn't continue doing business. Volume discounts, of course, nothing wrong with that. But banning a company of the size of a Fortune 500 company from using someone else's software?
I once was working with our MS reps on our support contract details and they described what happened in the case of certain types of "system down" calls. At some point it starts copying the status e-mails into Steve Ballmer's inbox. No-one is naive enough to think he's going to pick up the phone, but it sure as hell impresses upon the execs that Microsoft understands how crucial their business really is.
If I had a system down and I escalated it to a high enough severity, even before it got to Ballmer's inbox I'd get a phone call from my technical account manager after a set number of hours asking me if I wanted an emergency response engineer on site. If I said yes, they would go to a pool of the absolute top talent and get whoever was available to my site as quickly as possible. Several hours away? Next flight. Not quick enough? Microsoft would charter a helicopter just to get their expert to me so my system could get up and running. Remember, this was for a very definitely NON-Fortune 500 company.
Their support escalation procedure is world class. They have a rigorous workflow, with extremely well defined escalation times, conditions, and requirements for the Microsoft TAM to fulfill. I've seen it in action. It's surgical. What I've described above doesn't cost millions. It cost that companymore to get support for their RedHat licenses, and that didn't include specialist engineers being flown in by private helicopter if necessary.
That kind of dedication wins out. I've seen Oracle gurus be absolutely stunned by the response to a SQL Server emergency ticket. They have wished out loud they could get that response for an Oracle problem. So has upper management. The company I have in mind runs all their really heavy stuff on Oracle/AIX. They won't consider SQL Server for the truly critical databases. But I have heard them tell Oracle they need to get their act together and be more like Microsoft when there's a top line problem.
That's why Microsoft. Because even the people who complain their stuff is flaky still wish all the other companies had emergency response technical teams that were half as good as Microsoft at getting systems back up and running.