Slashdot Mirror
GM ponders Linux for 7,500 Dealers
Hedonick writes "Seems like a combination of maturity on Linux behalf and bloat on Microsofts part has prompted
GM to investigate the possibility of replacing their NT based solution with a Linux based for it's dealerships according to ComputerWorld
The whole plan seems to be a bit tentative at the moment but the guy they interviewed, David E. Hutka, is the operations manager for GM:s dealership network and makes some good points on why Linux would be a good (and bad) choice." Unfortunately, it looks like they have a lot of legacy code that may require porting, but it's still good news.
We did budgeting, and they cut pretty deep this year. Eventually, they started telling the managers that they cut, period. Take jobs if you have to.
This in the same week I was told to ditch 3 linux/postgres/apache servers that cost $700 ea and replace them with Sun/Oracle/Netscape servers that cost $7000 ea. 500 days uptime, flawless performance... Dump 'em. Dump 'em now. Then, off to another meeting where we find that "we expect" to "pay a little more" because we have to get ready for W2K. Actually, it was alot more once they got to the numbers.
"But a mission-critical application like this really has to work the first time, and there
can't be any conversion issues. "
They've been converting from text based applications you could use from any client provided by any vendor to win95 clients for 5 years now and it's still not done. And if the satellite uplink is down at the end of the month when you are required to transmit Info, the backup is fax and voice.
So it'll take 10 years to turn back.
I think so, Brain. But where will we get a duck and a rubber hose at this time of night? --Pinky
My question is how do they (or do they even NEED to?) convert their ADP machines? My company has been dealing with a large dealership out here and we've been trying to convince them to have their own inventory server in the dealership, but we run into a brick wall when trying to convert the ADP stuff...although I think that has more to do with the actual code conversion than the hardware/software/OS...
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
Explain to me how
3.1/OLE/95/ActiveX/95.b/Office97/IE4/98/IE5/
means fragmentation? It's technology moving along. And OLE2==ActiveX.
You're an idiot.
And I'm sure that's where the Microsofties learned it, too..
-=Maggie Leber=-
The article is very tentative, the guy hasn't even passed on the idea to his boss let alone received positive feedback on it. Frankly I have a feeling this idea is going to strand somewhere in the higher echelons of GM.
It would be a shame. Linux itself is surely up to the task, even if the support structure has yet to be tested. By thinking this over thoroughly now and doing it properly, in the long run this can save tons of money. You will need to invest massively in training your own people and you will need to secure commitment from the support company that they will be up to the task. There are bound to be a great many non technical users among 7500 car dealerships, you can bet Linuxcare or whichever support they'll get is going to have to hire a lot of people to be able to deal with a customer like that.
It's going to cost a lot of money to do this properly, but not having to pay for 7500 dealerships worth of Win 2000 licenses gives you some spare change to start out with. Of course switching to Linux is a little harder than to another Windows, initially, but eventually the whole thing will be in place and then you start to win. No more paying an OS upgrade license for every employee every 3 years, instead, indefinite upgrades for nothing but the cost of the work of your own IT dept. And then all the other benefits like having the source, reliability, security, etc.
I'd like to know just exactly how "low cost" Linux _is_ in terms of maintenance. I've set up NT and Linux boxes, and every time, it was quicker to prop up... er... set up NT. Of course, flexibility is a minimum, and so on.
But how to they propose having someone with enough of a clue in every dealership to get/keep this running? Office personnel that use computers daily don't even know what directories are anymore. And they expect that car salesman will do this without a problem...?
Face it, NT has more people to whine to, setup geared toward the complete idiot and little dancing paperclips that explain, in monosyllabic words, exactly what you should be doing.
GM might just need a big enough kick to get their asses moving into a constructive direction (i.e. Linux), but I seriously doubt that they'll be getting it from upper management.
Still, it's fantastic that Linux is getting this kind of press-- even if they're only considering it, it makes smaller non-legacy companies look toward it very favourably.
char *death_knell = "If we could change over quickly, if might make sense";
I think Microsoft knows that once a single IT manager at a Fortune 500 company proves that Linux is far faster/cheaper/better than Windows then it's all down hill for Windows from there, so I'm sure Microsoft is sending the FUD calvary to GM as you read this.
I suspect the Vanguard are already there - note the standard "If you don't have one huge Vendor in control, it will fragment" FUDdishment in the article as an example.
-=DaveHowe=-
Intelligence, knowledge and intuition have nothing to do with the job requirements of an executive. You just have to have a brown nose and a degree from a big school.
Words that only an envious, er, ah, non-executive could speak so cheerily.
I thought I remember downloading a VB Tool for Linux (perhaps a look alike). But that was about 2 years ago. At that point in time it had just come out... Does this ring a bell with anyone else?
Last time I KP'ed was when I changed kernels and forgot to run lilo to update my boot map. I laughed at myself, rebooted, held left shift, and typed in "old"
Then I ran lilo and rebooted.
I've had sig11's in the past, but one was due to CAS latency in my ram (during compiles no less - mem intensive...) which was set wrong by the mobo dealer (it came placed in the motherboard, they should have tested everything, but that is an easy one to miss) The only other time I get sig11's is running buggy code, so I guess that's not the fault of linux, nor is it a KP, since it is caught.
Lowmag.net
Their backend is going to be web-based, and they were planning on using linux to run the office, and not as a desktop system. The interface was user-side.
Lowmag.net
The advantages for bigger shops to switch to Linux is simply too huge to be ignored. Even if they have promotional agreements with Microsoft which buys them license discounts up to 60%, NT is still way too expensive - both the license and maintainance. The artificial Microsoft application barrier has now been destroyed by Linux in the server and NOS market, and now it's time for Linux to wash NT out of the landscape.
--Coke
It sounds like this is the primary issue for them. If they can easily port their apps, it becomes a no brainer.
In the long term, pretty much everyone's better of using Linux over NT, and while most people here know it, it's good to see the Fortune One taking an interest.
The point I found interesting is that one of the things that makes this evaluation possible is the fact that GM is going web-based.
<prediction>
this is going to happen more and more as people realise that they need to go the web route, and while they're on the way, they might as well try out an OS that won't cost them anything and won't fall over
</prediction>
Some of his comments seem to indicate he does not know what he is talking about.
How come so many large companies hire ignorant executives??
I mean, it's nice the guy is the operations manager for their dealer network, but this is really a non-story. Or maybe the story is that a year ago this would have been a huge story, but now, I think it's hohum because I'm only interested when linux gets actually deployed in the Real World[tm].
And beleive me, this is a big thing. For the stupid suits to even CONSIDER linux is a big deal. No really, I mean it. The current thinking is that NT is the NEXT BEST THING even thought they have a lot of UNIX infrastructure. idiots.
So yeah, this IS a big story.
THose solutions are provided by Bell & Howell and Reynolds & Reynolds. And they work great. GM's inhouse solutions are lousy and slow (windows).
I think so, Brain. But where will we get a duck and a rubber hose at this time of night? --Pinky
Yes, Office for Mac supports VBA in Excel and Word. How well it works, i dont know...
I really like to see large-scale Linux deployments, like Burlington is doing and GM is pondering. It strengthens the OS by moving it toward critical mass, but I fear it could hurt Linux, also. Companies may now start developing distros with programs added in that were developed in-house and which are not GPL. Ultimately, this could ultimately fragment Linux. Of course, there's no real alternative to advocating the adoption of Linux, it's a great platform and a terrific object lesson of the advantages to free, open-source software.
If more of these big deployments take place, I am in the minority of those who wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft comes out with its own Linux distribution, one that will gradually become incompatible with all the others. Corporate execs who used to believe 'no one ever got fired for buying IBM' now think the same of Microsoft, which is in a position to force proprietary standards (what an oxymoron) on the market. MS may make Linux its next assimilation target.
However, in spite of what we'd like to think, I don't think Linux is scaring the Redmond crowd yet, but that will change quickly if they starting losing chunks of business.
I keep thinking of a penguin waddling up to a sleeping, 800 pound gorilla and nudging it in the stomach. At that point, the gorilla wakes long enough to roll over and smother the bird before falling back asleep.
They do NOT pay that. Bulk licences bring the cost for them to like 500,000$.
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
>Geez... "We don't have enough hard drive space"? ..."We don't have enough memory"? Go buy a couple of 27gig drives for each machine, up them to
;-)
>512 megs of memory.
You're kidding, right? What you're specing out are resources more appropriate for a server than a client. (Then maybe we all need Crays to read our email!
In case you're serious, GM has in the neighborhood of 40,000 dealers across the US. A 27 gig drive would set you back maybe $700 each. 512MB of memory maybe $500. That comes to 48 million dollars; say GM gets a 15% discount for buying volume, it's still more than $40 million.
If someone could walk in with an alternative OS & application, using the same existing hardware & drop a new solution for 4 or 5 million, that's a big win. Careers have been made on stuff like that.
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
Not only that, but newer updates TO a distro won't automagically require a newer machine. What's Win2k's minimum, a PII350 with like 128 megs and 8 meg video? And yet even the newest of Linux distro's will still run perfectly fine (albiet slower) on a 386/25.. ;-P
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
+ ~$200 to $2500 for various MicroSoft Applications per machine.
Office
Publisher
Outlook
Exchange
Proxy
SQL Server
-- lk t lv ll th vwls t f wrds. T svs lts f tm t wrt bt ts pn n th ss t rd nd mks m lk lk cmplt dpsht.
Otherwise, you'd have things like one operating system supporting Unicode only, one system supporting both, and one system supporting Ansi. You'd have to code with special macros and compile for different operating systems! Plus people might accidentally save a file in Unicode and discover that their system doesn't understand it!
Plus, you would have programs that only work on one flavor of windows (I'm sure glad my Hasbro Scrabble game works on Win 95/98 only!). You might even get situations where you buy Windows off-the-shelf and get a different version than what you'd get if you bought a new PC with Windows installed from the very same store.
I feel so cozy knowing that Microsoft is there to prevent stuff like that happening.
VBIX is what I was thinking of. Unfortunately VBIX is a discontinued product...
http://www.vbix.com/prods/discontinued.h tm
They have tried. It's called Embedded NT and it is really, really horrible.
Actually, I lied. They didn't try at all. They just bought it from VenturCom, who had broken NT into bits to avoid loading all the irrelevant stuff that standard NT brings with it.
My experience is that it runs in exactly the same memory footprint at about half the speed. But it takes much less disk space.
Rupert
--
E_NOSIG
Exactly. That's the first thing I noticed too. GM gets their parts from a number of different manufacturers, they should realize they strength of being able to swap parts without being dependent on a single manufacturer. Whether it's spark plugs, or it's an OS. Look at the problems they are going to have now because they used VB.
And although the Linux platform is arguably fragmented, that only affects desktop applications where a company sells a product that could go on dozens of different configurations. Used in a server environment, fragmantation is not a problem. What they need to do is to evaluate a few distributions and determine which one meets their needs best. Say for instance they decide it's Red Hat. Now all they do is make sure that their app continues to run on Red Hat. It doesn't matter if all the other distributions decide to do something completely different because that won't affect how it runs on Red Hat. All they need to be concerned about is what Red Hat does with their distribution. And even if Red Hat changes it a bit so that GM has to make some modifications to keep their app running, I'm sure it won't nearly be the upgrade path that Microsoft has forced on us with DOS -> Windows 3.x -> Windows 95 -> Windows NT -> Windows 2000 -> 64 bit Windows.
Another thing that I hate is the claim that the Server OS platform was fragmented. It was less fragmented the Windows is, IMHO. If I wanted to develop an app for Solaris, it ran fine on Solaris, no matter what AIX was like. However, is my customers wanted to run the app on another platform, which do you think was easier to port my app too? NT or AIX? Which do you think I would consider doing first?
I wrote an essay on the fragmentation in OS's. It might fit well in here.
-Brent--
I've looked hard at porting applications to Linux from Microsoft platforms, mostly VB apps. It's a bitch. There's no VB equivalent for Linux (I know there's some activity on this front), and I'm not aware of an easy porting path (if anyone knows one, comment, please).
There is no question that Linux is a more stable platform than any Microsoft platform. We've been installing Linux machines for our clients whenever we can -- Linux is much easier to work with. However, for GM to convert all those machines over to Linux doesn't make much sense to me. Not only do all of the VB apps have to be rewritten, but also most of the third-party software packages that this guy *thinks* he'd like to add are probably written for Windows (WINE advocates: I can't see my local GM dealer putting up with an "80% working" application under WINE, can you?).
Finally, are this guy's motivations (running out of disk space) silly, or is it just me? He could solve his problem by spending $200 at each store to upgrade to a larger hard drive and maybe to install more memory (DriveCopy does a very nice job of cloning hard drives, small --> large). It would probably cost him another $200 per store to hire a nationwide third-party service organization to visit all his dealerships and perform the upgrade. But at the end of it, he'd have what he needs: working systems with plenty of elbow room to grow.
(Yes, he could take the $400 and probably buy a better PC than he has right now. But I'm assuming he'd rather not IPL them all, install software on them all, burn them in, and so on, which will cost at least another $400 per machine to stage, not including shipping and installation at the dealer.)
If he converts to Linux, he has a huge problem on his hand: not only does he need to rewrite all his applications and do all that expensive staging above, but then at the end of the whole process (assuming it all works) he'll have to explain on a daily basis to his bonehead management how come the XYZ Inventory Control System doesn't run on his machines (his boss spots the XYZ ad in Useless American Cars Weekly, for example).
Ouch.
You don't usually see things in the press about such nebulous possibilities this far in advance.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if this wasn't a ploy on GMs part to get serious concessions from MS on licensing and possibly even support.
Ultimately, one of the really great benefits to Linux will be providing MS serious competition. This can only serve to make MS more responsive.
All those VB apps run on a win95 client. The server just has databases and communication. The apps won't even run a NT client.
I think so, Brain. But where will we get a duck and a rubber hose at this time of night? --Pinky
Linux is not based on Unix. Linux is a Unix clone, taking elements from both BSD and System V. Don't make a huge senseless leap of logic to presume that Linux has been around since 1969.
The VB apps are all on win95 clients with data and communications on the server.
GM's Access project has huge problems on their hands now because it just doesn't work now. They've spent five years rolliing it out and it's still a joke compared to the way the dealers communcated with them before.
I think so, Brain. But where will we get a duck and a rubber hose at this time of night? --Pinky
I work for a group of DaimlerChrysler dealerships, and I find this development *potentially* interesting. For years, Chrysler has had a SCO based server in every dealership. Apart from some application bugginess on their side, the servers are reliable and stable.
However - They went with NT Workstation clients for the MDSII diagnostic system. I suspect a lack of beta testing and a few other items have contributed to continual problems with the things. They went web-based (using Java), and the stability just is not there. The clients crash as a matter of routine, and it took 6 months (here at least) to even get the machines to run the training software without crashing on lesson 3. I would *really* like to see someone give this a try for several reasons:
Longer hardware cycles - without NT crippling the machine, a *nix based client could last longer between upgrade/replacement.
Of course, Linux (*nix in general) has the advantage of being a lot more robust typically. We use a Linux proxy (squid) for web connect and other things, and it basically only gets rebooted with power outages. It's more or less the same with the other Non windows/*nix boxes around here (Irix, SCO, Solaris)
Yes, there are a lot of relatively computer illiterate people out in the dealerships, but I see this as *more* of a reason to go with Linux. If the OS is rock solid, support primarily consists of application issues. That throws a lot of tech support calls out right there.
Finally, to those saying "buy more hard drives" and calculating $250 savings on Windows licenses, don't forget that it takes a lot less server (IMHO) to do the work with Linux. Add to that that Linux is better at multiple tasks, and you may very well wind up saving the cost of extra servers too. Where you might need 3 $10k Win servers to run web, database, e-mail, proxy, blah blah blah...one solid $5k Linux machine will probably do.
Finally, I expect dealerships to become *very* interested in systems that are more open than traditional proprietary solutions. Getting information between the in-house system, the manufacturers system, and the dealership's internal network should be easier...and it can be.
Oops...sorry - that got a bit long winded.
And it got all the MS Employees who read /. up in arms. Yes sir, many an anonymous coward flamed me for spreading FUD. Apparently MS can't take it nearly as well as they dish it out. Happens to be true though ;-)
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Wine is an application that really, really interests me. I haven't used it much at all, I'm sad to say. I've had some difficulty determining if apps fail because of something I did not configure correctly (the right switches for example), or if the app just can't run. I admit I'm a bit lazy and busy and haven't spent enough time on trial and error either...
.dll", but it's be nice to know say vbrun400.dll is 97% compliant, vbrun600.dll is 45% compliant, etc. If people can easily research where they stand conversion is easier to consider or truly does become a no-brainer..
What was I saying now..? Oh yeah, from a layman's perspective, it would seem like vbrun.dll compatability would be a major milestone for the project. I used to program in Visual Basic (and before that another cool gui builder called GFA BASIC on the Atari ST). VB was great in it's early days.. it went downhill FAST after version 4, and I know many agree.
Still, VB is used to create a lot of applications, especially in the corporate arena. Many commercial applications are written in VB, including some customer and call-tracking software, etc. The Massachusettes Department of Revenue has downloadable software for electronic filing of your taxes that's built with VB, which I managed to get running under Virtual PC because they don't support Mac or Linux.
I know vbrun.dll is really just a runtime and an interface to the bigger 0win16 and win32 API and so there are bigger issues than "just 1
Also, everyone is a little wary of Microsoft. Corporate America is well aware of the games they play. They only reason we've put up with them this long is because they were really the only game in town (And they made sure of that.) They've waited way too long to move on Linux and have painted themselves into a corner. If they'd released a dist a year and a half ago, they might have been able to advance the plan you suggest. Today I think it would go over like a lead balloon.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I like that one; I think I'll use it.
They play golf well and to be a manager you don't always have to know the technology being used to do the job.
That's OK. Linux doesn't like Lotus either. Their apps are ugly, dumb and awkward. If you read the interface hall of shame on Iarchitect you'll note that they have a whole section dedicated to "Bloated Goats."
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Should've looked closer at the preview. I have 2 finallys there. Sorry, I was taking phone calls at the same time. That came out less coherent than I thought, too.
Oh well
This is quite a common practice. I was responsible for evaluating and selecting a CAD package for our department a few years back. Once PTC (makers of Pro/Engineer) got wind that I was leaning towards another package, their sales managers contacted my boss to let them know what a mistake we were making. Luckily I had my boss's respect and he practically through the slaes reps out.
Linux has no licensing issues.
A big outfit like GM is wise to remember, they're not 'buying' M$ products, they are simple buying permission to use it, M$ retains all rights, it's still M$ property, M$ can do what they want with it. It really scares me to think a business would entrust so much to a single company which has amply demononstrated their ruthlessness and willingness to trample anyone who gets in the way of the M$ revenue stream. Hopefully GM has emough gumption to pick up the ball and regain control over their IT destiny, and not just blindly follow a crowd of M$ enchanted brain-dead zombies.
Chuck
official "slashdot discussion contributor".
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
darn it.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
I'm not sure I follow you're argument. Are you saying Windows is unstable because it supports more hardware (i.e., has more drivers)? If so, how come machines with dual boot will run great under Linux (all the hardware pinging along just fine) but crash daily under Windows? I've had this experience time and again, as I know many others have.
The few bugs (some severe) that I've run into with linux drivers tend to lead to one result: that piece of hardware does not work as it should. Not to say there wouldn't be kernel panics and other major failures, it's just that I've not seen them. I even have a couple old SCSI drives that are really flakey, and tend to restart themselves from time to time. The only one that's a problem is my swap partition, or a drive I'm currently reading from/writing to. The OS just doesn't respond until the drive has returned to a sane state, then it carries on as if nothing happened. OTOH, Win (NT and 95) vomits instantly if ANY drive becomes unavailable for even a few seconds while using Explorer. Sometimes this means a reinstall (damn the registry and it's wonders.)
IMHO that speaks alot about the core design of the kernels/OS.
But, as you said, if we were to see more closed source drivers we probably would tend to see more problems. There is a very good solution to that, however. Don't buy hardware from manufacturers that do not provide or at least support Free drivers for thier hardware. The users have more control with Linux. Use this (marginal?) power wisely. They do listen sometimes, and will have to more and more if trends continue. On this point, I feel it is very important that linux newbies (including large corporations) are educated as to why source DOES matter to them, even if they are not programmers.
Win2K advanced Server requires a p166 with 32 megs of RAM. I've had it working no problem in a p133 with 96 megs of RAM.
The secret, you forget, to putting liberal hardware requirements is to save Microsoft tech support from supporting problems with older hardware being blamed on Windows. Why toe the line and say "it PROBABLY will run on a p100, but not all will, here's our number, waste our time if it doesn't work." Is that economical? Yes. Is it moral? No. I'm glad Red Hat will support 386+ hardware (think corporate support, not usenet).
Three Step Plan:
1. Take over the world.
2. Get a lot of cookies.
3. Eat the cookies.
According to a Gartner Group study reported this morning on CNet (http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-2 02-114579.html) upgrading from NT4 to WIN2K can be expected to cost a business $2050/machine; Win98-Win2K $3100/machine. At 7500+ machines, that will add up! $15M can do rather a bit of development.
"My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
Last time I was in a GM dealership to get parts was a couple of years ago, but at that time they were using NCD Xterminals. They could bring up all the parts books on the screen, zoom in and out and actually print you a schematic of how to assemlbe something. It was way cool.
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
I think that besides the technological advantages to running a free OS such as Linux, there is a more human advantage, which is that with corporation struggling to increase shareholder value, reigning in on their IT costs by not having to pay for Microsoft OS's may save jobs. The money they trim there might have otherwise come from layoffs.
I hope this is something which is actually going to happen, I live near a car plant (ford) and I know many people who have lost jobs due to "restructuring". It would nice to see Gates' billions get trimmed a little due to "restructuring" instead.
five fingers make a fist amalgamate and resist
I think Microsoft knows that once a single IT manager at a Fortune 500 company proves that Linux is far faster/cheaper/better than Windows then it's all down hill for Windows from there, so I'm sure Microsoft is sending the FUD calvary to GM as you read this.
Obviously I'm not Microsoft, but if they did such a thing, it might do a lot to maintain their market dominance.
-- $SIGNATURE
And don't forget...
Microsoft surely cares enough about their customers to make sure that if my coworker saves a document in the native format of Word 97, I'll be able to open and read it with Word 95 or Word 6.0 right?
Surely they would never make subsiquent releases of their "productivity" applications incompatible just to force everyone to upgrade to the new version when the old version worked fine would they?
Not Microsoft!
Making the assumption that the Saturn dealerships use the same systems that GM proper employs their problems may go deeper than the OS.
When I was closing the deal on a used Saturn in early 97, I learned their system allows anyone to overwrite an existing record (order). I was incredulous that such a poor design/implementation could exist. If this reflects the total dealer situation within GM, it will take more than Linux to correct its flaws. Moreover, a failure could be attributed to the new OS and not the existing stupidity already present in over abundance.
Unix has better and just as easy equivalents to Visual Basic. I don't know what's so great about VB, but I've seen some great programs using TCL (just search Freshmeat) and Java programming is great for whipping up quick applications.
Find and share links to celebrity profiles on MySpace! http://www.myspacecelebrities.com
This hands-on course includes training on Lotus Notes, which replaces DCS as the two-way communication method between GM and GM dealerships.
This suggests to me (I don't know, as I don't work with dealerships) that the applications are Notes-based, not VB-based as stated in the article.
Now, wasn't there an announcement a while ago about IBM/Lotus porting Notes to Linux? That makes this infinitely more do-able.
"Microsoft is the epitome of innovation and product quality."
Sanity.html - Error 404 not found
An interesting point is that those costs are only for workstation upgrades. W2K Server + ActiveDirectory will cost even more. (Although that's probably unquantifiable at this point because nobody really knows how AD works in a large scale environment.)
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Don't even bother calculating the hardware costs, because the labor and management costs associated with doing in-case upgrades for a place like GM are going to be much higher than the parts.
It's much easier for them to have their vendor (EDS I'd guess) preconfigure brand new machines and then airdrop them in place.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
They are refering to a system known as "GM Access" and the problem they have is that the specced out the hardware so long before it was put in the field it was ancient history before it started. The way it works is GM supplies an NT server for each site, this serves as a gateway to the satelite system and was supposed to be used only as a server. Many smaller dealerships balked and refused to by clients instead using the server directly. GM kept piling on the applications until the machines choked. These servers run lotus notes as well as a ton of propietary applications. Most of the people at GM have been aware for over a year that they are desperately in need of upgrades. I believe the real push now is that the lifespan of these computers was estimated at three years. We were assured the machine would be replaced at this point. Going to unix would cut out that expense.
For Linux to gain major recognition from the corporate world (which it must do to replace Windows) then it has to be used my major corporations.
IF GM went ahead with switching to Linux then other company's would see that Linux is viable, and that Microsoft can be replaced. For larger company's Linux makes a lot of sense, it is more reliable, as the advantage of very easily configured "roaming" profiles so that users can access their information, desktop layout etc. from ANY computer. Plus as stated in the article NO licence problems - for a company with thousands of users, and 10's of servers the cost of Micro$oft licences is significant in the IT budget.
If GM decide to go ahead with a Linux solution, then it could be the final step in proving that Linux can directly compete against Microsoft to all those misguided people who think it can't
Manic.
If you ever drop your keys into a river of molten lava, let'em go, because, man, they're gone.
I remember a post a ways back about Burlington moving everything to a Linux based system... Weren't they around 5k machines? A positive result there may give GM and other large corps the news they need to show that Linux can be deployed in a large system...
And the question is not wether Linux supprt VB, it is if VB support Linux. The answer is that VB does not support anything beside MS-bred OS (no Mac, BeOS, Unix, etc.). Code written in VB is utterly non-portable, probably to lock you in MS OS. GM application would need to rewritten from scratch if they do switch.
However, maybe the Mac version of MS Office support VBA. Any user of MS Office Mac edition to enlighten us on the question ?
:wq
If they change all their 75,000 machines over to Linux, Microsoft will be losing @$2,000,000 in sales. And that's only using NT Workstation figures, not NT server (NT workstation = @$250, right?).
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
What we seem to have here is a mid-level manager evaluating Linux for his company, but he seems to feel sympathy for Linux and be making up the reasons afterwards. It's great he likes Linux, and I hope he will succeed. But I have a hard time believing he will.
Yes, you are right there. -- Another glass of champagne?
I can't be the only one who finds irony in the fact that the banner ad on ComputerWorld is, in over 25% of impressions, for NT Server?
If it's targeted, maybe they're picking up my browser ident (Mozilla 4.51 Linux i686)?
;-)
...a couple years ago, there were a few products that converted VB to java, C++ or even delphi. Delphi for Linux will be out before long.
They claimed 90% of the VB code goes over, and I saw better results for pure VB code.
Against our flagship VB app, I estimated it would take 6 weeks and three programmers to translate the app over to Java. It had maybe two dozen forms, 3-4 custom components, and several custom objects we wrote.
The pure VB translated fine, but the custom components needed some thought to meld them with the java components, which (in all honesty) were not very mature.
VB has some phat third party controls, and Java can't really match them...as least not back then.
Since the open source movement is a gift culture what if we were to volunteer our help on major migrations like this?
I see several HUGE reasons to do this.
I think this could really work. Not only for this project, but if this gets off the ground we will develop many tools to aid similar migrations. If we as a community can make migrations easier, then one more obstacle will be removed.
I have some good skills in PERL and C, and would be willing to volunteer some time. The only compensation I would request is that the tools we develop for the project would be open.
If you are interested in attempting this or would like to arrange something for other similar projects let me know
-Darby
Boy, if it is mission-critical, and written in VB, i worry about the the largest american company.
But, if they hope to port VB to linux... i am really scared!
Anyway, i guess that's what PHB's are for.
I think I'd be willing to help, however major corporations like GM are ALWAYS paranoid about their legacy code.
"Intellectual Property" *blah* *blah* *blah*
I don't think they would let us anywhere near it...
I'm going to agree with this AC, esp in GMs case. They're trying to make themselves seem like a new, exciting, dynamic comapany. Their new ads portray the chairman of the board as wearing jeans and chuck taylors. I think this may be part of some huge plan to look like a geek friendly company.
--"In dreams begin responsibilities" - Delmore Schwartz
How come? Because "ignorant executive" is redundant.
The cake is a pie
A: It's not controlled by one company, and fragmentation can occur. Why do they keep coming out with this one ? Surely GM, of all people, would understand the advantages and even necessity of not being tied to a single vendor ?
>I mean, it's nice the guy is the operations manager for their dealer network, but this is really a non-story.
Or else he's sending up a trial balloon to see how
a) The car dealer network reacts (e.g., ``No effin' way I want that Linnucks crap runnin' mah computers" or ``Give it a try -- cain't be any worse than that Microcrap on ourn computers"), or
b) See how Microsoft reacts (e.g., ``We can offer you great terms on a nationwide license to Win2000 with the same level of support we offer Intel"), or
c) Making an effort to demonstrate to someone just how hard he's looking at alternatives to their present computer system (e.g., ``I know that it crashes every day. But see how hard I'm studying alternatives? Now do you believe me when I say it's the best system we can buy? And will you authorize another business trip to Acapulco?")
There's undoubtedly more to the story than meets the eye, much of which Slashdotters prolly don't want to know. Let's just focus our attention at making the code better.
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p