Slashdot Mirror
Linux in the Enterprise: Fact vs. FUD
Kelly McNeill writes "When I first started touting Linux as a soon-to-be superior alternative to Microsoft Windows, almost no one at my company had even heard of the product. Nearly two years later, it's difficult to find a computer magazine that does not extoll the virtues of Linux. However, these praises are often laced with caveats: Linux is a "server OS", that it's difficult for novices, that it's "not ready for the desktop". To some extent these concerns are simply due to a reasonable fear of the unknown. "
Also, many believe there are no GUI tools for doing anything (for much the same reason). Again, there are many, as anyone who browses Freshmeat - or even the menu options of many X11 window managers knows.
Many believe it doesn't support current hardware, unaware of just how much Linux 2.2 and 2.3 support.
Many believe that Linux doesn't have any software. Star Office, Applixware and KOffice all testify otherwise. But people won't know about these, if they never hear of them!
This, I think is the key to it. People have no real, reliable information on Linux. There are no ads on TV, no ads in the papers or the magazines, no posters in the major stores, no demo machines in the windows... These are major sources of information for a lot of people, and Linux doesn't have any of them. Instead, people only hear how Microsoft doesn't make it, how Microsoft doesn't write anything for it, how MS Office won't run on it, etc. All they hear is the negative.
If you get told often enough that the glass is half-empty, you will never see that it's also half-full.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I think we're forgetting something. A large portion of us have been using computers since we were 5 or 6. To us, everything seems obvious -- how to install new software, the difference between root and the rest of the users, why sometimes we have to use the keyboard to do things instead of the mouse...
But Linux simply isn't ready for non-computer-geeks to be using all the time. It's propbably okay for smart non-computer-geeks, as long as they have a bit of support once in a while. But it's still not ready for Aunt Helga who wants to check her email once in a while and run a word processor.
- Drew
- In Capitalist America, law violates YOU!
And if a Linux GUI is the user's first experience, there won't be any Windows training to undo. It seems reasonable to me...
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
Microsoft also claims that Linux has no journaling file system, ignoring the fact that the SGI's XFS is a journaling file system(10). They also ignore the fact that NT 4.0 itself lacks a journaling file system!!(11)
#11 Try this: go to http://www.microsoft.com, select Search, and search the Microsoft web site for NT Journaling File System. You'll get three hits, and the first of these in order of relevance is the "Linux Myths" page! One is a false hit in that it simply links to the "Linux Myths" page, and the third is the Server Operating Systems Newsflash, Volume 5, Issue 40, that quotes from the "Linux Myths" page.
A search for the exact phrase "NT Journaling File System" gives ZERO hits while a match on all words gives 62 hits.
In both cases, footnote #11 is completely incorrect no matter how you search.
It's this sort of thing which makes the analysis no better than MS's Linux myths page.
FUD by any other person is still FUD.
- Microsoft also claims that Linux has no journaling file system, ignoring the fact that the SGI's XFS is a journaling file system. They also ignore the fact that NT 4.0 itself lacks a journaling file system!!
- I've got Doom, Quake, and other multiple player games for entertainment (although I'm personally a board game fan).
- Thirdly, even if other Unixes were cannibalized, what would it matter? Linux would remain, and the point I made in the above paragraph works in reverse. Those Unix developers that now exist will move to Linux with no effort, and there will be no discernible effect in the workplace.
- An entertaining footnote (#40): Again, the Gartner Group plays tug-of-war with themselves. The same short report recognizes that SCO and SGI are competitors and supporters of Linux, but the Gartner Group never bothers to answer the question as so why this may be the case. Clearly, the study in question is severely flawed and displays a shocking lack of understanding.
And the above list is just a quick sampling of Leigh's errors and misunderstandings. The mistakes are all the more annoying since they appear to be direct regurgitations of things that have been repeated countless time by the less-iformed zealots [0] here onFirst of all, wasn't there a thread a couple of weeks ago in which we discussed the journalling abilities of NTFS? Second, XFS has not been released for Linux yet. Third, there is a journalling filesystem for Linux, but it's not XFS: it's ReiserFS.
This is just silly. Game support under Linux is extremely sparse right now. In a world where even Macintosh doesn't get ports of even the most popular games (witness the recent Half-Life debacle), we'd be really foolish to claim that Linux has enough games for the average home consumer.
Clearly, this was written by somebody who doesn't know much about Unix. Linux is like Unix, and the transition would likely be easier for commercial Unix developers to make, but it's hardly going to be a transparent, effortless transition.
No, clearly Dave Leigh displays a shocking lack of understanding about the technology industry, where relationships of simultaneous competition and support are incredibly common. Sun, for example, supports Linux by releasing StarOffice under the GPL; on the other hand, it would be entirely happy cannibalizing the Linux market to grow Solaris/Java if it could. In fact, most astute observers believe this is exactly where Sun wants to lead us.
If I want to hear things like this, I'll read an old
~k.lee
[0] As opposed to the well-informed zealots, who are (unfortunately) all too rare.
(remove nospam for email)
But Linux simply isn't ready for on-computer-geeks to be using all the time. It's propbably okay for
smart non-computer-geeks, as long as they have a bit of support once in a while. But it's still not ready for Aunt Helga who wants to check her email once in a while and run a word processor.
Actually, I think that's -exactly- who it's ready for, if she can get it preinstalled. If Aunt Helga has a preinstalled Netscape and WordPerfect and either has KPPP set up or has step-by-step instructions like are handed out by ISPs for setting up windows... she's all set. The system won't crash, won't get viruses, won't re-mail worms to her friends via outlook... Okay, okay, I'm spreading FUD against MS now, I'm bad.
I think who it's -not- ready for is non-geeks who want to do a lot of advanced stuff. It's when you start doing Advanced Stuff(TM) that you start needing the command line. It's also true that Linux -doesn't- have all of the software that Windows does, and the more esoteric the application the more likely that Linux doesn't have it. (Though, we have some pretty esoteric stuff.) The print-seperations advantage of Photoshop over The Gimp comes to mind, and I don't think we have a professional CAD program yet.
But a friendly word procesing/web/e-mail environment? Sure. No prob.
--Parity
--Parity
'Card carrying' member of the EFF.
To be fair, I can and do use Linux as my primary desktop. And a mix of Linux and Solaris on production servers. But my "business desktop" remains NT. Because:
1.) Corporate file format requirements. I must be able to read, write, and modify documents that are shared activities. These documents are in MSWord format, MS Excell, MS Powerpoint, Visio, and PDF formats. I know and sometimes use Star Office. But it cannot modify MS documents without loss of formatting. There is no Visio. There is only PDF reader, not a full function PDF creator.
2.) Corporate communications requirements. I am required to have dial in and LAN access to Lotus Notes. No client support yet.
3.) Hardware variation support. Linux cannot support some of the highly integrated devices found in laptops and low-cost PC's. In my particular case it is a laptop. I don't get to pick the model. I have to take what the corporation provides. It is good quality, but has Linux problems. In general Linux support trails hardware availability by 6-12 months.
You can point in each case to a truthful "we are working on it". But working on it is not the same as available and robust today. These are reasons why I anticipate that within a few years Linux (and probably also *BSD) will be viable on the desktop. But viable in a few years is not the same as viable now.
Other people will have other particular problems, but the general categories of mandated file formats, mandated corporate communications, and hardware variations will keep coming up.
Here we have someone talking about NT, Linux and the Enterprise, who obviously knows very little about either NT or the Enterprise.
"How many "common customers" use 4-way NT boxes? Very few, in my experience"
We are talking about the Enterprise. We are talking about 1000+ users on systems - in these circumstances such servers would be common. Just because lots of Linux people work with single CPU linux boxen in small companies doesn't mean that multi CPU machines are at all uncommon in larger companies.
"(Linux supports many file systems6; NT supports far fewer). Among the file systems Linux supports is SGI's XFS, recently released to Open Source, with a max file size of nearly one million terabytes7. "
I was not aware that XFS was part of linux - perhaps it has been rolled into the latest kernel version. Or perhaps we are counting third party file systems that can be used with each OS. XFS is brand new to Linux, and I am aware of very few applications that make use of it - maybe Oracle 8 does?? NTFS has been around for years, and is well supported.
". Also, Windows NT clustering is limited to failover ONLY. Linux is capable of distributed clustering ("Beowulf" technology 12), which can enhance system performance dramatically. "
I'm not at all sure I see the relevance of Beowulf clusters in the Enterprise. We are talking about large corporate IT systems, not scientific type systems.
And do you _really_ believe that Linux failover clustering is as well tested as NT's? And have you administered both kinds of cluster? Or are you infact merely re-iterating a TurboLinux press release?
". While your support options for Windows are limited, your support options for Linux are not"
I see. So you are discounting the many many 3rd party Windows support operations? Are you really saying that HP's windows support is no good? Or that the many large resellers have no idea what they are doing? Are you saying that ICL doesn't support Windows when it uses it in projects?
There are far, far more people able to support NT than Linux, especially when 'support' means support of large, complex developments, rather than simply supporting a distribution, or providing general Unix Q and A style help.
"Although you can purchase local support for Microsoft products, such support is strictly limited to training and workarounds. "
This is utterly untrue.
". Microsoft Windows support is simply not in the same league.
"
Rubbish. Microsoft may be no good at supporing Windows, but there are plenty of 3rd parties who are.
-----
There are a few things that can be meant by a journaling filesystem. What NTFS has is -not- what xfs or reiserfs have.
What people mean by a journaling filesystem in this context is a filesystem that has a scheme whereby changes are written to the journal, then, in idle moments, marked 'in progress' in the journal, written to the filesystem, and then marked 'done' in the journal.
With this scheme, if you go down in mid-write, you simply scan the journal for the 'in progress' notation and re-do the right. Ta-da, stable filesystem. You -can- lose data, if a write doesn't get into the journal, of course, but you won't get filesystem damage. As a result there is virtually no fsck time on reboot.
Take an SGI/xfs machine, and a Windows NTFS machine. Start them doing some stuff, and then pull the plugs. Now reboot. NTFS needs to scandisk, because NT is not a true journaling FS. SGI checks its journal, and is up and running in no time.
I expect true journaling in NTFS-2K. If it isn't there, well... then MS will lose the server market completely in no time.
--Parity
--Parity
'Card carrying' member of the EFF.
If the point of this document is to show that the Linux community is just as capable of generating FUD as Microsoft, then it has succeeded. As a tool for realistically positioning Linux's capabilities, though, it is quite useless.
... not too difficult to crack.
This is some of the most half-baked blathering I have seen in a very long while, and it is really quite sad: every fool who goes in making claims like these and is promptly shot out of the saddle will set the movement back in the eyes of those who watch it happen. If the Linux community is going to get serious about taking on Windows NT, it will have to do a lot better than this.
How many "common customers" use 4-way NT boxes? Very few, in my experience.
This statement is a brilliant testimonial to the sheer naivite of Linux advocates, showing a very deep misunderstanding of how servers are deployed and used. This kind of comment strongly supports the view that many Linux developers are holed up in a bedroom somewhere, tweaking code on a home PC in their spare time.
NT loses these same benchmarks when comparing single-to-single processor and dual-to-dual processor machines.
And which benchmarks are these? I didn't see a footnote here.
Microsoft also claims that NT performs better than Linux when serving static web pages. However, e-business is not powered by static pages. It's powered by Active Server Pages and CGI5. Windows doesn't fare nearly so well in these comparisons.
Again, where is the evidence for this claim?
As for the technical specs quoted by Microsoft... they are out of date. The Linux kernel addresses 4 GB RAM, not two.
The 4 GB function is a kernel patch to the 2.3 kernel, which means that it is non-production, beta code until 2.4 ships. If I buy Red Hat 6.1 or some other 2.2-based kernel today, it will support no more than 2 GB...period.
Among the file systems Linux supports is SGI's XFS, recently released to Open Source, with a max file size of nearly one million terabytes
Again, this is not production code...it is a statement of intention by SGI to release its XFS code to the Linux development community.
Note that not all of the features supported by Linux are included by default in every distribution, but they all can be added if missing.
OK, and who will support these functions when they are added? The distribution suppliers? Not if it isn't in their product. The hordes of volunteer help-desk personnel idling on USENET groups? Only if it's a K00l question, dude. The profusion of promising startups dedicated to supporting commercial Linux sites? Better check that fine print again...!
The fact that this can be compiled into the OS kernel or not, depending on the needs of the users allows every installation to tailor the smallest, fastest, most stable custom kernels to their specific needs.
Assuming they know how to compile a kernel...
Linux's stability is only based on anecdotes. Microsoft seems unable to differentiate anecdotes from testimonials.
OK, and where are these "testimonials" again (and I'm not counting USENET or Slashdot postings)?
Be that as it may, there are a lot of these anecdotes. Many of them are include documented uptimes ranging from months to years. Footnote: I myself experienced an eight-month uptime between kernel upgrades, and I do not mean scheduled uptime.
See above.
Microsoft also claims that Linux has no journaling file system, ignoring the fact that the SGI's XFS is a journaling file system
Again, this is not production code.
They also ignore the fact that NT 4.0 itself lacks a journaling file system!!
This is just wrong, and you are not doing the Linux community any favors by essentially lying about Windows NT's capabilities. Here's a simple test for you: put two identical systems next to each other, one running Windows NT 4.0 and the other Linux. Boot each of them up. Then pull both power plugs out, and reinsert them at the same time. Which system will be up and running faster?
Also, Windows NT clustering is limited to failover ONLY.
This is also wrong. Windows NT 4.0 has Web-server load balancing functions built in as part of its Convoy clustering technology. Oracle Parallel Server is widely deployed on Windows NT to create scalable database clusters.
Linux clustering was developed in association with NASA, an agency having a far stricter definition of "mission criticality" than any commercial entity. NT has no equivalent technology.
This is wrong again. The PVM and MPI technologies on which Beowulf is based have been running -- and have been widely deployed -- on NT for years.
Free doesn't mean low TCO. Actually, it does. Microsoft's TCO calculations are based against other commercially marketed Unixes, which have very expensive initial acquisition and support contract costs and traditionally high education costs.
And Linux support contracts are free? There won't be any education costs to move users to Linux?
Support costs can be very low, as purchased support can be supplemented with award-winning Usenet support.
I'm sorry, I am picking myself up off the floor from laughing so hard. I have submitted many, many questions to various Linux discussion groups over the years and the quality of answers is *wildly* uneven, with the majority of answer ranging from irrelevant to plain old wrong. Any IT professional who depends solely on USENET for Linux support should be fired.
Microsoft itself charges for support for a product that they licensed (not sold!) you at considerable cost without warranty.
And Linux support programs *do* come with a warranty? Please, show me these programs!
However, with Linux you're not required to purchase support at all.
With Windows, you're not required to purchase support either. What's your point?
The Linux User community, operating at no charge, garnered the 1996 InfoWorld Product of the Year award for Best Technical Support.
InfoWorld has a long history of anti-MS sloganeering, and seems to give out its awards simply based on the fact that they aren't MS products. After all, this is the magazine that for the previous five years had given OS/2 their product-of-the-year award. If I as an IT professional had made a purchasing decision based on InfoWorld's recommendations in 1994, I would be in fairly deep trouble right now.
Microsoft claims that your security administrator must be an expert to properly configure security. My own knee-jerk reaction to this is, "When do you NOT want an expert supporting your systems? If you can't afford one full-time you hire a consultant"
OK, and you just got through going on about how low Linux cost-of-ownership was?
In point of fact, NT's security is
OK, this is is just plain FUD (meaning you have made a claim that is supported by nothing more than the fact that you made the claim).
Properly configuring Linux security is mostly a matter of removing those services that are not needed and religiously applying security patches as they appear. This should be standard operating procedure for any, regardless of the platforms used.
Correct, so why should it be any different for NT?
Microsoft claims that existing Linux GUIs are cumbersome and difficult to use. In fact, my mother sat down and began using the KDE desktop with no training, no prior experience, and not one single problem.
OK, now let's put her in front of a GNOME desktop with a stopwatch, and see how long it takes her how to figure out how to do things there.
For business use, the major general purpose tool Linux lacks at the moment is a Lotus Notes client.
And an Exchange client (although that is hardly surprising). So now we have taken about 90% of the messaging users off the table.
And the Windows Notes client can be run if you simply install WINE (Windows emulator for Linux).
And just how long will the program run before a segmentation fault?
The Future.....
In the future, we'll all be flying around in air cars! Nuff' said.