I work for a state government agency in Washington that is dominated by MS-driven servers and desktops.
Our web server and internal network run on a highly modified variant of RedHat Linux. We ride on the back of a Win2k network managed by a much larger agency with whom we are co-located.
We tried to work with IT Services folks for six months to get permission to plug Linux boxes into their network. They were (surprise) extremely resistant. Finally, we just installed them on the network. Within hours, they were standing at my cubicle demanding answers.
Turns out they have a policy that requires only Win2k machines on their network. I persuaded them to give our machines a few days on the network to see if they would cause any problems, and they agreed. Long story short: the Linux boxes have been more stable and less problematic than their own Win2k machines.
Why the resistance? One: the IT folks only know MS products. Two: they were convinced the MS products in which they had been trained were more stable and secure than any Linux box. Three: they were convinced Linux was more difficult to manage than their systems. Four: based on items two and three, they believed the total cost of operating Linux boxes would exceed their MS boxes.
Our Linux servers have been operating inside their network for a year with nary a hiccup. They are (grudgingly) starting to ask more questions about how to configure and maintain such platforms.
The lesson I've learned: when IT folks only know one solution, that's what they will use. Any other solutions will be rejected out of hand. It is not a question of which technology is better or more cost effective. Like most people, they want to reside within their comfort zone rather than take risks.
Slashdot Mirror
I work for a state government agency in Washington that is dominated by MS-driven servers and desktops.
Our web server and internal network run on a highly modified variant of RedHat Linux. We ride on the back of a Win2k network managed by a much larger agency with whom we are co-located.
We tried to work with IT Services folks for six months to get permission to plug Linux boxes into their network. They were (surprise) extremely resistant. Finally, we just installed them on the network. Within hours, they were standing at my cubicle demanding answers.
Turns out they have a policy that requires only Win2k machines on their network. I persuaded them to give our machines a few days on the network to see if they would cause any problems, and they agreed. Long story short: the Linux boxes have been more stable and less problematic than their own Win2k machines.
Why the resistance? One: the IT folks only know MS products. Two: they were convinced the MS products in which they had been trained were more stable and secure than any Linux box. Three: they were convinced Linux was more difficult to manage than their systems. Four: based on items two and three, they believed the total cost of operating Linux boxes would exceed their MS boxes.
Our Linux servers have been operating inside their network for a year with nary a hiccup. They are (grudgingly) starting to ask more questions about how to configure and maintain such platforms.
The lesson I've learned: when IT folks only know one solution, that's what they will use. Any other solutions will be rejected out of hand. It is not a question of which technology is better or more cost effective. Like most people, they want to reside within their comfort zone rather than take risks.