Obviously package distribution is going to be easier in a thin-client environment.
And sure there's the "you could do this with Linux" arguments, but it's already done in SMS. Distribution of a package involves like 16 clicks. Done.
Clarification: Our environment contains more than 200 apps that all have to be UAT'd before the business units will agree to letting us roll out a patch in production. That's where most of the work comes in. If you want to talk about actual work, the actual creation of a collection, package, and advertisement is done by one of my staff and usually within an hour. With the new software update services plugin for SMS, my guess is it'll take even less time.
1. Rdist will work, but I guarantee you it'll take longer to do. And you're more expensive than any Microsoft admin, so it costs the business more.
2. Accountability goes beyond recovery from damages. It mitigates my organization's suport responsibilities to issues specific to our environment. Anything else we are not liable for. Regardless of whether Microsoft recovers our losses, the fact remains that we are not accountable, which also drives our cost lower to the business. We have our catalog of services, and troubleshooting core-OS problems isn't one of them.
3. Add it all up and it's still cheaper to support a Windows environment. Even with the cost of licensing, it's still cheaper for me to hire 2 Windows guys than it is one Linux guy.
You're right. People are not switching to Linux for fun. Linus for enterprise apps makes sense. I'm talking about desktops specifically, and everything you mentioned doesn't go against my case.
My point is that overall TCO is lower. If you're a Unix guy, you make more than me, and you cost the business more, regardless of the cost of the software/hardware/infrastructure involved. That's what it ultimately comes down to.
MS is just starting to compete in the enterprise app space, but Unix still beats it hands-down. There's no argument there. But at the desktop in a large, distributed enterprise, Microsoft is the only rational choice. Period.
For some reasons already mentioned and for some not, Linux et. al. don't make sense for an enterprise to deploy to the desktop. Here's my reasons why:
Manageability. With tools like SMS, software distribution, policy compliance management, and enterprise inventory are a breeze. Sure there's a new MS patch all the time, but with minimal administrative effort, I can test and deploy a patch in no time. Our SLA on turn-around to deployment of a critical patch is 24 business hours. Three days after release of a patch or other software update, our entire 20,000+ client network is 85% or more patched. With about 20 man hours of work across three staff. Linux absolutely can not touch that.
Also, Active Directory is the bomb. We can integrate our email system with our help desk system with SMS with enterprise apps and others, while creating and maintaining user data once, in one place. Sure you can do that with OSS stuff (using LDAP etc.) but AD works almost out of the box. Turn it on, migrate, boom done.
Accountability. Senior management has somebody (outside the organization) to blame when there's a critical failure. It sounds like a cop-out, but hey, that's how it works. I dunno about anybody else, but I like getting a paycheck. And therefore, I like having the ability to point the finger at someone else when they screw up. So do senior managers, because it mitigates their liability and the liability of the organization as a whole. In any situation, we have the ability to say "Sorry, Microsoft screwed up." In a Linux environment, what could we say? "Sorry, a community of people that I'm likely an active member of screwed up, and ultimately the screw up is as much my fault as anyone else's in that community. So can I have a box with handles for my personal belongings? Thanks."
It's cheaper. Period. Sure OSS stuff is free, sure Microsoft's licensing is pricey. But anyone who takes an honest look at total TCO will see that MS/Intel's price point can't be beat. Administration is cheaper. Hardware is cheaper. Development is cheaper. Users are already trained and therefore cheaper. User and administrative efficiencies are pre-built because people are already Windows/MS familiar before they login to a corporate PC. And you can talk about OSS superiority in certain areas all day, but the fact is, to a business, cheaper is always better.
Obviously 1 and 3 are the most compelling. 2 might be something kind of specific to the financial industry (which I work IT in) or maybe my organization. Who knows. There are also a lot of more arcane 2-ish reasons (a bunch of audit and risk management stuff) that have already been touched on (Microsoft is stable, easy to build a clearly-defined business relationship with, etc.)
To be honest, I hope the OSS community is able at some point to create products that compete with MS in the ways I described above. And while Linux may be taking some market share from Microsoft in middle-tier enterprise apps, it's gonna be a long time before it can compete at the enterprise desktop. So there's plenty of reasons to still buy Microsoft, that is, of course, if you want to keep your job.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously package distribution is going to be easier in a thin-client environment.
And sure there's the "you could do this with Linux" arguments, but it's already done in SMS. Distribution of a package involves like 16 clicks. Done.
Clarification: Our environment contains more than 200 apps that all have to be UAT'd before the business units will agree to letting us roll out a patch in production. That's where most of the work comes in. If you want to talk about actual work, the actual creation of a collection, package, and advertisement is done by one of my staff and usually within an hour. With the new software update services plugin for SMS, my guess is it'll take even less time.
1. Rdist will work, but I guarantee you it'll take longer to do. And you're more expensive than any Microsoft admin, so it costs the business more. 2. Accountability goes beyond recovery from damages. It mitigates my organization's suport responsibilities to issues specific to our environment. Anything else we are not liable for. Regardless of whether Microsoft recovers our losses, the fact remains that we are not accountable, which also drives our cost lower to the business. We have our catalog of services, and troubleshooting core-OS problems isn't one of them. 3. Add it all up and it's still cheaper to support a Windows environment. Even with the cost of licensing, it's still cheaper for me to hire 2 Windows guys than it is one Linux guy. You're right. People are not switching to Linux for fun. Linus for enterprise apps makes sense. I'm talking about desktops specifically, and everything you mentioned doesn't go against my case.
My point is that overall TCO is lower. If you're a Unix guy, you make more than me, and you cost the business more, regardless of the cost of the software/hardware/infrastructure involved. That's what it ultimately comes down to.
MS is just starting to compete in the enterprise app space, but Unix still beats it hands-down. There's no argument there. But at the desktop in a large, distributed enterprise, Microsoft is the only rational choice. Period.
For some reasons already mentioned and for some not, Linux et. al. don't make sense for an enterprise to deploy to the desktop. Here's my reasons why:
Obviously 1 and 3 are the most compelling. 2 might be something kind of specific to the financial industry (which I work IT in) or maybe my organization. Who knows. There are also a lot of more arcane 2-ish reasons (a bunch of audit and risk management stuff) that have already been touched on (Microsoft is stable, easy to build a clearly-defined business relationship with, etc.)
To be honest, I hope the OSS community is able at some point to create products that compete with MS in the ways I described above. And while Linux may be taking some market share from Microsoft in middle-tier enterprise apps, it's gonna be a long time before it can compete at the enterprise desktop. So there's plenty of reasons to still buy Microsoft, that is, of course, if you want to keep your job.