AT&T Considers Mac OS X, Linux For 70,000 Desktops 476
hype7 writes "CNet's News.com.com is reporting that AT&T is reconsidering its corporate IT investment in Microsoft Windows - with both Mac OS X and Linux being considered. Although the article notes that AT&T is not actively seeking to replace Windows, there's a wonderful quote on the page from the AT&T guy - 'Any CIO would not be doing due diligence if they are not looking at their options now.'" As with previous mass-migration stories, a cynical (or realistic) viewpoint is also that by "looking into" non-Windows operating systems, they're giving themselves a bargaining chip when talking with Microsoft. Update: 10/06 17:35 GMT by T : Actually, that's 70,000 desktops, rather than 7,000 as originally stated.
Can't be anything but a good thing (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Can't be anything but a good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Illustration... (Score:5, Interesting)
I nearly fell off my chair.
Re:Illustration... (Score:5, Funny)
I guess those gigabit ethernet ports are just for show, huh?
Re:Illustration... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Illustration... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Illustration... (Score:5, Funny)
The next time you encounter one of these fucking morons -- who give us real techies a reeeeally bad name -- please DO fall off your chair
Re:Illustration... (Score:4, Insightful)
"What's this about usability? I thought Macs were supposed to be so usable? I can't even find a start menu. How are you supposed to run anything"
Not to mention he thought my 12" aluminum PB, the most robust and well made computer I've ever owned, looked "cheesy", compared to his 100% black plastic Dell -- complete with its ill fittings and cracks.
I'm serious. The reality is that these people have had it shoved into their heads, for YEARS, that Macs are toys. Playthings for "ghey" graphic designers.
What's the real toy? (Score:4, Insightful)
So the one thing the Macintosh is really not suitable for is as a toy.
Re:Illustration... (Score:5, Interesting)
As a graphic designer by day, I can attest to having used macs exclusively from 1992 on and while yes they did suck for things like programming, they were not merely better, but fundamentally CORRECT for graphic work. For a million and one reasons that fall best into the "intangible" category. Little things. But they add up. And Mac OS X has inherited *most* of them.
As a programmer by night, I didn't want to use Macs for hacking until OS X came out. Previosly I had used linux & BeOS for those tasks.
Regarding mouse buttons, well, that's a different bag of snakes. It's easy to get accustomed to either usage paradigm. I, personally, like the right mouse button but using ctrl-click on the Mac simply fits better with its general usage. So, on linux I use a three buttoned mouse, on the mac I use a one-button mouse. When in Rome...
Re: Illustration... (Score:5, Informative)
Not that it'll make any difference, but just for the record: Mac OS X supports multiple mouse buttons and scroll wheels. It just doesn't get supplied with them, or need them.
If you want a right mouse button, go and buy any old USB mouse, plug it in, and the right button will instantly bring up context menus just as you expect; and the scroll wheel will scroll windows in most apps ditto.
I wish we could see some sensible arguments in the Mac-vs-PC debate. (For example, I fully agree that Mac OS Classic sucked. Or at least, it sucked for people who'd used something else first. From what I hear, most folk who started with a Mac loved it; but people like me who came from other platforms (mostly Atari and X Terminals in my case) hate it -- I fought against it continually for a year or so until Mac OS X came out and I heaved a long sigh of relief!)
Excellent point that most people miss (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a point that seems quite lost on most people, but is really important. Can you imagine using a PC with a one-button mouse? I don't think so. Yet the APple is designed around the concept of being able to use one or more buttons, and as a result most programs and the OS fundamentially respect the number of mouse buttons you h
Re:Excellent point that most people miss (Score:3, Funny)
I can use my PC without any mouse at all [sourceforge.net].
Apples are only expensive once (Score:3, Interesting)
Many Mac people buy a new laptop every year. They sell their old one, and get the vast majority of its cost back out of it. PC laptops that are the same age, however, have depreciated MUCH more in the same span.
My 12" PowerBook, which is well over a year old, still sells for ~$1100. The PC laptops I looked at buying now sell for much less. So later this year, when I sell the 1
Re: Illustration... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes and no. Yes, you can't get cheap Macs, but for what you get, they seem to be fairly competitive with similarly-specced PCs. (I haven't done the analysis myself, but whenever I've seen it done, the Macs come out not much more expensive, and sometimes cheaper.)
Again, this depends on your criteria. The hardware is closed, but most of the components are standard off-the-shelf ones. And the core OS is open source -- I should know, I've made a couple of fixes myself (one is apparently in OS X 10.3).
This is a genuine concern. Give Apple a 95% market share, and who knows whether their current drive for compatibility, open standards, and quality would continue? OTOH, MS never had those in mind, even when it was tiny -- it's used predatory and unfair business practices from the word 'Go'.
However, the choice isn't just between one monopoly and another. The chances of OS X gaining 95% market share are tiny, and even a huge Mac purchase won't make that happen. What it will do is help to level the playing field a bit; once people are freer to choose a platform on merit rather than on MS's marketing and legal spend, then everyone benefits. I look for a day when many different platforms each have a reasonable market share.
You and millions of others... But it won't happen, for two reasons. First, economic: unlike MS, Apple is basically a hardware company; their software is often wonderful, but financed from hardware sales, and ultimately drives hardware purchases. To make economic sense, OS X on x86 would have to cost enough to make up for loss of hardware sales, as well as covering the development cost. Which would make it prohibitively expensive.
And second, technical. One of Apple's main selling points is that stuff Just Works(tm). And that's partly because they control the hardware. They know just what hardware they need to support and test against, and integrate the two quite strongly. (For example, look at how long Macs have been able to 'sleep' -- shutting down almost all the hardware, and yet able to wake within a second or two, with all software carrying on perfectly.) Supporting any old x86 hardware -- just like supporting any old PPC hardware -- would either take an unfeasibly large compatibility, testing and drive development department, or leave lots of OS X installations that were a bit flaky, not supporting some hardware and working badly with other. Or, more likely, both.
Why not start wishing for something more realistic? Why do we never hear Windows users saying "MS should port Windows to PPC"...?
Re:Illustration... (Score:3)
Re:Illustration... (Score:4, Insightful)
As someone who's typing this on an old Dual G4 500, I'd love to see AT&T go with new Macs. As a SysAdmin, I'd say that booting all my existing PCs with linux and Adding a Terminal Server farm to the network would make the transition much easier for the end users and much cheaper (we can still use our same software everyone is used to for the most part) for the company.
Granted, you can remote desktop to the Terminal Servers with OS X too, but you are still springing for new hardware. Either way, I have a feeling most of this is going to actually result in them getting a great "deal" from MS and them Microsoft will use this to publicly announce "See! AT&T took a serious look at Linux and Macs and decided Microsoft is the best deal".
And hey, if AT&T decided that, who am I to disagree when my lowly institution is faced with the same choice?
Re:Illustration... (Score:5, Interesting)
I laughed and told my brother that, yes, Novell can do AFP filesharing, but that reconfiguring wasn't necessary. I said just connect to the fileserver using smb, just like the windows boxes are doing. The IT guy doesn't have to do anything and won't even know they're on the system as long as they have user accounts.
Worked like a charm.
For the record, we have a 20,000 user Active Directory domain at work spread accross more than 30 locations. Some locations have Dell servers with OS X clients connected, others have Xserves with PC's connected to them. They all fully participate in our kerberos domain with single-signon enterprise-wide. No customization was required on either platform to make this happen (well except editing the smb.conf file manually to add "use spnego: yes" on the Xserves).
We've been fighting the "It's a mac" syndrome with upper management for years now. Lately we've taken to just refering to new mac installations as "Unix" installations when presenting proposals and updates. For some reason, they have no problem with that.
Macs have a long way to go before they overcome the "stigma" they developed during their classic days. Problem is, we still have a lot of "classic" macs and the users don't want to give them up. They're still productive with them - so we still have to turn AFP on on all our servers and fight the "resource-fork" hell that occurs when those files move from one OS to another or get emailed around.
I'd love to be able to mandate an upgrade, but If I did, management would say we need to "upgrade" them to Windows. I can hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth already.
Re:Can't be anything but a good thing (Score:5, Interesting)
Corporation/government etc, considers Linux. Redmond makes a sweet deal, the lever is put aside until next time.
I'm more in the mode of don't wake me until ATT&T deploy Linux enterprise wide. Then I'll pay attention, otherwise it may just be a price leverage move. MS has to make the move in price because if Linux becomes wide spread, then the critical mass can be achieved. If MS prevents critical mass and even kills Linux, then they can go back to pricing as usual.
MS can not permit Linux to reach critical mass at any cost!
Re:Can't be anything but a good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Please explain how exactly Microsoft would kill Linux.
Open source software doesn't go bankrupt.
Consideration - Employee Resistance (Score:5, Interesting)
People don't like having to learn a new operating system, especially if it is forced upon them.
What i'd do is do it piecemeal, first you get rid of office and put in open office or what other Linux suite you'd use. And continue from there.
Anyone else have solutions, or experiences, with user resistance to installing Linux or a new operating system?
Re:Consideration - Employee Resistance (Score:5, Interesting)
When you just stand there telling them the reasons its better they zone you out and don't listen. You're a computer guy talking about computer stuff they don't care to understand. But once they experience how much better it is, they want more. This is why Firefox is so successful. The difference in the immediate experience is so drastically and obviously superior to IE that people who use it for a few minutes and know how to effectively use tabs never go back.
People are skeptical and cautious about moving to a new technology unless they see an obvious benefit. But when people have already moved forward to a new technology and have experienced the obvious benefit it is impossible to move them backwards to something less convenient.
The only problem is that having a few linux boxes here, and a few windows boxes there makes the sys admins job not so good.
Re:Consideration - Employee Resistance (Score:2)
Re:Consideration - Employee Resistance (Score:5, Interesting)
Know what most people notice if I show them both?
XP has prettier colors. I kid you not. I never know quite what to say to that. It does sort of illustrate though that better technology is NOT going to mean Linux is deployed everywhere. You have to understand that the typical non-geek does not think like we do. You and I will be in awe about some new technological marvel. A user will be in awe by moving icons and brighter colors.
Not to say that all users are like that, but I'm always surprised by how many people on here think that technology will make Linux 'win' more home market share.
This is the same group of people that voted for President in 2000 - and when CNN interviewed a group of undecided voters, several of them said they were voting for Bush because they liked his tie.
So my proposal? Linux needs brighter colors. That will give it market share, and could eventually lead to Tux being elected President.
Re:Consideration - Employee Resistance (Score:3, Insightful)
This, [pricegrabber.com] for one, and this. [dirtcheapsoftware.com]
Considered together, XP and office go retail for about 450 bucks; true, big corporations pay much less, but I think that for all intent and purpose the MS guys get more than a hundred for every office PC licence sold.
given that they want to go to a yearly fee business model, you're facing an annual bill in the region of 50 USD per PC licence. That's money to me.
Anyway, it's not t
Re:Consideration - Employee Resistance (Score:2, Interesting)
The gist of it is that the problems with many IT undertakings is a lack of leadership. In the case of a mass migration to Linux or OSX or whatever else, there must be strong corporate leadership. Frequently this is not the case at all. Your idea about iteratively migrating makes some sense, but it prolongs the 'churn' time. I say migration must be done like band aid removal. One clean te
Re:Consideration - Employee Resistance (Score:5, Interesting)
you can win this one on the positive user experience front when they experience less pop-ups, spyware and the ilk.
step two is the applications [openoffice.org].
you'll win this battle with allies in the finanace department. they'll love not shelling out the big bucks for ms office licenses.
step three is the os [linux.com].
Win the battles to win the war.
Re:Consideration - Employee Resistance (Score:5, Interesting)
I think that this is the same in many industries - most of the basic stuff (web browsing and office stuff) you can easily move. When you get to your industry specific stuff that was written in .NET and uses Internet Explorer as an integral part of the application, then you run into a little trouble moving.
Re:Consideration - Employee Resistance (Score:2)
Questions?
Re:Consideration - Employee Resistance (Score:2)
Re:Consideration - Employee Resistance (Score:2)
Re:Consideration - Employee Resistance (Score:5, Interesting)
She wanted nothing to do with it. She used it for half a day, and wanted Outlook/IE back. The only functionality that was "lost" was a task-list from Outlook, which I was in the process of looking for a standalone replacement for, but she decided she hated Firefox/Thunderbird. She didn't really have any valid reasons, just some mumbling about the web-page colors not showing up right [uh, yeah whatever].
The other person I have using Firefix/Thunderbird has no problems at all. She likes it and has come to love the Tabbed browsing.
So you will definitely find people who are against ANY sort of changes. God-forbid they have to learn anything new.
DT
Re:Consideration - Employee Resistance (Score:3, Interesting)
Baby steps (Score:3, Insightful)
Sunbird is going nowhere and hasn't advanced for awhile. Until somebody cares about that project, I suggest people refrain from promoting Thunderbird for the masses.
Everyone that gets introduced to Firefox likes it. Brin
Re:Consideration - Employee Resistance (Score:5, Interesting)
It was a Debian woody, Running KDE 3.1 IIRC. I never heard from her anymore, but a couple of days later, went to her room to see if how she was doing with the system. I looked at her desktop, and found out that she had customized Kicker, had gaim setup herself and was chatting happily with it. Had Kmail and many other applications setup herself, and I when I asked her if she liked Linux, she said she didn't see much difference, but that stability was it was better than windows (she used to use windows 98). Well, I tell you this was a person with no computer experience at all, who had problems pronouncing Linux correctly in the first place. Eventually she also replaced her home computer with Linux too.
The opposite can also happen, I am now a university students and one of my firends who is a Electrical Engineering undergraduate, couldn't even stand firefox. I installed it on his computer once, and he used it for a couple of days before deciding that IE is better. (something about IE showing pictures better or something). This from a person who knows C Programming, and is a very knowledgable in his own field (chip design and etc, which scare the sh*t out of me). To be honest, a couple of his favorite websites also didn't show up correctly in Firefox, we know that's it firefox's problems, but the end-user it is.
People are really different. Some hate change, any change in the way they do their work. Others are much more open to change, and don't mind it as long as they see the benefits. It doesn't have anything to do with hoe computer-literate people are. Yes, geeks master computer stuff more easily, but then again, many geeks are also resistant to change. If they get accustomed to one specific editor (vi), they go to any lenght to bash those who are using the other editor (emacs).
Frankly, I don't think any fortune 500 company can switch to a 100% Linux soloution anytime soon. Linux has its advantages on the desktop, as does Windows. An objective person would look at each tool, and use the right tool for the right task. I agree that perhaps 80% of the computers in corporate america can easily move to Linux (and they probably should because of the TCO) but I can understand that many of those so called knowledge-workers really need applications that simply are not available on Linux.
And BTW, amd I the only one who thinks slashdot is becomming more objective everyday? I was browing some 1998 and 1999 stories in slashdot the other day, and it seemed to me that at that time, we had much more trolls and these stuff. Sure we still have them today, but if you read stories at +4 or something, then you can actually see many knowledgable people who know what they are talking about.
Re:Consideration - Employee Resistance (Score:3, Insightful)
Who knows? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who knows? (Score:3, Insightful)
If I want a plumber, I let each one know that someone else is also coming in for a quote.
If I can barter MS down using such a strategy, I can cut costs in future, without going through the tremendous upheaval that other options neccesitate.
Re:Who knows? (Score:5, Insightful)
it wasn't an effective strategy. The fact that
it is an effective strategy is reason enough to celebrate.
Re:Who knows? (Score:2)
Give the OS to them for free and they will buy your middleware because their middleware works best on their OS... go
Re:Who knows? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the little secret which is obscured in the whole, "People are only talking about Linux to get concessions from Microsoft." debate.
Microsoft would not give concessions if the threat to switch from a MS to a Linux based desktop were't a credible one . Despite how much MS protests about how Linux is not ready for the corporate desktop their actions say something completely different. If Linux truly isn't ready for extensive corporate use then MS would tell AT&T / Corporate America to go take a flying leap when they get asked for price breaks.
Re:Who knows? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who knows? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not necessarily.
Linux is not ready for the desktop. The folks at AT&T know that, otherwise they would be doing it, not *considering* it. IBM knows it, Microsoft knows it, EVERYONE knows it.
However... if Microsoft tells AT&T or any other major company with *lots* of money to take a "flying leap", what might AT&T do? They just might take a flying leap and pour money that would have gone into MS licensing towards getting Linux fully functional as a corporate desktop. Maybe they'd invest a few tens of millions into OpenOffice to get it 100% compatible with MS Office documents.
That's why Microsoft is willing to talk. Just one big company willing to make the leap would start the "linux on the corporate desktop" ball rolling. One major company like AT&T, and then Linux has street cred and everyone else will see it's a viable alternative. Just one, and it's all downhill for Microsoft from there.
Re:Who knows? (Score:4, Insightful)
Licenses can be easily seen as cost of doing business. Frequent interruptions because a Windows install is hosed is not acceptable to a productive workday.
small business is paradoxically where it's at (Score:5, Insightful)
As the article says, it seems to be the SOHO guys who are getting most keenly into Linux. This is paradoxical, because Linux ought to be easiest to adopt in a big corporate environment - easy lockdown and centralization, natural multi-user capabilities, and there's always a tech guy on hand to deal with the lack of GUI wizards and troubleshooting tools. But maybe enough small businessmen are ideologically keen on Linux for it to make headway. If so, they'll be a valuable testbed.
Re:small business is paradoxically where it's at (Score:2)
You're right (Score:3, Insightful)
I've also found it's better to roll out free software on their existing Windows systems before introducing them to Linux (usually as a mail/file/web server first).
The CIO is smart. Nothing special (Score:5, Insightful)
MS is getting exactly what they deserve. They went into panic mode over few big customers and gave deep discounts, and now all sizeable customers are filing for same discounts by issuing vague statements how they are 'looking into' linux.
So, either in the long run the MS software gets cheaper, or at some point MS says 'screw it, go linux if you are not happy with our prices' - obiviously assuming they'd still stick to windows. Then some big name actually goes thru with the switch... and we get some real world data on the actual costs. At which point MS will bring down it's prices and/or otherwise sweetens the deal to stay competitive.
This ain't rocket science...
Approaching the tipping point (Score:5, Interesting)
All software companies go this way. At some point, they have sold the product to everyone who needs it, and any growth in revenue HAS to come from price increases. They have already tried to accelerate the upgrade cycle, with little success. Many users never upgraded from Office 97 or Windows 98!
Re:Approaching the tipping point (Score:2)
Re:Approaching the tipping point (Score:2)
They will cut prices. Just wait and see. They are quite aware that their competition has a pricetag of 0$* (*not including support), and once some major defections occur, they will carefully calculate what is the 'right price' for Windows so it will be competitive with Linux. The actual cost of the licenses is just part of the equation. Support, training and application customization costs are much larger pieces. Right now the jury is still out what actu
Our experience (Score:5, Interesting)
The time required to manage the computers has gone down considerably through the introduction of OS X, and people using both Windows and Mac OS are saying they would rather not use the Windows machines simply from a user Interface experience. Additionally, more than one person has purchased Macintosh machines for their home use.
Re:Our experience (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't it sad that is about the only sane way these days to keep Windows secure?
To bad all Windows users don't use this policy!
Re:Our experience (Score:2)
Re:Our experience (Score:5, Insightful)
It is nothing more than a linux / gnome system that has no frigging software.
You are either trolling or you really have no idea of what you are talking about. OS X is so much more. We are seriously impressed with the platform allowing both a CLI access to the *nixy goodness and having a beautiful GUI on top for those less experienced. We can run all of our *NIX code with a recompile on the same box as Office, Photoshop, IDL, ImageJ, etc...etc...etc... The machines provide the easiest plug and play compatibility I have ever seen. I could go on and on here, but you get the point.
Not only that but the damn apps crash all the time
This statement is completely bogus. I call shenanigans. My experience with all of our OS X systems has been one of complete stability (more so than the IRIX box I had on my desk and much more than Windows). I have played with Linux, but for us, Linux has not worked as desktop replacements. For a server, Linux is nice although not as easy to manage as OS X.
and don't even get me started about either browser (ie and safari) both of which suck
It's true that ie on MacOS does suck and all development for ie stopped quite a while ago. It is a dead application. Safari on the other hand is a rather nice experience that is fast and provides features needed in a modern browser.
So save the MAC fan boy shit for someone not smart enough to know better.
Get a life, open your eyes and save your computer elitism for your greasy friends in the basement. Out in the real world, the whole point of using computers is to accomplish work. If a platform allows us to accomplish more work with less involvement, CIOs, CTOs and end users should be encouraged to explore options.
Re:Our experience ( I agree ) (Score:4, Interesting)
I also have the pleasure of an integrated unix desktop system which makes managing my unix servers much, much more pleasant.
once Jordan Hubbard made the jump to apple, that really caused me to look into them- after my first powerbook, I ordered the dual G5 a week later. it was just that spiffy.
I understand people getting mad and being biased because apples ARE very expensive, compared to a similar windows box. and they really aren't easy to compare, because things just don't work the same. I love my athlon64 system for playing games, but that's about it- the windows refresh, thumbnailing, etc is still as crappy on that system as on a P3/500. conversely, I really like the way all that works on a mac, it just feels more cohesive in general.
I never did drink the kool-aid, and the mac is definitely not the fastest box around (dual opterons smoke it dead) but it's very functional in a unixy way, especially if you're trying to get work DONE and not spend your time twiddling with system settings. that, and it's pretty, and it's high time we geeks learned to like pretty things
Even if they are not serious (Score:5, Interesting)
The days of unrestricted margin on prices appear to be over. MS will finally have to deliver real value for the dollar.
What a bunch of boloney (Score:5, Insightful)
Most likely, AT&T will stick with Windows, because Microsoft is addressing many of problems associated with its desktop software, including security flaws that leave it particularly vulnerable to viruses, Dickman said.
Just because Microsoft is addressing its problems doesn't mean they are going to solve them any time soon, nor does it mean they are going to disclose all of their vulnerabilities.
An AT&T spokesman said in the article, "AT&T is not actively seeking to replace Windows". Which is quite the contradiction from the article's title, "AT&T looks into closing its Windows". Of course, since when has CNet been the pinnacle of journalism.
Re:What a bunch of boloney (Score:4, Insightful)
no, seriously now, a company with 7000 installed windozes has probably grown quite dependant on them. Migrating to another platform is not something that is done overnight.
'Replacing' is a very heavy word. If they choose to move away from windows, this will be a process that'll take several years, and an extended period of mixed environments.
oh COME on ! (Score:5, Insightful)
70,000 PCs not 7,000 (Score:5, Informative)
Mac's lowest cost of ownership, ease of use (Score:5, Insightful)
Mac's always have had the lowest cost of ownership over PC's.
When the average turnover rate for a Dell is two years and the average turnover rate for Mac's is several years it's not to hard to figure out which platform is cheaper in the long run.
Of course Mac OS X is just plain gourgeous and very user friendly, happens to be very secure as well.
http://homepage.mac.com/hogfish/.Pictures/screens
It's time to give Apple a shot, dam that John Scully!
Re:Mac's lowest cost of ownership, ease of use (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing that might prove is that Dell has a better marketing team that can convince people they need a new machine every two years.
Keep in mind that with a Mac, you're still locked in to a single vendor.
Re:Mac's lowest cost of ownership, ease of use (Score:3, Insightful)
The only thing that might prove is that Dell has a better marketing team that can convince people they need a new machine every two years.
Not when this trend has been consistent for the past decade or so. Macs tend to last longer.
Re:Mac's lowest cost of ownership, ease of use (Score:3, Informative)
Now, certainly some apps that rely heavily on AltiVec (GarageBand) and newer games (UT2004) are out of this machine's reach, but for web browsing, Photoshopping, Office, even 3D modeling, everything runs at qui
Re:Mac's lowest cost of ownership, ease of use (Score:3, Insightful)
Define your use of the word "vendor."
If a business buys a PC from Dell, it's tech support staff will deal mainly with Dell for hardware and support. Microsoft support only seems to become evident when MS products have issues (excluding the OS, which would be another Dell support call). This is what I experienced working at Miles Kimball anyway, where we rolled out 1500 Dell PCs last summer before I finished my internship.
Now, with
Re:Mac's lowest cost of ownership, ease of use (Score:2)
My XP desktop looks far prettier than that screenshot, by the way. I even have a very thin top menu (Currently set to have windows maximize over it, but that's configurable) and an a
Mac on x86? (Score:2)
Linux is made for x86 machines and no new hardware is required. Then when new machines are needed you can buy them without paying insane prices for Apples or the "MS Tax". Plus, you aren't stuck with one vendor choice.
One of the toughest things, I think... (Score:5, Insightful)
I dunno about your company, but where I work, and a number of other places I know of (friends work there, ex-employment, etc...) there's a lot of stuff on the web-- time cards, change management systems, computer-based training, employee locaterators... and it all requires MSIE. It's either ActiveX, or uses proprietary MSIE broken HTML, or what-have-you, because the webmonkeys that created it know everyone has a Windows box on their desk so they could do it the easy way instead of the right way.
And so, sure, I could use Linux on the desktop. I could use OpenOffice to handle
I suspect many companies are in this boat-- the apps they run on the desktop can easily be replaced, it's the broken web stuff they're stuck with.
Footnote for parent article (Score:4, Funny)
If the information comes in the body of an email, chances are it's least Dumb.
If it's HTML encoded into the email, it's usually a bit more Dumb.
If it comes as a word
If it comes as a
If it comes as a
Next time you're at the office going through your email, think about it. The most insanely stupid stuff you get is probably powerpoint slides (and chances are, could have been done just as well in plain-text email and gotten the point across...) and the few useful pieces of email you get are probably unhindered by any sort of encoding...
-JDF
Re:Footnote for parent article (Score:3, Funny)
If it comes as a .BMP, it's mind-boggingly stupid.
Maybe Opera can save you? (Score:2, Interesting)
OpenOffice works great on all
To work with Siebel ERP i still have to fire up a Citrix session to get IE, though...
Perception is everything (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes. But the fact they can do that without beeing laughed at, means that Microsoft dominance is threatened.
And each such article, even if only used as a negotiation, further the perception that linux is a serious contender.
Run Linux if you have a lot of PC's. Otherwise OSX (Score:5, Insightful)
As much as I do love Mac's (as my 17"PB would testify
I suggest that they try Linux as well as OS X and ensure that all common internal applications can run on both. It's not exactly trival to port Linux apps to run on OS X but in many instances it's relatively easy. For those wo still need MS Office they can run Mac's. For those who can run OO.org get Linux.
Re:Run Linux if you have a lot of PC's. Otherwise (Score:3, Interesting)
You must understand a corporate IT environment:
Who else but AT&T? (Score:5, Insightful)
Options. (Score:5, Interesting)
In order for it to make sense, it has to not impede the business. After that, pretty much is negotiable.
Replacing Windows, while it can be about money, I think in this day and age of JPEG exploits, really should be about safety.
And lets, face it, MacOS is going to be safer than Windows. Less Users, Less Virus/Exploits. It's got an interface that kicks ass, and a real OS underneath.
Linux is fantastic, but lacks that user-intuitiveness in the desktop that Windows and MacOS have. (One word: Clipboards). That, and it tends to be a roll your own solution out of the box.
I think companies would/could switch to another platform if it were properly canned, but we've really not seen this outside of MacOS yet. I'd be afraid of doing 7000 desktops without some sort of already proven solution, that was user-ready (That didn't involve Sun or the word "java"
I guess I'm just pining for a G5 iMac, wishing apple would drop the price a bit. The Mac Tax is about the same as the Microsoft Tax, and you don't get the option of buying beige.
*sigh*
Re:Options. (Score:2)
This is not only a proven example of Linux working, but also a good sign: new companies can adopt Linux, and the ones running archaic, hard to change software will gradually become less important.
Windows ->FOSS ->Linux ->World Domination (Score:3, Interesting)
Well... Even if these investigations in the feasability of a migration to Linux serves no more purpose to the organisation than to threat Microsoft into giving better prices, Linux/FOSS do get a benefit from it. First of all, some of these "fake" considerations actually could succeed once they see the clear advantages over Microsofts products. Also, this is clearly good press since a large corporation is considering migrating. This might atleast make some smaller companies look in on this Linux-thing...
But I would say that trying to convince companies to start using Linux instead of Windows is the wrong approach. First introduce some FOSS on the existing desktops, OpenOffice, Firefox, etc. Install FOSS as default. If someone whines about not having Word & co, make them motivate their need of that, then buy a license if really needed. Break the Microsoft monopoly. Then slowly stop deploying Windows...
It's really a shame that Evolution and KMail doesn't have serious porting efforts to Windows. KMail really kicks ass! It's the best mailreader I have used.
And anybody that is developing intranet applications targeting IE only... You are crazy! Consider that the future probably will most likely contain some portion of Linux and MacOS X, and that IE is Windows only. What do you do the day your boss ask why the new graphic department can't use the electronic booking and invoice system?
T-TCO? (Score:3, Insightful)
;i hear the term "total cost of ownership" a lot--especially from the microsoft camp--but have any of these large corporations (or even smaller ones) considered the personnel issues that may arise from a mass migration?
;even migrating just the *server infrastructure* of their corporation to a GNU/Linux or OS X based architecture would mean that those network and system administrators--the most technologically savvy user group--would have to know those architectures fairly well, right? what about the end users?
;what i have found in my experience is that those in the IT industry who know microsoft products, know *only* MS products, and most are uncomfortable with the idea of and form of UNIX--beit BSD, or Linux kernel based.
;but have companies such as AT&T or the like taken this into consideration: that many of their MS knowledgeable IT staff may not know Unix systems, care to, or even be *capable* of learning them?
; i am not attempt to bait anyone. i am a part of the aforementioned group of MS administrators. but while i know that products such as GNU/Linux and Mac OS X may be better--in may ways--am i really prepared to migrate to these products when my IT staff may not be capable enough to administer them? am i considering my "total total cost of ownership?" and if they *aren't* ready, are they prepared to pay for their training in order to get of the microsoft merry-go-round? let's hope so.
;treehead
Re:T-TCO? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:T-TCO? (Score:2)
Of course they have - they include the cost of training or hiring personnel to work with the new technology.
the most technologically savvy user group--would have to know those architectures fairly well, right? what about the end users?
I already addressed the sysadmin/support people. Why do you think that *end users* would care what they run on their server? In large (and e
Software Assurance Program (Score:3, Interesting)
So lets drop the Linux to get cheaper windows track please.
They invented Unix, use it heavily on their systems and Linux would better intergrate. Were not talking about licenses for just Windows, you also have part of the company using Citrix to access windows when needed. They also have to pay hummingbird licenses to access their Unix machines which for servers and switches is probably 99% of the OS's that run on that equipment. Linux would save them money.
UNIX phones home (or home phones UNIX?) (Score:3, Interesting)
From what I can remember (Score:5, Informative)
Granted this was 4 years ago, and I only dealt with two call centers, but there really was no reason for them to be using Windows NT for any of the PC's in the office, whether it be the desktops for the supervisors/managers or the dummy terminals running the ascii based clients that did the backend work for the operators and the directory assistant workers.
Maybe they would be better off just popping in some unix based OS.
The other thing I can remember is all 300+ dummy terminals (from our one office; 1000+ if you counted the sister office) were maintained by one system admin. He would be able to broadcast out a new OS on those bad boys overnight without blinking an eye. One thing AT&T knows is how to network. Those bastards were tight, and the SA knew how to get the job done right the first time, on time.
Bargaining Chip (Score:3, Insightful)
Corporate Acceptance (Score:5, Informative)
You have to give big, shiny, easy options because computing shouldn't require that kind of knowledge when people are trying to look at websites and use their e-mail. You've got to sell them the OS first, and then allow them to customize to their heart's content after they can see the utility in what you're offering.
Comparatively I'm dumb to a lot of the slashdot crowd, but I imagine there must be some way to provide full binaries that are LIBRARY INDEPENDENT. Bandwidth is cheap. Hard drive space is cheap. Trying to train everyone how to use symlinks and sort through thousands of libraries using arbitrary command line options is stupid at best. But the first time someone says, "I want to do X and Y is broken!" You can tell them how to do both, and explain to them how Open Source makes it possible.
And I know POSIX compliance is important to everyone, but the directory scheme will have to go someday. What is wrong with
Sad thing is, if OS X were released for the x86 platform, half of the Linux users I know would switch the next day.
Re:Corporate Acceptance (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Corporate Acceptance (Score:3, Insightful)
Granted there are a mile ahead but not in any way as bad as you put it. Dont forget that on a corporate desktop the USER shall NOT have any access to the machine at all. There should be competent admins running the circus, not MCSE's.
AT&T, the home of Unix, uses Windows instead (Score:3, Interesting)
Naturally, it makes sense to outsource whenever possible. Perhaps that's the angle that could get OS/X or Linux back into AT&T, since there would be no need to show an in-house cost center in the form of a Unix development team.
Geesh.
A Chance for Apple (Score:3, Informative)
Is it just me or would you take a 4% profit per machine instead of a 23% profit per machine on a deal like this if you were Apple? Which actually points out a small fact. Apple still makes an average of 12% on educational sales (even more if you factor in Applecare and service plans) I think if they are serious about enterprise and education, they'd take 3-4% profit. I also think that they don't realize how many of these workers would love them and buy them for home use.
If Apple could just do this and be successful in ONE corporate entity, it would make a huge impact on other enterprise deals. The fedex deal fell through - they were only able to sell them 20% of their total computer purchase. (Which replaced about 30% of all the computers at fedex worldwide)
I imagine that AT&T will go with Linux though.
Boy, isn't this a good reason to have a headless iMac?
Corporate Audits (Score:4, Interesting)
An interesting thing was said to me while talking with our PC support manager. "We can't switch to Linux or anything else, our customers wouldn't allow it.".
I noticed a trend 10 years ago when the company I was working for first started to do business with Walmart. Customer Audits. The practice seems to have caught on especially after Y2K. As part of many business-to-business contracts are stipulations that certain known business practices are in place and adhered to.
When we enter into a contract we will sometimes state that they use XYZ software for EDI transfers. We know it, have tested it, trust it and have established our systems around it. It goes both ways. Customers will stipulate to us that we encrypt data transfers using 123 packaged software because that's what they use.
This is a common practice if the business you're in requires substantial IT interconnectivity between your business partners. We deal with some health care information as well. As a result of HIPPA and other regulations we have been audited by some of our clients who insist that we change this or that. Even down to passwords. One client contract required a password timeout of 90 days on all our desktops.
10 years ago with Walmart people were incredulous that another company could come in and dictate that in order to do business with us, you must first change this or that. Money talked and we wanted to listen. Ten years later it seems to have caught on and is now very common.
Switching to another OS sometimes is not always an option.
Pure Bargining (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong. I think that they are making a mistake by not switching to eith OSx/Linux. But this is not about switching.
An OSX story in Switzerland (Score:4, Informative)
In this article [apple.com], (sorry in German), they describe the process and the reasoning. Some highlights:
Now, I know one could do a Wintel environment with Citrix MetaFrame, in order to reduce clientside upgrade problems, but Citrix would require a larger backend.
Re:So what? (Score:2, Funny)
This is what competition is about...Sort of
Re:So what? (Score:4, Interesting)
Not a troll, it's an accurate statement. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Plan 9 (Score:2)
Realistically speaking, though, Plan9 is pretty far behind when it comes to drivers. Or it was last time I looked. Still a pretty interesting system, though.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wow, geeks STILL don't get it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Um, while I sympathise I'd like to point out that as far as analogies go, every service station will check your tyres and oil for you. Which leaves knowing "how the controls work".
Which is what is expected from and known by most users.
Substitute if you will service station for tech support or IT.
What is currently expected with most Linux distro's is oh say changing air filter, battery and occasionally assembling the engine. Cool if you know how to, a waste of time if your job only needs you to, you know, drive in a profitable way...
Depending on the skill and capacity of tech support, Linux may be great for the work place. I'm not sure if it'd be that much cheaper than mac's, hardware being such a small factor and all that, and I presume companies of that size already have the IT in place for good servicing, and I bet IT would be happier to support Linux than Windows already.
But given the fact that lots of technical people still think training is the solution to bad design and some even loath solving users' problems, I think that Linux could be a strain on relationships inside the company.
Gut feeling tells me OS X would still be a lot easier to service, with a lot less to explain and train (as if that has solved anything ever) and would get more um mileage as it were.