Linux Making Inroads, But Not At Windows' Expense 323
zaphod123 writes "According to this article, the stories about Amazon (and others) switching to Linux have been misrepresented. The Linux install has replaced a proprietary Unix system, not a Microsoft Windows product. This is still "A Good Thing" for Linux, but not the downfall of Microsoft that some have foreseen."
Try it on grandma. (Score:5, Insightful)
>Windows machines with Linux, Busch said absolutely not, noting
>the lack of "robust office packages" on that platform.
I often think that this excuse really is more like "we can't get naive users to use it without being crippled". Linux distros need to test their software on non-Unix people more. Humans. Typical office people who, if you ask them if they have a Mac or a Windows box, say, "Yeah, I think so".
>And Busch threw another wrench into any mass Linux migration by
>noting that the overall cost of Linux and Windows 2000 is almost
>identical after you factor in support and maintenance.
in other words, after you get done with the hassles of Linux, and the hassles of Win2k, the hassles of Linux are a little bit more. time=money, so the cost of that extra hassle is the same as the cost of Windows & its apps.
So much for free-as-in-beer.
This hassle is invisible to the Linux developers cuz they know how to fix or work around glitches when they arise. So it seems "easy to use" for them.
Try it on grandma. then report back.
however (Score:3, Insightful)
From the thank-you-capt-obvious department.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Solaris, their operating system, has few advantages over Linux, nowadays. Frankly, without adding the GNU tools, Solaris is virtually unusable! (And, who's gonna pay $10k for their compiler when GCC does the job?)
Sun is about to hit a brick wall. Unless they change direction dramatically, Linux is going to gobble them up, just as SGI consumed Cray. Cray was meaningful for a long time, until the capabilities of "Minis" (as Supercomputer folk like to refer to UNIX machines) silently approched the power of super computers at a fraction of the cost.
The same is happening with Linux-Sun. For a small fraction of the cost, Linux on commodity hardware (Intel) is approching the power of Sun's products. It's inevitable, without some sigificant change.
Fight the right battle (Score:5, Insightful)
Trying to get Linux to beat Windows on the desktop is fighting yesterday's battle. Want to kill Microsoft? Sap it's growth, which is in server OS's and embedded systems (XBox, Pocket PC, etc.)
The amount of energy spent by the development community in trying to be the next Microsoft is astounding, but very few vocal developers seem to even focus on what Microsoft is trying to become.
To borrow a phrase from the Old West, "Cut 'em off at the pass" and focus on making an OS that runs devices better than Windows ever will, an OS that runs DB2 and Oracle better than any other and an OS that can be extended and integrated with server side applications at compile time with more ease.
If you take away Microsoft's revenue growth, you take away their stock price. Take away their stock price and you take away their monopoly.
Re:however (Score:4, Insightful)
They could have possibly opted for Windows. So we can say that we are stealing potential sales from Microsoft and slowing it's widespread acceptance as a server OS.
But is that the whole story? Would they have even had to make a decesion like this if there hadn't been a $free alternative? Could the switch to Linux be argued if it cost the same as Solaris? What if Linux and Solaris where expensive, but Windows was free? What would the decision have been then?
Well, it doesn't matter because Linux is $free, Windows isn't, and they obviously had enough trust in it to move many systems over to it before the Christmas rush. That's really saying something.
Look closer (Score:2, Insightful)
Masses & Classes - minority rights (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, I do it the difficult way because it's more educational and I want to know what's going on and be in control. Notice how every time your super-automatic wiz-bang box craps out *I* have to come over and fix it or figure it out for you??
Re:Try it on grandma. (Score:4, Insightful)
Well the handful of clients I've seen (or switched myself) switch to Linux certainly don't bear that out. Windows installs tend to degrade over time. In no small part because they are much more likely to be run wide open in order to allow people to get their jobs done. Once they can install their own software the registery gets polluted and the machine stops working. What next? Field trip to the workstation because the remote admin on Windows is less common and less capable than Linux.
So there you have two reasons why the cost of ownership on Windows is higher. And I haven't even started talking about resurecting infected machines, making site visits only to tell the user that there is nothing that can be done because the issue is in Microsofts ticket system but they haven't done anything with it or any of the other closed source problems.
Yes, I know that solutions exist, but this was a cost discussion and the solutions cost money. With linux they are an intrinsic property of the OS.
Re:From the thank-you-capt-obvious department.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, it's definately true that you don't buy a cheapo clone and use it for a mission critical server. But on real hardware (high-end Intel, RS/6000) Linux is every bit as reliable as commercial Unix. The only thing that's missing is "hot-swap anything" features that are only available on really high-end hardware.
It's true that Linux can't go up against Sun in every market yet, but I think the original poster is correct in saying that Sun needs to do something before they lose their edge. McNealy said recently that Linux was no threat since anything new developed for Linux could be incorporated into Solaris, but that's stupid. If you're selling a higher-price product you can't compete by matching the lower priced product, you have to be better.
Much as I like Linux, (Score:4, Insightful)
But-- FreeBSD is STABLE (check longest uptimes at Netcraft when you get a chance). If I could go for 4 years without rebooting with Linux... They have even dethroned Irix when it comes to stability.
So yes, they are a very practical alternative to Linux. It is really that Solaris and HP-UX are not so practical or cost effective in the small ISP market.
I actually now believe that Linux will form a shield which will allow BSD to grow into certain niche markets, such as high-availability web servers (currently MS and Sun).
Maby there isn't a war (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Try it on grandma. (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately folks in the latter category abound (posing power users), and the only reason for their proficiency w/ Windows is sheer repitition and reading the "Windows Tips" in the back of PC magazines. Not once do they have to think their way out of a problem, as there are many aspects of Windows that frankly defy logic. Once they are confronted with a situation which is a little bit different than Windows that requires a little bit of thought, it is very easy for them to throw up their hands and call it difficult to use and too UNIX-y.
I use both Win2k and Linux, and honestly Win2k is fine for what I need it for (it is not bulletproof, tho, in my experience), but I made a (not too time-consuming, btw) commitment to learning how to use Linux, and I'll never go back. However, I think that I am not in the majority, as most people don't want to give up what is familiar.
(BTW, for people that use the argument that "abc is too hard, as I don't want to know how xyz works, I just need it to get my work done!" I say, if you are working on a computer 80% of your working time, doesn't it behoove you to seriously consider alternatives that may (or may not, certainly) allow you to get your work done in a more efficient way? Ever heard of the concept one step backward, 10 steps forward?)
So were we hoping for the downfall of MS? (Score:3, Insightful)
'opportunity costs' anyone? (Score:2, Insightful)
i mean, around the time when NT4 came out, everyone and their brother were replacing big iron (with unix) with multiple NT boxens. seems like we've managed to check that. it's only a matter of time before linux invades the NT/w2k/(whatever they're calling it this week) market.
you gotta stop their advance before you can make 'em retreat.
if i were a redmondien, i would not be happy because linux is merely replacing Unix. i would be extreamly unhappy that linux is replacing Unix. it could have been winNT/(whatever...) that was replacing unix. opportunity costs for MS. no new revenue streams. no new market shares.
gottsa love how MS and winformants can put a spin on things.
Re:From the thank-you-capt-obvious department.... (Score:0, Insightful)
Oh yah, and the fact that Linux has to be rebuilt almost from scratch by the internal development teams working at those 'high-end hardware houses' doesn't mean anything to you guys, right?
I have news for you... Solaris *is* better, and it *is* free. Do not confuse confuse the hardware with the software. please.
HEH, right.... you keep thinking that way....
Re:From the thank-you-capt-obvious department.... (Score:2, Insightful)
The fact of the matter is: IBM does the "E10K" thing much better than Sun does. They can also quite effectively leverage Linux on their "E10K solution". IBM was in the glass house before Sun even existed and IBM merely let the Penguin ride along.
Linux Isn't About Market Share (Score:3, Insightful)
As for Wininformant, yay well done. You caught the fact that a Linux win wasn't actually a Microsoft loss. Here's some more news for you: WE DON'T CARE.
shut up man
Technically, it is at MS's expense (Score:3, Insightful)
"enterprise" business from the unix vendors for
years. If linux replaces a traditional unix vendor,
you can be sure they at least considered, and rejected microsoft when considering Linux.
Only in small/mid sized offices (Score:2, Insightful)
Install their own software? They don't have the rights. If they do install their own software, their violating the AUP of the company. It's our desktop, not theirs.
When it comes down to the high TCO of a desktop, it's supporting the USERS with the APPS. That will remain whether it's NT, Linux, or Mac. Users are users.
Linux may make inroads into the corporate world (aside from small pockets of developers) when:
1. There are tools that plug into our management systems to adequately manage the desktop.
2. When we decide to stop spending millions of dollars developing our custom file management, accounting, billing, purchasing, instant messaging, telephone billing, office directory, HR, Benefits, the IE only Intranet, Remote Access, PKI, and the apps that integrate all the above, and start spending that money plus 100x more on hiring Linux coders, buying a duplicate server for each backend since they are mission critical apps we're not going to test the Linux clients hitting live servers, hire Network Admins to take care of the new test servers, hire trainers to train users how to use Linux and StarOffice, hire a slew of more technical support to handle the increased number of phone calls during the transition, hire a slew of people to handle all the document conversion issues that will inevitably come up.
Actually, it will NEVER happen because the first thing the CIO will ask is "Where's the ROI?" And when we show him the numbers, and say that converting to Linux on all the desktops will never pay off but we may break even in 10 years of not having to purchase Microsoft Office licenses for each desktop, the plan will get shitcanned. That's why we won't see Linux on the corporate desktop.
Is this on a server or a workstation? That's key. (Score:3, Insightful)
Individual user workstations are rarely "mission critical". If they crash once in a while, productivity doesn't really diminish. (Sure, they have to spend a minute or two rebooting and logging back in, and sometimes they might lose the file they were last working on - but that's the extent of it.)
Servers, on the other hand, obviously pose much bigger productivity issues if they go down. Every user connected to one is cut off from what they were doing until it reboots.
Linux shines on servers for this reason. It's markedly more reliable than the average Windows-based server. If nothing else, it saves you from doing a lot of reboots when you reconfigure things. (Make a change to Apache or Samba configuration? Just stop and restart the daemon; not the whole machine.) Win2K and XP are better than ever about imitating that functionality, but they still ask you to "restart the machine for the changes to take effect" far too often to be convenient on a server.
On a workstation though, the rules change. The biggest factors become ease-of-use and training. Most employees come with a chunk of Windows knowledge in advance. Sure, some have no clue, but even temp. agencies requires experience with using the mouse, getting around Win '9x, and using MS Office apps. When you have hundreds or thousands of employees, it starts to look really good to use a lesser-quality operating system if it means most of your workers can already get around in it with no additional training.
This is something that only time will change (and then, only if people stick with Linux and keep making efforts to improve it over the years).
Re:Nonsense. (Score:1, Insightful)
Nobody is ever gonna be enthusiastic about a machine set up as a print/file server that some hoodlum down in the mailroom has turned into a Web Server and is also launching DOS attacks on his enemy's Quake server from.
Re:Try it on grandma. (Score:2, Insightful)
That's an awful big part of it. People's time costs, what, $50/hour to $200/hour, for people who can grok being a sysadmin. (take your takehome pay, double it. this includes health insurance, electrical bills, rent on another 10x10 piece of floor, fuzzy cubicle walls, coffee machines, 10% of the cost of your manager, 1% of the cost of her manager, etc.) Therefore the two biggest costs are employees and consultants.
I figure I've personally spent thousands of dollars of my own time running Linux installers. This totally swamps whatever the "cost" of the distro was, whether $50 for a box or $0 for a CD that gets handed to me for free. It rivals and perhaps exceeds the cost of the hardware.
In fact, the $50 box is often "cheaper" cuz if the manuals that come inside can save me ONE hour of scratching my head and websurfing to find answers, it's paid for itself. And usually good manuals (or good knowledge already in my head) save lots and lots of hours.
SCSI disks are therefore "cheaper" than IDE cuz you plug it in and go. Plug N Play is not just convenient, but a money saver, when it works (yeah, yeah, don't get me started on that). And, bugs are very very expensive to work around. And, I'm typing this on a Mac, the cheapest machines on the market.