Businesses Slow to Adopt Linux 373
milenko81 and several others submitted this CNET story about corporate spending on information technology. The reporter seems to interpret it negatively because Fortune 1000 companies aren't dumping Microsoft 100% and going for Linux. But interpret it as you will.
Well would you? (Score:3, Insightful)
If I knew I had a system that at least partially worked to my benefit, would I scrap it for a complete unknown overnight? I hightly doubt I would. If I could, I would attempt to fully stabilize the system I knew partially worked.
Microsoft has promised they can do this with Windows. To a large extent, they have delivered.
Why is everyone expecting businesses to risk their livelyhood for an operating system they hardly know? Wait until Linux makes some more headway into things; then we should see Linux used by larger and more significant businesses (and hopefully we will).
Strange negative spin (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to wonder about the negative spin on this. 24% of the largest, most conservative companies in the country are planning to use Linux next year. This is good news. Considering that two years ago nobody believed Linux could make it into enterprise datacenters, this is amazing progress.
When interpreting these figures you need to remember that:
Ask the people who buy IT (Score:2, Insightful)
100 "executives", 60% of whom thought that Windows was going to be their enterprise server of choice. Not their desktop of choice. Not some of their webservers. Their enterprise server.
The poll needed to ask those same executives what they DO use, and correlate that to what actually is used so they could remove answers from people who obviously have no involvement in their company's enterprise server purchaces. My guess is that they answered "Windows" for the same reason I told a telephone survey person that Glitton (however it's spelled) was my exterior paint of choice. It was the only name I could think of at the time, and they just wanted an answer. I answered "Glitton" to every question it was appropriate to.
It's the price, stupid! (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the deal: When you pay a cool million bucks for the software to run your enterprise, you have someone to bitch at (Microsoft) should something go horribly wrong. With Linux, the only person you can bitch at is that uber-geek you're paying $50k a year. When millions of dollars are at stake every day, you just can't trust a free piece of software.
Obviously, most of us here know this is bullshit, but it's the excuse given by every exec I've talked to. They won't trust their business to free software and a couple of geeks no matter how compelling the evidence. Even a mention of IRC as a help resource elicits manical laughter. If someone setup a high priced licensing & support system for Linux and gave it a different name, businesses might sign on. Sad but true.
One last issue: MCSEs are a dime a dozen. Any moron can administer a Windows network. I'm the only one in my group that knows enough about Linux to properly setup and maintain an enterprise server. If we implemented Linux and I left, they'd be SOL. Nobody wants to put their faith in one or two employees, especially when those employees have knowledge that is (let's face it) hard to come by. The proportion of people that can adminster a Linux server vs. those that can admin MS is huge. Probably thousands to one. It's just not easy to find a good Linux guy, let alone the 5 to 10 of them it would take to run a medium sized network.
Not surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
Most computer purchasing decisions are not made by tech-savvy developers with their finger on the pulse of modern developments. They are made by golf-playing middle management who are being bribed left right and center by their suppliers with free trips to Hawaii and other inducements.
Linux will make it in the end, but it will be because one of the pre-existing corporations or management consultancies starts pushing it, because it improves their own bottom line.
Sad but true.
This got me! (Score:5, Insightful)
And the answer to this question is not Linux because....?
What was the poll about? (Score:3, Insightful)
Low Linux Budgets ? (Score:3, Insightful)
(I'd hate to be writing supply-chain management software in that case.)
Windows, Security (Score:5, Insightful)
Does anyone else find that position absurd? If folks were interested in computer security, you'd think they would have no interest at all in Windows.
Ah, well. So it goes. Just another sign that most people are idiots.
Goldman Sachs (Score:3, Insightful)
Also note that these are Fortune 1000 companies--all really, really big, with lots of investment in MS desktops already, and some MS server infrastructure. Linux is faring much better with small companies that are strapped for cash, not bigass companies looking ways to cut people simply to increase profitability.
Also--upgrading to XP or 2000 is one of the biggest expenditures. This is _not_ a good thing. It means that big companies are shelling out tons and tons of cash simply to stay current and keep WinWord 2.0 functionality. Eventually people will realize that this is not necessary.
Even in this article, there is a spot of hope, however: they say that financial companies are quick to adopt linux, compared to other bigass Fortune 1000 companies. Maybe that's because they understand the bottom line a bit better, huh?
I wouldn't worry about this article too much. Linux isn't about big business; it's about small business and low overhead. Big business and MS can do all they want and it won't matter.
Anyways--linux is doing fine. Anybody running XP on a p2 266? If you don't get my point now, you will soon. Don't worry.
Security? (Score:4, Insightful)
Keyword: SPENDING (Score:3, Insightful)
This is always the misleading statistic when evaluating open source based software solutions. The costs, the prices, the values require a different mindset.
I could easily say that this year I'll only spend $1.95 on Linux based solutions (pocket change) and install the same ISO copy image on dozens of servers doing different dedicated tasks very nicely.
Because the equivalent deployment in the Windows based world with licensing terms costs hundreds or thousands of times as much money, should I then conclude the Linux is failing to catch on in the enterprise?
I don't think so.
Re:Not commercial = bad? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's the same with speaker wire. People assume that monster wire for speakers / Svideo
Image, Image, Image... (Score:3, Insightful)
(*SIGH*) The big advantage that M$ has always had over LINUX is that it controls spin on its image very well - at least where it counts. Grunts in the trenches can scream as much as we want, but executives don't see many Blue Screens of Death. Therefore, the perceptions of the different options differ between top and bottom of the management pyramid.
The other perception problem is that decision makers are (quite correctly) rooted in the here and now. They are not interested in hearing about security holes or bugs that present potentional problems, even if the potential consequences are catastrophic. Let's face it - most of the night terrors that techies have with M$ products have to do with the exceptional scenarios (hack attacks, cascading failures, etc) that might occur rather than the merely horrific ones we do face. I mean, the "house of cards" dread I get in my stomach when dealing with these things always seem to outweigh specific, documented incidents I can point out to a manager.
The problem is... (Score:3, Insightful)
I work at one of those companies, and we employ Linux servers for all sorts of things - which is funny because as far as the VP is concerned we are a Novell/HP Unix shop.
Linux does not always have a professional face. (Score:5, Insightful)
If nothing else, at least with Windows there's a large company with financial interest behind it all. Sure, Windows sucks in lots of ways, but at least you won't find them generally working toward what customers want.
With Linux, it's a bit scarier. Not so much with the kernel as with desktop environments and applications. With WordPerfect for Linux, I felt like I was just being used as a pawn by Corel to get a foothold in a new market, and the quality of the software was secondary. Miguel, of Gnome fame, often sounds an overly idealistic college student. It makes me stop and think "Should I really be letting this guy determine the direction of the software my company uses?" Sure, you can pick and choose different products, but with Windows you don't have to. If you go with Windows 2000 or XP and Microsoft Office (or just Word) then you don't have to worry about making the wrong choice. There's often too much personal agenda behind open source software for Linux.
Why do we keep hearing this (Score:2, Insightful)
Linus Torvalds: "I don't actually follow other operating systems much. I don't compete - I just worry about making Linux better than itself, not others."
Now I would love to see every Fortune 1000 company run out and get Linux there is nothing more in this world that would thrill me than to see Microsoft file chapter 13 (expecialy after trying to stop non IE browsers from accessing msn arrrg!)
Maybe I am off on this, I am not a programmer or a kernel hacker i am just a simple user
Re:More clueless executives ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Linux does not always have a professional face. (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's say you decide to add a USPS address parser to your favorite open source program that validates the Zip and the city via an xml-rpc interface to a server on your company with Linux&&apache&&(Perl||Python)... You can! And if it's great and you send it to the maintainers of that piece of software, they might put it in the official release, and then, everyone will have it...
Can you ask Microsoft to do that in WordXP? Would they do it? Might they sell that back to you as a "feature" in WordXP2004? You betcha...
Why businesses don't want ot switch (Score:2, Insightful)
Imagine switching not only their email program, but also their office suite and their OS. Widespread pandamonium! The cost (Linux may be free, but training certainly isn't!) is too much.
Re:It's the price, stupid! (Score:3, Insightful)
>that is free can be worth a damn.
This is a matter of cognitive dissonance.
If you put effort into something, it has greater worth to you. If you spend money on something,
it has greater value. This is one area where
using "common sense" can get you into trouble.
It's what keeps people in bad relationships, it's
what makes people spend more repairing their old
worn-out car than they would in payments on a new car, and it's what makes an expensive software solution more appropriate than a free one.
"Corporate Execs" shouldn't be choosing enterprise server software. Their involvement should probably be no closer than a hiring decision for the person who has a specialized skill set for that task.
>When you pay a cool million bucks for the
>software to run your enterprise, you have
>someone to bitch at (Microsoft) should something
>go horribly wrong.
Where is the list of companies and individuals that have gone against Microsoft in a legal venue, and prevailed?
Has anyone ever sued Microsoft and won?
Doesn't the EULA totally take away the whole "someone to bitch at" theory?
Everyone is wrong, Linux is right (Score:3, Insightful)
The double standard on Slashdot is hard to believe. If my neighbor Joe installs Red Hat Linux, Slashdot is first to post a story about it. But when a bona fide story comes out saying Linux isn't gaining as much marketplace acceptance as everyone thought it was, we all rush to find reasons why the report is wrong.
There's a big difference between, as Michael puts it, "dumping Microsoft 100%," and, as the Goldman Sachs analyst stated, "with Linux...virtually not registering on our survey." But interpret it as you will.
"Don't have to" is an interesting point (Score:3, Insightful)
I hate to say it, but you're right. Microsoft software does get the job done almost every time. Linux has clear wins in some areas, mainly the stability (predictability) of the overall system and, of course, price. But with any given piece of software you have to ask, "Does this do everything I need?" You have to ask that question less frequently with Microsoft products, because they're usually the ones defining what everyone else needs by virtue of already having it. They may suck in other areas, but if you need that feature, there's a program for Windows that has it. This is only true in Linux if you install large amounts of software from sometimes obscure sources, meanwhile increasing the complexity of the whole system through adding features piecewise and losing the stability advantage. This isn't always true, and many companies will have the expertise to make Linux and its applications work, and work better, than Windows could ever hope to. But still, you have to ask that pesky question.
Re:Cost of linux administration cost of windows (Score:2, Insightful)
a: Windows is getting much better in this regard, though *nix systems (Linux especially) still have spotty driver support at best. Ever try getting Linux running on Dell's high end raid cards?
b: Depends on what the windows machine is doing and if it has the hardware to support such uptimes. Windows machines have the downside that most patches require reboot.
c: Funny. I assume you're joking of course, because it's trivial to get smb file sharing, apache, and smb printing on a win2k machine. As long as you've got the bandwidth and hardware to support the load your clients will put on it, the machine will run great. (granted you'll need quite a bit more ram, and a little more processor power, but win2k serving the print & file services will invariably be more reliable from a compatability point of view than samba)
And as one replier already mentioned you will still need a competant admin to make all of this acceptably secure and stable, which there are much fewer competant windows admins than unix admins (proctologically extruded fact)
Reasons why... (Score:5, Insightful)
2) large customers get benefits, real or imagined, from being a good customer of a company like microsoft
2) Bill Gates
working at a certain large company, there was a new project that the software development folks were working on planning. The business customer demanded
One of Linux's weak points is that in the world of big business, there aren't people that can leverage a new product like Microsoft can. I guess most people here would say thats a good thing, but it isn't helping fortune 500 companies choose to ditch microsoft.
Re:Strange negative spin (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Not commercial = bad? (Score:2, Insightful)
They're listening. They're just tuned into a different channel. Businesspeople rate success monetarily. Microsoft makes a *lot* of money, therefore they are a Good Company (tm).
Re:Cost of linux administration cost of windows (Score:3, Insightful)
the cost of admining any server is directly dependent on what tasks the server has to accomplish.
Some server tasks are far more time consuming than others. For instance running a file/print server means you spend most of your time performing backups and adding users, printers... setting permissions. Oh and recovering files from tape when users delete them.
Any time you see an argument purporting that Unix is easier to admin than WinNT or Novell it's coming from someone who has never spent any time administering real servers.
Such as this idiot I'm responding to.
Re:Not commercial = bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod up the parent, somebody, because this is the crux of the matter.
Where I work there are approx 4000 staff in about 40 offices worldwide. Office numbers range from ~10 to ~1000. We have about 250 production servers all running NT (or 2000). The cost per head for MS is about $20 per person per year in support (this is the money we pay MS, not how much support costs), and about $400 per person one off payment for licencing (OS + office + CALS) - this does us for any related product XP (office, workstation and - I think - server).
Our goal is to cut that spend. But the licence money is dead money - we don't get a refund if we don't use the products. We also don't get a reduction in direct MS support costs if we have, say, 100 of the 250 servers running Linux.
Where we can make a start is nibbling round the edges - for example proxy server is not included, so we can use Linux and Squid. Except (SFAIK) Squid does not integrate with things like Websense which we need to block sites (nothing draconian - mainly web e-mail to stop viruses and web porn to stop lawsuits).
And we could use Apache, but that is a direct increase in support costs. IIS is free (or rather, we're paying for it whether we use it or not, and we'd have to pay more to use something else) however crap it is - and as our servers don't accept anonymous connections the Code Reds had little effect (so no convenient lever there either).
And then we come to the real killer - our business systems (which are extremely good - easily the best of any company I've worked for) are built about MS products - IIS, index server, Exchange, MS SQL held together with NT authentication. It would (will) be a huge undertaking to move these to anything else.
There are chinks of light in this - the MS product line is changing, and a lot of the code is being rewritten anyway, so rewritting in the direction of vanilla or standards will help now (so redoing the MSSQL app to use only vanilla SQL will take an important step towards portability -it may not perform as well, but hell - this is a time when hardware can and should be thrown at a problem).
Another killer is Exchange - there is nothing I can go to management and say "We should look to replace Exchange with XXXXXX" (and, before there is a flurry of "sendmails", Exchange is not just e-mail - in fact think of exchange as an enterprise PDA that also does e-mail).
Anyway, a few thoughts about something that has been exercising my mind a lot recently - any other ideas to get out of the MS lock-in?
Stop claiming that Linux is free idiots! (Score:5, Insightful)
Go buy the high-end Red Hat distribution. We did this for a client that knows we were using OpenBSD off a $30 CD. We also buy the nice Red Hat distribution.
Call up Red Hat and set up a support arrangement. They are a reasonable sized company. Alternatively, call IBM.
The advantage with Microsoft is that if you are a big company (say, the Fortune 1000 in the article) you get the special phone line for support, etc. Microsoft supports the Fortune 1000 a little differently than your pirated copies of Win95.
Don't sell them on free. Tell them that you worked with Red Hat's OS, and you found that it is better suited to this project. Inform them that you can reduce downtime (their real concern) instead of a couple grand on licenses.
More importantly, emphasize that it will save you time.
We don't use Linux or *BSD on desktops, it is too expensive.
Win2K or even WinXP involves a short installation procedure (before lunch) then come back and finish. Setting up a Linux desktop (for a technology guy, not end users) takes a few days of playing. Win2K tweaking with fun apps takes $1000 in software (including a $200 shareware budget) and you're good to go.
Look at your salaries. See what it costs your company to have you putzing around for days.
BTW: with the MS licenses and a point-and-click installer, how much time does it take to get another server up and running. Including your downloading Redhat over the corporate T1 (or whatever), how much of your time is spent putzing around on IRC, etc.
Sure, IRC is nice for REALLY hard problems. However, having a server down for 1-2 days while you troll USENET or IRC for help isn't acceptable.
Next time a MS solution is being proposed, try to get 24 hours to stall. Take the same list of software, and the budget, and CALL Red Hat Sales. Tell them what is going on, and ask them to put in a bid.
Alternative, call a Linux consultant, and work with them to put in a bid for the implementation AND for the Red Hat support contract. If the Red Hat fee is less, show that to management.
You all would get a LOT more credibility with management if:
A) You dress like professionals (I did NT Consulting for 4 years... we all wore a nice shirt and khakis... the Linux guys would often wear jeans, it makes a difference; my BSD shop does it too, it matters)
B) Emphasize solutions, not technology (they are looking for a solution, show that you understand this. Emphasize the savings in downtime, not licensing fees.
C) Focus on REAL cost savings. Don't CONSIDER unsupported downloaded applications. Discuss support agreements, Red Hat Network, etc.
Geeze, this isn't rocket science guys, understand what the executive is trying to accomplish.
Alex
Re:Linux does not always have a professional face. (Score:2, Insightful)
>anything Word is capable of (or, at
>least, that I could figure out how to get
>Word to do), it's easier
*Anything*? Hmm.. how about mail-merge that a secretary with a liberal arts education can manage? How 'bout not-professional-grade, but adequate text effects (including three-d (whee!))? How about changing fonts and colors in a document without needing to flash a Mensa membership badge? How about a scripting language (VBA) (though admittedly abused for writing viruses -- though that's a implementation fault, not the language's) that a 5 year old can use, as opposed to some parenthesized abomination (exaggerating here
Point is: emacs and word were designed for different audiences. Get over it.
PS. Tried emacs. didn't like it. stayed with vim. with perl bolted onto it, don't really miss elisp much.
Re:Linux does not always have a professional face. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's the price, stupid! (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, I don't think that I agree. Of course, I might be misunderstanding what you're saying and arguing with that. In any case, I think that windows breeds bad admins.
Let's use DNS as an example. The guy who admins bind knows that there are two db's that have to be maintained. He knows that the two can get out of sync. But the windows admin just uses a gui or a wizard. All of the intelligence is built into the wizard. Consequently, you end up with windows DNS systems that are responsible for a name->address zone, but wrongly think they're also responsible for the corresponding address->name zone.
How many other wizards are there that hide the underlying infrastructure from the windows admin? Plenty. And they're breeding a huge number of people who don't really know what's going on, but think they do. Then when something breaks they have no idea why and no clue how to fix it.
$.02.
Cheers.
Re:Not commercial = bad? (Score:3, Insightful)
There appears to be a "managment" definition of support which is something like "Give me someone to blame if it goes wrong" and a "techie" definition which is more "fix it or tell me how to fix it and give me all the relevent information I need to stop it going wrong in the first place".
Whilst management dosn't understand the "techie" definition. They also don't tend to realise that the techies consider the "management" definition a sick joke which gets in the way of their being able to do their jobs.
Let alone the senario of a "helpline" where the person making the call knows more about the software than whoever is ment to be helping them.