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.
Re:Try it on grandma. (Score:5, Informative)
It is true that the majority of Linux wins are at the expense of UNIX, which explains the support of Sun and IBM (if you can't beat them, join 'em). However, there is a little more to this that meets the eye.
Proprietary UNIX is great in some niche markets, but it does not compete cost-effectively with Linux or Windows. If the migration costs were the issue, why would people be moving both to Windows 2000 and Linux from UNIX, not just Linux? This trend is also evident when one looks at the Netcraft numbers (and actually reads their comments).
The real issue, though, is that adding Linux servers IN PLACE OF Windows 2000 servers for certain tasks may also be happening. If people are already switching from UNIX to NT-based OS's, then Linux's wins are definitely at Windows expense, in denied market share rather than in lost market share (Windows never had the market share to begin with). All of this is on the server.
Also, the data in the article was out of date (about 2 yerars old). Linux currently has about 2% desktop market share in the corporate environment accordign to the IDC as of last Feb. (I assume that most of these are technical workstations). But again, this may deny the 64-bit XP some market share as time goes on.
Now for the ease-of-use question:
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.
On a corporate level, yes. On an individual level, not so sure. I have watched people who are not computer gurus struggle endlessly with the insanity of WIndows. So it is not really newbie friendly either. In fact the only newbie friendly OS is arguably Mac OS!
However, I have found that newbies that get started with Linux learn much more rapidly about their computer because it is more transparent. A good example of this is my parents, who went from being lost on Windows 95 to being lost on Red Hat 6.1. Funny thing, if I set up the desktop with their use in mind, they had fewer problems than they did with Windows 95. They started using their computer more, and now (even though they no longer use Windows) are able to help all their friends use Windows. So I think that Windows is "user friendly" because that is what people have struggled with and put a lot of effort into learning. Not that it is innately so. Expect Linux to take more of the desktop in the next few years...
Re:Try it on grandma. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Try it on grandma. (Score:2)
Re:Try it on grandma. (Score:2)
Re:Try it on grandma. (Score:2)
where I point out that:
don't even try pushing the pOS that is Solaris for intel
Re:Try it on grandma. (Score:2)
Hardware, hardware, hardware. Solaris x86 is sometimes called Slowaris because its performance is really not that great. And for the rest, well, you need a Sparc.... Commodity software that has reasonable performance on commodity hardware is more cost-effective.
Re:Try it on grandma. (Score:2)
Please elaborate. I don't see any special features of new IBM servers that makes them really stand apart from the new Sun servers.
The poster said mainframes, not servers. (Although IBM is calling their mainframe an "enterprise server"). Check out this [ibm.com] page for clues on what kinds of things you can do with Linux on a mainframe. I'm going to the "Installing Linux on zSeries" class in early December, so I'll know more after that time
For starters, you can run up to 40,000 independent virtual Linux servers in a single 48U rack nowadays. The S/390 virtualizes itself in hardware, so all the virtual machines think they're the only ones running on the chip. A year-old analysis put the crossover point of virtual Linux hosts costing less than an equivalent number of Sun servers at about 650. That gives you about 39,350 "free" additional servers at no hardware cost. Creating a new virtual machine takes approximately 90 seconds.
If you've ever been in a Qwest hosting center's server room, then you can fathom the scale of consolidating 40,000 servers into one 48U rack. From what I've heard, companies that go after this typically run up to 10,000 virtual servers.
Re:Try it on grandma. (Score:2)
Sadly, my grandma passed away before I got to introduce here to Linux, but my mom didn't have any trouble when she finally upgraded to the digital age (her previous word processing platform was a typewriter, 1920s Royale as I recall). The next least technical people I know (my wife and sister) also didn't had any problems. My sister actually thinks it's easier to use than Windows, although she was working the front desk at VA so she didn't have to worry about her printer not working (that's been my only headache with Linux).
Having recently migrated to Win2k at work and SuSE 7.1 at home, I have to say that the windows migration was much more of a hassle. Strangely, most of the problems I had with Win2k were due to lack of drivers. (I still haven't been able to get our plotter working, but at least our CAD software doesn't crash 5 times a day anymore).
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?)
Re:Try it on grandma. (Score:2)
I have also encountered those that know nothing and are confirmed they cannot ever understand nor remember anything. This leads to problem that no matter what you say they keep saying "this is too hard", "I don't understand this computer thing", "I should probably write that down". Usually they are afraid to try anything by their own because they could break something too. There's pretty much no hope with these kind of people nor the people that think they know everything already. Of course you could give them something that cannot be broken and in the same time gives perspective to computers and computing in whole that they realize they are allowed to try, allowed to make mistakes and they never can know everything. This something remains to be found.
I think that making everything transparent and "easy" to use is problem. Computers are compared to cars every now and then and cars are claimed to be easy to use. If you didn't know anything about cars you couldn't even get into one! Think about it. Your average car user knows about fuel, engine, wheels, lights and stuff. One isn't allowed to drive before going through course. Beginners are allowed to use new computers without teaching anything because "windows is easy to use". New users should be told briefly about CPUs, different kinds of memory (system memory, CD, HDD here) and idea behind multitasking and networking. They don't need to know details unless they want to. They need to know something about internals to make them sure about themself to be able to try things.
Linux doesn't need to be another windows or macos to be successive on desktop. We need programs that work (not that copy'n'paste by select, click middle button - if you have one - and hope it works), some basic tools with simple interface and cool background pictures. CLI shouldn't be avoided. Saying what you want is intuitive. You should be able to type/say "browser" or "internet" instead of clicking that "e" looking icon that's told to be browser. "image editor" or "view" instead of clicking eye with text "Adobe Photoshop" and so on. UNIX isn't much better here (netscape, emacs, vi, chdir, sed, gimp; would you know from name what they're used for?)
Re:Try it on grandma. (Score:4, Interesting)
Funny how these people used to be quite proficient with things like word perfect for dos and quattro pro for dos. If they were forced to go back to that, they would use it. It is their job, after all. They are capable, but everyone gives them the pointy-clicky thing that they can use, but never really understand. It used to be that people actually understood the tools they used to get their work done, since they actually *HAD* to read manuals on using that tool. Nowadays they are just amusing toys that actually get in the way more than help.
The hassles you speak of are imaginary. If people knew their tools, no matter what those tools may be, there is no hassle. The problem these days is you have people using tools that they certainly do not understand, and there is no incentive for them to do so.
Re:Try it on grandma. (Score:2)
I agree with his assessment. I certainly do NOT think that everything should be answered with RTFM. In fact, I think that the ultimate OS is one that requires a basic 5 minute class to get to a basic level (or a five-page manual) with the option of learning the material in the 3000 page manual. But that IS where Linux is. I can teach most beginners how to get their work done in 5 minutes or less. Fixing the OS is another matter (of course it is at least as hard in Windows) and it will always be for most Operating Systems! That is why we have IT people in the first place!
The difference is that people were comfortable with Word Perfect for DOS and its manual. They are not so comfortable with Linux and I think that we can all attest to the effect that panic or discomfort has on our ability to operate computers. Who here has missed obvious answers because you have not been comfortable with your environment? I think all of us can say we have. "User-friendly" really DOES mean "user-comfortable."
Linux users for the most part come from people who get up the courage to try something different, not necessarily those that know anything when they get into it. My parents are great examples of this. But they end up learning a lot faster than Windows users because in the end, the learning curve is flatter.
Re:Try it on grandma. (Score:2)
Grandma loves her Cobalt Qube. Web Server, NAT, multi-platform file server, firewall. AN instruction manual smaller and simpler than her new barbeque grill. and not a command line in sight.
Also remember: every happy TiVO user is a happy Linux user....
Re:Try it on grandma. (Score:2)
<pet-peeve>
Don't confuse the operating system with the user environment.
</pet-peeve>
The only happy TiVO users that are happy Linux users are the ones who know that Linux is the OS underneath it all. But even that doesn't ensure that they care. All they care about is that, when they hit the Pause button, live TV pauses.
It's easy to look at TiVO, or Qube, and say that Linux is easy to use. But each of those devices has a very specific task, with a user experience designed to make that task as easy as possible. TiVO works because it looks and behaves like a super-intelligent VCR. A desktop PC running Linux could do everything TiVO does, but you have to do all of the installation and configuration for the hardware, drivers, and software. There aren't too many grandmas that can pull that off.
To put it more simply: If the average user wanted to do it themselves, they'd already be running Linux. And Apple would be selling iMacs as kits.
Re:Try it on grandma. (Score:2)
Hey, he said Linux, not GNU/Linux!
<ducks>
Re:Try it on grandma. (Score:2)
Grandma doesn't fix or work around glitches anyway. She calls you. So wouldn't it be best to give her a system that you can quickly and easily fix...even remotely via SSH (assuming the link between her and her ISP isn't what is broken) In addition, grandma can't accidentally fuck up system stuff on her linux box like she can windoze9X.
Re:Try it on grandma. (Score:2, Informative)
On the other hand, a friend of mine recently decided to install Linux (Debian) on her PC. She lives 300 km away, so I had to support her by phone, and we spent countless hours on the phone walking through the install procedure and the config files to get her system up and decently running. Supporting a newbee on the phone is certainly the best way to discover how horrible Linux can be.
Conclusion ? Grandma certainly cannot use Windows without substantial help, but Linux is rather unuseable as well. Personally, I learned to use Unix before I ever saw Windows, so I find Windows pretty painful. I think neither Windows nor Linux is user-friendly - it just depends on what you are familiar with.
Re:Try it on grandma. (Score:3, Funny)
Solves that problem.
LoB
Re:Try it on grandma. (Score:2)
Until Linux distros & software creators start using UI people who _aren't_ programmers first, they'll never have truly usable software. Programmers are not UI people, and UI people aren't programmers. I've _never_ encountered someone who could do both well.
Re:Try it on grandma. (Score:2)
The biggest "problem" we've had so far is that they try to double click icons on the desktop, opening the app twice - but except for one person I can think of, when we told them that you can change the launch action to be a double click through the KDE menu, they said, "No, I like this better...I just need to get used to it."
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.
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:Try it on grandma. (Score:2, Interesting)
Have you checked what a the price of a Microsoft win2k license is nowadays? Not to mention the $$$/minute to call MS support?
And don't forget the viruses, patches etc... (time spent on making the system run the way it was supposed to run out of the box).
I'm sorry if this sounds like a flame, its not supposed to be - all I'm saying is running a server costs a lot more than an admin's paycheck.
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.
Architects, HCI experts. (Score:2)
Apple and Microsoft have the clout to do that. It's the benefit of a cathedral approach: you get to have a design pope. Gnome/GTK and KDE/Qt are trying to do that, too, but I doubt that they are going to have a lot of success creating consistency when they're already competing with each other. The proliferation of distros makes that job all the harder.
however (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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.
Re:From the thank-you-capt-obvious department.... (Score:4, Flamebait)
I disagree, and it's not because I work at Sun. Commodity hardware is not nearly on a par regarding uptime and reliability as Commercial hardware. People don't buy Sun because it's cheap. People buy Sun because it WORKS. If you think I'm biased, replace Sun with IBM or SGI or Compaq or any other corporate entity that builds server hardware. You don't base your $$$ infrastructure on a $2k LinTel machine.
Sure, you can build a rather good system [google.com] with commodity hardware. The PHB's MAY allow the techies to install Linux around the network. But when it comes to making a mission-critical application, they're not going to allow them to run down to PC Joe's, pick up a $2k box, install a $30 OS and believe it will run 24/7 without failure.
Re:From the thank-you-capt-obvious department.... (Score:2)
How would you rate Solaris on commodity hardware or Linux on Sun hardware?
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.
Hot swap not missing (Score:2)
Hmmm... Linux supports hot spares on Raid Arrays and will hot swap the SCSI disks if the bus supports it. So that point is moot. See the Software-RAID howto for details.
OK. I will feed the troll.... (Score:2)
Does "Single User OS" mean anything to you? What about Cooperative multitasking. Running a server on Dos is like setting up a Solaris/CDE workstation and giving it to your grandma...
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?
Cool. YOu mean that Red Hat really doesn't do anything? Or IBM when we are looking at Linux?
And that is obviously why companies are really happy to move from Sun/Solaris to IBM/Linux?
Re:From the thank-you-capt-obvious department.... (Score:2, Informative)
I work in a Sun based datacenter. Just yesterday I got in a Ultra 10 that would not boot because they had the jumpers configured wrong on the HD's (two internal IDE's). A few months ago we purchased a E250 that arrived with a dead motherboard. We also have had a A5200 disk enclusure that the sun hardware reps had to totally tear down and replace every board in it to make it work, and it sill only works if you remove the A interface board (which means we don't have the redundent IO paths).
I could go on and on with the hardware failures that we've had at our small datacenter (we only have about 30 machines). Surfice it to say, Sun's hardware sucks these days.
Re:From the thank-you-capt-obvious department.... (Score:2)
No, they're going to allow you to call up Dell, buy 2 $1.5k boxes, and configure them for high availability [linux-ha.org]. Of course, there's some labor costs involved here to get to Sun-equivalence in terms of guaranteed uptime, but I'm selling my labor, not Sun (or Dell, for that matter) hardware. And hardware + labor still comes in way below Sun.
Re: Sure Sun "just works" - but so what? (Score:2)
I'd argue that they aren't. I can buy a refurbished Dell Poweredge server for under $9000 that includes a 3 year on-site warranty, and has plenty of hard drive space, CPU power and RAM to compete head-to-head with most servers I see people using from Sun with Solaris on them.
One problem I see with Sun hardware is that it's so pricy, people tend to hang onto it for a longer time before replacing it. That's not very sensible, because it leaves them behind sites on Intel platforms doing aregular 2-3 year upgrade cycle. (The Intel admins probably spend the same or less for 2 complete systems than was spent for one Sun server.)
If you have new systems every 2 or 3 years, you don't really need to be concerned if it's built well enough to run reliably for 7 or 8 years, now do you?
Re: Sure Sun "just works" - but so what? (Score:2)
That's the hardware requirement -- very good odds that nothing will break. Software requirement is, first, the only reason to _ever_ reboot is if you had to shut down to replace hardware, and second, a way to automatically switchover to the backup server if there is a hardware failure.If you see a Windows system in that sort of application, the person in charge is an idiot -- simply because rebooting to install a security patch is unacceptable.
Re:From the thank-you-capt-obvious department.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's see, so we hire 10 people at 80k a piece to manage our 500 machine cluster, which will need to be replaced every 4 years at a minimum, just so that we can utilize a free OS?
Or, do we shell out some bucks up front, and get fault tolerant hardware, running an OS in a 5th generation VM environment, that will only require 2 people to manage, and will not need to be replaced for at least 10-15 years. (Upgrades not being considered replacements)
I'll stick with Sun, thanks. I'd much rather deal with a single machine, using extremely fault-tolerant tech than having to deal with 500 commodity pc's that are going to go through the usual 4 year replacement cycle.
Linux and Sun both have their place. Linux is a nice server, and a moderate desktop OS for the tech-savvy (at least I use it as a desktop). It's good for ftp servers, web servers, even small to mid database servers. Sun, on the other hand, is great for extremely high availability situations, where the 0.001% of down time in a 99.999% uptime plan could cost the company a few million in revenue.
Linux is saturating the low end market. Good! The low end market could use some low-cost & stable server software that runs on inexpensive hardware. But Sun caters more to the high end market where uptime is critical and data-sets are unbelievably large.
And no, Intel is no where near doing what Sun can already do. Go shoot your precious linux server with a
So...how was linux going to kill Sun again?
Re:From the thank-you-capt-obvious department.... (Score:2)
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.
Very very wrong: here's why (Score:5, Interesting)
Not only do I admin and program on Solaris boxes, I'm also a GCC library maintainer. There're my qualifications.
"Frankly," you're utterly wrong. Not only is Solaris just fine and dandy, it has features for programmers which aren't anywhere near to showing up on Linux. For example:
Linux has none of these.
Severely uninformed statement, my friend. GCC doesn't generate SPARC code nearly as well as Sun's compiler. (Ask the GCC developers.) It's good but it's not there yet.
GCC cannot even generate a 64-bit binary yet. (Very close, but still some bugs.)
There are plenty of reasons to buy a SPARC, and to use Solaris, and to use Sun's software. It's all about the right tool for the right job, and Linux quite often isn't it. (I write this sitting on a Linux box.) Quit'cher karma whoring. :-)
Re:From the thank-you-capt-obvious department.... (Score:2, Funny)
Shhhhhhh! Quiet! All you're going to accomplish with crazy talk like that is to get RMS on a tirade about how it should be called GNU/Solaris.
Steven
Yes, it IS at MS's expense!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
Besides that fact, it's still a VERY good thing for Linux, as Amazon is a HUGE online retail operation that serves as a model for many other businesses. That's how Linux is becoming successful - word of mouth and trial by fire. Linux proves itself in a very fast and competitive market, and more people jump on. Of course *NIX and BSD systems will be the first to be replaced, because the people who maintain them aren't as afraid to make the jump to Linux (they're already somewhat familiar with it). Give it time, though, and you'll see quite a few former MS boxen turning over to linux.
I mean, honestly, two years ago, did you ever think linux would have about 24% of the server market? No! So of course it seems impossible that it might steal an even bigger share - and thus there will always be those who doubt that it will ever happen. But slowly, it WILL happen. It's already happening.
Re:Yes, it IS at MS's expense!!! (Score:2, Interesting)
Imagine the cost to port over a bunch of stuff already created in a UNIX environment to Windows. It wasn't necessarily the cost of the windows boxen as much as it was the porting.
Going from Sun to Linux is much easier than *NIX to Windows.
Re:Yes, it IS at MS's expense!!! (Score:2)
Re:Yes, it IS at MS's expense!!! (Score:2)
But people like DomainZero are migrating from Solaris to Windows 2000. The real problem is that proprietary UNIX is hurt by economy-of-scale issues and is too expensive. Migrating to Linux OR Windows is an immense savings.
Re:Yes, it IS at MS's expense!!! (Score:2)
Going from Sun to Linux is much easier than *NIX to Windows.
Quite so.
I'm positive that the software migration costs were a compelling factor in Amazon's decision to migrate from *NIX to Linux. So Linux becomes entrenched in a high visibility mission-critical application where its benefits can be proven.
That steals the new servers from MS that might have gone to NT/2K, but that's not the difficult fight.
What will be really difficult, as we all know very well, is in 2-3 years time when the decision needs to be made again. Change from Linux to Windows - why? Linux works like a champ and costs dirt cheap to run. Result: Stick with Linux.
Change Windows to Linux? Ummm...well everything on the Windows side is cross-linked between multiple MS applications, OS, authentication schemes that haven't made it into Samba yet, need a Passport, etc. so that a change is a significant undertaking. Result: Stick with Windows.
Summing up:
Going from Sun to Linux is much easier than *NIX to Windows and both are easier than going from Windows to *NIX.
I think it's mostly a people problem, with all the newthink lessons required of the Windows IT support staff.
How many native Windows IT guys have been able to unplug one part of a large Windows shop operation and replug a Linux solution and have it just play? What motivation do they have to do so?
Re:Yes, it IS at MS's expense!!! (Score:2)
Linux has killed that DEAD. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Microsoft's licensing structure is more like the Unix vendors of old -- i.e. the customers hate it -- and Linux has become the "works just as well for much less money" alternative to MS's server products where MS is strongest: file and print serving.
This is why Microsoft is pushing services. They've found that their old plan for growth, high end servers, isn't going to be the homerun they thought it would be. Look at their datacenter product. It doesn't have the advantages that they used with the desktop / low end server market. You can't just bung it on any hardware, and you can't afford ANYTHING that brings your system down (the OS has to be rock solid). And that cost's $$$. So thier datacenter OS is limited to only approved hardware and from what I understand ain't exactly cheaper than any comparible Unix offering. If you can't beat 'em on features and/or price you're not going to dominate the market.
If services don't take hold the way MS wants them too they could be in a world of hurt. They've got nowhere to grow. The desktop is saturated, and Linux is going to keep them in check on the low end of the server market.
Re:Yes, it IS at MS's expense!!! (Score:2)
But, that wasn't a difficult plan -- UNIX has always been *almost* a commodity business -- the whole sell of "Open Systems" (POSIX, SUS) is that it's cheap for the customer to switch vendors. So, it's no shock that GNU's Not Unix has been moderatly successful over the last 15+ years.
Now, Microsoft has never played that game -- they're job is to get entrenched and become irreplacable. They only become irrelevant when they fail to provide the services that people need. Much like IBM mainframes, they won't be so much replaced but bypassed.
Re:Yes, it IS at MS's expense!!! (Score:2)
Water runs downhill. Windows is at the top, and linux is at the bottom. The hill is not very steep. Eventually, all the water will be at the bottom of the hill. The only thing that could change this is if Microsoft started giving Windows away for free.
--Bob
Maybe one particular case misrepresented, not all. (Score:2, Informative)
Regardless of what that article says, the costs are very real and companies are definitely considering it. Perhaps one or two cases may have been misinterpreted, but by and large the case for converting to Linux has not been mispresented.
--jordan
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:Fight the right battle (Score:2)
Been there, tried that, still running Solaris.
When RedHat discontinued Sparc support, it removed the key selling point to management - running the same software on the same operating system on different platforms. I've since tried SuSE 7.1, but the 2.4 kernel didn't work on 32-bit machines, and it has even *less* applications out of the box due to their insistence on only using free software. (I'm sure Stallman would approve, but try explaining that to the users!)
Still waiting for Sun to get a Clue(tm)...
You are right (Score:2)
What this means is that many different companies will have their own plans and these may include the desktop. When the desktop becomes a real option for most people, then these companies will be able to be there. Developers should continue to work on whatever products they find interesting.
This also means that we can deny market share to Microsoft in the short run by making companies like Amazon stwitch to Linux rather than Windows, and present a long-term threat to Windows.
Had this same kind of discussion with a co-worker. (Score:2)
It's still awfully hard to penetrate into markets where the people involved are only aware of doing things a certain way. I can recall having a job in college where I became responsible for a file server running a quite old version of NetWare. I wasn't thrilled about it and the company that sold the box to my employer wasn't around anymore to support it. But it ran and I prayed that the box wouldn't conk out, because I feared having to convince my boss to migrate to another OS.
Re:Had this same kind of discussion with a co-work (Score:2)
Yeah, but Novell is around (for the moment) and can support their products like gangbusters. Novell tech support has answers to just about anything that can happen to your machine - they have seen it all. We still run 4.11 just because it is so damn stable and you cannot replace ZENworks with anything - nothing even comes close.
Re:Had this same kind of discussion with a co-work (Score:2)
Yeah... I seem to remember a story about one being walled in... I think it was even slashdotted...
Support is everything. I have been very impressed with the supportability of Linux over Windows and that may eventually be what moves market share...
Winformant? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Winformant? (Score:2)
Re:Winformant? (Score:2)
I was looking for someone to say those three little letters before I did and it was you. I particularly liked this little piece of propaganda.
Another point these Linux adoption stories fail to mention is the cost of transitioning from Windows to Linux; this cost is the reason so few companies are undertaking such an action.
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.
Sounds like it came straight out of Redmond.
Re:Winformant? (Score:2)
He's a much more fair and balanced reporter of news than any "editor" at slashdot, that's for sure. You'll notice he doesn't use a icon of a Penguin in front of a USSR flag as the logo for Linux stories.
Still Important (Score:2, Interesting)
Free Software / Linux advocates should be glad that: 1) the best a multi-billion dollar corporation can do is mimic some of the very unoriginal trolls around here; and 2) companies are not being trolled.
Hey WinInformant reads /.! (Score:2)
Where's my credit??
Nonsense. (Score:2)
Linux (for now) competes on low end (mostly Intel) hardware. The biggest player on the low-end by far is Microsoft, so that's who's most affected. Users who switch from proprietary Unix to Linux do so because they see a cost benefit from switching to low-end hardware. If Linux weren't there then they would be forced to go to MS.
It is true that Linux has clobbered the main lown-end Unix: SCO. Good riddence :-).
One thing that does surprise me is that Windows is still so popular on basic file & print servers. These machines don't run any special software, so they should be simple to replace with Linux boxen. We just got a Cobalt cube in our office and it's really neat. Setup is fast (like 3 minutes!) and painless, and it does everything you need from a small office server. Why aren't these things more popular?
Linux in '05 (Score:2)
2005?! Like, in 3 years, right? This is said as if it's bad. Linux overtaking NT in the server market by 2005 sounds like one of the first realistic goals I've heard for the OS community.
At least it's much more realistic than the standard"Tonight? Tonight we take over the world" refrain.
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:Masses & Classes - minority rights (Score:2)
Ease of use is not restricted to how easy it is to teach grandma to use konqueror in Linux compared to Explorer in windows. It also has a lot to do with how easy it is to fix things when they go wrong, how easy it is to set up a box. In Linux, it simply is not easy. It's hard, takes a lot of learning and practice. People don't have time for that.
I love screwing around, tinkering, breaking and fixing things too, but until Linux can solve the ease of use/setup problem there's no way average people are going to put up with it.
Windows is the current "standard" (Score:2)
Of course - most anyone skilled enough at general PC operation enough to use Linux is going to be aware of the massive ammount of software that assumes you are running in a Windows environment. Therefore, they are going to have some copy of Windows for the sake of convenience to be able to use that software if the need arises.
Note though that this only means that Linux owners are going to have SOME copy of Windows. Not necissarily the latest.
Two heads better than one? (Score:2)
Having more than one version available gives more options to people and allows for several niche distros of *nix. It also presents several targets for MS instead of allowing them to focus their sights on one "problem".
With a single *nix front, we would be able to address concerns across more installs, and consolidate the knowledge from more sources to improve the overall product.
I'm not sure which way is best, and more than likely a hybrid will be the end result, and for the better. What's the feeling here about all of this?
Re:Two heads better than one? (Score:2)
Good point I suppose, but I don't see how it would be prevented by having only Linux.
Honestly, what options are you missing in Linux? And of those, how many couldn't be available within a year if somebody threw some resources at them?
Linux already serves most niche markets, be it server, desktop, embedded, supercomputing, etc. That's the beauty of it, because of it's open source nature it can be all things to all people, and the lessons learned by one niche percolate through to the others, thereby improving the whole.
Linux is not a single entity like AIX (for example), and I think it is inappropriate to think of it in those terms. Linux is not a business.
That said though, I think BSD will always be around, for the same reasons Linux will be, regardless of success or failure to grab marketshare.
Re:Two heads better than one? (Score:2)
Cautious reply (Score:2)
That heing said, more developer market share is better and provides a stronger base. I think that once proprietary OSs become beaten, I think we should look at the possiblity of making an Linux source code available for Free/OpenBSD developers. Obviously, this cannot happen until the Proprietary OS market is no longer viable. This would, however, help everyone out by allowing a greater degree of code sharing and good will...
Biased story pulls a bait-and-switch (Score:2)
He talks about how Amazon and Intel switched some servers from $$IX to Linux, and says that the "anti-Microsoft" press has been mis-representing these moves.
Then he quotes an Intel executive saying that they haven't even considered switching their MS based systems to Linux. The implication being that NT is doing a great job in their back office. But the reason given for not making the switch is "lack of 'robust office packages'"!
So, the story, apparently, is that neither Amazon nor Intel dare run NT in the FIRST PLACE.
Or, to put my own bias on the shelf for a moment, Amazon and Intel see Linux a preferable alternative to NT/Win2k as a server platform.
How is this a win for MS?
-Peter
PS: This post was generated on a Linux desktop.
Re:your brain pulls a bait-and-switch (Score:2)
The fact is that NT and commercial UNIXes have some of the same downsides. License costs, license compliance costs, etc. Whereas all OSes have some maintenance and support costs. Surely you have to look at each situation, but the FUD that says "MS software has lower TCO in all situations" is patently false. Witness your own example, migrating from another UNIX. (BTW, NT is supposed to be a POSIX OS. Given this claim by MS it shouldn't be any harder to migrate from a commercial UNIX to NT than from a commercial UNIX to Linux.)
Anyway, how does cost explain away the author using a quote about the lack of an acceptable office suite to explain how Amazon and Intel not switching to NT for their servers isn't a bait-and-switch? And loss for MS? (Assuming that this is a zero-sum game, which it must be given the finite nature of hardware.)
The bottom line, I think, is that this guy is wrapped up in MS, and thinks that anything trumpeting Linux successes is somehow "anti-microsoft." I wouldn't have been so put off by this, but his article is basically accusing the "anti-Microsoft" press (InfoWorld!) of dishonestly pushing some anti-MS agenda, and backs up his argument with an intellectually dishonest argument.
Finally, let me say that I'm not "anti-microsoft." I am "pro" software that gives me more freedom. I am against MS illegal business practices. But I think you are trying to take the easy way out by just labeling me "anti-microsoft" rather than addressing my complaint.
-Peter
Re:your brain pulls a bait-and-switch (Score:2)
1. Has nothing to do with the "anti-Microsoft press."
2. Doesn't address the hypocracy of an article that complains that the "anti-Microsoft press" is abusing its position by abusing his postion.
It seems like you both are having difficulty seeing that "server" and "desktop" are two different things.
Oh, and I forgot to mention before, get a fucking login.
-Peter
au contraire, they're running scared (Score:2)
Microsoft is already a monopoly on the desktop, and all they are left with is clinging to that with challenges from all sides.
Re:au contraire, they're running scared (Score:3, Interesting)
- First they ignore you
- Then they laugh at you
- Then they fight you
- Then you win.
Seems we're at #3...Microsoft not going away (Score:2)
The market will split into 3 basic genres. You'll still have the Apple/Macintosh vanguard, as those diehards won't disappear. Apple's done a good job of keeping that core audience, and they'll still have them. Microsoft will become less of a business solution and more of a home system. People still want an easy to set up system, and Microsoft gives them that. However, companies are already getting sick of MS licsensing and bugs. That leads to the major change, Linux will become the system of choice for businesses. Given 5-10 years, install and administration of Linux distros will be as simple as Microsoft's are now. Look at how far the last 5 years has brought Linux if you don't believe me. Businesses will go with the low cost implementation that Linux provides over the headaches that come with MS. Programs like StarOffice will make the transition of the business side less painful. Companies like Sun will find themselves having to shift priorities away from the OS in order to survive.
In short, Microsoft will stay a dominant player in the home PC field, with Apple being the secondary choice. However, businesses will tend to go with the cheaper and less bug prone Linux for their own installs. Of course, that's just my viewpoint on things. Your mileage may vary.
World domination doesn't mean ousting Microsoft (Score:2)
Linux will dominate the world with or without displacing existing Microsoft systems. Simply put, the potential future installed base of information systems is probably less than a percent of a percent today.
Microsoft will certainly be involved in many of the future ones, but Linux offers so many more advantages that its use will far exceed any benefits to be found in a Microsoft offering.
Won't win the desktop? Who cares! Why try to beat the McDonalds of the computing industry when there are plenty of kosher delis, sushi bars, trattorias, cafes, gyro places, hot dog stands, russian tea rooms, and so many other styles and qualities of restaurants that haven't been built yet?
Linux sucks in apps for Internet/Desktop, Stop ! (Score:2, Interesting)
There is no internet browser that could be found as a decent one - and VERY far from good -, and about decent office apps only StarOffice could do the job badly if compared to Office2000/XP, etc...
Plus there is the problem of nothing is working on the desktop - end of the question! Everything is crippled, except KDE!
Everything is beta software when they release the "new/improved whatsoever" to make Linux users buy a new distro release; I speak from my own experience. They want (the distributions) to make money with the desktop, that's all.
I love and use Linux/FreeBSD only in text mode and for servers with grafical tools, NOT on day-to-day desktop/office computers. For me this is very sad, believe me on this one, because I feel Linux is superior but lacks a general strategy for the desktop, there is no master ideia, each Linux person/develloper/distribution have its own master ideia and its own standard, nobody is united by a common way of thinking about desktop usage. very sad like I said.
Like someone said above: "I am (was more on the past) a Linux desktop lover, not a windows hater", too.
Maby there isn't a war (Score:3, Insightful)
So were we hoping for the downfall of MS? (Score:3, Insightful)
This raises an important issue for OpenSourceLobby (Score:3, Informative)
So the question is this: how much effort should we devote to pushing Linux and BSD as alternatives to close-source OS's?
My answer to that question is "not much". We need to focus on our main adversary: Microsoft. John Q. Public and Buford T. Congressman are probably not going care much about which version of Un*x somebody ought to choose, but will care very much about whether to use Windows.
In short, "open source Un*x or close source Un*x?" is simply not on the political map, and doesn't need to be.
-Miko
'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.
MS Positioned NT as UNIX Killer (Score:2, Interesting)
Funny, everyone ASSumed they switched from Windows (Score:2)
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.
But what would the Windows growth curve have been (Score:4, Interesting)
Five years ago, as NT was replacing Netware in most enterprises, many predicted that Unix systems would be the next to fall under the Windows steamroller. However, in cases where simplicity and the availability of commodity hardware are more important than raw performance and scalability, people are turning to Linux to replace Unix systems, not Windows.
So while Linux may not have made major inroads in replacing existing Windows servers, it has prevented Microsoft's hegemony on the desktop to spread to the server side, and has given Unix (generically) a new lease on life.
I think that's a pretty major story.
If they can't sell more systems, they are screwed (Score:2)
What bull. Microsoft have anything to do with this article? Sure sounds like spin to me.
LoB
Re:Obviously there's truth to that. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Obviously there's truth to that. (Score:2)
> Switching from Windows to *nix is a 100% change in platform. That's VERY VERY expensive to do, which is why you'll find almost nobody doing it.
Yeah, and companies never have to retrain their staffs or rework their software when they upgrade Windows, do they?
As usual, the people you describe are pinching pennies for the short run and costing themselves dearly over the long run, by sticking with a system owned by a robber baron and changed at his whims, rather than moving to a system based on open standards.
Re:Obviously there's truth to that. (Score:2)
I've never been 'trained'. It's always been assumed, in any job I held, that I would sink or swim on my own, and I'd better damn well get with the program if I wanted to keep the new job. I don't complain about this method; it separates the morons from the people who can actually do the job.
What all of these complaints about training tell me is that the IT staff in most organizations is just plain useless for anything other than a driver install or mucking about with the Control Panel. Christ. Talk about dead weight.
Max
Re:Obviously there's truth to that. (Score:2, Informative)
B. Screw application. What about the CODE?? If Amazon was written in ASP with heavy use of COM objects, you'd have to do a multi-million dollar re-write to make it into a CGI/C application. Administrators are by-and-large button pushers. It's the application that's expensive, not the administration.
Re:Still a hit to Microsoft (Score:2)
Yep. The biggest problem with MSFT for the past few years is that MS has saturated the desktop and stalled out in its grab for server space. MS needs growth to keep those inflated share prices up.
Also, even though Linux is "competing" mostly with Sun these days, every time an organization adopts Linux for any reason Linux becomes more visible and more credible.
Those who wish to view the history of the universe as a struggle between Linux and Microsoft can still see this as Linux moving to consolidate its base by rallying the rebels and independents throughout {the galaxy, Middle Earth} before going over to the offensive against the strongholds of the {Empire, Dark Lord}.
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).
OK but... (Score:2)