Part II: Corp. Desktop Linux - The Hard Truth 35
comforteagle writes "I've published Part II of W. McDonald Buck's essay on Linux TCO. In it he looks at the scenario of a company having already moved to Linux in the server room and also to open source software on Windows desktops, but "...now wants to know, how much extra can be saved by the final step of changing the operating system itself? And, what are the other costs, risks and benefits of doing that. To keep the scenario simple, we're assuming too that this will be done at a time when the desktop equipment is also being replaced. The news is good, but not as good as we like to believe." Part I was discussed previously on Slashdot."
Article text, in case of slashdotting (Score:2, Informative)
Part II: Corporate Desktop Linux - The Hard Truth
Enterprise Linux / Article
Date: Feb 11, 2005 - 06:39 AM
by W. McDonald Buck (slashdotting-resistant version)
In Part I (of IV) of Corporate Desktop Linux: The CTO's Hard Truth retired CTO of World Bank W. McDonald Buck wrote about the difficulty of making accurate real world assessments of Linux vs Windows TCO analyses: If Windows laden computers are less expensive or equal vs. no OS in cost for Joe Hacker.. where's the
Honest question (Score:5, Interesting)
(And please, no Stallmanesque rants about how intellectual property should be abolished. I don't have the patience for these ill-conceived prescriptive arguments.)
Re:Honest question (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Honest question (Score:2)
I've got an honest question too (Score:2)
Re:I've got an honest question too (Score:1)
Pixelate (Score:3, Interesting)
Out of the 3 you mentioned, subpixel rendering is actually the one I was thinking could prove most useful in a corporate environment. It *does* help, and with the number of LCDs making their way onto desktops today, this feature would benefit free systems (free system users) in a big way.
Whether or not the boss will take your eyestrain into consideration when choosing a business platform is another question altogether....
Re:Pixelate (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Pixelate (Score:1)
Re:Honest question (Score:3, Informative)
Eg. MP3 usage. Patent is "free", even for commercial programs, until you sell 10,000 units a year. At that point, it will cost you. Doesn't matter whether is Windows or Linux, or XXX.
Ratboy
Re:Honest question (Score:5, Informative)
Are you implying that Richard Stallman has said that intellectual property should be abolished? I doubt he would say that, considering that he doesn't even think "intellectual property" is a useful term, since copyright, patents, trademarks, trade secrets, etc. are all separate concepts governed by separate laws and having varying effects on an individual's freedom.
Perhaps this is not what you meant, but I wouldn't be surprised. It seems that every day here on /. someone inaccurately attributes all sorts of loony beliefs to Stallman. Most of his opinions are fairly cogent and reasonable. Of course, he doesn't help himself, with his unorthodox appearance and behavior, lack of social skills, and pedantry regarding unimportant topics like the whole GNU/Linux thing. Still, unlike Joe Sixpack, I would think that the typical geek would be more tolerant of such things.
Anyway, to keep this post on topic:Kind of an old issue. (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft's current inability to handle security issues is much more persuasive. Linux advocates should focus on that, instead of beating a dead horse.
Re:Kind of an old issue. (Score:3, Insightful)
Only if they want to continue to be several steps behind. Most still consider the security to be "good enough." Indeed, the "good enough" argument makes it very difficult to win most arguments on the technical merits of Linux over MS. MS is also making very public moves to improve the security of Windows. You really do have to attack their model & try to force a paradigm shift, rathe
Good Enough (Score:2)
The "good enough" argument is dead, because the spyware crisis has made it abundantly clear that Windows security is anything but. When somebody sits down at their computer and finds it unusable
Re:Good Enough (Score:2)
You said that the TCO argument hasn't worked. I meant only that IF the security argument could work now (I don't think it would), it won't work for very long. The argument is dated before the community would make it.
I am the first to criticize Windows security. But it is clearly good enough to the PHBs who sign the c
Re:Good Enough (Score:2)
Re:Kind of an old issue. (Score:3, Interesting)
I also think that most people that use Linux didn't originally switch because of cost. For myself, I put Linux on a spare laptop when I was doing contract cgi programming and wanted to be able to work offline.
Re:Kind of an old issue. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Kind of an old issue. (Score:2)
Re:Kind of an old issue. (Score:2)
Your "ignorant fuckwits" comment is particular offtarget for two reasons: (a) you can't just tell people, "shut up, we know more than you do, do as
Go thin. (Score:5, Insightful)
If the question is licensing, a net-booted corporate (Linux/FreeBSD/NetBSD) desktop wouldn't be too difficult. Run locally what the machine can handle, make sure the network is super fast, and run the apps requiring performance on the workgroup server.
This would reduce the need to upgrade lots of hardware (which will surely be obsolete again soon) and minimize downtime in the process. If need be, some legacy apps could survive under Wine locally or, again, at the workgroup server. Keep storage centralized to facilitate backups across the entire organization (OpenAFS [openafs.org]?).
It's an old way of doing things but overlooked far too often. You've obviously got to run the numbers but, surely, "a few good men" handling things on the server (they would handle the app server AND the centralized, consistent-across-the-organization, netboot image(s)) would be much less expensive than the workload on an IT staff required by an office full of people and their problems on Windows machines.
Maybe not *THE* solution, but certainly worth a look for many.
Re:Go thin. (Score:2)
Back in the mid 80s, we had centralized IT and terminals run by greybeards. Then came the PC and centralized IT got the boot. Now the PC guys are the greybeards and some of them are getting a kick in the pants by young Turks who advocate more efficient centralized IT!
I think that in large enough cities, a Linux person doesn't have to spin his wheels in a Windows shop anymore. There are enough Linux/UNIX shops around these days. The WIndows shops are the ones who are wasting money and are stuck in their old
Leaving Windows is probably not a huge TCO savings (Score:4, Insightful)
It is a matter of freedom.
The real question one should be asking is (Score:3, Insightful)
I get the suspicion that part IV will be the article that discusses this.
Re:The real question one should be asking is (Score:2, Insightful)
This whole thing... (Score:2)
Re:This whole thing... (Score:2)
You seem to be forgetting that real world companies have special wants and needs that aren't likely to be easliy compared against various other situations.
The goal here is to provide a general figure, not an exact amount for What Your Savings Will Be.
Re:This whole thing... (Score:1)
If there were substantial evidence that large Linux desktop deployments perform at least roughly as predicted, it would be time to start controlling out "special wants and needs that aren't likely to be easliy compared". But as long as it's still "City of Largo, Ernie Ball, uhhh, City of Largo", pricing purely hypothetical systems strikes me as pointless.
We're keeping a close eye (Score:3, Informative)
So we're just keeping a hopeful eye out, especially on Lotus Notes, and the desktop distros. The server bases are covered, between SuSE, samba and sybase, a majority of our operations can be moved. What we want from the desktop distros is that it should look and feel a LOT like the windows NT/2000/XP interface. Notes shouldnt be hard to port at all, its all java based anyway, IBM is dragging its feet for linux there, despite some customers asking for it.
We'll probably not be the first to go all Linux (or FreeBSD, or BeOS, or SkyOS, or ReactOS etc), but its interesting to know how far in the future we can expect it.
Complaints:
(1) Theres no single Linux distro that really looks and feels like win32. Training dozens of people to use a different interface from what theyve been using for 10 years, is something we cant stomach. Tried Fedora3 and Xandros, will try Linspire soon.
(2) Application seriousness. Everything is made for win32 first, betas appear for linux and stay beta. That doesnt fly with corporate networks. We need a FEW critical app vendors to really support Linux, once the market floats, the rest will follow suit.
(3) $$$ and energy. It takes a LOT to switch ERP systems. Takes a LOT to replace network system. Takes far more to replace everything. Sure we can do it in steps, but collectively the steps are all manhours to attain OSS nirvana, but not profit in the short term. We cant just aim for everything free, somehow, in some ways, theres still a difference between debian and readhat. things get patched in redhat and developers have to listen and work. With debian, the design and philosophy is awesome, but you cant really ASK a developer to fix that bug that is stopping your company. He'll just say fix it yourself.
(4) Assurance. Not an issue since our mgmnt hates MS, have hated it since the DEC days (which is why we ended up with lotus instead of exchange).
So we're all getting closer to the 'threshold', still not there yet.
Re:We're keeping a close eye (Score:1)
Re:We're keeping a close eye (Score:1)
If you do like windows you can stuck with it. Nobody will abuse his dominant position on the OS market in order to force you. If you want Linux to "looks and feels like win32" I think you REALLY should stuck to windows.
One important point is missed here. (Score:3, Insightful)
The servers and desktop OS are changes that the user is not much concerned with. It is changing the applications which impacts the users. Once you have changed the application set to one that is not windows dependent I have trouble believing that changing the underlying OS would have much impact at all. Basically being able to get rid of the OS fees is an inherient benefit to getting rid of OS dependent applications. After that the workstation OS can be changed at will without significant retraining of users.
Like the servers, the users do not interact with the OS directly, only with the application icons on their desktop.
Re:One important point is missed here. (Score:1)