Midsize Businesses Not Considering Linux? 418
LukePieStalker writes "eWeek is running a
piece
about a research report which concludes that Linux is not even
on the radar screen for midsize businesses. The survey involved
over 1,400 executives of companies with annual revenue around $250 to
$500 million. It seems that, while smaller companies may see the
licensing savings as being significant, and larger companies have
the expertise to manage it, bringing Linux into a midsize Windows
shop creates a multiplatform organization which is prohibitively
complicated and expensive to manage. Unfortunately, companies of
this size comprise the bulk of American business. Quote: "Linux is
free, but the support for it is not.""
Something to Think About (Score:5, Insightful)
Keep in mind, while medium sized businesses may "comprise the bulk of American business", this is only the current situation. As smaller businesses grow, there will be an influx of Linux based organizations in the medium-sized business world. Adding Linux to a Windows based infrastructure is inherintly more expensive (because you have to pay for the upkeep of two systems). But a computing infrastructure based entirely on Linux is, as far as I know, cheaper in the long run.
Also, as Linux becomes a better candidate for a desktop platform, its adoption as a viable computing platform will only increase. The state of Linux is, now, significantly more advanced than it was just 2 years ago. 2 years from now, even more so.
Re:Something to Think About (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, many companies don't provide adequate Windows support; they expect their employees to know how to install softwear, connect to servers, etc. If anything goes wrong the IT department only knows to re-install Windows. That's the real problem: the employees don't know how to use UNIX, so the "support staff" (i.e., the employees) will need re-training if they introduce UNIX. Now, if they had a proper IT department, this would be a few dozen people, but as it is they'd need to train everybody. Cheaper to stick with Windows for the sheeple.
Re:Something to Think About (Score:3, Funny)
Does that come in a size nine?
Re:Something to Think About (Score:4, Insightful)
So come on corporate America, think of another excuse, you're still full of shit, as per usual. Billy-bitches, the lot of you! Hell, buy some Macs for desktop use and then I'd believe you. OS X boxen seem to almost support themselves these days. And all that money you save on desktop support you can spend on *NIX backend support. Or another executive benefit, although we prefer the former.
Re:Something to Think About (Score:3, Interesting)
C'mon pal, it should go without saying that any sizeable IT department with any sense about them is not going to jump both feet first into swaping out all of their enterprise and end user systems. With the advances Mac (and linux too) have made in integrating simply and tightly into heterogeneous environments It's quite painless to
Re:Something to Think About (Score:5, Insightful)
Cheaper to stick with Windows for the sheeple.
And it probably is, actually. IT is so important to most companies these days that there are relatively large budgets dedicated to it even though IT is not the core of their business.
At least with Windows they know what to expect and they have something they paid for that they can blame (rightly or wrongly) for fuckups. Plus, Windows is getting better and better and the average user is getting to be more knowledgeable.
Re:Something to Think About (Score:3, Insightful)
If there were something like a "stable" apt repository for windows users, imagine the down time that would be saved. That's a bit of knowledge that IT managers should take a look at.
Join us... Debian is the real future... be one with us...
just kidding, run what you want, and be happy or whatever
Re:Something to Think About (Score:3, Insightful)
Add that to the inherent resistance to change, the cost of retraining users to work on a Linux system at the desktop (or at the mail server, since Exchange/Outlook is a large component of many organisations, together with the tightly integrated AD) and it is an uphill struggle.
I use Linux at
Re:Something to Think About (Score:3, Interesting)
This might not actually be true if you take a look at the costs involved. Most computer users today have at least a general understanding of how Windows works, this means that for a mid-sized business a dedicated IT position is not necessary. By eliminating an entire position the mid-sized business will probably save more per year than they would spend on Windows licenses.
You also have to take into c
Re:Something to Think About (Score:5, Informative)
> not considering Linux.
We are. I would love to convert our shop to all-Linux tomorrow.
Problem is, mid-sized business use midrange apps. E.g. Forth Shift, Visual Manufacturing, etc. Which were written in the late 80s/early 90s. For the Windows API.
Changing out a business management system is no trivial task for a midsized company, and not undertaken lightly. If and when these midrange vendors compile Linux versions (web-based really doesn't work for high-volume ERP transactions), then we can look at moving to Linux. But unfortunately not before.
sPh
Re:This is what terminal services is for. (Score:3, Insightful)
And your savings comes from the time spent, you need WAY fewer admins to ma
Re:This is what terminal services is for. (Score:3, Informative)
When they are given a locked down environment work tends to migrate off the locked down environment to a completely uncontrolled environment (home systems, personal laptops, PDA's, physical notebooks...). Now thin client doesn't requ
Re:This is what terminal services is for. (Score:3, Informative)
Um, it doesn't matter if they like it or not. They are using thier company's computers, not thier home computers.
Of course, depending on job function the user may ligitimatly need to install apps...but it should be locked down so tha
Re:This is what terminal services is for. (Score:3, Insightful)
They can want all they want, but they are not allowed to. The reasons are many, such as licensing, and possible conflicts with other business-critical applications. They can go home and play sysadmin there.
work tends to migrate off the locked down environment to a completely uncontrolled environment (home systems, personal laptops, PDA's, physical notebooks...)
One can be easily fi
Re:Have you reported the bugs yet? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Something to Think About (Score:3, Interesting)
Most of them were written to what we now call the Win16 APIs: Windows 3.1, 3.0 and in a few cases Windows 386 and its predecessors. Or ported from DOS to Windows 3.1 using some sort of CLI-to-GUI tool. They are slowly moving toward the Win32 API (and I yell at my vendors every week to recompi
Re:Something to Think About (Score:3, Insightful)
sPh
Firewalls (Score:5, Interesting)
One particular scenario was a firewall. I suggested a Linux firewall due to the lower upfront cost. Now, there were a Microsoft shop, but a firewall is not something that has to be administered everyday (when it is working properly). Instead they decided to go with a Checkpoint firewall that cost them a hell of a lot more than what the support costs would have been for a Linux firewall. The interesting thing was they did not need all the features that were provided by a Checkpoint firewall.
Use your knowledge. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Paranoia (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no conflict of interest in providing security for competing businesses. You have a contract with each business to protect their network infrastructure. You do not have a contract to help their business succeed or to assist them in any other way. You specifically don't have any interest in helping one company to accomplish illegal acts of corporate espionage. Your interest is to protect each network and there is no conflicting interest for you to take any other action. It isn't at all like the case of, say, a law firm representing two competing businesses. While there may be a small number of managers who won't grasp that, most business people are familiar with a company providing services to multiple organizations, including competitors. Do you think they worry about the power compnay cutting off their power in order to help a competitor? How about UPS letting the competitor look through their packages? The phone company letting them listen to phone calls?
Re:Firewalls (Score:3, Insightful)
Why don't you try this as an experiment. Pretend that someone else built a firewall for the company three years ago. They left and it has been untouched in all that time. Imagine that it suddenly goes down, the whole office if offline, and nobody (including yourself) at the company knows anything about the mysterious firewall.
Now, try
Re:Firewalls (Score:3, Insightful)
It also could be because people will pay a fair bit to mitigate risks that they don't understand. Tax time reminds me that I'm that way with accounting. Doing the tax forms myself would save me the dough I spend on my accountant, and it would probably be cheaper in the long run, even including my time. But taxes and the IRS are such a comp
Re:Firewalls (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the problem: A firewall today is not just about "Linux kernel + iptables." Those Checkpoint boxes (and others) are full featured "security appliances" as they call them. They have features such as:
- application proxies to filter / virus-scan / monitor content: HTTP, FTP, SMTP, etc. (so you can say.. stop employees in the sales dept. from playing games on Pogo during 9-5.. to give an example of the granularity of control available)
- network monitors and various intrusion detection / prevention methods
- complete mobile VPN services, including dynamic firewalling rules
- user authentication services (used for VPN, proxies, replication to other network services, etc.)
- very complete GUI admin tool / management console. (and multiple security devices can be linked together throughout the company..)
- daily automated security updates (virus updates, IDS signatures, firewall software updates, etc.)
Can you do that all with free Linux distros and available OSS tools.. Mostly. Will you be saving any money by the time you've got all the raw materials kludged together into a working solution? Nope.
The Open Source community has failed miserably at producing real-world solutions. It has produced an enourmous amount of quality raw material. (And if you examine the commercial firewall solutions, you'll find much OSS being used internally!)
I think there is a good solution to this: The major free Linux/BSD distros need to have subprojects focused on specific needs. For example, there should be a "Debian/Firewall" sub-distro. (note: not a fork) It should provide a more or less ready-out-of-the-box firewall solution using pre-integrated "best of breed" components from the base Debian distro. If there are shortcomings discovered, the improvements can be fed back into the base distro using standard processes. If there are flaws found in the raw materials, this is a perfect way to make sure that OSS meets real world needs through user feedback.
Now apply this principle to all major areas of network services.. mail servers, file servers, web servers, etc. As long as there is a decent web based admin interface, there will be no problem getting organizations full of Windows-only IT staff to use more OSS. (And meanwhile all the old-school Unix folks are squirming in their seats.. Sorry folks, I don't like it either, but sometimes pragmatism is required. There simply aren't enough smart Unix people to go around. So we either compromise or we let proprietary software continue to dominate the industry.)
Re:Firewalls (Score:3, Insightful)
It's my understanding that proper security requires a layered approach. A firewall should only be a firewall and run no other services. Obviously IDS needs to run on the external interface, but proxy servers shouldn't (they're basically a yes/no application, not something that needs direct external connectivity), and things like VPN need to live on the internal side. A network diagram would look like:
Internet
|
Firewall/IDS ------- Incoming only log box with console access only
Re:Firewalls (Score:3, Interesting)
by saying that they have a magic cure for everything and it is this bingzingpop software for windows that any monkey can administer. appearance is everything. selling security like that is selling a good feeling, dreams and giving a scapegoat to blame if something goes south - having not that much to do with what the product actually does. most of
They even tossed in calendaring.... in a survey... (Score:5, Interesting)
Probably not in some major capacity, but I suspect it's there. All in all, maybe that is why they are in the mid sized category! [Think outside the box] Just kidding... mostly.
However, one thing about the article really annoyed me and that was the calendaring functions.
Not to go crazy on this one, but what is the big deal is requiring your calendar and address book be tied to your email client. I guess somewhere along the line everyone got mixed up and decided this is the way life should be.
It's not difficult to seperate the three and it is certainly not difficult to use them together (ie, mailto link, ldap interface for address). Then if you are really slick your address book ldap elements for your email clients are meta tables based on an extended set of data available... so you get to squeeze tons more information into a relatively organized space.
That said, I have to get around to configure Open-Xchange for work and setting up the outlook clients with the connector plugin. The suits really love that stuff... me... I just want them to use the ticket system more.
It would be nice if Evolution had a win32 port.
Re:They even tossed in calendaring.... in a survey (Score:2)
That said, I work in a Mac shop and we get that already with Mail.app, iCal, and the Address Book, so you're right that it doesn't require tight integration. But folks like the id
Re:They even tossed in calendaring.... in a survey (Score:2, Insightful)
It's the best of both worlds, I suppose.
Re:They even tossed in calendaring.... in a survey (Score:2)
Re:They even tossed in calendaring.... in a survey (Score:3, Insightful)
Off all the move Microsoft made toward customer lock-in, I think tying Outlook and Exchange together with closed protocol was the smartest. Making Exchange 2000 depend on Active Directory was the second smartest. Now that the suit are in love with Outlook and that most people equat
Re:They even tossed in calendaring.... in a survey (Score:3, Informative)
I'm IT manager for a a relatively small company, with 20ish salespeople on the road, trying to sell our (one shot) product. My company uses exclusively linux (SuSE 9) servers except for our accounting software, about 20 (yep, 20) of them. mail, printing, file sharing, firewalls, VPN, ...
Well, we decided to outsource the appointment taking for our salespeople to another company and provide our salespeople with PDAs to sync with their calendars inst
Re:They even tossed in calendaring.... in a survey (Score:3, Informative)
Apart from the fact that people don't like having 5 or 6 apps running all the time and getting in the way (think alt-tab and having it cluttered with apps you have to run all day like email, calendering, etc.. to get full use out of them), email integration provides an eays way to invite and manage meetings.
I create a meeting and email the invites to the attendees. They click a single button
Call Microsoft for Support (Score:3, Informative)
Or issue an open purchase requisition.
Bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
It might be true that the management doesn't know, though.
Re:Bullshit (Score:3, Informative)
I have deployed fileservers (Samba) as well as other kinds of backend systems.When it doesn't show itself to the user, they don't care.
Re:Bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
A survey will be answered by suits in companies that large, and they tend to know nothing of the Linux installations in their company.
This survey would mean something if they asked the techies, the admins, the people who actually do something.
Also, many companies use Linux on WLAN APs or NAS solutions or the like without even knowing it.
Their Loss (Score:3, Interesting)
Not entirely... (Score:3, Interesting)
Amen! Their loss. What a great pity it all is. (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, uhm so what?
This more users argument is stupid. MS clearly disproves the theory that more users makes better software. Of course more coders seeing code should most certainly be helpful in numerous ways, but that's a completely different issue. More clueless users whining about what they don't like though? Who cares? Let them stay away in droves.
All the better as far as I'm concerned. Free software doesn't need business. This is the whole point of free software. Business is irrelevant. This is why MS is, in fact, a monopoly: free software is not competing with Microsoft because free software is free. You're not competing if you're not in the same market and free software is certainly not in MS's market.
Moreover, free software will inevitably drain that market, but observe that this is not the same as being in the market. It's more like an alternative to the market that demonstrates how ridiculous the whole metaphor of a market was for a product that had no physical existence and could be re-created more or less infinitely without costs worth tabulating.
Open Source is the awakening to the fact that software is too important to be shackled to arcane and inappropriate systems like markets which are effective only under conditions of scarcity. Open Source is the beginning of the real software of the future and its destiny is most certainly manifest. Geek hippies will rule the world!
So, when these businesses get broadsided by other businesses that do reduce their costs by using free and open software then this petty crap will no longer be an issue. It's just a matter of time.
Until then, what difference does it make other than being fodder for a pissing contest in the IT press. FOSS will be just fine with or without these businesses.
This is great news for small businesses (Score:3, Interesting)
If it wasn't for Linux, Apache, MySQL, and Perl, some of us would be hard pressed to stay in business.
magnitude (Score:5, Funny)
That's midsize?!
Re:magnitude (Score:2)
Re:magnitude (Score:2)
Re:magnitude (Score:3, Informative)
I worked for a wholesale/retail liquor store company that did about 300 million in sales a year with only about 30 total stores. They were not *BIG* but they weren't a small mom and pop business either.
They wouldn't have allowed Linux in their IT department either if I hadn't been there. I had the knowledge to do it. Even then, it only started with an email server and only because we had such trouble with our ISP's email services.
Re:magnitude (Score:2)
Re:magnitude (Score:2)
That's midsize?!
I could easily see that being mid-size in some markets. One of my jobs is at a small (8-person) consulting shop, and we have annual total revenue well over $200k. How much of that is profit is a very different question. Dell and other big companies tend to think of small businesses having 100 or so workstations; assuming line
Talk about spin (Score:5, Insightful)
- Almost half of respondents said they had "no interest" in Linux.
- Of the companies where Linux is not already installed, 48 percent have no interest and an additional 15 percent are not sure."
So to sum it up, 27 percent already use Linux and of those who don't more than half are interested in it, while an other 15 percent are not sure.
How someone can conclude that this means midsize bussinesses are not considering Linux is beyond me.
minor quibble (Score:5, Informative)
Not quite right.
100 % total - 27 % with linux = 73 % without
of whom 100 % total - 48 % not interested - 15 % unsure = only 37 % of those without linux are interested
73 % without linux x 37 % of them interested = 27 % without linux but interested
I agree with your general point though - 27 % use linux, and a further 27 % are interested in it. 54 % are either using linux or interested it it. That hardly qualifies as "off the radar"
From TFA (Score:5, Interesting)
I.e., not sysadmins or developers. I think it's quite reasonable to assume that in many cases, the people actually doing the work are using whatever tool best fits the task -- unless they're hamstrung by stupid company policies, of course -- and not bothering to tell the PHBs, either because they don't think it's worth mentioning or because they're afraid of being shut down.
Re:From TFA (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of these places have systems they have been using for a decade or more. It's going to take a while for them to "see the light" so to speak and just convert everything over to Linux when whatever works for them...still works for them. Seriously, why should they switch if they are happy with what they've got?
I suspect most of the disinterest in Linux stems from the fact they already have systems in place that work for them. However, small businesses would be more interested in Linux because of price, and large businesses because of price and platform. Mid-size businesses don't have the resources to switch everything over, but have enough to have already chosen a system previously that still works fine.
I imagine if you did this same survey with other operating systems like, say, Windows Longhorn, you'd find that mid-sized businesses are pretty much disinterested in it too--why switch from what they've got? In other words, not necessarily anything to do with Linux specifically. Any switch of systems is going to require a support cost, not just Linux.
Re:From TFA (Score:3, Insightful)
Most businesses are NOT tech businesses. As a result, they tend to want to keep their costs for tech low and support options open.
Virtually all businesses looking into Linux would be migrating from Windows. The fact that Windows is the core of their technology infrastructure and the support options are there (hardware, software, niche market software, inhouse software, etc..) its VERY difficult to transition.
Sure there might be future cost bene
ummm.. (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft now supplies free IT employees with their expensive OS?
More like this... (Score:4, Insightful)
I have yet to encounter a problem in Linux that can't be resolved by googling, or calling the vendor.
A corrolary is:
"Microsoft 'support' isn't"
IE, the teleflunkies at MS Support don't even know the basics of their own OS. I worked as a Intern with a large company, we were trying to spit out a webpage for some app, and gee, used Frontpage for the quick and dirty work. I know, hand code, yadda-yadda, but everyone else there was Mainframe gurus, and they had MS on the desktops.
Anyway, this particular version of MS was generating improperly nested formatting, which we could reproduce...
I was told "Hey, we have a support contract with MS, call them"
"Hi, I need help with frontpage, it's generating malformed HTML. Is there a patch out? Or something we can do."
"Front page generates compliant HTML"
"No it doesn't, I can tell you how to do it. Do you have a bug process"
*Conversation goes no where after description of convoluted process to get bug even noticed by MS. Every Open Source Project, I have very little problem submitting bugs*
Microsoft support isn't support. Yer paying for nothing.
Re:More like this... (Score:5, Interesting)
All the bug fixes they put out are a result of corporate support packages (we're talking millions here). An ordinary Joe that calles MS tech support has ZERO influence.
Well sign me up! (Score:2)
How poor is Mr Koelsch's judgement that he can say a comment like "Linux is free, but the support for it is not." and yet not back this up with a proof in the survey that says "Windows support is free the operating system is not" !
In my local Federation of Small Business Chapter there are a number of IT service providers, im the only one ( well no one has directly contradicted me at the
Whats difficult about it ? (Score:2)
Or is this a good antilinux campaign by Monopoly-criminalsoft.
Article gets it (Score:5, Insightful)
People are scared of trying new things, especially management types. Increasing the complexity of a system by installing other in parallel can get, er, complex. Linux can be installed for free, but no support.
People will prefer to pay for windows than to pay for support and training to use alternatives.
Re:Article gets it (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Article gets it (Score:2)
The mush in your bowl is still better than the donuts on someone else's plate.
Re:Article gets it (Score:3, Interesting)
One old friend is better then two new ones.
While the meaning of this really tweaked my kid's brain for a while, it can make sense in the business world. And while the meaning is indeed different than the saying you quote, there's a common theme: familiarity can be equated to security.
Dual system scenarios (Score:2, Interesting)
My question is quite simple. Is it really more expensive to run Linux after already paying for windows? Seriously because I thought (never bought a windows OS myself) that you had to basically purchase a copy of windows for each department, etc. Microsoft I believe makes you pay for multiple copies of the same OS because thats how it makes the mo
I get free (except my time) support on the Net (Score:5, Interesting)
A couple years ago, not knowing anything about Linux, I bought a boxed Linux release at the Big Computer Store and proceeded installing it on an older P200 machine. There's a place where it stalled during installation. I googled and group.googled for a while (searching on release version, looking for hints on install problems) and found a Usenet post complaining about my very problem, a respnse spelled out how it wouldn't install on a Pentium 1 because something was compiled for a later processor. The responder pointed to a fix: put this file on a floppy inserted into the floppy drive when installing. I did, it worked.
On most products it's just as easy to presume they are orphaned, and the only support is unofficial, outside the product's maker. This often gets me better support than going to the manufacturer.
So what? (Score:2)
Quote: "Linux is free, but the support for it is not."
So what? It's not free for Windows either.
Re:So what? (Score:2)
and if one of them flakes its easy to find another one...
USA lacks behind (Score:2)
Re:USA lacks behind (Score:2)
They don't use Linux.. (Score:3, Funny)
Clearing something up (Score:5, Insightful)
1) If the place is a Microsoft shop with a bunch of servers 10-20+, they're most likely a Microsoft Certified Partner who get X amount of free trouble support requests per year. And if YOU solve the trouble shooting or if you bring a question to them that there is NO way you could know or find the answer to, they do not charge/deduct credits. As long as you've done your research and have tried everything to fix the problem, you're most likely not going to be charged.
2) "Support" isn't just calling Microsoft. It also consists of paying on-staff administrators to support everything. The admin(s) that are currently there, if it's a Microsoft shop, are probably MCSA/MCSE's and most likely not that well trained in Linux. For a mid-size business, a salary of 40-60K for another admin is probably a very prohibitive expense.
Re:Clearing something up (Score:2, Informative)
Seen that in action. For all but the most straightforward problems, that support is worthless.
To get to anyone knowledgeable for MS products, you've got to pay through the nose.
Re:Clearing something up (Score:2)
"IT Executive"? (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe it's a sign that we're all a little nervous in the post-9/11 world.
Bulk of US Business (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately, companies of this size comprise the bulk of American business
I think that is incorrect. No matter how you measure it, small businesses are a larger component of the economy.
4 year old stats, but I don't think it's changed
link [sba.gov]
Re:Bulk of US Business (Score:2, Informative)
I actually tried to post this about a week ago with a link to the actual study but was rejected
Not suprising... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm sure there were people who believed that mid sized companies were wasting money buying big blue, but the combination of FUD^H^H^Hsalesmanship from the friendly IBM rep, total lack of understanding of computers, and the one-stop budget line (a big deal to accounting) makes it worth the other hassles. As much as we like to think that computers are more accessable, there are still a large number of people who don't understand 'em, don't like 'em and don't want to know about 'em. We call those people managers!
We're a small-midsized business... (Score:5, Interesting)
Why articles on what is supposedly NOT being used? (Score:3, Interesting)
There is obviously a motive behind this tactic and the motive is hidden from view for obvious reasons. Whenever there is a shift from one product for another, all those tightly involved in the losing market are going to do anything they can to slow down, stall or even stop the migration. Atleast until they too can figure out a way to shift over to that new market and pull profits from it. Think about the oil industry and hydrogen/fuelcells. All of Detroit held up the gas/electric hybrid flag until Bush took office and directed them to hold up the hydrogen/fuelcell flag. A shift threatened the profits of one industry, oil, and many players involved moved attention away from the immediate solution in order to slow down growth while they figured out how to play catch-up. In this example, there has been a number of articles falsely stating data.
So, why would eWeek/PCWeek/ZiffDavis post an article about companies who have decided NOT to use GNU/Linux?
I recall seeing them post a few articles about how much money was being made on sales of Microsoft software compared to GNU/Linux. The funny thing is, THAT kind of article was showing businesses how much they were sending to Microsoft or its partners, instead of NOT spending the money on GNU/Linux. Microsoft has shifted its marketing from competing on price with GNU/Linux and is now focusing on TCO. Just like this eWeek article....
LoB
Linux roaring success with midsize businesses (Score:3, Interesting)
An amazing 27% of the companies taking part in the survey were already using Linux.
But the most important finding of the report is, that more than 50% of those companies currently not using Linux think about deploying Linux.
It seems it's really time for Microsoft to start worrying.
Best taken with a bucket of salt (Score:2, Insightful)
1) Infotech says that Microsoft didn't pay for this report, but they weren't asked who did pay for it, nor were they asked how much of their business is derived from Microsoft.
2) We don't know who the 1400 executives were. Were they all in the IT department? If not, do they erally know what is in use in their IT department?
3) According to the survey 27% of t
From the article. (Score:2)
Saying that "A recent report concludes few midsize enterprises have an interest in Linux." is an interesting spin on the 27% figure. Is that 27% larger or smaller than previous reports?
Hmm... "It also tends to confirm what Microsoft has been saying, slaps down some zealots". Well, no bias there then.
Move along, nothing to see here.
Sales support is lacking (Score:2)
That, of course, is because the features depend on the packages you install.
However, think of this: if you're looking for a firewall, you have certain requirements in mind. How easy is it to find the capabilities of any of the linux built-in firewalls so you can see if it can handle the job?
It's hard. What you find are HOW-TOs. You have to plow through a ridiculous amount of stuff just to figure out if the b
Xenophobia (Score:5, Interesting)
But bringing up Linux to some people strikes fear and confusion into their hearts because it's very foreign to them. And in the tech world, to appear to be ignorant is a sign of weakness.
So largely what we're seeing is the natural resistance to change. Bosses don't often know anything about their IT stuff and rely largely on their in-house experts for advice... largely, these are people who only know Windows, so naturally, the advise Windows. But more and more, tech people are getting curious about Linux, learn about it and start using it.
Nothing can really accellerate this progression except marketting and there's not much marketting going on. IBM was marketting for a short time... it was encouraging and it got people talking about Linux and wondering what it was.
It's all an eventuality, I think, but only while current activities don't change. I work for a medium-sized corporation... maybe edging into 'large' but we have a strong desire to migrate into Linux based solutions. (There was a BSA audit a few years back, I'm told... With all this buzz about Linux and OSS have you heard anything about BSA lately?) Whatever the case, the more things like Perl, PHP, Apache, Firefox and even OpenOffice are used, the more we like it. It's just working out for us and since the migration is somewhat gradual, there is little to no shock involved.
We will begin testing the Novell Linux Desktop before long... I am very excited at the idea and I expect my site to be the first to get it.
I work at one of these so called mid rangers (Score:2)
Re:I work at one of these so called mid rangers (Score:4, Funny)
And that's the problem! Here you are taking the jobs away from five or six Windows administrators that are now panhandling or something! Good God, man! You're single handedly destroying the entire IT economy as we sit here! Have you no shame?!?!!
Sloppy Windows is easy. Sloppy Linux is hard(now) (Score:2)
This doesn't happen because Windows admins are lazy - the point is economic - many smaller and even mid-size companies have a lot of infrastructure run by partially or totally untrained (self-taught) individuals who, because they were able to bring up a 'working' installation probably THINK they're up to the job. Linux admins
Capitalist efficiency myth (Score:2)
Before anyone talks about support costs, consider a bootable CD that formats the local hard drive and installs an image with all the applications from the server, which also stores all your OpenOffice documents. I "supported" several hundred math students using Mathematica and WriteNow on NeXT during my $7/hour student job this way and got 0 complaints.
Not eve
Midsize companies buy computers, not OSs. (Score:5, Insightful)
Is Linux really free? (Score:3, Insightful)
While it's entirely possible (and easy) for anybody who's interested to get their hands on Linux, consider the company to which many businesses will go first: Red Hat.
Have any of you looked at the cost of a Red Hat Linux subscription lately?
Feast your peepers on these numbers, my friends: Red Hat server licensing options [redhat.com].
Sure, you don't have to go with a solution like this, but any company that depends even a little on its IT department is going to want some real support and culpability - they aren't going to just be throwing Slackware on machines willy-nilly.
Food for thought, mes amis.
Linux: The reality (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with Linux is it's possible to manage it very efficiently but the majority of shops don't know how. Tools like cfengine and a reasoned and planned methods are not implemented as a discipline.
I haul out Kirk Bauer's "Automating UNIX and Linux Administration" and it's both a revelation and a threat to the staff, who spend their days either pointing and clicking or doing the same thing over and over again at the command line. How desparate is that?
Unfortunately, most of these shops are managed by bottom-line folks who do the do every day and never consider alternatives. The ones who hum along don't bother to respond to such surveys because they _get it_. They invest in the scaffolding that has to be built and once it's in place, the thing just plain flat rocks and IT finds its proper role - disappearing.
When I talk to such organizations about IT, I tell them "if I do my job just right, I disappear." It usually causes crossed brows and consternation, but it's so.
Linux advocates do themselves great injury by not creating and requiring open architectures and open methods of system administration. And disappearing. It's only sexy if you watch it all happen.
Why would they be "complex to manage"? (Score:4, Interesting)
Then lock down the boxes for non-root accounts, put together a file server, and install windows 2003 with 10 terminal server licenses for the rare occasions when someone needs Word and OO won't do.
This, of course, assumes that that you're only running Office or Java software on your windows boxes. If you have custom windows apps, shit becomes really complicated. Well, at least until BSA raids you for minor non-compliance.
These Guys are Boneheads (Score:3, Insightful)
I say this from professional experience in a small-mid-sized company: Windows complications are more common and more problematic than Linux's are. Windows has good marketing, but shit never works the way it's supposed to. And then you have to try and deal with a single-vendor platform to make it work.
But let 'em keep using Windows. Eventually they'll figure out that the guys using Linux (or *BSD) are better, faster, and more secure than they are. These guys are just a little slower than the rest of us.
Also: what do you think the odds are that these brain donors have Linux boxes running critical systems and don't even know it? Linux by stealth is really common; it's how I got Linux into my shop.
Re:These Guys are Boneheads (Score:3, Insightful)
Translation: (Score:3, Insightful)
Conclusions don't match the data? (Score:4, Insightful)
- Only 27 percent of respondents currently have Linux installed.
- Almost half of respondents said they had "no interest" in Linux.
- Of the companies where Linux is not already installed, 48 percent have no interest and an additional 15 percent are not sure.
So let me get this straight, 1/4 of midsize businesses are already using linux, and another ~ 1/4 have interest in it. And the conclusion we're supposed to draw is that mid size companies have "no use" for linux?Ahem, check the author (Score:4, Insightful)
who "innovated" DOS, gui computing, windowed applications, mouse based ui, menus, word processor, spreadsheets, email client, address book, database... you get the picture. Such willful ignorance of the facts is quite staggering and makes for good reading/flaming.
Which causes me to wonder if Coursey really believes what he writes or if he's just there to create reaction. eWeek has more than a few OSS fans and Coursey knows he's kicking the nest. Maybe he's just having fun?
Don't they mean $25M to $500M? (Score:3, Insightful)
Misuse of "comprise" (Score:3)
A side remark: "comprise" is a synonym of "include". The author means "companies of this size compose the bulk etc.". These latinates are not equivalent.
You can say:
Don't say "is comprised of", which is to English what "Microsoft security" is decency. :-)
You won't get fired for it... (Score:3, Insightful)
I have found the easiest way to get Linux into business is just do it, and do it quietly. It's very hard to say "Can't we do x with Linux?", but much easier to do it quietly then when the day comes up where a manager suggests a Microsoft solution to x you can say well we are already doing that with Linux and it's much cheaper (all costs considered) than the Microsoft solution. Try doing this the other way around and you will get shutdown 9 times out of 10.
First hand knowledge... (Score:3, Insightful)
Asking the right people? (Score:3, Informative)
Anyway, my point is that the IT Manager didn't have a clue what we were running. He said "Make x happen with $y". Often times (we're talking 99-01 here) the $y was prohibitively small to achieve anything with windows... IE, smaller than a single license for windows 2k server. So being good admins and programmers we figured out ways to make x happen without spending any money (or spending very little). This actually was well rewarded in the form of bonuses and stuff (the company was good about taking care of their people). If they called my old IT Manager he said "we're using windows" cause that's whats on his desktop, and he doesn't know the difference between samba, php, apache and windows, asp, and iis. He doesn't see the difference cause we did our jobs right.