Linux Feels Growing Pains 411
Carl Bialik from the WSJ writes "As Linux enters the mainstream, adopters 'are demanding many features found on commercial software, including a large variety of add-on application programs and management tools that are easy to use,' the Wall Street Journal reports. 'How quickly open-source programs can narrow the gap with commercial software is a hotly debated topic in the computer industry. The transition may determine whether the technology will continue its momentum, or stall in the face of tougher competition at the heart of corporate computer networks.' Eric Singleton, chief information officer at retailer Tommy Hilfiger Corp., which recently switched its e-commerce site 'Tommy.com' from Linux to Microsoft software, calls Linux 'a great product,' but adds, 'it's got to get the final tier of reliability and predictability that I'm going to bet a multi-billion dollar corporation's future on.'"
Microsoft Reliability (Score:3, Funny)
Good point Eric, with MS you're almost guaranteed to get hacked. Now THAT's predictability!
Re:Microsoft Reliability (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Microsoft Reliability (Score:3, Insightful)
Stop the MS machine!
Re:Microsoft Reliability (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Microsoft Reliability (Score:2)
Oh wait, you were talking about Linux, right?
Re:Microsoft Reliability (Score:2)
" IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOLLOWS:
Red Hat Network is currently experiencing technical difficulties.
We apologize for any inconvenience this outage may cause.
Thank you for using Red Hat Network.
--the RHN team"
In that case, they usually have it fixed within 20-30 minutes.
If it's hanging any more than that, you have connectivity problems. This is my experience with 10 RH (AS/ES, 2.1,3.0, x86/AMD64) boxes.
Flamebait ? (Score:3, Insightful)
The parent says "If patched Windows will not get hacked" and is modded flamebait.
Maybe they are both just opinions ?
Properly patched... (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2140780/windows
Re:Microsoft Reliability (Score:3, Insightful)
As an aside, I usually do not jump on people about minor spelling and grammar mistakes on /., but your post was so horrendous it would make me think twice before I took anything you had to say seriously.
Re:Microsoft Reliability (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, claiming that using MS almost guarantees that you'll get hacked certainly is a bit trollish, but there is a certain irony if someone who recently switched to MS talks about Linux lacking reliability and predictablity, isn't there?
Re:Microsoft Reliability (Score:5, Insightful)
It's because of his sig. When someone asks to be modded "+/- N whatever", the mods usually oblige.
To the mods: +5 insightful, please. ;)
Re:Microsoft Reliability (Score:3, Informative)
5 Windows (2 Win2k, 3 Win2k3)
2 Linux
2 FreeBSD
1 Solaris
We also do large ASP.NET apps on Win2k3 (IIS6) and the server hasn't been touched in almost 4 months (when we did disaster recovery testing). If you are having anything like multiple h
Re:Microsoft Reliability (Score:3, Interesting)
I think you may be looking at ones that measure network performance, rather than specifically server performance or reliability.
There aren't any pure Windows solution in the netcraft longest uptime top 10, the first when I looked was in 26th place, II5 on W2K. There are some highbred solutions (IIS on BSD) presumably firewalled or proxies (we have IIS on Linux due to squid accelerator being used at work) further up the list.
Of course BSD dominates because they didn't have a
Re:Microsoft Reliability (Score:3, Interesting)
I wish I could have, but it was a fresh install of NT 5 using nothing but Microsoft software (NT 5, IIS, Microsoft ODBC driver). It was impossible to audit since Microsoft doesn't make its source available. There was nothing else but a simple query+display ASP script. Everything else was simple static HTML. The NT 5 machine would plateau at 100% CPU (both CPUs) 2-3 times per day, and leak 1GB of RAM at those times
Liability (Score:2, Insightful)
License agreements (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Liability (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Liability (Score:2)
And NetCraft sez .... (Score:3, Informative)
Am I on the wrong listing or has their MAIN site been hosted? And hosted on Solaris.
http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http:/
Seems that they JUST switched over to Windows and that they had JUST switched to Linux.
Come on. They've been on Linux for SIX MONTHS and they've spent THREE YEARS on Apache and Solaris.
Great. They've been on Win2003 for the past
Talk about rushing a story.
Re:Liability (Score:2)
Re:Tech support (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting... If Apache is just SO hard to keep running that it takes at least one Linux C programmer on site to hold the thing together (although I really don't see what Linux or C have to do with web programming) and Microsoft is so easy that all you need is a pretty 1-800 number to make it all work, would you care to explain to me why Apache is running on ~70% of Internet servers while M [netcraft.com]
job security (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:job security (Score:2, Funny)
Re:job security (Score:3)
Re:job security (Score:3, Insightful)
It's the Wall Street Journal, people (Score:3, Insightful)
It shouldn't be surprising that the article has this spin.
Not that I think it is "wrong," per se. These tools are something that some businesses want and need, but observe the core confusion in the piece: The inability to separate "Linux," the kernel, from the distributions that package all the software. These management tools exist, there are even closed and proprietary ones (look at offerings from IBM and CA).
WSJ simply needs a smack with the ole cluestick.
Descriptive kernel nuances.. (Score:2)
Linux isn't ready for mainstream and I think the periodic reminders/check-ins are fine. Its good to get a veiw from the outside because we tend to get a little too wrapped up in the technical details for our own good.
So hand onto your clue stick.
Re:It's the Wall Street Journal, people (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously, they're using "Linux" to refer to the Linux-based operating system platform, not to the Linux kernel. You know, like virtually everyone does, including virtually everyone here.
Smack with the ole cluestick, indeed.
Re:It's the Wall Street Journal, people (Score:2)
I also (if you read my comment) don't disagree that tools like those called for are needed to advance the cause of corporate uptake. My issue is purely with the spin that "Linux could 'lose momentum.'"
It is part of the general "FUD-ish" pattern that has dogged Linux (and Free Software) since day one. It is part of the "It'll never fly, Orville" pattern. And that the WSJ would take that view should surprise no one. That was my sole point.
I took and take no exception with the fa
Re:It's the Wall Street Journal, people (Score:2)
Indeed, smack with the ole cluestick.
Re:It's the Wall Street Journal, people (Score:2)
But TFA ends on highly positive note (Score:2)
My reading of the TFA is that it starts out with a few anecdotal problems, then it goes on to talk about how the future looks very, very good for linux.
Re:It's the Wall Street Journal, people (Score:2)
Users don't "demand" anything. They ask for things. Then the programmers prioritize and implement those features over some period of time.
Suggesting someone is "demanding" something immediately injects an element of fear into the article, and infers that open source has some impending disaster should they not immediately meeting those "demands". Of course, an article like this will be followed up in a couple months with another describing how Linux is
Re:It's the Wall Street Journal, people (Score:4, Informative)
If there's confusion, then these open source companies need to get off their ass and offer business reasons (ie: This will save you $xx on this and $yy on that). It's wrong to assume that every company has people that will go out of their way to investigate new products. Marketing is part of doing business, and if open source companies aren't willing to compete in the marketing arena, then Open Source will continue to be something used only by techo-geeks, hobbyists, and the occasional renegade sysadmin.
WSJ doesn't need a "smack with a cluestick", the open source companies do.
Re:It's the Wall Street Journal, people (Score:4, Interesting)
I stand by my opinion, however, that in general, the Wall Street Journal has a difficult time understanding FOSS, and continues to try to cast into the mold they know well: competing proprietary products.
And this is really something that the OSS community has to overcome. They're advocating a completely foreign way of doing business, releasing products, etc. To everybody not involved in the OSS community (the vast majority of people), there's no reason to think that OSS is any different than traditional software. And yes, that's a huge hurdle to overcome, but ultimate if Red Hat or any other OSS vendor wants to sell software (or services), it's Red Hat's (etc) job to inform potential customers about their products. The WSJ is comparing OSS to proprietary software because that IS the alternative. It doesn't matter that they're different. They both serve the same needs. *Why* they are different is largely irrelevant to a business person. They want to know what piece of software is going to solve problem X.
History is full of good products that have come and gone because they were simply too foreign to their market, and the company's way of doing business was simply too strange to people. I don't think that it's either right or wrong, but that's the way it is. Expecting people to seek out OSS, and take time to learn, what is to them, just another software package, is unrealistic.
If the WSJ doesn't understand that OSS may have value even after the death of the founding person/company, then what that says to me is that OSS companies have not done their marketing job.
Case in point: My business is unusual. I own a pet supply shop/online business that does business very differently than anything else I've seen. It's OUR job to educate people how and why we are different than either mega-stores or traditional "pet shops", and we do it every day. I, in no way, expect people to simply seek us out. We have to do our legwork. We have to explain to people how and why we do business the way we do. Hell, even most of our vendors don't understand us. And of course, once our customers do "get it", they tend to be customers for life. My business is continually growing by leaps and bounds, but it was a hell of a struggle explaining it to customers. And, after all, most people don't come to us because we're different. They come to us because we're better than the competition. Most people don't care how or why we're better as far as our philosophy goes. They just know that we have the best products at the best prices with the best service.
Re:It's the Wall Street Journal, people (Score:3, Insightful)
Backwards? (Score:3, Interesting)
Since god knows linux certainly hasn't caught up with even Microsoft's subpar efforts in desktop end-user experience...
Re:Backwards? (Score:3, Insightful)
Difference between reality and what people say?
Netcraft suggests it will be about another 8 months before tommy.com can claim equivalent stability for the new OS, given it appears their GNU/Linux servers "just worked".
My guess is new management wanted to change things to something they feel more comfortable with. Seen that at a lot of places, it usually plays merry hell with the service availability stats.
Not fiddling is the key to good availability, and IT folk are nothing if
Lunchen budeget for CIOs. (Score:5, Insightful)
Last I checked Google's a multibillion-dollar corp that actually bet on an OS. Tommy.com, a small fragment of a company that bets on perfumes is nothing of the sort.
Methnks Eric's disapointed that Oracle and MSFT have larger lunch budgets for CIOs than Linux, and doesn't really give a fuck about the "multi-billion dollar" part of the company that has nothing to do with operating systems.
Re:Lunchen budeget for CIOs. (Score:2)
Re:Lunchen budeget for CIOs. (Score:4, Informative)
Cluestick: Individuals can customize their own version of linux. Its not a big deal.
Re:Lunchen budeget for CIOs. (Score:3, Interesting)
The ability to customize an OS is *EXACTLY* the type of criteria important when "betting" a "billion dollar company" on an OS.
If you're "betting" a "billion dollar company" on anything less than the ability to control whatever you're betting on, you're an idiot - and Singleton certainly sounds like he fits the description for using that phrase.
For Tommy Hilfiger, the thing that they actually "bet the company" on, I guarantee you they have the abil
Re:Lunchen budeget for CIOs. (Score:5, Interesting)
And I can believe that the switch was because of larger lunch (and after hours) budgets, having seen it in operation too many times before. And, from his remarks, he was obviously well prepped.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Lunchen budeget for CIOs. (Score:3, Informative)
Buying the press (Score:3, Funny)
Microsoft good... linux bad. Really, trust us... we're as independent as your checkbook needs us to be.
Heck yeah (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps Mr. Singleton has been unable to find talented SysAdmins and Devs to maintain his systems and write his code?
Yes, Windows is easy enough for any reasonably talented monkey to configure (poorly). If I were running a multi-million dollar company, I surely would want some talent in the revenue stream, though.
Re:Heck yeah (Score:3, Funny)
My personal guess is that Mr. Singleton was fully able to cash a check from Redmond though.
"We suck, so we blame it on others" -tommy.com (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:"We suck, so we blame it on others" -tommy.com (Score:2)
Oh wait, I'm a nerd - I have no need for their
preppy crap anyways. Jeans and EFF T-shirts for me.
Software doesn't need to be Open Source on Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
If we wait for the applications businesses want to appear as Open Source we may just as well forget using Linux in the first place. Not every company can see making money from meer support of a product, many need the initial sales and licensing. Sure someone might one day replicate product X, but how many companies are going to wait?
Re:Software doesn't need to be Open Source on Linu (Score:3, Insightful)
People seem to draw the conclusion that because Linux is principally open source, that no enterprise level support exists for it, and any application that runs on it is automatically free by association.
I run into this sort of thinking frequently at work, with management looking agast when I mention that, for example, CAs ARCserve for Linux *actually costs money* to licence. Fortunately since we've been buying Red Hat Enterprise Linux (and its associated support agreements) they'
Re:Software doesn't need to be Open Source on Linu (Score:3, Funny)
The problem is that meerkats, or meers for short, can't use computers. Further, they don't usually have any money to buy things with. You'd be hard-pressed to even find a meerkat that can talk. Companies hoping to make money from meer support are using a business model that's destined to fail.
Clearly the way to go is to make money from human product support. Dog, gorilla, or ninja product support are also possibilities, thoug
Missed opportunity? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds more like Tommy Hilfiger Corp. got a really good deal on hardware and software in return for being willing to help out on the advertising front. And, of course, the WSJ jumps on the bandwagon as usual.
Re:Missed opportunity? (Score:2)
How is that different from any pro-Linux PR that comes from IBM, Novell, RH and others?
Hey Eric (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hey Eric (Score:2)
Tommy Hilfiger Corp / Linux "product" (Score:4, Informative)
<i>it's got to get the final tier of reliability and predictability that I'm going to bet a multi-billion dollar corporation's future on.</i>
What a moron.
Interesting that Linux is good enough for the worlds biggest online retailer
http://www.google.co.za/search?q=amazon+linux&sou
I guess Bill Gates buys Hilfiger brown loafers
Re:Tommy Hilfiger Corp / Linux "product" (Score:2)
Yep.
And so were you and and so was I. The difference is we go over it.
excuse me? (Score:3, Insightful)
i know, i know.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I will say though, that OSS apps are getting better and better about providing the user with what they would get if they were paying for a similar program. I'm not sure this post should really be titled about linux at all. it seems more of a concern of "quality of OSS software.
On the other hand, you find an OSS piece of software like firefox and you get a HUGE amount of customization potential and a ton of included features to boot... and EXTENSIONS!
There's two sides to every story i guess and to a degree they have a point, but on other plains the table is turned to a large degree. I find some OSS aps to be FAR supoerior to similar apps that you can shell money out on...
Oh certainly, it's just a battle of attrition now (Score:3, Insightful)
But that doesn't mean it will work for them in the long run. I see the success of what the WSJ so quaintly calls "a program called Linux" as a way of forcing the big companies to offer real value. The tough question is who will win in the long run.
I'm sure that the big companies will be able to offer something extra for the extra price, but I'm not sure whether it will be enough. For every one person who chooses the Cadillac model from MS, there will be dozens who will choose cheap Linux. Given the success of Walmart, I'm not sure I want to bet on the earning power of expensive quality.
Boring Boring boring. (Score:2, Funny)
You know how hard it is to get source out of those linux guys, Thank You Microsoft for saving us from our multi-vendor lock out.
of Tommy Hilfiger, who said he has greater confidence in a single vendor in controlling the evolution of its products. "They jumped through a lot of hoops to help us out."
Translation:
PAYOLA and Deep Discounts. Sent out a few FAEs to help out
The payoff (Score:2)
Microsoft certainly isn't above doing that sort of thing given past performance.
Running on Linux (Score:3, Informative)
Fantastic News (Score:2)
Funny, looks like they've been running Windows2003 since the year it was made [netcraft.com] - they already had a foot in that door. Note also the conspicuous presence of Solaris.
All that aside I think this is fantastic news. There are many things worse than growing pains, like for instance that GNU/Linux is in any way associated with such a pack of utter and complete tossers [tommy.com]. You can keep your "All American" cologne, it reeks.
Silly Demands (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's a hypothetical example. A company has a whole bunch of windows workstations running a crummy custom VB app to interface with their database. They want to switch to Linux to save money and increase security. The VB app doesn't run so well in wine, because it's crummy. They could hire someone to conver the VB app into a web app that would be better in many ways. And the cost of hiring that person is less than the money they are saving by switching OSes. But no, they demand to stick with what they've got.
If you are going to explore using a different base you have to be willing to explore alternatives to everything resting on that base. If you are going to buy a new car, you can't expect that all the after-market parts on your old car will work in the new one. Some of them will, some of them wont. If you really need those parts you have to tought it out and get an equivalent part that is compatible with the new car. If your old car is rusted and busted, you've got no choice. So deal with it.
No one got fired for... (Score:2)
In other words "no one got fired for purchasing from [instert name of some big company here]".
Now, when his boss asks why system does not work, he'll be able to say "you know, it is Microsoft", and boss will conclude that if multi-billion company cannot make it better, it is best you can get in the world.
That sounds logical, but our experience teach us that it is not
Ever think... (Score:4, Insightful)
I suggest you read Groklaw ... (Score:2)
And Accurate staement
Linux doent need Business, Business NEEDs Linux
Is the best way to paraphrase it...Oh heelll..Here
Defending the GPL Sunday, August 07 2005 @ 07:26 AM EDT I heartily recommend that you read Eric Laffoon's article in Open for Business. If it were allowed, I'd put every word of it here on Groklaw. Laffoon is the project lead for KDE's Kdewebdev module. It's the best answer I've seen to anyo
Linux like a ghost (Score:2)
Reliability and Predictability.... (Score:2)
They can reliably predict that their Windows based servers will crash based on reliable and predictable conditions (i.e. The power is on.)
Surely that's what meant by reliable and predictable.... Someone bought into the Microsoft hype.
non sequitur (Score:2)
Let's ally a little real-world here. There is no debate. People in the know really aren't having these sorts of conversations with each other. Discussions of the arguments themselves are invariably astroturfing.
Like Windows is? Who installs Windows anymore? People are buying new computers because of spyware! Nobody fights with the licenses, third party drivers, etc. that are part of installing W
hmmm.... (Score:5, Insightful)
"They [microsoft] jumped through a lot of hoops to help us out."
Uhhh.... yeah, and that kickback doesn't hurt either.
However the article doesn't talk about what tools they would like to see. Reliable? well I can name a few companies who think so....
Google, amazon, oracle, IBM.... but Tommy is much bigger than any of those companies.
Really I'm amazed at some of the compaies I do some support for. Their IT staff can barely install windows and I'm thinking this is one of those groups. Of course Microsoft will come in and help them set everything up if they help bash linux.
No news here, let's move on.
Finger pointing (Score:2)
Reliability and performance mean nothing if there is a group of people standing by waiting to rush in and fix company XYZ's problems when they happen, no matter if the problems
This will probably be considered a troll, but (Score:2)
Maybe it will, actually, because that's more about marketing than ability these days, probably. But they need to learn that style doesn't trump substance in the back office, at least.
In general, yes. (Score:2)
It is a shame to see a business switch from linux to MS (servers, even, I assume in the case of Tommy.com!) when I think linux is a viable desktop terminal for education and many business offices. At the same time, I've greatly toned down my voice for home use.
"Testing" isn't enough. "Documentation" isn't enough. Distributions need a "customer satisfaction" group. Badly.
Ok, here we go again... (Score:2)
Linux was here, quietly serving up web pages and other such things before it got "noticed". It will be here long after, if it again drops off of the commercial radar.
Linux isn't here to solve your problems. Linux is here for one and only one reason: Because it "scratches" the itch of open source developers. If there is something that you want from Linux, and you can't seem to understand open source enough to know that you can take the source
So get busy (Score:2)
Well bo-f'ing-ho. Linux has done just fine in the face of thousands of buggers like him wanking out loud about what Linux has got to do. I've heard that same oral excrement for years. It's not "there" yet. Well, it's still gaining market share so the community must be doing something right. Just don't expect the community to r
Article in brief (Score:3, Funny)
User "are demanding"? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you need something, either write it yourself and fund its development.
Hilfiger was bought out by MSFT (Score:5, Interesting)
It's all more of Microsofts multi-million dollar marketing campaign against GNU/Linux. Wasn't the Microsoft guy quoted as saying something about changing their customers "perception"????
More smoke and mirrors and WSJ.COM bought it or was bought...
LoB
Re:Well good! (Score:2, Interesting)
Microsoft and others, for starters. I know the average F/OSS dev won't take notice, but hopefully IBM will. The door swings both ways, people - you want Linux on the desktop, well with power comes responsibility. Are we, as a community, prepared to handle it? With responses like that, I am not sure...
And, before you mod, I have been using Linux since 1999. I was first in line at March Of The Penguins at my local theatre, too.
Re:Well good! (Score:2)
People here champion Linux as the answer to everyone's computing needs, from personal to commercial.
Then, when someone comes along and says, "no, it's not", the answer is "WELL THEN WHY DONT YOU FIX IT YOURSELF H0M0FAG!!11"
Re:Well good! (Score:5, Insightful)
People here champion Linux as the answer to everyone's computing needs, from personal to commercial. Then, when someone comes along and says, "no, it's not", the answer is "WELL THEN WHY DONT YOU FIX IT YOURSELF H0M0FAG!!11"
Neither you nor the previous poster are speaking the language of business. The previous poster asked, "well what are they going to do about it." You stepped even further away with your script-kiddy-speak. The response to this that business users should be expecting and will completely understand is, "How much money will you give me to do it?."
Most large businesses with in house developers already fix all the problems they run into and everyone benefits. What we're dealing with here are the less technically proficient and and smaller businesses that just want it to work. 90% of them that have purchased Linux bought from a vendor and will ask that vendor to add whatever they want. The other 10% are worthless and won't pay for what they want or do it themselves. The other chunk of people we are talking about are those who have not purchased Linux, but want to and want new features. They will take bids from IBM, Redhat, etc., make whatever feature is missing a requirement for the sale and it will be taken care of. It happens every day. Why is this news?
Re:Well good! (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Pay someone to develop it for you and then release it.
2. Develop it yourself.
I bet you see more and more closed source software running under Linux soon. Oracle and DB2 are examples of closed source programs running under Linux.
Re:Well good! (Score:5, Insightful)
Their contribution is called "money". Red Hat and Novell actually prefer money to "You have the source! Fix it yourself!" fanboys...
Which 'Enterprise' Linux was Tommy paying for? (Score:3)
Re:Well good! (Score:2)
Anyone who wants to make a living meeting their demands.
Mod parent flamebait! (Score:2)
Wow, nice way to elude responsibility! Users are users, _NOT_ developers! How do you suppose they're going to contribute? (The only exception here is in programming tools, where users ARE programmers. But that's definitely NOT the mainstream)
If programmers want their software to enter the mainstream, they must realize they're making the software for THE COMMON PEOPLE. (RTFM s
Re:Mod parent flamebait! (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, what a way to elude responsibility! When someone develops a program, gives it to you for free, also provides the source code so you can make changes add features you need etc. You respond by "demanding" additional freebees! I suppose it's like welfare, you get to a point where you start to believe a free ride on the taxpayers dime is your god given right. The ideal behind open source is a community project where I provide some
"Adopters" - not "Developers" (Score:2)
These companies are generally paying somebody, such as Red Hat. They aren't interested in development, nor should they be. They want to solve a business problem.
I can't think of a better way to stunt the further growth of linux than by ignoring people who can use the product but who don't want to develop.
Re:Well good! (Score:5, Insightful)
Who cares what they demand then?
I'm really tired of hearing people whine "how come linux isn't the most popular!" and "boo hoo, we don't rule the desktop or business world" and then turn around and make comments like this.
You either want the 'product' to be popular and wide spread and usable or you don't. Whether or not they contribute isn't important. Are you suggesting that someone' s grandmother should just take whatever offering linux shoves at her and not have the right to complain about anything at all, because she hasn't submitted a kernel patch yet?
Seriously. Get off it, people. These attitudes are PRECISELY why linux still fails to command huge shares in the various markets. The technical and business shortcomings of the linux software can be overcome. It's the shitty attitudes that need the most work.
I run a popular and completely free website and when people complain about something not working or wishing it worked a different way, I don't say "well fuck you - you haven't come to my house and written any code for me!" -- I fucking take it into consideration and try to fix it or improve on it as they would like.
Re:Well good! (Score:3, Insightful)
There appears to be a belief that software will not work on Linux unless it is free, as though that is some technical limitation or requirement. This is very annoying to companines and people like me who hope to sell stuff for Linux. Every
Re:easy configuration? (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly. But to many of these managers who have spent the last 15 or so years in a Microsoft (or even MS/Novell) environment, Linux is black magic - and hiring "long-haired, bearded linux gurus" scares them.
They don't understand the system and are afraid that if something goes terribly wrong, they'll get blamed for chosing 'free' software as opposed to Microsoft. IBM used to play this game a LOT and win big contracts because people were so afraid to try new technologies from other vendors.
Re:It's Free (Score:2)
Re:It's Free (Score:2)
Yes, It's a tortoise [tortoisecvs.org], alright
Who Wants To Be Popular? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who Wants To Be Popular? (Score:3, Insightful)
But in OSS there is no Visual Basic for IT managers so they can pretend to be a programmer, or MS Access so they can be a database expert... GNU/Linux is too hard,,, wwwhhaaaaaaa
To tell you the truth, I've seen people who can hardly fumble through on Windows, attempt to try GPL'ed software on Windows and it wasn't pretty. They've setup their department network but if the software doesn't install itself, give them a MS-Wizard, and icons to run it, they are lost.
IM
Re:Who Wants To Be Popular? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll get blasted for this, but IIRC, the thing that started Linux was the fact that Linus wanted to play with Unix at home, and couldn't afford a commercial version. So he wrote his own free version.
The thing that sustains it, makes dinking with it, and makes hiring admins for it worthwhile, is the same fact that it and its core applications are ALSO free.
Tell people they're getting something for "free" and they