Red Hat CEO Says Economic Crisis Favors Open Source 191
arashtamere writes "Red Hat president and CEO Jim Whitehurst predicts the enterprise open source software business will emerge from the economic crisis stronger than the proprietary market. 'I've had a couple of conversations with CIOs who said, "We're a Microsoft shop and we don't use any open source whatsoever, but we're already getting pressure to reduce our operating costs and we need you to help put together a plan for us to... use open source to reduce our costs." And we've had other customers literally looking at ripping and replacing WebLogic or WebSphere for JBoss ... I think we'll know in about six to nine months but there is no question that open source will come out of this in relatively better shape than our proprietary competitors,' he told Computerworld."
Yes young padawan... come over to the dark side... (Score:5, Funny)
I feel as if thousands of MCSE's cried out in pain and were silenced.
Re:Yes young padawan... come over to the dark side (Score:5, Funny)
Were they using the Billy Mays awesome auger to run cat5 near gas lines?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, so there's no like... LCSE? Why the Hell not, considering Linux is used on so many servers and is the backbone of a LOT of important hardware. Like servers for Steam games. (Okay, important to ME. d:)
There are LPI certifications. (Score:3, Informative)
There is, actually but it's not as well-known:
http://www.lpi.org/ [lpi.org]
I'm sorta slowly pursuing these. I think my favorite concept is that LPI does offer an Ubuntu-specific exam on top of the regular certifications you can get.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You're doing it wrong. The next time you need an HP Proliant server, ask your HP rep to bundle a 3-year Red Hat subscription/license with it. It will only add a few hundred dollars onto the cost of the server, far less than a Windows Server 2003/2008 license, and you'll get real support (1st and 2nd tier at HP, 3rd tier at Red Hat). Most servers are decommissioned
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
but how will ibm make assloads of cash? (Score:5, Insightful)
as an engineer, with 10+ yrs in the industry, it still boggles the mind that closed source, proprietary software has such a stranglehold on the way businesses percieve 'value'.
all too often, you see a business with a couple of it 'support' staff, maybe developers too, and someone has a day at the golf course and comes back with 'great news, we've managed to secure a long term contract with IBM...'
i still loath cognos reportnet some 4 years after that guy came back from the golf course... whats that ? ibm bought cognos? greeeeeaaat!
Re:but how will ibm make assloads of cash? (Score:5, Insightful)
As a manager, with 20+ years in the industry, I have solved the mystery.
"Golfware" is a term I invented to describe any combination of hardware and/or software that is purchased after a golf outing. Golf is powerful stuff; it enables non-technical people to make far-reaching technical decisions without spending the time to learn the details. You don't see open source on the golf course, and you have to understand open source to effectively utilize it.
There are people who actually CREATE solutions and those who merely SHOP for them. The "creators" can only rise so high in the org chart. Inevitably, somebody with a non-CS background becomes the "creator's" boss. Such people are inevitably "shoppers".
Re: (Score:2)
ha!
worst part is.. i play golf a couple times a week, and _never_ do i get in on these deals!
Re:but how will ibm make assloads of cash? (Score:5, Interesting)
as an engineer, with 10+ yrs in the industry, it still boggles the mind that closed source, proprietary software has such a stranglehold on the way businesses percieve 'value'.
Depends on the business. I got the top tech spot where I am precisely because of my background in both Windows and open source. Moving away from Windows as a host and development platform resulted in significant cash savings. We've even replaced a lot of our commodity workstations with Ubuntu and our productivity apps with a mix of GoogleDocs and OpenOffice.
Not only have we saved a lot of cash in licensing costs, but discovered that all the hype about increased training costs is just FUD. We haven't had any massive staff training costs, not even many calls to the help desk. The only ongoing annoyance is so many vendors want to use GoToMyPC and it doesn't support Linux. So we have to go scare up a Windows client.
Higher maintenance costs...FUD.
The line about paying more for qualified open source techs and developers is also FUD. We didn't have any problems replacing Windows only staff at competitive local rates. And our operating environment is so much calmer and more productive. You don't realize how much time you spend serving the Windows platform until you move away from it.
It's a pity it takes an economic crisis to get companies to look into a better way of doing business. You'll never make any progress taking advice from people invested in the MS platform, even if they're on your staff. The .NET developers said it would take us months to duplicate some of the systems they built, we did it in weeks. In one case days. We're down to converting the last couple core systems and the mood among the remaining .NET developers is grim. This is a bad time to be out looking for a job but I gave them a chance to get on board with the new order. We're shutting them down in the next couple months. Even the outsource vendors. I gave them the right answers the first day we met. Months later they're still trying to push .NET solutions.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a pity it takes an economic crisis to get companies to look into a better way of doing business.
The problem is that the rest of the time, the government is fixing the interest rate too low and putting a disincentive on any sort of real savings/investment. So people are made to only care about the short term (because they're penalized for trying to plan long-term), and they just can't be bothered to look around at what might be a bit scary but better in the long run.
Yes, but.... (Score:5, Insightful)
So yes, open-source as a "whole" (Articles of Confederation-type whole) will do well in tough economic times. If Red Hat wants in on this, they'll need to either lower their prices, or perhaps rethink they're "software as a service" model.
Re:Yes, but.... (Score:4, Informative)
www.centos.org
( or - son of redhat )
presuming you havent built really crappy apps, one linux guy to install and configure, then let it just run in the background. java webapp? tomcat ! database backend? postgres ! ldap? etc...
of course, if your business demands up to the minute support, patches, etc, redhat can provide a reasonable service for a reasonable price, and will be pretty well binary compatible with your initial centos outlay.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Yes, but.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The subscription gets you any new release while you're subscribed. For Windows, you need to buy the new OS.
Also, does a Windows subscription cover applications, or do you need to buy them (and support for them) separately?
OB car analogy:
It's like complaining that Red Hat's car costs more money than our MS's bare chassis. By the time you buy the MS Engine, MS Body, MS Wheels, MS Dashboard, MS Steering Wheel, etc, you end up paying more.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A Red Hat subscription was a similar price to a Windows 2008 (basic - I mean, Standard - edition) yearly payment with Software Assurance. The difference being that Red Hat does way more.
Or you were comparing that with Vista? Red Hat is a server system.
I've heard they've got legendary support (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess it makes sense... I mean, their product is support so it had better be pretty good. MS's product is more of the traditional model of software, with support added on so that they can sell more software.
So true (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
MS sells support contracts just like everyone else. It is not a money sink, else they would not sell them.
Re:Yes, but.... (Score:5, Interesting)
and Linux engineers can command more salary simply because there are fewer of them than there are Windows engineers (oxymoron, I know.).
True, but you need fewer of them. The rule of thumb I've always seen used is 1:25 admins to servers with Windows, but 1:50 (or 1:100 if the guy's good) with Linux (on desktops, that ratios on both are around 1:50 or more, but then desktops aren't usually pushed as hard as servers). This may not be as true as it once was, I understand Windows Server 2008 has made some impressive leaps, including a full command line shell and SSH server. But that's the historical reason for Linux (UNIX guys in general, really) commanding more dough: better rate of return on each dollar spent.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
From what I've seen of Windows v. Linux shops, most shops that use Linux are still made up mostly of techies while Windows shops tend to be more of a mixed bag. When I've been in Windows shops where the majority of people are technical, the ratio of techs to users seem to be much higher: in fact, in the same ranges that you have quoted for Linux.
What I'd like to see is a study comparing similar situations: average number of techs for businesses that are mostly technial or average number of techs for busine
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think this idea of trying to measure admins to servers ratio is nearly impossible without addressing what the servers actually do. Database servers may require more work than web servers, etc.
Regardless, interesting anecdotal evidence...
The company I worked for merged with a sister company. We were a Windows shop and they were Unix. Their IT staff was amazed to find out that our Windows admin staff was three times more efficient then their Unix admin staff. Primarily because our staff had automated vi
Re: (Score:2)
1:50 or 1:100 works for servers if you have a plan when you start. I've seen shops that need 1:20 because they started rolling out servers without a plan, and kept doing reactionary admin. Of course, that's true for both Windows and Linux, but I think Windows is ever so slightly more resilient in the face of half-starts, in that you have a fixed platform from which it's harder to stray. Once you have a Linux shop with 5 different software update strategies on 3 distributions with no centralized upgrade plan
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
To be fair, the same thing can happen in Windows shops. I've seen places with a mishmash of 95, 98, NT4, 2000, and XP machines, all trying to work together.
But you are right that some shops think being "Linux friendly" means letting multiple distros through the door. Screw that, pick one and go with that. At the very least, pick one package management system (apt, rpm/yum, whatever) and make it standard across the servers and desktops. Otherwise, nothing will ever get updated properly.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Puppet [reductivelabs.com] could be the answer to the multiple system thing. It can handle different systems running different packaging systems quite well and update them all according to generic directions. For instance you could have it install a HTTP server on all Linux machines and on RHES it uses Apache and on SLES it installs Lighttpd. Puppet is completely configurable and (fairly) easy to use.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Does the cost of Microsoft Windows included with a server include a support subscription comparable to Red Hat's? If not, you are not comparing like with like.
The fair comparison is: Windows licence plus support contract versus RHEL subscription,
or: Windows licence with no support versus CentOS with no support.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Has anybody checked the price of a Red Hat subscription lately? It ain't cheap. In fact, it's cheaper to get M$ bundled with a server than it is to get a one year Red Hat subscription, given that you need to renew (read= pay more $$$) each year, and Linux engineers can command more salary simply because there are fewer of them than there are Windows engineers (oxymoron, I know.).
I have no idea what the service level is so this is a serious question: Is the lowest support option, the one bundled with the Windows server license any good? Or is it more of a place you can open a ticket and maybe get an solution sooner or later or not at all? Where if your local support with the help of google can't find a solution, the ones you report it to are equally out of depth? Because I imagine there's quite a few that are really only interested in the license and would buy it no matter how poor
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a significant misunderstanding here, which is the following: price does not just say something about, well, price, it also says something about _value_.
If Linux is cheaper, it must be because it is not as good and therefore has to compete on price. If Linux is more expensive, it must be because it is really quite good and can afford to ask a higher pricetag.
Learn this lesson well: asking for more money means you are being more professional, and have a higher value product. It means you will be talki
Re: (Score:2)
Has anybody checked the price of a Red Hat subscription lately? It ain't cheap. In fact, it's cheaper to get M$ bundled with a server than it is to get a one year Red Hat subscription, given that you need to renew (read= pay more $$$) each year, and Linux engineers can command more salary simply because there are fewer of them than there are Windows engineers (oxymoron, I know.).
So yes, open-source as a "whole" (Articles of Confederation-type whole) will do well in tough economic times. If Red Hat wants in on this, they'll need to either lower their prices, or perhaps rethink they're "software as a service" model.
They didn't say they would survive...Just open source. Good luck with your slackware everybody.
Why is it seen simply as the cheap option? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"This is cheaper, lets get this." and then doesn't realize that he needed someone who actually knew how to configure and manage things like the Linux box it was going to go on, etc.
clearly you've never been somewhere that thought oracle was a good idea either...
Re: (Score:2)
"It is cheap, so let's buy it!" or "It's expensive, so let's buy it (it must be good)!". Signs of great managers.
Re: (Score:2)
Does it do the job as cheaply as possible. And have They heard of it.
oracles response: ' oh, it will do it. now - how much you got? '
or even more damaging is when oracle puts a concerted effort into 'site licenses' where management several layers removed from actual technical knowledge listen to the oracle reps lay it on thick about 'real savings' and equate a need for a simple database feeding a short term website with a big-iron requiring 'enterprise' system.
then they go and bury some clause about penalties per non-oracle install in the organisation.
bastards! ( or even wor
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I've seen 96 CPU Oracle servers (actually CPUs, not just 96 cores) kicking around databases with terrabytes of data. How many Postgres boxes have you seen at that scale?
yes, we had a postgres instance running on a 32 way sparc, later ( after my time ) updated to a 64 way e2k machine at a multinational logistics company. keeping billing records ticking over. several tens of millions of $ per day.
cpu was never the problem - linux and postgres seem to manage that quite well ( across 32 gigs of ram i believe ), what got us in the end was the slow old disks in the e10k.
that particular example aside, i have also seen/been involved with the development of 96+ ( just to re-use you
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea. But it wasn't my money. I was just being paid for my Oracle expertise. Very well, I might add. ;)
so kind of you to bring the thread back on topic ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Just think. If they weren't paying all that money to Oracle, for not all that much it seems to me, then they could have paid you even more ;-).
Re: (Score:2)
A 96 cores machine. Well, really none, since Postgres actualy does clustering, differently from Oracle that uses marketing newspeech to redefine clustering to mean what they do. With real clusters you can use cheap commodity hardware, no need for a supercomputer to run databases on.
That would be FEW cases (Score:2, Interesting)
--Coder
Re: (Score:2)
Please don't group mySQL (crap) and Postgres (great system) into the same grouping. As others have replied, Postgres is a very capable DB system.
I'm surprised that people use Oracle for installations as large as you have described. The largest database system I've used is a Terradata system running many terabytes of data.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, in many other places, Oracle is complete overkill. I see so many databases where there's maybe 150,000 rows in the entire database, spread over something like 30 tables, with the number of users in the 20-40 range. PostgreSQL is a far better choice for that sort of thing than Oracle - and a far more pleasant product to boot.
And I think you'd be surprised how well it scales. It can certainly keep 8 CPU's busy (in a meaningful way), according to various benchmarks I've seen (and I haven't seen anythi
Re: (Score:2)
hi morgan,
i would like to buy one of your oracles, could you give me a quote on the price?
regards,
the management.
Re: (Score:2)
No. My point is that Oracle scales very well and is trusted in the enterprise for enterprise-level applications. It's supported by major enterpise application vendors as SAP, UGS/Siemens, etc. It's a known quantity. Truth be told, until enough large enterprises are running MySQL or Postgres for applications on this scale, they will never be trusted for major enterprise-level applications. These databases are shared out all over the globe and if they're not running Oracle, they're running DB2 on an IBM mainframe. Downtime is simply not an option.
Am I safe to assume that Google uses Oracle or DB2?
Re:Why is it seen simply as the cheap option? (Score:5, Interesting)
Cheap is a valid metric for evaluation. The employees will use what the company gives them to do the job the company asks them to do. These aren't personal gaming machines at your house.
I have found that combining Windows XP with FOSS is a good thing. You give people an OS they are know, along with software that doesn't cost you anything but the time it took to create the gold image.
My company saves money by buying our PCs used. We buy off-lease Dells for a pittance, and they already have the XP Pro sticker on them. Microsoft Tax? Not in this company. And we aren't talking about slacker machines, either. P4 with 2Gb RAM for a tad over $200 each.
Cheap PC + Windows XP sticker + FOSS = IT being able to buy more toys.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That works if you have the staff that understands the app and the systems it runs on/needs to run. Unfortunately, a lot of managers see "free" software and dive on that not understanding that they need people to maintain/support that.
I am blessed to be working at a company with slightly smarter managers. I am the one with the weak linux knowledge. Half our servers are already linux.
And why not? (Score:2)
That works if you have the staff that understands the app and the systems it runs on/needs to run. Unfortunately, a lot of managers see "free" software and dive on that not understanding that they need people to maintain/support that.
And why wouldn't they think that? To me, there is still a whole lot of confusion revolving around "free software" and "open source". To me, they have always been synonymous. If I can go download it and use it legally for free, then it's free. You call call it open source, o
Re: (Score:2)
``Unfortunately, a lot of managers see "free" software and dive on that not understanding that they need people to maintain/support that.''
That's probably because they have people on staff who are supposed to maintain/support the software the company uses. Of course these people won't magically be able to support whatever others decide to throw at them, but that is the case regardless of whether the software is open-source or not. And the solution is the same as always: either get your people to learn the n
Re: (Score:2)
My company saves money by buying our PCs used. We buy off-lease Dells for a pittance, and they already have the XP Pro sticker on them. Microsoft Tax? Not in this company. And we aren't talking about slacker machines, either. P4 with 2Gb RAM for a tad over $200 each.
Cheap PC + Windows XP sticker + FOSS = IT being able to buy more toys.
So where does one get off lease dells? Besides ebay of course.
Re: (Score:2)
So where does one get off lease dells? Besides ebay of course.
Go to dell.com and find the link near the top for "Dell Outlet." You'll find all kinds of really good deals on used desktops, laptops and servers.
Why is it seen simply as the cheap argument? (Score:2)
Maybe because FOSS supporters have done such a good job with the "it's free" argument.
Penny wise, pound foolish (Score:3, Insightful)
Where I work they buy recycled toner cartridges at half the price of new ones. The trouble is, you only get 1/10th as many pages before they peter out, and usually spill toner all over the inside of the printer, necessitating repairs.
I've found that managers aren't very smart.
There is argument about the cost of server software here, and seeing as how it's Red Hat speaking, that makes sense (I have no idea whether RH or MS server software is cheaper to run), but I don't understand why businesses are using Mi
Re: (Score:2)
I've used it exclusively since 2002. I think it works just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Hi Peter, (Score:3, Insightful)
If you could just go ahead and convert all of those windows servers containing all of our business value into linux, that'd be great, mmmmk?
Wouldn't it be cheaper for them to just stop upgrading to the latest and greatest and stick with what they've already got?
(I am a linux fan and don't even run windows, it just seems like it'd be more money and less cost effective to start switching over just leaving things alone).
Re:Hi Peter, (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be cheaper to stay with what they already have, if only it were that easy...
What happens when the current software reaches end of life? No patches, gaping security holes, nothing you can do about it... Have to upgrade, and possibly upgrade the hardware at the same time.
What happens when you need to buy new or replacement hardware, the old software may not run on it, or its license may forbid it, meaning you now have some new and some old. Will you be able to run old alongside new, or will you start having compatibility problems that will force you to upgrade everything?
If you move to open source, then future upgrades are a lot less painful, and its easier to retain older versions if you need to.
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, to switch platforms solely for cost reasons, while said platform is treating you well, is fairly irresponsible and probably more costly than riding out your
Hell yeah! (Score:5, Funny)
...again.
8 years ago.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you cobble something cheap/free together you'll likely have a hard time finding a support solution that will take your problem as their own and find a resolution for you no matter how long it takes.
Re: (Score:2)
You can buy support from Redhat as well
Re:8 years ago.. (Score:4, Interesting)
If you have a hardware problem and call Intel they will solve your problem because the entire hardware stack is Intel
so the admin guys with MCSE's you employ to babysit your system guess its a hardware problem...and so the call intel.
whereby intel will direct you to the software vendor, who is clearly responsible for the ${fault} you have described. .. and such and such.
_or_ you could employ a couple of guys who know their way around f/oss, use commodity hardware and when a part fails, just replace it. if its under warranty, great, maybe get a fresh replacement part for the next one that blows. if not - meh.
all the support in the world isnt going to help if your raid array fries and the mcse's didnt back up the data....
my point is that if you have to have local support ( sysadmins, whatever ), then they should be able to handle 99 % of any problem likely to arise, the other 1% should be cheaper to just replace parts with - so what does ' vendor support' really get you?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
``what does ' vendor support' really get you?''
Apparently, extra costs during normal operation, and extra costs in the event of failure, where you have to sit and wait for the support provider to diagnose the problem. And then maybe a free fix, if the provider decides that this is covered under their contract with you.
By contrast, without the vendor support, you have no extra cost during normal operation, and some of the people who would, in the vendor support scenario, be twiddling thumbs during downtime w
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
CYA, somebody to blame, not my problem, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
He priced out _Redhat_. If there's a problem with any of the software that comes with Redhat, you call Redhat and they will solve your problem.
Re: (Score:2)
MS will often blame the hardware vendor, Intel will often blame the software...
What you really need is a system where the entire stack of both hardware and software is supported by a single vendor. Try looking at Sun, Apple or IBM. HP have some offerings too based on HP-UX and Linux, and SGI have supported linux offerings i believe.
MS don't offer hardware, and i'm not sure if Intel offer any kind of software support with their hardware (although they could easily support a version of linux running on their
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Have you ever called Microsoft for any support? Get your credit card ready because just OPENING a support request will cost you ~$150 unless you have an Enterprise Agreement and even then, getting the information together they need before opening a support request made one of my previous employers break out his Visa card and bill it as a company expense. And I didn't know Intel made full machines that they support. Unless you buy an expensive machine from a vendor like HP or IBM, you won't get any level of
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you have a hardware problem and call Intel they will solve your problem because the entire hardware stack is Intel (not so with AMD and others).
Seriously? So if your RAID controller burns out, you can call Intel and they'll say something other than "Sorry, can't help, call your vendor"?
You buy a hardware support contract from the vendor who assembled the hardware, not from one of the component manufacturers. And the purpose of a hardware support contract is to replace faulty hardware after the initial warranty, not to debug the problem in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My point is that with large mission-critical apps, any problem is a panic-button issue that needs serious attention by any & all vendor resources immediately. Sure, RedHat,
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What if the Red Hat license was the $350 - $1300 / year of use that it costs now? Would that company still have chosen it?
Red Hat CEO Says Economic Crisis Favors Open Sourc (Score:3)
Red Hat CEO Says Economic Crisis Favors Open Source
No! Really? I'm shocked!!! Who would have thunkit????
Not Convinced (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As an employee for a non-profit, OSS has been a lifesaver but it will be difficult to find a replacement who will be familiar with the OSS applications and Linux.
suggest walk into any small business office and see how visual basic for applications has completely anchored the business processes in that company, and will be there till the business dies.
in that regard, crappy custom apps are always going to be harder to 'pick up', as at least with OSS apps there is a much wider pool of resources available to help.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
As an employee for a non-profit, OSS has been a lifesaver but it will be difficult to find a replacement who will be familiar with the OSS applications and Linux.
As an empolyee of a non-profit I call that job security.
I can see this working the other way... (Score:4, Insightful)
A lot of businesses may become increasingly unwilling to take risks, such as radically switching their technology.
It's easy to take risks when business is good and there is plenty of cash sloshing around, but changing mission critical systems during bad economic periods will be seen as a bit too radical for many businesses.
Having said that, I think smart businesses will be willing to make the change in many cases, especially when there is an OSS drop-in replacement, or where they are implementing a greenfield system.
Paul
While it sounds great for servers... (Score:2)
...It's still a not-so-great idea for home desktop machines.
Since servers tend to require a lot less in terms of end-user experience, you can get by with a lot more command-line operations to get the server to work correctly in the first place. That's why you see IBM being perhaps the world's largest distributor of "big iron" minis and mainframes that run modified versions of various commercial Linux distributions, since it wasn't that hard to port Linux to them.
But a home user desktop machine is a complete
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Hah, look who's coming back now! (Score:5, Funny)
we were petrified
Kept thinking we could never live
with Windows on our drives
But then we spent so many nights
hacking Linux all night long
And it grew strong
And we learned to carry on
but now you're back
your battle lost
I just logged on to read about you
urged by your bosses to save costs
we should have told Novell to wait
We should have raised our service fees
If we had known for just one second
you'd be begging on your knees
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Funny +1
random thoughts on this (Score:3, Interesting)
On paper, RHEL is a tough sell against Windows. The pricing just isn't aggressive enough.
For CIO's with more foresight, migrating from Windows to Linux makes future migrations much easier. Since Linux is a very UNIX-y environment, it's relatively painless to move from one Linux flavor to another, or from Linux to another UNIX-y OS.
Migrating to or from Windows is the major point of pain. Once you can get away from Windows, it actually doesn't make a lot of sense to ever go back to it (again, because migrating the other way is so hard).
Linux, on the other hand, will run on every machine at the company. Everything from your cell phones to your desktops, x86 servers, midrange boxen, and mainframes. Your IT department can become far more efficient (read: less head count) managing UNIX and Linux across the enterprise instead of Windows on the desktops & low-end servers, something else on your bigger servers, something else on your phones, etc.
Re:random thoughts on this (Score:5, Insightful)
almost.
what they need to do is stop investing in vendor lockin.
dont write that new app in dot net, do it in java with open source libs.
dont use oracle/sql server, use postgres.
with that first step tidied up, moving to an open source app server running on linux is very simple.
or even moving to a closed source app server on linux. or aix. or solaris - your apps, if well written, will not need to change one bit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In fact, I have called Microsoft support in the past. And I found the experience to be one of the few gratifying aspects of being a Microsoft customer. Once you get past the costs, Microsoft support is (or was) truly top notch. Certainly much more effective than Red Hat's.
Then again, I haven't had to deal with Microsoft products in 3 or 4 years, and I haven't called Red Hat for support in about as long.
Coincidentally... (Score:2, Funny)
Or switch for free (Score:3, Interesting)
'I've had a couple of conversations with CIOs who said, "We're a Microsoft shop and we don't use any open source whatsoever, but we're already getting pressure to reduce our operating costs and we need you to help put together a plan for us to... use open source to reduce our costs."
This makes Jim sound like a complete tool. People who want to save money by switching to open source solutions typically don't go to Redhat. You really want to save money? Switch to CentOS or Debian/Ubuntu. Those are free. In my experience companies usually use free solutions for the majority of their server fleet. For systems that require commercial support (Oracle, Weblogic, etc) they will use RHEL.
And we've had other customers literally looking at ripping and replacing WebLogic or WebSphere for JBoss ...
On a personal note.....DONT DO IT! JBoss blows chunks compared to Weblogic 10. If you want a cheaper J2EE solution, look at Glassfish its getting a lot of attention and having used the last stable version it is actually pretty good.
Of course he says that... (Score:2)
He's the CEO of a company with a somewhat untried venture trying to influence migration during an economic crisis! These people depend on investors not to jump off the train.
I believe an economic crisis will cause much more conservatism in the way companies run their IT. That may mean more sticking to Solaris or AIX for their servers and Microsoft Windows for their workstations, probably just not upgrading. Chances are they will cost cut by getting rid of jobs and not licensing NEW products instead of migra
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
True. But Red Hat owns and supports JBoss, so, uh, what do you think they're going to be pushing to their enterprise customers?
Re: (Score:2)
Here is a situation where potentially thousands of people in the industry are going to be laid off because of this economic downturn, and all he can mention is how great it's going to be for OSS.
well,
on the bright side - F/LOSS is priced with the developer in mind! all the poor windows mcse's will be able to re-tool themselves with nary a msdn cost amongst em!
Re:Great, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Here is a situation where potentially thousands of people in the industry are going to be laid off because of this economic downturn, and all he can mention is how great it's going to be for OSS. I mean, I see his point and it may be a valid one, but he could be a little less gung-ho about it.
Maybe he's hoping to hire some of those laid off workers. I do see your point though, I warned a relative about debt levels, houses, etc. Now I'm keeping really quiet about it. It's a really hard situation for people who didn't know how to evaluate the situation and went with what seemed like good advice because it was popular, only to be stung.
That said, it has seemed obvious to me since reading the GPLv2 and seeing RedHat 7 where this thing (OSS) was going, and I've always been a bit surprised that most people don't see it too. Proprietary licences are designed to benefit the business, GPL is designed to benefit the user (and the users they distribute to, in perpetuity).
How hard is it to work out that the software distributed in a manner that it benefits people (customers) will eventually gain dominance over software that is distributed in a manner that restricts customers for the benefit of the distributor? It is very unlikely that any other consideration will outweigh that in the long run although they often do in the short term. Tough economic times require purchases to be evaluated more thoroughly, so yes it is likely to benefit OSS.
Likewise, how hard is it to figure out that if you allow corporations to produce the money supply out of thin air as loans that you are headed for financial collapse? Tighter regulation can do nothing to prevent the collapse of a financial system based on money that isn't worth anything.
Re: (Score:2)
How hard is it to work out that the software distributed in a manner that it benefits people (customers) will eventually gain dominance over software that is distributed in a manner that restricts customers for the benefit of the distributor?
This is why BSD-style licensing will eventually take over the world, after proprietary licensing dies off and causes the GPL and friends to lose steam. ;)
Which is more useful to you as a developer? Code that demands to only be used with other code under the exact same style of mandated freedom, or code that can be used for anything (but you know that if you don't share, your potential customers will ignore you)?
Re: (Score:2)
Weak. Your comparison is like comparing credit cards to debit cards. If your credit card is stolen, you have the full force of federal law restricting your losses to a max of $50. If your debit card is stolen, you have the full force the issuing bank's promises, not even contractually binding promises, to restrict your losses to a max of $50 and don't even think about getting reimbursed for NSF fees and any other fallout from checks that bounced after your account was drained.
Only fools and those with no
Re: (Score:2)
When the economy is in a downturn, the safe choice can quite likely lead to bankrupcy and, consequently, unemployment. Thus, it isn't safe anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's the problem. When the economy is in a downturn, people are going to cover their own asses and pick the "safe" option.
Most will, some will be smart and innovative. Some people thrive in times where economy is appreciated.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sure. 0 (not 0). Wow, that was easy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Categorically speaking, you can't prove it.
You can only prove it on a case by case basis. The exact same solution that saves one company money might cost another company more once you figure in required training, infrastructure, and staffing changes.