Information Week Article on Windows Alternatives

[alexander]

So another week, and another Information Week (i now get them once a week because our company has a subscription), and another utterly stupid article that is pointlessly wasting ink on this poor piece of processed wood.

Originally Posted by article

The real question is, why bother to change? Neither Mac nor Linux the killer app or some other major reason to make the move.

Aside from the fact that i hope he got an F in his English class for writing a dystypesic sentence like that, does security, reliability, speed and thousands of pieces of software that is free and ready to use, mean anything to this guy...?

Originally Posted by article

The complains i hear from geeks about Windows are the very thing that most nongeek users like about it.

ROFL, show me one nongeek user that likes periodic crashes, the fact that you have to reboot when you install software, the minutes it takes to log in, fact that none of your data is ever safe, OS update software that spies on the user, OS updates that fix previous OS updates that fixed previous OS updates, file system that can't manage fragmentation, nonintuitive GUI.... and i can go on... ... mmmmm virusolicious...

Originally Posted by article

Linux isn't viable in any way, shape, or form for the desktop

Based on what you said.... no way, i mean it dont have the killer app... wait it does; kill

Originally Posted by article

It's just too complicated, and it has limited software liability

I swear he got paid by M$, that or he works for them. This guy definitely does not know what OS is about..... at all!

Originally Posted by article

Mac OS X is ready, but expensive

ahahahahahahaahhaahahahah
Lets see, spend $100 for OS X or spend $160 for home premium its $260 for ultimate. And don't even start with hardware BS, by the time you get Vista-compatibles hardware that can run Photoshop like its supposed to run, you might as-well get a Mac!

He was definitely an ignorant microsoft employee, to prove it you just have to read this: the article finishes with:

Originally Posted by article

Between Linux and Mac, Mac wins hands down. But it's kind of like fighting for who comes in second or third at a race. No one really cares.

*shakes his head and throws the magazine in the trash exhaling "Junk" as he does so*

[TheBigDog]

His point about liability on Linux is valid. When you are running mission critical/revenue critical applications you want an OS that comes with more than a volunteer network of support. We have a strict "No Linux" policy at work, although there are a handful in the mix of several thousand servers we run world wide. Everything is Unix or Windows Server 2003. All desktops are XP Professional, but that is all about standardization. Databases are primarily SQL 2005 and Progress for our ERP systems. Some Oracle for our data warehouse applications. And LotusNotes, whatever the hell that qualifies as...

Bill

[TheFaithfulStone]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

When you are running mission critical/revenue critical applications you want an OS that comes with more than a volunteer network of support. We have a strict "No Linux" policy at work,

I hope that's not the reason for your "No Linux" policy, since it's simply untrue. It's just as easy to pay for linux support as it is to pay for support on any other platform.

Not that you had anything to do with the policy... but still.

TFS

[alexander]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

His point about liability on Linux is valid.

ok, convince me of the opposite: Most major linux distributions offer 24/7/365 support, and there is literaly someone there 24/7/365, and not only that it is also not ousourced to some indian-based company where people barely speak english. When you call them, you get to an actual developer and get a ticket for your problem, and usually a fix within 24 hours (especially if its a security related issue), and you get a ticket number that you can track progress. In the Windows world, microsoft doesn't even think of starting such a ticket unless they get at least a few thousand complaints about that same issue (and they forward you to that page i linked to in the "Error Message of the Day" thread), but if you are running a one-off application and there is an issue with a system library with it, you are never getting it fixed by M$.

[TheBigDog]

Originally Posted by alexander

ok, convince me of the opposite: Most major linux distributions offer 24/7/365 support, and there is literaly someone there 24/7/365, and not only that it is also not ousourced to some indian-based company where people barely speak english. When you call them, you get to an actual developer and get a ticket for your problem, and usually a fix within 24 hours (especially if its a security related issue), and you get a ticket number that you can track progress. In the Windows world, microsoft doesn't even think of starting such a ticket unless they get at least a few thousand complaints about that same issue (and they forward you to that page i linked to in the "Error Message of the Day" thread), but if you are running a one-off application and there is an issue with a system library with it, you are never getting it fixed by M$.

I thought there were no security issues with Linux.

What is the cost of such a supported version of Linux? What is the cost of that 24/7/365 support from "actual developers"? When they are giving you your fixes, what does that do to the versio control of your OS? What guarantee do you have that the fix they give doesn't disable some other functions on some other areas of your computer?

In a small shop this might be an alternative. As the number of computers grows in your environment the variability you encounter with the install of each patch and fix from these 24/7/365 professionals becomes unmanageable. Variability introduces greater cost than most people imagine, which is why Microsoft is so methodical in how they make their updates.

Another problem with Linux is there is no single Linux. Every one is different but they are all under the umbrella name of "Linux". They are not all equal, and they are not all wine and roses. Everything I have heard about Linux is that every install is a kind of voyage of discovery. Some versions are better than others. Much of the Linux community are geeks who like tinkering with their computer and are somehow oblivious to how much work they are actually doing. My dad is like that with cars. He loves putting together cars, and thinks nothing about changing the rings in his engine over an afternoon. For him that is not a problem, like fixing incompatibilities and driver issues and installing patches you find online is not an issue for the typical Linux geek.

M$ may have its issues, but it is not the enemy of the computer user.

Bill

[alexander]

I will happily answer every question you have posted TBD:

What is the cost of such a supported version of Linux?

$3,748.00 for 3 year 24/7 phone/email subscription from Novelle.
SUSE Linux Enterprise Server: How to Buy

When they are giving you your fixes, what does that do to the versio control of your OS?

patches custom written for you usually make it to mainstream patch set within a few days, so in short nothing.

What guarantee do you have that the fix they give doesn't disable some other functions on some other areas of your computer?

developers best opinion guarantee.... you don't have any guarantee anywhere else, why would you get an official guarantee with any linux distribution? Now, patch wont get back to you without being tested if that's what you are asking.

now to the rest of your post:

In a small shop this might be an alternative. As the number of computers grows in your environment the variability you encounter with the install of each patch and fix from these 24/7/365 professionals becomes unmanageable.

So i was wrong, apparently Google, Linux Journal, Hess, Cisco, Panasonic, Shell, Toyota, Raymour & Flanigan, Us Army, USPS, Travelocity, Conoco, Digital Domain and BART are what you consider as tiny companies, or perhaps even Mom and Pop shops...

Variability introduces greater cost than most people imagine, which is why Microsoft is so methodical in how they make their updates.

I know i didnt just read what i thought i read. Microsoft is NOT methodical about their updates and you HAVE to be VERY careful about installing them, they DO break lots and lots of stuff, especially software. Now in linux you dont have as much of a problem, the update cycle is almost daily and sometimes more then once a day daily, and chances are that if you go weekly with the upgrade cycle, you will almost never run into problems with software not working, because someone already found the problem you were going to have with the original update and it was patched in hours.

Another note, Linux Admins are notoriously freaky about security, so if you find a possible flaw and report it, patches will be out in minutes, not even hours, and they will make mainstream updates within a day or so. Now this is NOT just my imagination, i know the head firewalls guy for the sate, and he says the same exact thing, and he actually has a load of Nix boxes they manage running RHEL and SUSE and if i am not mistaken an occasional SELinux box mixed in, and some linux appliances. I havent heard him complain about anything breaking and catching on flames on his Nix side in ever. Such i can not say about as much as my own experiences with M$ just within the last 2 weeks (and we run about a dozen and a half servers and 300+ clients).

like fixing incompatibilities and driver issues

You can know whether you will have problems installing nix if you do your research! People always say; i was doing a Nix install and oh no this does not work, but when you ask did you make sure your hardware was supported before the install, the common answer is silence. If you start going into a mixed environment and start transitioning some of your boxes to Nix, the least you can do is make sure your hardware is supported... If not, you can either change out the hardware or not push to go nix for a certain service on your network, at least until you get a new appliance to run it!

M$ may have its issues, but it is not the enemy of the computer user.

yes and no, if your admin blows then yes, windows is probably an easier way to go, if your admin is smart about how and where he rolls out nix, then no, you can avoid issues and hassles all together with nix.

2 examples:
Thoughtless) admin does not research his hardware, does not properly set up and test his rollout of nix to everyone, you have MAJOR issues!

Thoughtfull) admin thinks through and decides that while some people use certain windows applications that dont have a counterpart in nix and are processor intensive, there are others that use their systems to check email use online apps and type up word documents. He rolls out windows standalone boxes for the first group of (hardcore users), and goes with 2 terminal servers and 90 thin clients running minimal linux. Now, you have enormous savings in per-system OS licensing, you have enormous saving on new hardware, you also have enormous savings in power consumption over time, you do get 2 servers that run windows, but most clients are nix-based.

[Buffy]

I've spent most of my career dealing with F500 IT folks. Here are the top 5 reasons why they stick with M$:

• Replacing systems is so expensive and has so little upside that its not worth it. M$ servers are going to stay that way until they keel over or until MS refuses to support it any more (almost always the latter).
• Personnel training/expertise: you have people who know MS. Retraining or replacing them so that you can support a different OS again has marginal value and very high costs.
• IBM Effect: Non-tech management knows who MS is, and the old saw has transmogrified to include MS: "No one ever lost his job because he bought IBM."
• Old applications can't be rewritten or aren't available. Not as bad as the old days when someone recycled the tape that had the source code (or dropped the deck of punched cards), but still infeasible.
• Certain applications run only on MS (my company is one of them ). Its the most popular OS, and if you've got a limited market, it doesn't make sense to port it.

None of these is "its not reliable" or "you can't get support" or "the security sucks". In fact as alex is trying to point out, these are in fact the reasons that big IT shops *are* moving to Linux *anyway*.

alex only points out Novell, but if you want high end support, I've got friends in sales at Sun, IBM, and HP who would be *more* than happy to sell you Linux or Unix boxes all with the same high level of support at high prices that will still beat what you pay Microsoft! And to reinforce alex's point: a lot of these fixes feeding into the open source code line come from these big guys.

I know that what you're saying is actually common at some big companies BD, but this is already a position that is in the minority, and its a sign that the IT group is not looking forward--indeed not even *trying to investigate*--in an business function where doing so is critical to the company's health. I'd be *worried* if I were you!

Creative destruction,
Buffy

[alexander]

i only point to novelle because i didnt have time, both novelle, RH and Ubuntu, as well as any corporate linux vendor will sell you support, and yes if you want super premium support with training, it can get really expensive, and still kill M$ licenses.

here is a simple example (delema that i am facing):
my company is in need of upgrading the Email server within a few months (running exchange 5.5). We have 300 users who we will have to license for. The price of upgrade to the latest and greatest server from M$ is along the lines of $160k+. Going to a linux alternative, it will be around $56k, thats for 500 licenses, and thats with a systems engineer coming and setting up the server for us, and training on the server management and silver 24/7 support (which will be enough i think).
Functionality loss is nonexistent, of anything we would gain features (like journaled FS, ability to do incremental backups, great, easy to use and secure online client... etc, stability, security there are more, but not gonna go into it)
Downsides?, well little, the server integrates into AD and the change will be virtually transparent to other servers, and 100% transparent for users, admins can use their regular admin tools to manage the server, it supports blackberry stuff, and everything....
Also needless to say that the prices are only for licensing, hardware is excluded...

[sanctus]

Since I passed to linux I love it every day a bit more (prefer it since a while), but I agree in one thing with TBD of alll the OSs it is the less user friendly. Don't you agree alexander?

[alexander]

to install, maybe, to get a machine with linux preinstalled and everything working, not necessarily... It has waay more intuitive user interface then windows will ever have, as well as easily customizable to fit what you want to see on the screen! Besides, you say of all oses, i say not!

Its more user friendly then:
System V, BSD, Be OS, HP UX, NeXTSTEP, Mach, OS/360, OS/2, Exec 8, MCP-B5000, VMS and OpenVMS, z/OS, VxWorks, eCos, PalmOS, OS X86 (especially when it comes to hardware), Dos, XTS-300, Minix, Ultrix, TRON, BOS, Commodore-(PET, 64, Vic20), Flex, TI-99, TRS-DOS, RISC OS, Amiga OS, Amix, AEGIS, ProDOS, SOS, Lisa, A/UX, BTOS, ZETA, iRMX, K42, OS-II, EOS, GCOS, TinyOS, SCO Unix, Sun OS, System V.
(the list is not complete)