Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Amazon: Linux Saved Us Millions

CmdrTaco posted more than 12 years ago | from the well-isn't-that-special dept.

Linux Business 389

Ian_Bailey writes: "ZDNet news presents another chapter in the Windows vs. Linux debate. Amazon.com claims that by switching to Linux, they were able to "cut technology expenses by about 25 percent, from $71 million to $54 million."" Lots of little bits in there. Nothing really new, but it's still nice.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Oh My God! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2502647)

Get the vaseline ready, for this will surely be a circlejerk for the ages. Hooray for Linux!

Cut them millions of dollars (-1)

Dead Fart Warrior (525970) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502648)

but wait until they need support!

Too bad VA already changed their name, or they coulda had their stock up a whole 10 cents today.

Who's yer daddy? Cyborg_monkey?

frist ps0t (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2502649)

damn i'm good at this. metro to win tonight, mark my works.

But will you guys like this (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2502651)

since it is Amazon that we are talking about here :)

does this meen (5, Funny)

MindTree (95218) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502652)

Doest this meen that I'm allowed to like amazon again?

Extra, Extra, Read All About It! (5, Funny)

ekrout (139379) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502655)

Breaking news just off of the wire -- A free operating system costs less than an operating system that you have to pay for! (Yes, I'm being fecetious (sp?))

Re:Extra, Extra, Read All About It! (-1)

Dead Fart Warrior (525970) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502674)

You're being feceslicious?

Ewwww.... I know fecal matter troll's karma whoring account now! Ekrout = Fecal Matter Troll!

Re:Extra, Extra, Read All About It! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2502681)

This is ekrout posting anonymously, but no, I don't know who the f*ck "Fecal Matter Troll" is, but it's certainly not me or another alias of mine. I only have one account here, "ekrout", and "erickrout.com".

Re:Extra, Extra, Read All About It! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2502764)

Dude.. I think they are just making fun of you for being in too much of a rush for an early +5 funny to bother to spellcheck. No one's accusing you of being a troll. Relax. Sheesh.

Re:Extra, Extra, Read All About It! (-1)

Dead Fart Warrior (525970) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502828)

Actually I was accusing him of being a troll.

Quit trying to read my mind, damnit.

fecetious? (5, Funny)

Pope (17780) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502687)

Full of shit? :)

You mean facetious. [dictionary.com]

Re:fecetious? (2)

Codifex Maximus (639) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502793)

>>fecetious?
> Full of shit? :)
>You mean facetious. [dictionary.com]

Man, this is too funny... it hurts.

Re:Extra, Extra, Read All About It! (1)

Computer! (412422) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502798)

"migration to a Linux-based technology platform that utilizes a less-costly technology infrastructure, as well as general price reductions for data and telecommunication services due to market overcapacity"

In the eCommerce game, bandwidth is a huge part of your expenditure. Not to mention HP "helped" them with lots of free/cut-rate hardware. I think the overall savings was not as great as one might think, especially with the initial costs of migration.

I don't really see how (0)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502658)

In a corporate Linux environment you still have to pay for the staff, sysadmins, distributions [most likely Amazon bought a few copies of what ever linux.dist they have], etc..

I'm all for Linux too, but lets not use any excuse to promote it. The OS is still very premature and doesn't really compete with Windows in terms of END USER usability. Sure Linux may be a faster/stabler[?? VM problems?] OS, but it is not an easier to use OS, and in the end, for 99% of the users that is what counts.

Tom

Re:I don't really see how (1)

Darkstar1 (249752) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502688)

What you have to remember is that the Windows licensing is expensive. Also, who cares about desktop, Linux is definately still a server OS and should try to compete as such.

Re:I don't really see how (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2502693)

It's not for users, dumbass. They're using it on servers. You must be an MCSE.

Re:I don't really see how (1)

ignatzMouse (447031) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502718)

Aren't sysadmins the only "END USER" that matters when it comes to running web servers?

Re:I don't really see how (3, Insightful)

Trekologer (86619) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502719)

In a corporate Linux environment you still have to pay for the staff, sysadmins, distributions [most likely Amazon bought a few copies of what ever linux.dist they have], etc..

Have you ever noticed the prices of Windows NT Server and their various other BackOffice applications? You're talking many hundreds of dollars per server for software alone. Plus you need client licences... This might just be a drop in the bucket for some businesses but when you have lots of computers, the costs add up.

I'm all for Linux too, but lets not use any excuse to promote it. The OS is still very premature and doesn't really compete with Windows in terms of END USER usability. Sure Linux may be a faster/stabler[?? VM problems?] OS, but it is not an easier to use OS, and in the end, for 99% of the users that is what counts.

What end users? The only ones that would probablly be able to tell that the computer was running Linux are the system administrators. And for ease of use... administering Windows NT isn't an easy task.

Re:I don't really see how -- Then READ the article (2)

A Commentor (459578) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502726)

Did you even read the article... they using for their servers, since it's virtually identical to other Unix boxes they can hire any trained unix sysadm..

Re:I don't really see how (3, Interesting)

Nicodemus (19510) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502765)

This announcement is a promotion for linux in the server market, not workstation. The END USER, as you put it, does not interface with the OS directly. You are arguing as if amazon put the OS on every amazon users' home computers, overwriting windows or something. This change has already happened, and if you go to the site from whatever OS is your favorit, then you will notice no difference.

I personally think linux is an awesome server OS. I find that it's interface, especially remote, is far better than Windows, BSD, Solaris, and other UNIX systems. You can't do crap with windows remotely, plus it's proven unstable. With other OSes, like Solaris, their stock tools are horrible. Maybe it's because I absolutely love Gnu tools, but I find it to be a pain in the ass to use Solaris out of the box. And I don't want to spend 2 days installing Gnu tools, etc. BSD is better, but still not there. It's tools share a lot in common with Solaris and other commercial UNIX systems. Give me a box, whether it be x86, PowerPC, Alpha or SPARC, and I'll have you a fully tweaked server OS on it in much less time than any other OS.

Plus go compare a service contract from redhat to one from Microsoft or Sun. If you can't see plain numbers...

I am wondering if you have any experience at all adminstrating web servers...

Nic

Re:I don't really see how (1)

nolife (233813) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502794)

Did you read the article? They are not talking about the users desktops..
There is more to a corporate environment then Susie typing up a Word document. Whether or not Linux is feasible on the desktop is still questionable, but it is more then ready for the back room. I would assume that a ecommerce company like Amazon would probably need much much more computing power in the back room then they need on their users desktops, which are probably running some form of Windows.

Yes, it is true ..... (0, Redundant)

Awxxx (531462) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502665)

free is always cheaper! Awx

Using Perl (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2502666)

And the new DVD::Price::Discriminate modules

more testimonials (3, Interesting)

g8orade (22512) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502669)

Article [infoworld.com] at Infoworld tells how Boscov's Dept Store is saving a bundle.

This article [computerworld.com] is really more about IBM, but mentions Winnebago the motor home maker switching from NT also.
"Linux as pork bellies" the os as a commodity.

quote of the day. (4, Interesting)

garcia (6573) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502676)


With Linux, customers "end up being in the operating systems business," managing software updates and security patches while making sure the multitude of software packages don't conflict with each other," Miller said. "That's the job of a software vendor like Microsoft."

too bad that they only supply patches when the problem is absolutely demanding it. I don't really see MS going out and patching all these machines.

From the article MS had very little to say about this whole ordeal. They kept going back to the "it's free, sure, but you will pay in the long run." no. I will never pay. It is going to cause me the same, if not less problems in the long run, especially w/new licensing issues.

As far as it is usually for low end servers. Anyone see the IBM commercials lately?

Re:quote of the day. (1)

ThatComputerGuy (123712) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502771)

You mean aside from the eBusiness/WebSphere/Geeks from a parallel universe in space suits commercials? Nope.. want to share?

Re:quote of the day. (5, Funny)

rfsayre (255559) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502787)

" you will pay in the long run"

Obviously, Microsoft's licensing scheme is far superior. With them, you pay throughout the short-term, the forseeable future, and even the long run. Basically, you'll constantly pay for your Operating System as well as any "service" you decide you need (Word, Excel). Sounds less like a utility and more like protection money.

Hello but (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2502678)

isnt this more about Unix vs Linux than Windoze vs Linux. Hey, dont let the facts get in the way of a good headline!?

All of this....... (-1, Offtopic)

Nick's Name (531306) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502682)

"We've recently...found that Linux--if you look at the overall cost of ownership including the hardware, software, staffing, and purchasing and retirement costs--ends up being significantly less expensive than Unix over a three-year period for things like Web serving," said IDC analyst Dan Kusnetzky.

And it's made me more attractive to the ladies!

mitigating factors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2502684)

Once they got OpenNap working the change was a no-brainer!

This just in! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2502685)

Breaking news! I just found that if I squeeze my anus hard enuff it extrudes something akin to pudding!

Sheesh (1)

ErikZ (55491) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502686)

That's pretty sad, the link in the article to another ZDNet article dealing with intel brings up a "Article not found" page.

Linux Costs $54 Million? (0, Troll)

mikeporter (526673) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502689)

Whoa!

Re:Linux Costs $54 Million? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2502754)

Hardware and salaries are also part of IT costs, dolt.

Re:Linux Costs $54 Million? (0, Offtopic)

mikeporter (526673) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502781)

Duh, I just couldnt resist!

Feeble Response from MS (5, Interesting)

DouglasA (31173) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502692)

With Linux, customers "end up being in the operating systems business," managing software updates and security patches while making sure the multitude of software packages don't conflict with each other," Miller said. "That's the job of a software vendor like Microsoft."

Interesting comment from MS's Miller, seeing as how so many of us running MS servers have wasted untold numbers of hours fighting off the Code Red & variant worms. Yeah, there was a patch available before the storm came (and my servers were ready, anyway), but if MS is claiming that it's their "job" to manage updates & patches, they're not doing a very good one, IMHO.

Re:Feeble Response from MS (2)

connorbd (151811) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502786)

"Interesting"? Surely you've seen the same line a million times from Microsoft already -- it stopped being interesting or ironic a long time ago. Now it's just empty.

/Brian

Not my job (3, Insightful)

TheFlu (213162) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502694)

"With Linux, customers 'end up being in the operating systems business,' managing software updates and security patches while making sure the multitude of software packages don't conflict with each other,' Miller said. 'That's the job of a software vendor like Microsoft."


Funny, that sounds very similar to what RedHat does as well.

Re:Not my job (2)

Genom (3868) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502744)

...or Debian as well. =)

Tough luck (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2502696)

Just when VA Linux abandoned (the) Linux, there's a success story. Must be like switching to the faster lane just in time for the stop.

Boo! Boo hoo? Random Thoughts by WebWord! (5, Interesting)

webword (82711) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502697)

(1) Hasn't really helped their stock price [yahoo.com] . They are still not profitable, and won't be for a while. They say that pro forma profitability should happen next quarter.

(2) For curious folks, here is Amazon's Linux page [amazon.com] .

(3) Amazon uses Linux despite attacks [linuxtoday.com] by high profile people. However, when you get down to it, it is about money. They don't really give a shit about Linux itself. They don't have feelings for it. Don't forget that. It is about the money. (And the nookie. They did it all for the nookie, the nookie.)

And the nookie. They did it all for the nookie.... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2502742)

Well, they can take that cookie, and stick it in their, yeah, stick it in their, yeah, yeah yeah.

And I'd just as soon kiss a wookie than have nookie for a cookie from a rookie like Jeff Bezos.

Re:Boo! Boo hoo? Random Thoughts by WebWord! (5, Insightful)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502746)

  • [Amazon] don't really give a shit about Linux itself. They don't have feelings for it. Don't forget that. It is about the money

As a corporate entity, sure, but it's been my experience that a switch from M$ to GNU/Linux requires an internal evangelist. The guys in charge of running the machines have to want to do it, otherwise they can come up with any number of reasons why it's not viable right now.

Somebody in there is GNU/Linux friendly. Let's raise a glass to their health.

Re:Boo! Boo hoo? Random Thoughts by WebWord! (1)

ZeroLogic (11697) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502763)

You're missing the point, this wasn't a switch from windows to linux, this was a switch from Unix to Linux.

They saved money by going to cheap (intel) hardware from the highend stuff they had before, and by losing the license fees.

CNet Article (5, Interesting)

Tim Macinta (1052) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502698)

There's also a nice CNet article on the same topic [cnet.com] .

I've been thinking awhile about making an interactive price comparison web page for my website [kmfms.com] that would allow users to see how much they could save by switching from Windows to Linux. This is just a formative idea at the moment - if people have suggestions for this, please email me. Right now I'm thinking of something along the lines of a set of "wizard" pages that ask the user a series of questions about what software they want to run (and what hardware they have available) and keeps a running tally of the savings they would get with Linux over Windows.

Re:CNet Article (2)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502749)

Make sure you include a "Do you believe you have a competent IT staff?" y/n option in there. If they anser no, add at least 1,000 bucks / Linux install, cause thats what they'll end up spending on some consultant gettin it all running smoothly doing exactly what they want

Re:CNet Article (5, Interesting)

mackertm (515083) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502832)

I'm so glad you pointed this out. It seems there are endless comparisons between Windows and Linux in terms of cost. But I think the thing that gets overlooked the most is how good the IT staff at any particular company/institution might be. If your support staff is good and knows Linux, I can certainly see where it would be possible to save heaps of money running Linux. But if your technology people don't know Linux, then just moving to Linx (be it only in the server space, or desktops, too) wouldn't save any money. The TCO in that case would be extraordinarily high. "Oh shit, we just installed Linux... Nothing works like we expected... What do we do now?"

I think the biggest single factor in any Windows vs. Linux cost debate shouldn't be the simple fact that Linux is free. It should center around how competent an IT department you have, and whether or not they can pull off a Linux deployment that would save a particular company money.

For reference, I'm more of a Windows person. The college I work at exclusively uses Windows computers. I run an IIS server for my personal website without any trouble. I have been starting to learn Linux, but right now I don't know nearly enough to successfully use it to run my website. And I think that's what it comes down to... The right people with the right knowledge can make Linux a LOT cheaper than Windows. If you don't have those people with that knowledge then it makes more sense to stick with Windows.

Linux was only part of the savings (2, Informative)

the_rev_matt (239420) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502700)

Note that they state it was a combination of the move to linux and lowered telco/comm costs. A minor, but important, point.

Won't help Linux biz (1, Flamebait)

wiredog (43288) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502701)

As seen in OSDN Boots K5 [kuro5hin.org] . (Apparently, k5 wasn't an open source site.) VA is going down in flames, and they won't be alone.

While the biz is suffering, Linux is doing well, and will continue to do so.

Reducing costs further! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2502702)

This is great! Amazon is proving that by making simple effective changes, losses can tumble. I propose some other ways for Amazon to reduce losses:

* Fire more staff
* Turn off servers randomly throughout the day (saves power)
* Run MacOS or XP on all workstations. It improves efficiency says Jakob!
* Firewall every site unrelated to Amazon. Stop those thiefing bastards looking at porn during work hours.
* Offer a lower quality telephone service than competitors.. oh, they already did that one.

Linux winning over Win2k on the money angle (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2502703)

Microsoft must position the MSFT stock as a growth stock. This means revenue growth of 10% per year. As revenues grow and the market beomces saturated, this beomces increasingly difficult to do and requires more draconian licensing and steeper fees.

It was predicatable that sooner or later, without opening new and potentially large markets, Microsoft would have to gouge existing customers.

The only thing that can bring Win2k and other enterprise software costs back in check would be a huge influx of revenues from XBox, MSN, and .Net services, three of the key new revenue initiatives at Microsoft.

Re:Linux winning over Win2k on the money angle (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2502816)

MS won (in my shop at least) over Novell/Unix originally because of cost. We were trying to save money by moving our entire operation over to the cheaper, and somewhat easier to setup, NT servers. They have now reached their apogee, and in large IT shops people are openly discussing what's next, because the licensing has gotten prohibitive. MS needs to change their business model to something else or they will simply not survive. When I can get a serious recommendation to evaluate Red Hat from my upper management, I know the winds of change are a blowin'.

And I don't think they're going to make nearly as much money as they expect from XBox, MSN, or .Net. Their expertise at embracing and extending does not give them much leverage in a market (gaming) where key players have already solved all of the problems and have market share. I predict they are going to lose, and lose big.

It's to laugh (2, Insightful)

pdqlamb (10952) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502704)

'With Linux, customers "end up being in the operating systems business," managing software updates and security patches while making sure the multitude of software packages don't conflict with each other," Miller said. "That's the job of a software vendor like Microsoft."'

How many patches and updates have Microsoft published in the last year? And how many of those were pulled, because they weren't tested properly? I haven't had to re-install Linux on any of the boxes I admin since we went to RH 6.2. The MSCE-in-training down the hall can't say that about the last three months on his Windoze boxes. Imagine doing that for 100, 1,000, or even more! What fun! Thank you, Microsoft!

Sigh. (2, Interesting)

kin_korn_karn (466864) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502708)

When is someone going to build a new type of machine architecture (i.e. not Sparc, PC, or PPC, but maybe based on one of those chips) that is optimized for absolute reliability and the things that machines need to do today, and then use Linux as a base for their operating system?

That's where the real value of Linux to the world is. You don't need 2+ years to write a proprietary operating system; someone else has done all the grunt work for you. Same goes for BSD, except BSD is more polished.

Re:Sigh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2502808)

It's called Deep Thought. But you'll have to wait a while for your answer.

Not really about Windows (1)

shani (1674) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502709)

I hate Microsoft as much as the next Linux fan, but the article was about money saved versus Unix systems.

It's a good thing I hate Sun too. :) Or maybe they were using some other Unix? Naaa...

Re:Not really about Windows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2502782)

True64 Actually.

Time to give something back.. (1)

Kancer (61362) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502710)

OK Amazon, lets see a little donation to some open source communities or deals for developers and maybe you will save yet even More $$ later on.

A classic example of speaking out of one's arse. (4, Funny)

malkavian (9512) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502711)

With Linux, customers "end up being in the operating systems business," managing software updates and security patches while making sure the multitude of software packages don't conflict with each other," Miller said. "That's the job of a software vendor like Microsoft."

Ok, so, how does Microsoft make things that much easier than apt-get?
On that command, on a debian box, I can quite happily make sure that my system is at it's best.
All done, configured, sorted, working dependancies etc...
This seems much easier than going to the MS website, hunting down all the latest upgrades, installing patches for all the seperate bits and pieces, having patches for one app kill half the rest, and ending up with your MS box in tatters...
Really, this FUD is old hat by now... I wish they'd get a little more creative, and actually do a little research for once...

Malk

Re:A classic example of speaking out of one's arse (-1, Troll)

Dead Fart Warrior (525970) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502745)

Ok, so, how does Microsoft make things that much easier than apt-get?

http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com/ [microsoft.com]

It knows what I have installed, what is *needed*, and other things I may *want*.

I think thats TONS better than your apt-get command.

Re:A classic example of speaking out of one's arse (1)

SaxMaster (95691) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502840)

Windows update is all fine and dandy for their DESKTOP OS's, but there is NO equivalent for their server OS's. Admins are on their own to search MSFT's software library.

In the spirit.. (2)

AftanGustur (7715) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502712)


Next: Ballmer says Amazon [amazon.com] is run by Communists [theregister.co.uk] !

;-)

Why did it take so long? (1)

kingpin2k (523489) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502715)

I'm a little surprised that it took a .com so long to realize that this step makes sense. If a company claims to be on the cutting edge of technology, why would they sink their money into faulty, overpriced, GUI OSes?

Re:Why did it take so long? (1)

Mr Thinly Sliced (73041) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502774)

Er - did you read it? They were running solaris boxes before they switched over to HP boxes with a custom Redhat install.

I didn't see Micro$oft (or any other overpriced GUI OS) mentioned anywhere. Please try and at least contribute something, not just air.

Re:Why did it take so long? (1)

kingpin2k (523489) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502807)

You're exactly right...let's remove faulty and gui from my previous post. Would you care to address the point of the post?

Re:Why did it take so long? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2502809)

solaris? i don't think so. it was digital unix.

This is just the beginning. (2, Interesting)

aspillai (86002) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502716)

I'm glad a big consumer name company is openly saying that they've switched to Linux and saved money. But this is just the beginning. As the slump proceeds and managers want to streamline expenses, Linux is the logical alternative. Most companies that don't write Windows only software are already using a generic library that doesn't tie them to windows. It might take a bit of a startup time to switch to Linux initially but once done, it's smooth. Linux is already a pleasure to program in and it'll only get better with time.

Considering Amazon's Financial Heath... (2)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502720)

Considering Amazon's Financial Heath, every little bit helps. I don't buy from them often, but It's good to have that avenue open to shop. There was an article on Slashdot some time back about how Google has used BSD or Linux and lots of cheap PC's to build their successful search engine, good endorsements of non-Win engineering and cost-benefit.

In another sad note, Computer Literacy, a well known geek bookstore has closed it's doors in San Jose, prefering to do all their business on the web as FatBrain (how do ideas for names like that survive the first round of puzzled looks?), a subsidiary of Barnes and Noble. I'll miss them, as I used to buy about twice as many books as I intended to, because looking through books tells me more about whether I can use it or not than any glowing review ever will. Saving a few bucks from FatBrain.com is no deal over actually having the book in hand. A pity and ironic as brick and mortar have demonstrated staying power and web sales, as illustrated by Amazon's continuing effort to stay afloat.

Forever? (2, Insightful)

rmadmin (532701) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502722)

Will this battle ever end? 5 Years ago I heard people telling me that Linux was going to take over as a desktop operating system, and squash Windows 95 technology. Well, I didn't believe them at the time, and I still dont see it happening. I don't think we should really worry about making 1 operating system the most popular. Just make it work, and make it interoperable with other operating systems. I like to use linux because it gives me alot of versatility, and also gives me a better view of my network when something goes wrong

On the other hand, Microsoft's Media Player is pretty pimp considering it will open about any video compression scheme I throw at it.

The operating system you use is your choice. Let the less savy use Windows, because thats what they want, an easy OS.

eBay . . . Linux (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2502724)

Debian GNU/Linux powers eBay's wireless application server [workspot.com] . . . just another example that companies really need Linux.

Ha!

Trying to make amends? (1)

Coonra (316112) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502728)

I'm really starting to wonder if this is Amazon's way of trying to get back on people's good side.

Or is it them figuring out just how cartoonish and nasty XP is? ;)

cartoonish? nasty? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2502759)

nasty that it's had nonstop uptime ever since i installed it?

cartoonish because it has an interface that actually helps me get work done?

i suppose you think we'd all be better off dealing with command lines because they keep the riffraff out?

What a moment... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2502738)

Is this the same Amazon every Linux/GPL zealot tries to boycott due to their '1-click' pattent? Now all the same guys are glad to see Amazon uses Linux. Funny to see this double standards on /.

IMHO, RMS is full of shit is expects someone to follow him on that boycott thing, probable the 3 HURD users will.

With the amount they've been loosing... (1)

iplayfast (166447) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502740)

If they shut down operations, they would save even more!

Cost Cutting and Workstations (2)

gizmo_mathboy (43426) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502743)

Linux should get a boost from companies looking to save money given the current economy. This article (and others sure to come) shows the value of Linux in a server situation.

Where Linux can make real strides is in the workstation market. While I think Linux isn't quite ready for the "primetime" of the mass desktop market it hasn't made the push into workstations. I'm not sure if it's a lack of a killer app or "marketing".

We know that Linux is used on high-end animation stations at many FX/animation studios but how many workstations running CAD/CAM/CAE, simulation, and other workstation like activities? That's were some major market share and cost savings can be had.

linux saves you money, too bad it sucks. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2502748)

yeah, too bad amazon are still a bunch of intellectual-property bluenosing pieces of shit.

using linux does not make you into a good guy (tm). it just means you use linux. using microsoft does not make you evil (c). it just means you use microsoft.

btw, i got the new mandrake distro and it refused to install on two brand-new boxes. locked up during setup, hard. munged a third one completely. xp installed on all three flawlessly and i was able to get all the updates i needed for it in five minutes.

personally, i don't see what all the screaming is about.

Look at the inane reply from MS rep (2, Redundant)

Vicegrip (82853) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502752)

"With Linux, customers "end up being in the operating systems business," managing software updates and security patches while making sure the multitude of software packages don't conflict with each other," Miller said. "That's the job of a software vendor like Microsoft.""

Seems to me like there's a good reply from Redhat in the makings here-- Redhat network comes to mind. Of course the rep's response is incredibly funny if you consider the multitude of poorly conceived and well hidden OS patches Windows has had over the years... (ever try to figure out what the latest patches for an NT server with a sideline sql server 2000 should be? Its practically a freaking fulltime job!).... The only bloody thing Microsoft manages for you is the promotional letters informing you its time to dish out another 10k for the next bloated version of MS Office. Security patches??? Since when has Microsoft managed that???!!! But I digress.. one need only look at how well all the IIS worms spread to evaluate how well Microsoft managed the security patch distribution business.

I'm trying to find a grain of honesty in the quote... but I can only come to the conclusion that either he was missquoted or he is a bald faced liar.

fulltime job (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2502773)

"ever try to figure out what the latest patches for an NT server with a sideline sql server 2000 should be? Its practically a freaking fulltime job!).... "

yes, you asshole, it's a fulltime job.

it's called being a sysadmin.

deal with it.

Re:Look at the inane reply from MS rep (1)

sceptre1067 (197404) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502775)

You got to the quote before I did but...

I have to agree what is the purpose of a Sys. Admin.???? (Win 2K or otherwise) Is Mr. Miller saying that MS will be our Admin/infratstucture people?? Gosh that's real nice of them, I'm sure its a free service.

Sigh... more FUD from MS

Yeah, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2502753)

There's an article elsewhere on the site where Intel says that the costs of using Linux are more than running Windows, since the costs go far beyond the initial cost/license fees. Linux admins cost more, hence Linux costs more.

Way to go open source authors... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2502755)

Way to go open source authors, you just got ripped off of $17 mil worth of value.

Good News (1)

snoozerdss (303165) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502756)

This is yet more good news for Linux, showing where it can really shine, in the server market. Maybe this will pave the way for more big businesses to make the switch. Linux may never take over the desktop, it wasan't intended for that in the first place but in the server market Linux is a quailty product. Plus no code red!!! ;)

Re:Good News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2502785)

no, you only have to deal with self-important nerds who think they're the shit because they know how to install redhat.

the iis 5 / win2k box we set up withstood nimda, code red and all kinds of other custom attacks because i had the fucking sense to patch the box as soon as security announcements were made. it's part of your goddamn job description, in theory.

Out of curiosity: (1)

Rasta Prefect (250915) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502766)


With Microsoft actually improving its products recently(do I get modded down for saying this?) and actually appearing to do something about their historically pitiful security, I would think that the price disparity would become a larger and larger incentive to switch to Linux and *BSD in the server arena. Speaking on a somewhat smaller scale, I'm currently(attempting) to convert my P133 with it's 580M of hard drive space(split between two drives) and 16M of RAM into a router/firewall so I can share my DSL connection among the computers in my appartment. FreeBSD runs quite comfortably on this machine, both for hard drive space and RAM. I'd probably have to run Win3.1 to say the same about windows.

However, every time this is mentioned to Microsoft, they say "yeah, but they'll pay for it in the long run". Do they actually have anything to back this up? I'd like to hear how they think this is the case.

Doug Miller (3, Interesting)

Juln (41313) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502770)


With Linux, customers "end up being in the operating systems business," managing software updates and security patches while making sure the multitude of software packages don't conflict with each other," Miller said. "That's the job of a software vendor like Microsoft."

How can he ignore the fact that Red Hat is doing that for them? Besides, of course, that he is the Master of MS Fud at the moment, being quoted with several misleading and plainly false statements in the news lately.
While Red Hat offers some of those services, it's difficult to ensure that software packages updated frequently by hundreds of people around the globe work well together, Miller said.
It clearly difficult for Microsoft to make sure that their hundreds of software packages produced by thousands of employees in Washington work well together. Apparently the tactic here is to discredit open source devlopment in general as being some sort of complex house of toothpicks.
From another story, Doug Miller, director of competitive strategy for the software giant, says he thinks Linux isn't a long-term bet for the data center. "I just don't see it taking over the world," he says.
Anyway, apprently Doug Miller is the MS pap of the moment. They seem to have a stream of dorks, each one heading the FUD campaign of the moment.
Anyway, the story is good news I reckon. I think more and more companies are going to realize that switching to stable, free, open software is only a winning propsition, and we'll be seeing more of this as the bean counters take notice.

What is more interesting.... (1)

johnycanal (209707) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502772)

is the fact that Amazon credited HP [hp.com] with guiding them through this transition into open source software. Granted HP is on the open source bandwagon but it is great to see them following through on it.

Do you think Amazon is running Debian [debian.org] ?

fuCK SLASHdOT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2502778)

i REPORTED THIS STORY AT 7:00 AM! REJECTED.

where does Microsoft come into this? (1)

PTBarnum (233319) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502783)

Amazon.com didn't switch from Windows to Linux, they switched from DEC/OSF to Linux.

amazon a mishmash of OSS ? (3, Interesting)

spike666 (170947) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502784)

i was talking with a friend of mine who's company is doing an e-comm software deal with amazon, and he described amazon as "the worst example of best in breed that you could look at" - i guess they've taken lots of different best in breed approaches, but not really had a direction or a clear methodology and it has hurt them.

on the plus side, he did say that they had made inroads into cleaning up, and are big on using XML between all systems for easy interfacing. and that they do a LOT of things really well - i mean, how many other sites have link ads that know who you are? thats a pretty strong set of CRM they got running. sure theres a lot of crap and a lot of silliness, but they gots some stuff thats good too.

How much is a full-page ad... (5, Insightful)

dlleigh (313922) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502790)

in the Wall Street Journal? Maybe we could all chip in for something like this:

[a picture of federal marshalls carting computers away from from a business, horrified managers in the background]

Complicated licensing and expensive audits could land you in legal hot water and cost you your business. Linux will save you money and give you peace of mind. [Add examples of companies such as Amazon that have moved to Linux.]

Microsoft is irrelevant here (1)

NineNine (235196) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502792)

They're talking about ENTERPRISE-CLASS systems, kids. Not the secretary's computer that she types memos on. I think that everybody agrees that MS does NOT have a place in the back end of the ENTERPRISE. READ THE ARTICLE. They switched from HP-UX to Linux. Microsoft has NOTHING to do with this story.

Great, now if only HomePNA would work (0, Offtopic)

Uttles (324447) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502795)

OK guys, sorry to be a little off topic, but I'm a little annoyed at the moment with the lack of support from HomePNA for Linux. At my apartment my roomate and I share an ADSL connection using HomePNA 2.0 and computers with Windows installed. I'm trying to move over to Linux but now I can't get to the internet unless I boot up under Windoze because Linux won't support my USB 2Wire HomePNA 2.0 card.

Anyway, in order for Linux to compete in the broad PC market they have to support little conveniences like running a home network over your phone lines (not everyone has the time, money, or ability to run cat 5 all over the place.) It's great that Amazon is supporting Linux and singing it's praises, but there's still a long way to go before every day people switch over to Linux.

So, anybody know anything about HomePNA 2.0 on Linux?

Re:Great, now if only HomePNA would work (1)

gregRowe (173838) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502839)

It's a catch-22. FSince you don't have homePNA support you won't install Linux. But the makers of your homePNA won't support linux becuase they think there aren't enough people running it.

Linux vs MS? Nope, Linux vs. Sun! (5, Insightful)

FortKnox (169099) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502796)

Umm, yeah cnet put in some stuff that MS has SAID IN THE PAST, but this paragraph should explain what the real price cut was from.

HP has been working with Amazon since October 1999, Balma said, but the big contract win came in May 2000, when HP announced its [linux] systems would replace Unix servers from Sun Microsystems.

They replaced Solaris boxen with Linux boxen. This, actually, has nothing to do with Microsoft.
CNet just put it in there to hype the article.

expense account correlation (1)

johnycanal (209707) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502805)

I imagine that we'll see more of these kinds of shifts into open source systems that provide more business value. As account managers' expense accounts drop, and the fluffy marketing and free golf tournaments dry up, it will be harder and harder for "decision-makers" to ignore open source solutions.

Another article on the matter (2)

osiris (30004) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502810)

the register [theregister.co.uk] is also carrying this story

Linux replaces Unix (1)

cdurrett (473374) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502812)

Story has squat to do with Microsoft. It is one of replace a Unix infrastructure with a Linux one.

It is a "bye, bye Sun" story.

more unsubstantiated anti-windows rhetoric (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2502813)

the article clearly states that amazon saved money by using linux systems instead of unix systems.

Re:more unsubstantiated anti-windows rhetoric (1)

riggwelter (84180) | more than 12 years ago | (#2502838)

Yes, but the money was saved by switching to Linux rather than switching to NT.

More Microsoft FUD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2502842)

Why were there even comments from Microsoft in an article about switching from HPUX to Linux? This article was completely devoid of content about the actual switch and what it entailed. Instead we get a propaganda piece with most of the quotes coming from a random third party competitor to Linux.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?