Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Businesses Slow to Adopt Linux

michael posted more than 12 years ago | from the penguin-and-the-hare dept.

Linux Business 373

milenko81 and several others submitted this CNET story about corporate spending on information technology. The reporter seems to interpret it negatively because Fortune 1000 companies aren't dumping Microsoft 100% and going for Linux. But interpret it as you will.

cancel ×

373 comments

Moo, I'm a cow! (-1, Offtopic)

robvasquez (411139) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534678)


Once upon a time I GOT FIRST POST!

Visit Nick D's WEB SITE [prototrix.com]

BTW

Moo, I'm a cow!

"I yelled FIRST POST and someone asked me if I got FRENCH TOAST!!"

!!! FPXP !!! (-1, Offtopic)

Unanonymous Coward (533955) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534679)

Fuck you trolls i got fp!

HEY! (-1)

Unanonymous Coward (533955) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534709)

I should of been marked TROLL not offtopic! CRAPPY MODERATOR

you == fag (-1)

The Turd Report (527733) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534714)

No, you did not. Please die. thanks.

Linux (0)

forkspoon (116573) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534684)

Linux is hard to change all your systems, such as DBMS's to.

linux is nigger trash (-1)

Sexual Asspussy (453406) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534689)

turd boast

What about the other CNET article? (-1, Troll)

FortKnox (169099) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534695)

The one you keep rejecting. Search in there, and you'll find it.

The one about VA selling proprietary software (see journal for details).

How about the authors explain it instead of just letting it go on as a troll?

Yeah, it covers slashdot subscription and super-plugging thinkgeek.

I think we, your customers, deserve answers from the source, not news from a 3rd party.

Well, here goes 3 karma...

Re:What about the other CNET article? (1, Offtopic)

mattdm (1931) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534720)

Um, maybe it's getting rejected because it was already covered [slashdot.org] ? Yeesh.

(Mark this and its parent as off-topic.)

Re:What about the other CNET article? (2, Interesting)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534721)

That's SOP around here. I submitted an article about RedHat buying a good sized chunk of VA. It was rejected.

I mean, it's not as if we are posting insider information. This stuff is coming from PR, Yahoo, Cnet, etc.

Re:What about the other CNET article? (3, Informative)

ecampbel (89842) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534734)

What are you talking about? Slashdot did run a story [slashdot.org] , covering the propriety version of sourceforge.

Re:What about the other CNET article? (1)

ecampbel (89842) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534750)

oops meant "proprietary"; not propriety

Re:What about the other CNET article? (1)

michael (4716) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534805)

Yep. If we post a story (BUY SOURCEFORGE 3.0 NOW) about something VA does, we're corporate (BUY SOURCEFORGE 3.0 NOW) whores. If we don't, (BUY SOURCEFORGE 3.0 NOW) we're covering something up. It's a sweet deal, being an anonymous whiner griping about a free site.

Re:What about the other CNET article? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2534845)

it wasn't anonymous.

And michael, YHBT, ya nazi!

you are (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2534889)

a turd

An Open Letter To Michael Simms (-1)

The Turd Report (527733) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534698)

Really, don't you think it's time for you to fuck off and die? Think about it, you don't have any "real" friends. Maybe a couple of kind souls here on Slashdot feel sorry for you, but it's not something that should stop you from wandering off into the sea. There are dozens of oppressed hacker teen virgins waiting for you up in fucktard heaven. Just a thought. I have to do some work now, some of use have real lives you know... so until I get back I want you to think about what I said... be honest with yourself.

Penguins are braying! (0, Flamebait)

recursiv (324497) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534699)

This just in from CNET: Linux penguins are braying louder, but companies don't plan to adopt many of them in the near future.

I fear CNET has fallen victim to a clever trojan in the style of the original Trojan Horse. Those can't be real penguins because real linux penguins don't make donkey noises!

Business Slow To.... (1)

Unknown Bovine Group (462144) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534829)

Another survey from the groundbreaking magazine, DUH, finds that

Businesses are Slow TO...
change the coffee filter
Hire new help when they need it
fire people when they don't need them
Oust CEO's who do little more than play solitaire
Find new supplier for Post-It Notes

And yes, even...
Switch their mission-critical servers

Shocking.

Re:Penguins are braying! (1)

Witchblade (9771) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534920)

This where we seperated the real penguin-heads from the mere "penguins are cool because there's one on my Linux distro box" crowd. :p

The noise made by most penguins does indeed sound like a donkey braying, and this was often mentioned by the early arctic explorers. I believe this has survived even among one common name for a species, the jackass penguin.

Not commercial = bad? (5, Funny)

RagManX (258563) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534701)

I'm having this problem with my site. They don't want to go Linux, because they can't blame someone if there is a problem since it isn't a commercial application. I don't understand this, because a)it isn't true (that's why you buy a distro and support package) and b)Microsoft sells commercial applications that have tons of problems, but their license agreement is such that you can't blame them if something goes wrong.

This brilliant company thinking has even extended to the security tools I use here. I can't use freely downloadable tools because someone might have trojaned them. Only if we can pay someone to ship us an install CD can we use it, because if we pay for it, *WE KNOW IT IS SECURE* or something like that. I mean, come on, Microsoft NT 4.0 is super secure, because we paid lots, right?

Let's just face it, techies don't run things, and non-techies are mostly idiots when dealing with this kind of stuff.

RagManX

Re:Not commercial = bad? (1)

TheCabal (215908) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534728)

Microsoft NT 4.0 is super secure, because we paid lots, right?

It is if you take a little time to make it that way. You don't install Linux and run it stock do you?

Re:Not commercial = bad? (2, Interesting)

RagManX (258563) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534802)

Perhaps you mis-read me. According to my site's thinking, NT 4.0 is secure because we paid for it, and Linux is not secure because we did not pay for it (or substitute IIS and Apache for NT and Linux). I'm not here to discuss whether or not one is or can be made more secure than the other. I'm just trying to figure out how cost=security is all. I'll save the insecurity of M$ products for another news item.

RagManX

Re:Not commercial = bad? (2, Insightful)

Steveftoth (78419) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534822)

His point isn't that NT/XP is full of holes (linux and NT have the same number of security holes if your admin is bad) , it's that people assume it is because you pay for it!

It's the same with speaker wire. People assume that monster wire for speakers / Svideo /whatever is better because it is more expensive. However, most of the time, you can go to the local hardware store and get 12 gauge wire that is the same or better and solder your own connections. The difference is that the latter is harder and most people want a guarantee ( even if it is worthless).

Re:Not commercial = bad? (2)

mpe (36238) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534903)

It's the same with speaker wire. People assume that monster wire for speakers / Svideo /whatever is better because it is more expensive.

But you only get this kind of thing with home type systems.

However, most of the time, you can go to the local hardware store and get 12 gauge wire that is the same or better and solder your own connections.

Which is more like the sort of cable commercial speaker systems (or all types) are likely to use.
With virtually everyone having the good sense not to try telling the "techies" how to do their job.

The difference is that the latter is harder and most people want a guarantee ( even if it is worthless).


When you hire a PA company you have a guarantee, it's a quite simple one, if they want to get paid then their speakers had better work...

Re:Not commercial = bad? (2)

sharkey (16670) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534908)

...most people want a guarantee ( even if it is worthless).

Nicely put. Remember that line in Tommy Boy, "If you want me to, I'll take a shit in a cardboard box and stamp a guarantee on it...all they've sold you is a guaranteed piece of shit!"

Re:Not commercial = bad? (5, Informative)

ChazeFroy (51595) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534769)

It takes X amount of years to integrate a system into your infrastructure. It also takes X amount of years to remove a system from your infrastructure.

Say a company has spent 5 years integrating NT systems into their department. That usually means it will take another 5 years to get rid of it.

Linux will not be an overnight success...it will take time to supplant Microsoft.

Re:Not commercial = bad? (5, Funny)

Bobzibub (20561) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534787)

Ask them this: "If all the resources of the US DOJ cannot beat Microsoft in court, how can our company's legal council possibly expect to win should they sell us faulty software?"

Re:Not commercial = bad? (2, Funny)

mpe (36238) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534815)

Let's just face it, techies don't run things, and non-techies are mostly idiots when dealing with this kind of stuff.

The difference is with most other things the non-techie managers know better than to interfere.
Problem is that too many people think that being able to move a mouse makes them some kind of expert.

Re:Not commercial = bad? (1)

Clived (106409) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534853)

Point well said. The article as posted confirms my suspicion of the "stick your head in the sand" mentality of the corporate world. Even after the almost weekly reports of trojans, viruses being released which haunt the Microsoft products. Didn't the Gartner Group make the recommendation that Microsoft IIS servers were becoming too costly in terms of maintenance, security, etc?

I guess not too many of these people are listening .. :P

My two bits ..

scared (0, Troll)

blosscore (459437) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534703)

They are just scared to switch because linux doesn't have wizards for everything.

More clueless executives ... (3, Interesting)

LordNimon (85072) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534706)

About 65 percent of executives polled by Goldman Sachs said they have no plans to use Linux at their company next year.

Does anyone else remember all those stories that came out a few years ago about IT staff secretly replacing their Windows servers with Linux servers, because the end-users wouldn't know the difference?

Re:More clueless executives ... (2, Offtopic)

rlaskey (533150) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534718)

And about 60 percent of executives that we're pollled don't even know they are running linux already.

Re:More clueless executives ... (2)

mpe (36238) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534777)

And about 60 percent of executives that we're pollled don't even know they are running linux already.

Wonder how many of these executives even know what hardware they are using. They might know who put the computers together, but they probably have little clue who made the wall sockets, patch panels, switches and cable...

Re:More clueless executives ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2534730)

I have read this survey (in addition to CNET's spin on it) and have to say that they do not pick up on this. When they survey CIO and other IT managers they are asking about critical mission spending and other large scale initiative. Stealth projects and other Linux pilot obviously are not included.

Re:More clueless executives ... (3, Interesting)

bstrahm (241685) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534811)

Isn't Apache running on 50+% of the web servers out there, with a decent chunk of those being Linux... These guys are clueless..

I have heard rumors of IT departments being told "You must have NT on the box" so they dual boot to Linux as well...

Work gets done, when boneheaded executive shows up, the servers are rebooted that morning to show the nice BSOD, no one works that day anyway - then the servers are booted back to a better OS...

The funny part is the group was finally challenged as to why they weren't seeing problem X Y & Z by the CEO - They were forced to admit that they were really running Linux - Making their boss look REALLY bad for fighting it so long

Oh well

Re:More clueless executives ... (2)

Zico (14255) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534912)

Isn't Apache running on 50+% of the web servers out there, with a decent chunk of those being Linux... These guys are clueless..


Without trying to be too insulting here, you sound like one of those clueless people who think that the only reason why servers exist is to face the internet and serve web pages to browsers. You know, the kind of people who think that Netcraft numbers are a measure of the overall server market?

Re:More clueless executives ... (2, Insightful)

czardonic (526710) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534872)

That's great: Linux adoption reduced to an urban legend.

Well would you? (3, Insightful)

Cerlyn (202990) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534717)

If I knew I had a system that at least partially worked to my benefit, would I scrap it for a complete unknown overnight? I hightly doubt I would. If I could, I would attempt to fully stabilize the system I knew partially worked.

Microsoft has promised they can do this with Windows. To a large extent, they have delivered.

Why is everyone expecting businesses to risk their livelyhood for an operating system they hardly know? Wait until Linux makes some more headway into things; then we should see Linux used by larger and more significant businesses (and hopefully we will).

Re:Well would you? (3, Interesting)

EnderWiggnz (39214) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534810)

>Why is everyone expecting businesses to risk
>their livelyhood for an operating system they
>hardly know?

For the same reason that everyone jumped from a large corporation that rented applications (IBM) to a small, unproven technological upstart that cost a whole lot less, but wasnt as "mature".

Just remember - no one ever got fired for choosing IBM - until they did get fired for choosing IBM's insane price structure.

Thats you're argument - no one ever got fired for using microsoft?

Re:Well would you? (1)

RagManX (258563) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534830)

...would I scrap it for a complete unknown overnight?

Why assume you have to scrap one to bring up another? Incremental change and test networks allow for moving from one to the other in managable steps for most systems. Instead of scrapping it, why not replace one single, small part that didn't work currently with one that might work. Test the new part. If it works, proceed with the next part. If it doesn't work, you are out nothing, because what you had before didn't work either. There are very few systems in place that I've worked with where you can not do piece-meal upgrades like this to bring in something new without disturbing what already works.

RagManX

Re:Well would you? (2)

mpe (36238) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534924)

If I knew I had a system that at least partially worked to my benefit, would I scrap it for a complete unknown overnight? I hightly doubt I would. If I could, I would attempt to fully stabilize the system I knew partially worked.

Except that this is exactly what can happen with Windows, if you want to maintain the illusion of support.
You can always end up with a partially working system, since by the time you figure out all the quirks of one version of Windows its time for Microsoft to drop it.

One of the powerful things about linux in business (1)

SuperguyA1 (90398) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534719)

It doesn't matter if it takes a long time for linux to gain a share. It isn't there to make money. Sure it matters to Red Hat etc... but if they don't change their business models to keep up with changes someone else will.

Strange negative spin (5, Insightful)

Ami Ganguli (921) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534727)

You have to wonder about the negative spin on this. 24% of the largest, most conservative companies in the country are planning to use Linux next year. This is good news. Considering that two years ago nobody believed Linux could make it into enterprise datacenters, this is amazing progress.

When interpreting these figures you need to remember that:

  • Large companies move very slowly. Some of these people are still using OS/2.
  • Many of these companies don't think about which OS they're using so much as which vendor they're using. In particular, many of these accounts are controlled by IBM. As IBM puts more and more energy into Linux, these accounts will (very) slowly follow.

Ask the people who buy IT (2, Insightful)

MacGabhain (198888) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534736)

100 "executives", 60% of whom thought that Windows was going to be their enterprise server of choice. Not their desktop of choice. Not some of their webservers. Their enterprise server.

The poll needed to ask those same executives what they DO use, and correlate that to what actually is used so they could remove answers from people who obviously have no involvement in their company's enterprise server purchaces. My guess is that they answered "Windows" for the same reason I told a telephone survey person that Glitton (however it's spelled) was my exterior paint of choice. It was the only name I could think of at the time, and they just wanted an answer. I answered "Glitton" to every question it was appropriate to.

This is a wonderful thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2534737)

I happen to work for a industry leader manufacturing firm. We are moving to linux fast and hope that our competitors stay with the NT platform. We use linux to save us money allowing us to hurt our competition at the pricing level. It is to out competitive advantage that others stick with the windows platform.

Cost of linux administration cost of windows (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2534738)

Unfortunately, the cost of administrating linux plus the cost of linux is greater than the cost of windows 2000 plus its administration.

Until that changes...sorry.

Re:Cost of linux administration cost of windows (5, Informative)

MacGabhain (198888) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534807)

False.
The cost of adminning Windows servers is considerably higher than the cost of adminning Unix servers (of any flavor). You can cover far fewer servers with a single admin, and you need at least 3 times the number of physical boxen than you do with Unix systems because a: Windows scales horribly and only runs on hardware designed to be workstations b: Windows requires at least two redundant servers for each primary server to maintain the uptimes of any Unix c: Windows is only able to perform properly if each box only runs one particular server function. Put a print server, a web server and a file server on the same box and none of them will work well (well by Windows standards).

Re:Cost of linux administration cost of windows (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2534893)

* Sigh *

Obviously moderated up because it holds the /. line.

If your Windows Admin knows what he is doing, you can have exactly the same amount of servers. EXACTLY. And I stress, if your Admin isnt a clueless idiot.

a) Only partially true and depends on your flavour of Windows Server. Advanced Server scales quite resonably and Datacenter is quite good, especially as it is generally customised for scalabilityYou'ld be a dickhead to try it on normal Server or Workstation

b) OH BULLSHIT!!!! File, pprint and mail server in one of my offices, LAST reboot 5000 hours ago and still no sign of a problem. Get a NT Admin with a frigging clue and the uptime will be measured in months. Dont believe me? Well, get an NT admin with a clue and find out! Fuck, Unix uptime would also suck if it had the percentage of clueless morons admining it that NT has.

c) More Unix FUD. As I keep on saying get a NT admin with a clue and it WILL do it. And for one, your NT admin will tell you to fuck off and not be a moron by having your Internet server and your file server on the same box! Hell, even a clued on Unix Admin would say that! If it's an Intranet server, that's different. File, print and Intranet WILL work and work with stability and speed.

The crevat being, GET AN ADMIN WITH A CLUE.

It's the price, stupid! (5, Insightful)

ryanwright (450832) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534743)

Corporate execs don't understand how something that is free can be worth a damn. I know; I've tried to get Linux implemented in our enterprise as a basic web proxy. (Instead, we spend almost $10k on licenses for Microsoft software and third party filtering applications.)

Here's the deal: When you pay a cool million bucks for the software to run your enterprise, you have someone to bitch at (Microsoft) should something go horribly wrong. With Linux, the only person you can bitch at is that uber-geek you're paying $50k a year. When millions of dollars are at stake every day, you just can't trust a free piece of software.

Obviously, most of us here know this is bullshit, but it's the excuse given by every exec I've talked to. They won't trust their business to free software and a couple of geeks no matter how compelling the evidence. Even a mention of IRC as a help resource elicits manical laughter. If someone setup a high priced licensing & support system for Linux and gave it a different name, businesses might sign on. Sad but true.

One last issue: MCSEs are a dime a dozen. Any moron can administer a Windows network. I'm the only one in my group that knows enough about Linux to properly setup and maintain an enterprise server. If we implemented Linux and I left, they'd be SOL. Nobody wants to put their faith in one or two employees, especially when those employees have knowledge that is (let's face it) hard to come by. The proportion of people that can adminster a Linux server vs. those that can admin MS is huge. Probably thousands to one. It's just not easy to find a good Linux guy, let alone the 5 to 10 of them it would take to run a medium sized network.

Re:It's the price, stupid! (5, Interesting)

SPiKe (19306) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534834)

>One last issue: MCSEs are a dime a dozen. Any >moron can administer a Windows network

>The proportion of people that can adminster a >Linux server vs. those that can admin MS is >huge. Probably thousands to one.

A lot of the guys that can do Windows correctly are guys that do Unix correctly.

I've met the exceptions, but they are rare.

A good admin is a good admin is a good admin. All one has to do is force yourself to think outside of just one particular mindset.

But give them time (a success story) (3)

melquiades (314628) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534851)

I used to work at Minnesota Public Radio [mpr.org] , which was (and still is) a very fine place. They have the resources (people and money) to maintain a very nice web site -- but they're still public radio, and they're very cost-conscious.

In spite of that, they were very resistant for a long time to free software for exactly the reasons you mentioned. But my boss was a good listener, and when her technical people kept telling her that free was viable, she started to listen. Our sysadmin, in particular, was very persistent -- not rude, just persistent. One day I said to her, "This is the 90s. Half the best software is free." Later, I heard her quoting that to VPs.

And the ideas started to take effect. We switched from Netscape Enterprise Server to Apache, from Webtrends to analog, and my old co-workers tell me there may be some Linux boxes going into production. As the executives saw free software succeeding, they were willing to make the switch. There's a lot of inertia, sure, but execs are generally smart people. Stick with it. Little by little, if they're worth their salt, they'll listen.

It really helps to get a high-profile success with free software. If you're making the case in your company, look for an opportunity to base a project in free software, and make sure it succeeds. This is the most effective argument you can make.

Just charge more. (2)

DrCode (95839) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534869)

I went through this with a boss at a previous company. He decided to set up a small internal web site using Linux/Apache as an experiment, so I offered to let him use my recent copy of SuSE. But he preferred to go out and buy some sort of RedHat 'professional' distribution that cost $300.

Re:Just charge more. (2)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534901)

>I went through this with a boss at a previous
>company.

I think the real problem is that the people with
the knowledge and open-mindedness that would lead
to a deployment of an alternative system, tend not
to BE the BOSS. They tend to be people in inferior roles, working from a position of inferior empowerment, in a frame where specifying systems and planning IT strategies is not done with a presumption of authority.

By this measure, Linux is a failure. Penguinistas aren't running corporate IT departments. We aren't making the important decisions. You aren't the boss. Why not?

Re:It's the price, stupid! (2)

mpe (36238) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534880)

Here's the deal: When you pay a cool million bucks for the software to run your enterprise, you have someone to bitch at (Microsoft) should something go horribly wrong.

This gets things fixed how?

With Linux, the only person you can bitch at is that uber-geek you're paying $50k a year.

Or you could have 19 and still save money

When millions of dollars are at stake every day, you just can't trust a free piece of software.


But you can trust someone who will do absolutly nothing to help you over your own staff


Obviously, most of us here know this is bullshit, but it's the excuse given by every exec I've talked to. They won't trust their business to free software and a couple of geeks no matter how compelling the evidence.

But they will trust their business to a bunch of gangsters?

Even a mention of IRC as a help resource elicits manical laughter.

But the idea of telephone helplines sounds sensible, only to those who have never called them...


Any moron can administer a Windows network.

Not quite all any moron can manage is a simple network, especially if they have powerful hardware. To administer Windows properly takes a great deal of skill and knowlage
In many cases considerably more than unix type systems since "administrator friendlyness" is rarely even a consideration with WIndows systems.

Re:It's the price, stupid! (3, Insightful)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534883)

>Corporate execs don't understand how something
>that is free can be worth a damn.

This is a matter of cognitive dissonance.
If you put effort into something, it has greater worth to you. If you spend money on something,
it has greater value. This is one area where
using "common sense" can get you into trouble.
It's what keeps people in bad relationships, it's
what makes people spend more repairing their old
worn-out car than they would in payments on a new car, and it's what makes an expensive software solution more appropriate than a free one.

"Corporate Execs" shouldn't be choosing enterprise server software. Their involvement should probably be no closer than a hiring decision for the person who has a specialized skill set for that task.

>When you pay a cool million bucks for the
>software to run your enterprise, you have
>someone to bitch at (Microsoft) should something
>go horribly wrong.

Where is the list of companies and individuals that have gone against Microsoft in a legal venue, and prevailed?

Has anyone ever sued Microsoft and won?

Doesn't the EULA totally take away the whole "someone to bitch at" theory?

There are lots of people to shout at! (2)

Daath (225404) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534891)

If someone setup a high priced licensing & support system for Linux and gave it a different name, businesses might sign on. Sad but true.

SuSE [suse.com] has incident based support - and free installation support. The incident based support is expensive. There is probably more on suse...

RedHat [redhat.com] product portfolio shows lots of support packages, that probably cost a lot of money.

Mandrake [mandrakesoft.com] is doing some support too, I'm sure you could talk them into doing a support deal.

I'm even sure you can get the guys at TurboLinux [turbolinux.com] to give you a good deal too.

So next time you talk to an exec, say that ;)

Re:It's the price, stupid! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2534902)

One last issue: MCSEs are a dime a dozen. Any moron can administer a Windows network.

Only if your definition of adminisring a Windows network is adding users, changing passwords, and swapping backup tapes. If you mean making a Windows network run *well* and *keep running* you need an Admin who knows their stuff, particularly with the Windows exploit du jour to contend with.

Any Moron can Run A Windows Network... (2)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534913)

While things are going well. When things go wrong, on the other hand...

It's easy to get Linux people. Just run an ad. Linux people will jump on the chance to run Linux at work. I do because I'm in a dev shop but my target machines are AIX and the "real" development is happening there. It just happens that my interface to them is more seamless than the 'doze people in my office.

Duh (4, Informative)

chuckw (15728) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534746)

Of course it's low on the budgetary radar scope. They're not paying for Linux and they already have the Unix expertise in house. Since Linux runs on darn near anything, they probably already have the hardware there too.

When will the corporations learn? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2534752)

If they would just stop to read Slashdot every now and then, they would see their IT budgets practically disappear if they were to throw out all of their perfectly good licenses for commercial software and reinstall everything from scratch with Linux, and writing at least half of their own apps from scratch. It's really quite easy to do. They can get off of the endless treadmill of using closed source software that still works but somehow still costs them money (don't ask me how), and get on solid footing with Linux and weekly kernel patches.

Idiots. All of them.

Not surprised (5, Insightful)

Anton Anatopopov (529711) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534754)

Linux is a great OS, and it is a miracle that it has come this far. But to penetrate the business market takes more than good technology, it needs suits.

Most computer purchasing decisions are not made by tech-savvy developers with their finger on the pulse of modern developments. They are made by golf-playing middle management who are being bribed left right and center by their suppliers with free trips to Hawaii and other inducements.

Linux will make it in the end, but it will be because one of the pre-existing corporations or management consultancies starts pushing it, because it improves their own bottom line.

Sad but true.

This got me! (5, Insightful)

gosand (234100) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534758)

The very last sentence of the article: " Ultimately, technology managers don't want to hear about the operating system, Robinson believes. 'All you care about is wanting a stable, scalable platform for applications to run on.' "

And the answer to this question is not Linux because....?

Re:This got me! (1)

czardonic (526710) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534892)

Because Linux doesn't run the applications that they have invested money and training (if not custom development) on.

The reason technology managers don't want to hear about operating systems is that their business applications are their main concern. I'm sure they would warm up to Linux a lot faster if applications ported seamlessly. There is more to running a business than setting up a network and providing users with a desktop.

What was the poll about? (3, Insightful)

carlos_benj (140796) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534760)

Wasn't the poll about IT spending plans? Why should it be a big surprise that IT departments plan to spend more on Windows and traditional UNIX platforms? The poll wasn't about implementation plans, but what items have budgetary priority.

Low Linux Budgets ? (3, Insightful)

mybecq (131456) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534761)

Respondents to the Goldman survey indicated that mainframes, Linux servers and supply-chain management ranked as the three lowest spending priorities, in that order
Well of course Linux-spending ranks low in spending, it's free!

(I'd hate to be writing supply-chain management software in that case.)

Re:Low Linux Budgets ? (1)

Man of E (531031) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534808)

Yes, sure Linux is free, but systems need to be administered. And the fact is, you can hire just anybody to be an NT sysadmin, but Linux admins really need to know what they're doing. They're more expensive to hire and maintained, and difficult to replace if necessary.

So entirely apart from the valid concerns about turning an entire working system around, you still have to worry about comparing the cost of Windows licenses with the expected costs of Linux sysadmins and tech support.

I tried posting, but got this (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2534763)

"Due to excessive bad posting from this IP or Subnet, comment posting has temporarily been disabled. If it's you, consider this a chance to sit in the timeout corner. If it's someone else, this is a chance to hunt them down. If you think this is unfair, please email jamie@mccarthy.vg."

Bad posting? that's pretty damn subjective! Funny how I got this message when one of my posts was moderated +5 a couple of days ago [slashdot.org] . Slashdot sucks, censoring users, I hope the site dies [goatse.cx] , and everyone loses their jobs. Slashdot is dying.

-Anonymous Pancake

Linux...virtually not registering on our survey (1, Flamebait)

update() (217397) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534764)

The reporter seems to interpret it negatively because Fortune 1000 companies aren't dumping Microsoft 100% and going for Linux.

That's certainly a positive spin to put on "...wrote Goldman Sachs analysts Rick Sherlund and Laura Conigliaro. The results brought "some surprises from our IT managers, with Linux...virtually not registering on our survey."

The spin from LinuxToday posters (who tend to be dumber and more zealous than the typical Slashdot +1 poster) is "Of course there isn't much spending on Linux! It's free!" That seems really unlikely to me -- I don't think the question asked was what percentage of your budget is going to software licenses.

I'd offer my own theory, but without seeing the report, it's impossible to say anything meaningful, and what do I know about corportae IT anyway?

Re:Linux...virtually not registering on our survey (2)

Tim Macinta (1052) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534885)

You wrote:

I don't think the question asked was what percentage of your budget is going to software licenses.

CNet wrote:

Goldman Sachs ... asked about highest and lowest spending priorities.

and

Areas like supply-chain management software and Linux servers rank near the bottom of spending priorities.

It sure sounds to me like they asked about the budget and based their conclusions on that. This definitely biases the conclusions in favor of higher priced products because they inherently require a higher budget.

Percentage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2534775)

What is the percentage IT spending power of these 1000 companies?

Windows, Security (5, Insightful)

JoeWalsh (32530) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534782)

The research cited in the article purports that interest in Microsoft Windows and computer security are both strong among Fortune 1000 companies, while interest in Linux is weak.

Does anyone else find that position absurd? If folks were interested in computer security, you'd think they would have no interest at all in Windows.

Ah, well. So it goes. Just another sign that most people are idiots.

Most interesting (2)

Shotgun (30919) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534788)

was that their biggest concerns were buying Windows operating systems and security software.

"Heh, I know what we can do now that the economy has soured, Bubba. Let's stop our movement to that free OS that puts us in control. Instead, let's buy an expensive OS that is known for lots of security holes so that we can buy more software to make it secure."

Maybe they are busy (1)

dropdead (201019) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534790)

If your just finishing a win2000 roll out or about to begin a forced XP roll out, adoapting a new OS is not likely to be high on your list. Never mind the economic slowdown.
Most companies are not looking to willingly complicate things right now, now matter how much you promise it will simplify things later.

Goldman Sachs (3, Insightful)

EEEthan (41747) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534791)

Most of the data in this article came from Goldman Sachs, which is heavily invested in MS. My company had a consultant from Goldman long before I came here, who made them implement their first demos with NT4 and Oracle. By the time I came in, they realized that they didn't have the cash or the need for Oracle. Now we're running on Red Hat and Postgres.

Also note that these are Fortune 1000 companies--all really, really big, with lots of investment in MS desktops already, and some MS server infrastructure. Linux is faring much better with small companies that are strapped for cash, not bigass companies looking ways to cut people simply to increase profitability.

Also--upgrading to XP or 2000 is one of the biggest expenditures. This is _not_ a good thing. It means that big companies are shelling out tons and tons of cash simply to stay current and keep WinWord 2.0 functionality. Eventually people will realize that this is not necessary.

Even in this article, there is a spot of hope, however: they say that financial companies are quick to adopt linux, compared to other bigass Fortune 1000 companies. Maybe that's because they understand the bottom line a bit better, huh?

I wouldn't worry about this article too much. Linux isn't about big business; it's about small business and low overhead. Big business and MS can do all they want and it won't matter.

Anyways--linux is doing fine. Anybody running XP on a p2 266? If you don't get my point now, you will soon. Don't worry.

Re:Goldman Sachs (1)

Liquid(TJ) (318258) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534876)

In my shop, we're running NT4.0/Off97. We've got a little pressure to upgrade Office, but no reason to consider OS upgrades, not even a couple years down the road. We're also not planning on buying new workstations for general replacement for quite some time either, even though the warrantys have run out on our P2-233's, I see no reason to get rid of them, exp. considering that local suppliers can keep us in working parts for a lot less than total upgrade costs.

Before I read it somewhere last week, it never even occured to me that large companies are doing large scale upgrading to XP. Why would they do such a thing, esp. if you've already got Win2k?

Herd mentality (0)

Master Of Ninja (521917) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534792)

I think its just herd mentality - people will follow if others go first. We just need a brave few companies to show that linux (on the desktop) works.

I'm surprised that more servers would not change to linux (or maybe that's because MS is making winXP incompatible with it), but changing desktops will take a long time. For those who are hesistant in using a computer need a familar interface. The productivity tools need to be there as well as training, as well as the technical backup and employee support. There is the issue of installing and configuring the system so they are stable for use. That's a lot of manpower needed.

Working with the unfamiliar will have people up in arms as they might have to relearn some concepts (this might not be difficult for you or I). More (big) companies offering linux on the desktop should increase the number of support companies for linux, and maybe force a greater change in the home to linux.

Security? (4, Insightful)

whjwhj (243426) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534793)

Two comments on this: 1. Although at least some companies are switching to Linux and open source software, when was the last time you heard about a company dumping their open source software for Windows? Just doesn't happen. 2. The article mentions how "security" is in the mind of IT professionals these days. Yet Linux is phenomenally more secure than Windows will ever be. Seems like a lot of IT folks need to be educated.

Re:Security? (1)

Ded Mike (89353) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534922)

Maybe they're talking job security, since even Mundie, in an uncustomary and uncommon bit of truthfulness, admitted today at their "Trusted Computing Conference [idg.net] that they found it impossible to secure their own products...then he lapsed into his normal lying self, and commited another foot-bullet by comparing script-kiddiez to the Takfir wal Hajiri and the al Quaeda...

Wow, thanks (0)

Ophidian P. Jones (466787) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534794)

2001-11-07 14:06:03 Got Linux? Many Companies Say No (articles,linux) (rejected)

Because conpanies don't have to buy Linux (2, Interesting)

chris_mahan (256577) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534800)

Company IT departments don't have to buy linux. Thus, it never gets sent to HQ for funding request, thus, executives don't know about it.

As far as business-critical apps: my company found out quickly how business-critical email was. Our internet was down in September (thanks Qwest) and our clients would call and say: I just got your email sent back with Host not found. Are you still in business?

Every application in an enterprise is business-critical. It's just some are bigger than others.

Keyword: SPENDING (3, Insightful)

4of12 (97621) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534817)

This is always the misleading statistic when evaluating open source based software solutions. The costs, the prices, the values require a different mindset.

I could easily say that this year I'll only spend $1.95 on Linux based solutions (pocket change) and install the same ISO copy image on dozens of servers doing different dedicated tasks very nicely.

Because the equivalent deployment in the Windows based world with licensing terms costs hundreds or thousands of times as much money, should I then conclude the Linux is failing to catch on in the enterprise?

I don't think so.

Image, Image, Image... (3, Insightful)

Embedded Geek (532893) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534824)

Ultimately, technology managers don't want to hear about the operating system, Robinson believes. "All you care about is wanting a stable, scalable platform for applications to run on."

(*SIGH*) The big advantage that M$ has always had over LINUX is that it controls spin on its image very well - at least where it counts. Grunts in the trenches can scream as much as we want, but executives don't see many Blue Screens of Death. Therefore, the perceptions of the different options differ between top and bottom of the management pyramid.

The other perception problem is that decision makers are (quite correctly) rooted in the here and now. They are not interested in hearing about security holes or bugs that present potentional problems, even if the potential consequences are catastrophic. Let's face it - most of the night terrors that techies have with M$ products have to do with the exceptional scenarios (hack attacks, cascading failures, etc) that might occur rather than the merely horrific ones we do face. I mean, the "house of cards" dread I get in my stomach when dealing with these things always seem to outweigh specific, documented incidents I can point out to a manager.

Spending plans (2)

Ratbert42 (452340) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534825)

I like how the poll was about spending plans. Our spending plan for Linux in the next year is $0. Zero. A big fat zero. But we build and ship a product on Linux (along with other platforms). Ok, maybe we'll buy a Redhat box at Borders for $50, but that's not in the budget.

Ego and Investors (2)

case_igl (103589) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534827)

One thing that has not been brought up yet is that most larger companies are publically traded. Their number one objective is to create value for their shareholders. While the same can be said for private companies, public companies are under much greater watch.

That being said...It is very true that executives will pick a "name" that people recognize rather than the best technology. Everyone knows Microsoft. THat's why management picks it, supports it, and spends the money.

If you want a chance in heck of deploying Linux over a MS solution, DON'T try to pitch it yourself. Call IBM. They talk the same language as your boss.

Sure, you might pay more for an IBM solution than you would if you bought stuff yourself and configured it. But the end goal is to save your company money and deploy a product they will have faith in. If MS does it for $200k, IBM for $125k, or you for $50k. It brings Linux into the office behind a solid name and then you can expand slowly with homegrown projects.

Also, is it so wrong that management would like to have a COMPANY to call to support a product they are using to run their business? It is a reasonable request, which is why you call IBM and tell them your situation.

The problem is... (3, Insightful)

mrcparker (469158) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534833)

.. that this was a survey of executives at fortun 1000 companies. The truth is that most executives at these companies would probably not know if there were Linux servers running in their own companies.

I work at one of those companies, and we employ Linux servers for all sorts of things - which is funny because as far as the VP is concerned we are a Novell/HP Unix shop.

Linux does not always have a professional face. (5, Insightful)

Junks Jerzey (54586) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534836)

I sincerely do not mean this as a troll. I am both a user of Windows and Linux, and I don't lean zealously in either direction.

If nothing else, at least with Windows there's a large company with financial interest behind it all. Sure, Windows sucks in lots of ways, but at least you won't find them generally working toward what customers want.

With Linux, it's a bit scarier. Not so much with the kernel as with desktop environments and applications. With WordPerfect for Linux, I felt like I was just being used as a pawn by Corel to get a foothold in a new market, and the quality of the software was secondary. Miguel, of Gnome fame, often sounds an overly idealistic college student. It makes me stop and think "Should I really be letting this guy determine the direction of the software my company uses?" Sure, you can pick and choose different products, but with Windows you don't have to. If you go with Windows 2000 or XP and Microsoft Office (or just Word) then you don't have to worry about making the wrong choice. There's often too much personal agenda behind open source software for Linux.

Re:Linux does not always have a professional face. (2, Insightful)

chris_mahan (256577) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534874)

The beauty of it all.

Let's say you decide to add a USPS address parser to your favorite open source program that validates the Zip and the city via an xml-rpc interface to a server on your company with Linux&&apache&&(Perl||Python)... You can! And if it's great and you send it to the maintainers of that piece of software, they might put it in the official release, and then, everyone will have it...

Can you ask Microsoft to do that in WordXP? Would they do it? Might they sell that back to you as a "feature" in WordXP2004? You betcha...

Re:Linux does not always have a professional face. (1)

10am-bedtime (11106) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534894)

are you against personal agenda personally, or as part of the brainwashed masses?

Why do we keep hearing this (2, Insightful)

Count (107594) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534850)

I still don't think that the media gets it! Linux is not reliant on the extenction of Microsoft. I didn't say this ...

Linus Torvalds: "I don't actually follow other operating systems much. I don't compete - I just worry about making Linux better than itself, not others."

Now I would love to see every Fortune 1000 company run out and get Linux there is nothing more in this world that would thrill me than to see Microsoft file chapter 13 (expecialy after trying to stop non IE browsers from accessing msn arrrg!)

Maybe I am off on this, I am not a programmer or a kernel hacker i am just a simple user ..does Linux need this boost from these companies?

We all can offer Linux solutions (4, Interesting)

korpiq (8532) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534857)

This is what I'm doing:

  • practice nice, low-tone, clear-speech advocacy from the clients' point of view rather than technical (total costs,reliability,security)
  • find a small/medium-size company in need of firewall/file+printer-sharing services
  • offer a box that does it all, guaranteed, with remote administration when needed, with unbeatable price
  • check out their needs and environment (SMB password encryption, for instance) and find technical solutions (usually someone has done it already)
  • install debian, samba, netatalk, apache, lprng
  • set up netfilter accompanied with squid and postfix to drop dangerous attachments/scripts if sold as a firewall to secure windowses
  • set up a SIMPLE internal webpage for user account management (ask me)
  • offer enhancements like RDBMS, extranet (ftp/http-download) - what can we come up with?
  • repeat until world.domination() == TOTAL


Coming up next year or so:

  • test out the Linux office packets, make up a desktop solution for office use
  • promote a solution with 100MB switched LAN, diskless workstations booting from server, centrally, remotely administrated for low cost
  • remember to spread FUD about viruses ;)


I'd do it more given time and customer contacts (best advertisement you can have is a happy customer talking about you to its clients.)

Share administration burden (what? doing something wrong?) with trusted friends.
Take a fair price for your work, but avoid greed.

This can and should be done as a side-job, unless you get very successful in the long term.

Only fix what's broken, security hole, or a client-requested enhancement or new service. Never say "can't do", say "I'll look into it" and go for the web; Never say "you can't afford it", say "I'd be forced to hire people for approximately $this much money, would you like to try something else instead?"

I could go on for hours, but you'll find it all out once you start thinking about it.

Make difference where you can.

Costs (2)

SilentChris (452960) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534868)

I thought it was universally accepted that the highest costs in running IT were in salaries and hardware. Software has never been on top of the list.

Something that Linux advocates, ahem ahem, seem to put off to the side.

Why businesses don't want ot switch (2, Insightful)

GreenCrackBaby (203293) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534877)

Fortune 100 companies and big megaliths with thousands of employees. It is fairly safe to label these employees as technically illiterate. Most need a computer to type documents and read email. Even the smallest of software switches causes widespread confusion. I worked for one company where they changed the mail from some old system to Lotus Notes. Everyone had to take a 4 hour course to "learn" how to use a blasted email program!

Imagine switching not only their email program, but also their office suite and their OS. Widespread pandamonium! The cost (Linux may be free, but training certainly isn't!) is too much.

Business Slow to Adopt Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2534879)

Maybe linux is slow to adapt to business

Wow - watch my MEGA spending on Linux (2)

tjwhaynes (114792) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534882)

10,000 machines running Win NT to be converted to Linux. Existing hardware == No cost

1 Redhat distribution from Best Buy: $70

Effective budget requirements (staff are already employed to do this sort of thing) for complete Linux installation. Total cost: $70.

cf: Windows XP rollout - $100 upgrade per machine. $1million dollars plus extra new software

It's not exactly a big suprise that Linux isn't costing the earth for these companies - and this survey is talking to the Financial officers.

Cheers,
Toby Haynes

Where Linux is good (1)

moored2 (456923) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534886)

Linux is good as aDNS/Proxy/firewall server... How I don't see it making much headway as a Desktop. Windows is just too easy for most users to use.

Linux Development Question (2, Interesting)

Coniine (524342) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534890)

Is this question relevant to the current topic - I don't know, maybe.

Could someone who has followed the path and suffered explain to me how you finagle the required technical references to do things like work on a FreeBIOS project, write an ATI TVOut module or write a SoundBlaster driver for Linux?

Motherboard companies, Chipset vendors, graphics card vendors, sound card vendors, they all seem to be reluctant to release technical documents except to large OEMs.

Doesn't this hamper Linus development?

Doesn't this guarantee that Linux support will always lag the rest of the world ( MSWin )?

Isn't this almost as bad as Microsoft's restrictive licensing agreements?

Or am I just imagining that I can't get easy access to these documents?

?

Not enough time in the day. (1)

alphabet26 (534873) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534904)

IANACIO, but I think a factor in thinking of the switch to Linux is simply the effort. Not even calculating the cost of man hours, it's simply something the companies don't want to deal with right now.

Think about this, in the tech sector almost every medium to large size company has experienced shrinkage and layoffs to trim their bottom line. Because of the loss of resources, namely skilled people, remaining staff have been flooded with more responsibilities. I think it's fair to say most IT departments are in a "Tread Water" mode, just keeping up with the maintenance.

Now that the tech sector has been forced to look for alternatives because of high priced software and low income, Linux becomes the obvious choice. As soon as companies start hiring again and job descriptions become shorter, staff will start devoting some spare time to Linux.

Everyone is wrong, Linux is right (3, Insightful)

dmccarty (152630) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534906)

The reporter seems to interpret it negatively because Fortune 1000 companies aren't dumping Microsoft 100% and going for Linux. But interpret it as you will.

The double standard on Slashdot is hard to believe. If my neighbor Joe installs Red Hat Linux, Slashdot is first to post a story about it. But when a bona fide story comes out saying Linux isn't gaining as much marketplace acceptance as everyone thought it was, we all rush to find reasons why the report is wrong.

There's a big difference between, as Michael puts it, "dumping Microsoft 100%," and, as the Goldman Sachs analyst stated, "with Linux...virtually not registering on our survey." But interpret it as you will.

Businesses Slow to Adopt Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2534918)

I am finding it very alarming to see other UNIX
machines being replaced by Linux. It's the
microsoft desktops that should be replaced.
Replacing UNIX with Linux is like the various
police precincts killing each other while the
criminals escape. It's just WRONG.

Government agencies perfect but unlikely (1)

philipsblows (180703) | more than 12 years ago | (#2534921)

My sister works in the county attorney office where I live, and she and I were just talking about this last night. Her office has just this past week finished workstation upgrades to Windows XP as part of a state-wide upgrade to the legal IT infrastructure here.

Someone else posted about the IRS having a similar use for computers, but here is what my sister described to me.

  • The people in her office are expressly forbidden from using anything other than Internet Explorer as installed, and are subject to disciplinary action if anything like Mozilla, Opera, or Netscape Navigator are found installed.
  • Initially, a large amount of legal document preparation took place using WordPerfect, which apparently includes a number of legal templates to speed the process. Apparently, the site license for WP ends at yearend, and a complete conversion (with training and document compatibility problems and everything) to MS Word is in progress.
  • Though they have upgraded to WindowsXP from Win98, they (the people in this particular office, anyway) are expressly forbidden from using any multimedia features of the OS. Needless to say, installation of any other software (see IE comment above) is cause for disciplinary action.
  • Once legal documents are prepared, they are exported using Adobe Acrobat to PDF so that they can be moved around and archived. One issue they are grappling with now is PDF security and rights management (not dissimilar to eBooks, but in this case it seems like a good idea).
  • They recently migrated all email clients to Outlook again requiring more training and headache.
  • Whatever legal database they were using has been migrated to a Microsoft product running on Windows XP, accessible via IE through an html interface, presumably through IIS. (my sister is a lawyer, not a computer head, so I don't know the specifics)
  • Use of systems for person business, including web browsing or personal emailing, are grounds for disciplinary action, including termination.

Much like the IRS story posted in another discussion on slashdot somewhere, the legal system in my state uses their computers (for government business only) to prepare documents according to accepted layout and content standards (ie line numbers, spacing, fonts, etc), send and receive multimedia-free email, prepare and view PDF documents (which are printed out and filed as well), and access database records via a web browser (with an associated database-webserver backend). And that's it!

The big concerns in this example moving forward? Document security and access control, and system security and access control. Windows XP is considered by the legal IT people in my state to be a step in that direction. Maybe it is, but at tremendous cost.

It boggles the mind, especially since I am paying a part of this bill to install overpriced MS software onto overpriced X Terminals.

It would be ideal, in my opinion anyway, to have government agencies begin to transition these sorts of applications over to linux-based systems (a couple of cities have started in this direction I guess, but not enough to gain any sort of critical mass yet), and then show real bottom line savings in the short term, and productivity gains in the medium and long term.

As other posts have suggested, jumping into the unknown or misunderstood is not something that at CEO, CTO, or CIO wants to rush into. Unfortunately, in the case of my local government example, they are so concerned with interoperatbility and manageability that they also refuse to consider those unknown and misunderstood options, which in the end would provide more than the interoperability they seek (and managing a network of X-Terminals, where nobody is allowed to install anything on their own, would surely be a challenge...).

While any effort to get such an agency to convert to linux-based infrastructure would be an uphill battle at best, I am hoping that our own government offices that spend millions (billions?) of our dollars on bloatware to word process, email, and access databases will consider saving taxpayer money, and maybe business will begin to see the light.

But I'm not holding my breath

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...