×

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!

Mindbridge Saves "Bunches of Money" In Switch To Linux

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 6 years ago | from the yet-another-success-story dept.

177

While Mindbridge didn't start out as an open source company, it has since managed to save what they can only describe as "bunches of money" by switching to Linux. "Today, Mindbridge has repurposed itself as an open-source-friendly company, and revamped its infrastructure to run completely on Linux and other open source software. 'Having deployed [Linux servers] to our customers, we turned around and said, we can do the same thing internally and save bunches of money. We began a systematic but slow flipping of servers from the Microsoft world over to predominantly Linux — although there are a few BSD boxes around as well,' Christian says. 'It's to the point that today I only have two production Windows servers left, out of 15 or so.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

177 comments

Headline (3, Funny)

thebear05 (916315) | more than 6 years ago | (#20517461)

Mindbridge Switches to Linux Saves Bunches of Money is it me or is this headline a wet dream for most slashdot posters ?

Re:Headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20517533)

mod must be an apple fanboy

Re:Headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20518059)

Given that incoherent string of words, I'm thinking the OP is either a 12-year-old with an addiction to text messaging, or a Slashdot editor.

Re:Headline (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20517575)

I'm done.

Was it good for you?

Re:Headline (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20517611)

who the fuck is Mindbridge, and why do i care?

Re:Headline (2, Informative)

eln (21727) | more than 6 years ago | (#20518031)

Seriously. This article is basically "Guy with 15 servers converts 13 of them to Linux." 13 whole servers. Damn, Microsoft must be quaking in their boots over this one.

This story is utterly pointless.

Eh, no. It's "Guy with 60 Windows servers" (4, Interesting)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 6 years ago | (#20518943)

Converts them to 13 Linux servers.

See Microsoft's problem now? See the point?

Say, did you graduate high school? Your reading skills seem to be lacking, it's right there in paragraph 3 of the article. Oh wait! I get it you didn't RTFA and decided to spout of anyway. Oh and the mods, good job there.

As you were.

Not too bad for little guys (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20517845)

If you are a small company like this, and aren't to concerned about security, going with Linux isn't too bad. Obviously it's not something a large, enterprise level organization, dealing with confidential information (payroll, benefits, HR, etc) can really do anything viable with, but little guys can probably save a few thousand dollars this way.

When you are a small business, every little bit helps. Personally, I'm not sure I would risk it, but that's likely just because I'm so aware of these kinds of risks. The real shame is how few organizations take security into consideration on just about anything. Sometimes, it's better to spend money as insurance against bad things happening, but then again the CEO gets paid even if the servers are wide open to everyone on the network.

Take a look at the city of Munich: they are like 5 years in to having their total IT infrastucture screwed over... and yet the project managers are still drawing paychecks. I guess another facet is how organizations with a low amount of accountability can do these kinds of things.

Re:Not too bad for little guys (1)

ZorinLynx (31751) | more than 6 years ago | (#20518095)

>If you are a small company like this, and aren't to concerned about security

Are you implying that Linux is inherently less secure than Windows?

I don't think so. A properly administered Linux box is just as secure as a properly administered Windows box.

Please don't spread FUD. :)

Re:Not too bad for little guys (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20518149)

Not implying it... stating it. It's a fact. Windows does file level security far better (which is to say, at all), and network security is non-existant with Linux. It's just a bunch of stuff on a machine, and you go to different machines for different stuff. Completely ad hoc.

No FUD, only educated experience.

Re:Not too bad for little guys (5, Insightful)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 6 years ago | (#20518471)

Windows gives you ACLs, Linux gives you standard unix permissions *AND* ACLs...
ACLs are complex, to the point that many windows admins dont bother with them. Unix permissions are simple enough to master but lack some of the flexibility. However, for most purposes permissions are more than adequate, and you also have ACLs if you need more.

But wtf is this about network security? Linux has iptables by default, ssh for communications between machines, NFSv4 for file sharing...
Compare that to windows file sharing, which is vulnerable to reflection attacks (see metasploit) and will automatically send your authentication details when you connect to a remove server!
Not to mention all the stuff windows has open by default (rpc, netbios, netbios-ns, and more), and which is difficult to turn off. Linux boxes, unless horribly misconfigured, will only listen on the services which are required, with unnecessary services turned off rather than kludgily filtered.

Re:Not too bad for little guys (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20518779)

I'm guessing he means something along the lines of shared groups, from Active Directory. Two file servers, one group of defined users - set the group allow permission on both servers and add users in AD and they get access on both servers. How do you do that easily on Linux? I'm genuinely curious!

Windows admins who don't bother with ACL's are clearly too dumb to use windows properly, imo..

Re:Not too bad for little guys (3, Informative)

Feyr (449684) | more than 6 years ago | (#20518957)

easily is stretching it a bit but kerberos was designed for just that. in fact, AD is just a Borgified kerberos (just enough so it's incompatible with every other krb servers)

Re:Not too bad for little guys (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20518535)

You have GOT to be a troll. Or are you just naive?

Not news (4, Interesting)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 6 years ago | (#20517999)

Having lived in silicon valley for several years now, it is not news when a company tosses out Windows boxes and replaces them with Linux boxes as an alternative to buying more Windows licenses (for upgrades or for expanding their collection of systems).

Business as usual is when companies adopt Linux for practical business reasons. It happens all the time in the valley, probably because there are many IT guys here with the experience to manage large networks of Linux, BSD, etc machines.

If a "company" cannot afford 30 cents a day (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20518947)

If a "company" cannot afford a Windows license, it probably is a Linux "company", as in not a real company, but a phony, made-up company. The cost to license a machine for $300 for three years (average expected lifetime - about 30 cents! a day) is paltry to a real business that makes money.

obvious (-1, Offtopic)

JeffSh (71237) | more than 6 years ago | (#20517469)

press release news posted to slashdot = gayest shit ever.

Re:obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20517515)

Isn't it obvious? Back when VA Linux was a hardware company, they had hardware to make the cash. They went to VA Software, and had software to make the money -- but now, it's SourceForge, an online media and ecommerce company, so they've gotta keep the eyes looking on their sites so Ali's paychecks won't bounce.

It's sad really, with some folks at Collab saying that they're destroying the Software that they bought from VA, and throwing their platform out the window and adopting the technology that they bought.

Re:obvious (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20517527)

How can a first post be marked Redundant?

Re:obvious (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20517659)

How can a first post be marked Redundant?
By being a redundant observation about Slashdot.

Do you think this is the only topic where that comment has been made?

Re:obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20517699)

so in soviet russia .... etc are also mod redundant ? they should be but they are not

Re:obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20517733)

I don't think there are enough mod points floating around to accomplish that remarkable feat

Linux... (5, Funny)

Nozsd (1080965) | more than 6 years ago | (#20517473)

Fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on your operational cost.

Re:Linux... (2, Interesting)

jt2377 (933506) | more than 6 years ago | (#20517499)

"Puckette says it takes some extra time to get an open source infrastructure configured the right way. "The challenge as opposed to buying solutions from one vendor is that when you buy from Microsoft, you can assume it works with other Microsoft products. With open source you have to take more time to make sure all the products interact and all the pieces fit together. But the cost benefits clearly outweigh going with all Microsoft."

I don't see how OSS can take over Microsoft or Microsoft take over OSS.

Re:Linux... (3, Funny)

doxology (636469) | more than 6 years ago | (#20517561)

So easy, even a caveman (read: RMS) can do it!

Re:Linux... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20517633)

That was Awesome :)

Re:Linux... (3, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 6 years ago | (#20518051)

There's no way RMS could convert to Linux in 15 minutes or less. Hell, he'd spend at least 15 days trying to convince people to call it GNU/Linux before he would even begin the install.

Re:Linux... (0)

rts008 (812749) | more than 6 years ago | (#20518419)

A*hhckk!
*tries to disgorge swallowed dentures, while wiping down monitor and keyboard from spewed Mt. Dew, nose still burning!*

LOL! Oooohhhh!!!! RIB CRAMPS! Arrrghhh!

Fsck you, you Insensitive Clod, I think?!?!?

*head asplodes contemplating which party has been insulted*

Disclaimer:
I have some respect for RMS, and even agree with him sometimes.

I hereby award him my exclusive Wiley E. Coyote, S.G. (Super Genius) Award for dedication to the mission, staying insanely focused, and perseverance.

*salutes monitor*

Scale (4, Insightful)

Erris (531066) | more than 6 years ago | (#20517673)

Fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on your operational cost.

Dropping the number of computers needed to do a job by an order of magnitude will save you more than 15%. The time spent nursing sick servers is better spent making new product for more revenue.

When you are big enough, 15% is a big deal. Walmart, for example, has more revenue than any company besides Exxon [cnn.com], but is only able to keep 3% of it. If they were able to drop their costs by 15%, they would have proffits five times M$'s.

Re:Scale (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20517719)

If they were able to drop their costs by 15%, they would have proffits five times M$'s.

"proffits" doesn't work that way, kid. It's not that simple. I'm guessing you're still in high school?

I love the "M$" thing, BTW. Very original.

Would have saved more (2, Insightful)

fembots (753724) | more than 6 years ago | (#20517503)

If they threatened to swich to Linux, then they'll get to use the same MS products at Linux price.

Would have spent more at any price. (5, Insightful)

Erris (531066) | more than 6 years ago | (#20517619)

To make up the difference, M$ would have to give them the software, pay the electric bill and donate engineering time for custom applications. If you read the article, you will see that the company dropped from at least 60 servers to 15. I say at least, because the only count they give of how much hardware they were using is the 50 or 60 that "were giving them trouble." It's clear that time spent nursing that mess was better spent moving to software that works better and allows easier customization. Their continued good results with other software proves their competence as well as the poor quality of what they were using before. Quality that poor is a bad deal unless it's heavily subsidized, so your imagined extortion can only work for a few prominent customers. When that does work, the rest of the customers will pay that much more to keep M$'s profit to revenue ratio at 35%.

Hi twitter (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20517787)

Re:Hi twitter (1)

T0t0r0_fan (658111) | more than 6 years ago | (#20517989)

Sorry for heavy offtopic, but WTF is this crap again?! I'm not sure I like someone using two accounts to post on /. (if it's proven, the other side is heard, etc.), but constant personal attacks/trolling like these are plain *stupid* and annoying.

Wrong architecture (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 6 years ago | (#20518903)

100,000 desktop PCs, 1000 file servers, 500 email servers etc etc.

Really. Think about the mathematics of that situation. Think about the relationships between the machines, work out the complexity. As far as I can see there are a lot of CEOs and CIOs out there who simply can't multiply two numbers together. And if they can't do that...

 

what the.... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20517511)

Was this thing written by a 4 year old? I was expecting to see OMG PONIEZZZ!! at the end.

Re:what the.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20518069)

Don't you like ponies?

In other news (4, Insightful)

wangotango (711037) | more than 6 years ago | (#20517513)

Software costs nothing.... Compared to the cost of supporting it.

Re:In other news (1)

thebear05 (916315) | more than 6 years ago | (#20517717)

this is from an it standpoint, be a small business owner who needs a legit copy of auto cad , ms office, and photoshop software costs are the bulk of startup costs yes i know this is why they get there copy's illegally and yes if they choose open source they will have a hard time delivering to clients ( YES THEY WILL )

Re:In other news (1)

geekboy642 (799087) | more than 6 years ago | (#20518085)

I was going to write a witty reply to this post. But I couldn't figure out what the hell "thebear05" was saying. So I'll settle for this: Learn to use grammar and spelling properly, child. An inability to use correct grammar and to spell right is a mark of an underdeveloped mind. So you're either 12, or a person of towering stupidity. (That's XOR for the boolean logic folks)

Re:In other news (1)

UncleTogie (1004853) | more than 6 years ago | (#20518161)

So you're either 12, or a person of towering stupidity. (That's XOR for the boolean logic folks)

Actually, as I've met some really ignorant 12-year-olds, I'd have to lean more toward the good ol'-fashioned OR, IMHO.

Re:In other news (1)

AJWM (19027) | more than 6 years ago | (#20517821)

Software costs nothing.... Compared to the cost of supporting it.

Yep, and the ratio of software cost to support cost for both Windows and Linux is roughly the same...

Re:In other news (1)

piojo (995934) | more than 6 years ago | (#20517929)

Yep, and the ratio of software cost to support cost for both Windows and Linux is roughly the same...
Not so. limit(200/x) as x->infinity = infinity, while limit(x/x) as x->0 is 1.

Re:In other news (3, Insightful)

kripkenstein (913150) | more than 6 years ago | (#20518489)

Software costs nothing.... Compared to the cost of supporting it.
Don't forget the hardware cost involved. If you pick an OS that requires twice the amount of servers, then your hardware costs - and other related maintenance costs, like technicians, electricity, etc. - go up very significantly.

In addition more hardware can mean more potential security breaches, and so forth.

Real company - just 15 servers? (4, Funny)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 6 years ago | (#20517521)

two production Windows servers left, out of 15 or so

Is this "Mindbridge" a real company? I know geeks with 15 servers in their basement...

Re:Real company - just 15 servers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20517565)

Depends on how many of those are for porn.

Re:Real company - just 15 servers? (1)

poopie (35416) | more than 6 years ago | (#20517597)

A company with 15 servers?!

15 servers where I work is barely a ROUNDING ERROR

Re:Real company - just 15 servers? (0, Offtopic)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 6 years ago | (#20517773)

A company with 15 servers?!

15 servers where I work is barely a ROUNDING ERROR

Not everybody is working at Google!

Re:Real company - just 15 servers? (0, Offtopic)

eudaemon (320983) | more than 6 years ago | (#20517837)

I don't roll out of bed to take a leak for less than a 256 node cluster of blade servers.

15 servers is what we keep on hand for spares.

Meh.

Re:Real company - just 15 servers? (3, Informative)

u235meltdown (940099) | more than 6 years ago | (#20517923)

FTFA

CEO Rick Puckette is enthusiastic about the change. "When we were using Microsoft, we had a lot more than 15 servers," he says. "We had upwards of 50 or 60 that were becoming difficult to manage. So as part of this open source initiative, we also chose a virtual machine called Xen, which allows us to put multiple machines on one physical server, to consolidate." Puckette says that Mindbridge evaluated other virtual machine software, including VMware, but Xen was "very cost-efficient and pretty bulletproof.

Re:Real company - just 15 servers? (1)

psychicsword (1036852) | more than 6 years ago | (#20517657)

I know geeks with 15 servers in their basement...

Goto any technical school school and you might find one in most dorm rooms!
I have one heating my room this winter in addition to my laptop.

Re:Real company - just 15 servers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20517693)

Goto any technical school school and you might find one in most dorm rooms!
Someone needs to go back to school school.

Re:Real company - just 15 servers? (4, Insightful)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 6 years ago | (#20517797)

two production Windows servers left, out of 15 or so

Is this "Mindbridge" a real company? I know geeks with 15 servers in their basement...

I don't know what business they are in (Safari crashes on TFA), but then: I have a very real company, two of them even, and I have only one server. It's doing what I need. But then I'm not in the business of selling web access, or server space, or so. Most companies have only one or two servers, because most companies are not in the business of selling server space. Besides, modern servers can handle a huge lot of work, one server now can easily handle what 10 servers did a decade or so ago.

Re:Real company - just 15 servers? (3, Insightful)

archen (447353) | more than 6 years ago | (#20518283)

Depends on what they do. In a windows environment that's nothing because each windows server application seems to demand it's own server - note that the article states the 15 or so mixed is down from 60 pure windows. Assuming no other software aside from windows server (not advanced server or anything) that's around $48k saved right there - before extra software. The big buzzword of the day is consolidation. Instead of having a billion servers and trying to manage security and updates on them all, keep it to a low number so it's easier to keep your eye on.

The ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20517531)

loud squeak heard in Redmond moments ago was the sound of 1,000 chairs flinching.

Re:The ... (2, Insightful)

wamerocity (1106155) | more than 6 years ago | (#20517581)

No, you'll really hear the chairs moving and flinching when Linux gets to the point that it is so easy to operate that my IT-retarded mom can use it with the same ease that she is used to on her XP (forgetting the problems that I come over to her house to fix), and the video drivers work better across the board (*COatiUGH*, *COnvidiaUGH*). However, I must say the last fedora I saw was a good step in that direction...

Cue Linux Missionaries starting to mod me down as a troll in 3..2..1..

Re:The ... (2, Insightful)

shaitand (626655) | more than 6 years ago | (#20517701)

'However, I must say the last fedora I saw was a good step in that direction...'

You need to see Ubuntu, using fedora is akin to jamming icicles in your eyes using only a toothpick for grip in comparison. As for video drivers, nvidia are easy enough, in ubuntu it takes two clicks to install the commercial drivers. ATI drivers still suck but yesterday or the day before there was an announcement that AMD is going to completely open the specs on the ATI drivers that means there will be fully optimized and functional 3D accelerated drivers that load out of the box. That beats windows where you have to go to the website and hunt out the drivers for any modern card.

Seriously, Ubuntu is ready for USE by your average user already. It isn't ready for administration by your average user but your average user doesn't know enough about the system to competently complete administration tasks even if they are made easy enough to click through.

Re:The ... (1)

the_womble (580291) | more than 6 years ago | (#20518861)

when Linux gets to the point that it is so easy to operate that my IT-retarded mom can use it
That is tough.

But adding this:

with the same ease that she is used to on her XP
Makes it easy. Linux is at least as easy to use as Windows, but people are used to Windows, so there is a learning curve on switching.

forgetting the problems that I come over to her house to fix
If she switched to Linux you would have a whole lot of calls for help to start with, but that would gradually wind down to a lower level than Windows - at least that is my experience.

However, I must say the last fedora I saw was a good step in that direction.
Fedora is not the best desktop oriented distro. Ubuntu is better, and Mandriva better still.

desperate humor attempt because this article sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20517585)

In soviet Russia, Linux saves a bunch of money by switching to YOU.

Linux.com and slashdot.org = same company (0, Troll)

DogDude (805747) | more than 6 years ago | (#20517593)

If Slashdot had even a shred of interest in maintaining and kind of credibility, they'd note that the "article" that they're linking to is at linux.com. Both are owned by Sourceforge, Inc. (Formerly VA Linux, then OSDN, now Sourceforge). This is nothing but a cheap way to earn more pageviews.

Re:Linux.com and slashdot.org = same company (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20517685)

OMG YOURE RIGHT! they missed one in a billion! quick, flame them while you're comment is still relevant!

Re:Linux.com and slashdot.org = same company (1)

Technician (215283) | more than 6 years ago | (#20518407)

Both are owned by Sourceforge, Inc. (Formerly VA Linux, then OSDN, now Sourceforge). This is nothing but a cheap way to earn more pageviews.

Do you think Microsoft would like to post it on MSN to get more pageviews?

Thank You very much. I'll be here all week.

Bunches of Money? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20517637)

Why don't you just say an "assload of cash" or a "fuckload of Benjamins" or a "metric shit-ton of sweet, sweet greenbacks" or a "Beyonce trunk chock-fulla money, honey"? This is /., not digg. Try to compose a headline that can be parsed by an educated person.

And throw in a semicolon while you're at it.

Other Ways To Save Money (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20517655)

Why stop at switching to Linux?



1. Buy a Skoda.
2. Live in a trailer.
3. Shave on alternate days.



Yes, you too can save money by cutting out luxury items built to last. Put your money into a savings account over the next 50 years, retire, and live the life of a billionaire in the little time that remains. Buy a yacht and sail around the world with a whole bunch of smooth skinned, young, and beautiful girls. You'll be too tired and shrivelled to fuck them but they sure look purty. Alternatively, you can keep the economy afloat and live a rich and full life while you still can.



Microsoft Windows. Tomorrows Happiness, Today....

Re:Other Ways To Save Money (1)

eudaemon (320983) | more than 6 years ago | (#20517973)

I couldn't agree more.

When I walk home every day (I can't afford a car, or public transportation) the public shower
me with rose petals, accolades and proclamations of my uber froobiness. Why?
Because by God, Microsoft, Church and Apple Pie I built my PC with Windows Ultimate Edition!

Sure it cost a little more and there was that dark spell where I just ate Ramen noodles
Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, and sucked on the salt packets Tuesdays and Thursdays
but dang it I needed the best, the very best OS in the land for my daily diet of Fox News,
posting vociferous rants on right-leaning blogs and stalking the Olsen twins.

Woo! Yay me!

Technical question (5, Funny)

nickthecook (960608) | more than 6 years ago | (#20517677)

Are those metric bunches?

Re:Technical question (4, Insightful)

greenguy (162630) | more than 6 years ago | (#20518073)

No, if it were metric, it would have said so. It's clearly bunches, as in Libraries of Congress per fortnight. As a shortcut, this is roughly equal to one VW Beetle*.

*Old model, not new model. As everyone knows, substantially fewer circus clowns fit into the newer models, due to reduced trunk space and assorted government regulations regarding imports from Mexico.

This story has no credibility (5, Insightful)

JoelKatz (46478) | more than 6 years ago | (#20517713)

This story has no credibility with me. The article is ridiculously light on details and seems to be an attempt at self-serving cross-promotion. There is no discussion of how they saved money or what those servers are actually doing. They talk about how much is costs them to "support" a Microsoft box, but they're such a small company, it's hard to imagine what their "support" even consists of.

They're a Linux company. They're telling us how great Linux is. They're not giving any details.

Personally, I have quite a bit of experience operating, maintaining, and supporting both Linux and Microsoft servers. I have found that both work well for the vast majority of applications. I've found other people's Linux servers to be easier to support than other people's Microsoft servers, but this might just be because the average Linux server contact is more knowledgeable than the average Microsoft server contact.

One huge difference is that it is *much* easier to figure out what a Linux server is doing and to start analyzing why it's not doing what it's supposed to do.

Re:This story has no credibility (2, Informative)

belmolis (702863) | more than 6 years ago | (#20517915)

They're a Linux company. They're telling us how great Linux is. They're not giving any details.

No, they aren't a Linux company. They don't sell Linux and their own products are not Linux-specific. The article says that they started out as a Microsoft shop but switched most of their servers to Linux after observing their customers' good experience with Linux.

Re:This story has no credibility (4, Insightful)

Atlantis-Rising (857278) | more than 6 years ago | (#20518005)

It's a Linux.com article- a Linux company, telling you how great Linux is and not giving any details. It's what I'd be referring to if I was in his place.

Re:This story has no credibility (1)

belmolis (702863) | more than 6 years ago | (#20518039)

The quotes are so extensive that unless the article is making them up it is clear that the article reflects the point of view of Mindbridge, not merely Linux.com's spin. In any case, if the OP had meant to refer to the article, he ought to have written "Linux.com" or "the publication". The obvious referent of "the company" is Mindbridge, the company discussed in the article.

Re:This story has no credibility (1)

JoelKatz (46478) | more than 6 years ago | (#20518635)

Linux.com and Mindbridge are both Linux companies. Mindbridge wants some attention, so it writes an article about how great Linux is and gets Linux.com to publish it. The article is very vague, no numbers, no specific case information, and no meat. It has no credibility.

Re:This story has no credibility (1)

zlogic (892404) | more than 6 years ago | (#20518289)

Not much different from Microsoft's case studies in their "get the facts" or "compare" campaigns.

Re:This story has no credibility (3, Funny)

JoelKatz (46478) | more than 6 years ago | (#20518673)

*Absolutely* true. While that obviously justifies pointing out when Microsoft's case studies are erroneous, self-serving, or both, it doesn't justify other people using the same tactics.

Not that I'm saying this article is as bad as most of those articles. It's not. No specifics is a lot better than completely false and misleading specifics pulled out of your corporate ass or intentionally deceptive test methodologies you pick but then get a "neutral third-party" to perform so they will "fairly and without bias" find that your product is best.

Microsoft: We didn't do these tests, Braincraft did. They found that our products were better.

Us: Did you pay them?

Microsoft: Well, yeah.

Us: Did you tell them what tests to perform and exactly how to perform?

Microsoft: Well, yeah.

Us: And did you already do those tests and carefully select the ones that make your product look the best without any regard for what thoses tests have to do with reality?

Microsoft: Well, that's all the time we have.

light on detail .. (1)

rs232 (849320) | more than 6 years ago | (#20518899)

"The article is ridiculously light on details and seems to be an attempt at self-serving cross-promotion. There is no discussion of how they saved money or what those servers are actually doing"

'part of this open source initiative, we also chose a virtual machine called Xen, which allows us to put multiple machines on one physical server [linux.com], to consolidate .. We also use Hyperic to monitor the health and happiness of the servers'

"Personally, I have quite a bit of experience operating, maintaining, and supporting both Linux and Microsoft servers. I have found that both work well for the vast majority of applications"

Given the cost of support contracts and the per cpu restrictions of the MS EULA, why would you spend your companies money on licenses. For an average corporation that's one fifth of their annual revenue.

Some more quotes from the light on details article:

"It costs us significantly more to support a Windows box than a Linux box"

"You put out an email to a user mailing list, and you may get a response from the developer. Try doing that with most commercial vendors. It's hard to get access to those people. In the open source world, it's relatively easy"

I can validate this from personal experience, I once got a reply from the lead developers of mpeg4ip, similarly I once received a personal reply from Linus Torvalds. Bill Hilf or billg have yet to reply to my emails .. :)

was: This story has no credibility (Score:3, disengenous FUD)

The story is rather misleading...! (4, Insightful)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 6 years ago | (#20517803)

I will quote...

"Today, Mindbridge has repurposed itself as an open-source-friendly company, and revamped its infrastructure to run completely on Linux and other open source software.
. . . Then later in the introductory piece...

We began a systematic but slow flipping of servers from the Microsoft world over to predominantly Linux -- although there are a few BSD boxes around as well,' Christian says. 'It's to the point that today I only have two production Windows servers left, out of 15 or so.'"

Emphasis mine by the way; the two words in bold appear to be contradictory...or are they?

Re:The story is rather misleading...! (2, Interesting)

belmolis (702863) | more than 6 years ago | (#20517931)

Strictly speaking, yes, it's a contradiction. He should have said "almost completely". Big deal. It hardly invalidates the story.

Re:The story is rather misleading...! (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 6 years ago | (#20517957)

Did the GP talk about `invalidation' at all? Or you did not fully understand what he meant....sheesh!

Re:The story is rather misleading...! (1)

belmolis (702863) | more than 6 years ago | (#20517991)

I am unable to make any sense of your comment. You asked whether the words are contradictory. I agreed that they are. I then went on to point out that it makes no real difference to the point of the article. No, you didn't use the word "invalidate", but your title does say that the article is "misleading", which amounts to the same thing in this context. Use whatever words you like, but the fact remains that his description of his experience does not depend on whether the conversion was complete or almost complete.

Re:The story is rather misleading...! (3, Informative)

Bottlemaster (449635) | more than 6 years ago | (#20518075)

Emphasis mine by the way; the two words in bold appear to be contradictory...or are they?
Not necessarily. The article said their infrastructure was revamped to run completely on open source software, and later that there are two production Windows servers in the shop. Considering part of their business is hosting, and (as they stated), some of their customers wish them to host Windows software, it's possible that these two Windows servers are part of the service they provide and not part of their infrastructure.

That being said, it's probably a domain controller and an Exchange server.

Re:The story is rather misleading...!! (1)

EraserMouseMan (847479) | more than 6 years ago | (#20518421)

That being said, it's probably a domain controller and an Exchange server.

I would guess you are 100% corrrect about that. But aren't DCs and email servers a very central part of the infrastructure? If those 2 things are still Windows boxes then I'd say there are 2 large and very critical aspects of their infrastructure that rely on Windows servers.

choice quotes from TFA (3, Interesting)

bzipitidoo (647217) | more than 6 years ago | (#20517901)

when you buy from Microsoft, you can assume it works with other Microsoft products.

Assume?! MS is known for all sorts of lock in. Of course their products work with each other! But only the most recent versions, that too is key to MS's overall strategy. It's when you don't want to upgrade or they don't have some need covered that you're out of luck. 3rd party stuff that works with MS is always chancy. Never know when MS might make an internal change and break half the 3rd party stuff as well as old MS stuff.

.. had only ever administered Microsoft boxes in the past, and had to get used to the idea of command lines.

Can such a person exist? A system administrator who has to get used to the idea of command lines?!

...looked specifically for new hires who were eager to learn. "The people I like are pretty inquisitive type people. I tried to filter out the others in the interview process."

Sounds like the way we wish hiring decisions were made. Sounds too good to be true.

Real Company? (4, Interesting)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 6 years ago | (#20518001)

Well, it's not like you can't run an "Enterprise Business" on 15 servers. I am CTO of a software company servicing school districts in California. We have 70 school districts, hundreds of users and tens of thousands of students in our databases, we make it work with a surprisingly small cluster of 4 4-way Opteron servers, running at just under 5% of capacity. (mid-day load average)

Our annual sales exceed $1 million dollars this year, we've been growing 40% - 70% annually. No, we're not a megacorp, but still quite legit. (and our servers are all 100% Linux)

OSDN cross-promotion (1)

hendridm (302246) | more than 6 years ago | (#20518081)

Not even a fake "some_slashdot_user writes..." Just a summary+link of a lame article from an OSDN affiliate posted by ScuttleBot.

What really happened... (4, Interesting)

--daz-- (139799) | more than 6 years ago | (#20518221)

Company fires IT director, hires new IT director who fires all the worthless IT staff who were responsible for 50-60 (insert OS here) servers that were poorly managed -- hires new IT people (fewer of them) that are competent and set up 15 servers running (insert OS here).

I've see that story dozens of times with the (insert OS here) being Linux or Windows.

It's not a hard choice, just perhaps costly. (3, Interesting)

brundlefly (189430) | more than 6 years ago | (#20518351)

To anyone who knows Linux (or BSD, or any Unix) it's a no-brainer to run the fast, open, free, fully-configurable stuff.

It's only a legitimately difficult decision to make when a company doesn't have Unix expertise. (Which is often.) Pay the cost to replace your IT staff, or pay the cost to rent software from Microsoft?

I wish people would do cost/benefit analyses on this latter point. After all, everyone knows Unix is cheaper. But is it cheaper than replacing your Win32 GUI point-n-click admins with their Unix replacements? I honestly have no clue... and I suspect it really depends upon the company, the culture, the size, the market, etc.

These "I switched to Linux and I saved money articles" are old and meaningless.

"I switched my career from real-estate to oncology and now I make more money!" Great, but what's the real-world cost of doing so, if it's not already a simple option?

(I'm a multi-platform guy with a hybrid environment at home, so save your breath if you're going to point the Finger of Anti-Linux SentimEnt at me.)
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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...