Forrester’s Rob Enderle opines that, for all its advantages, the open source OS just isn’t ready to power the systems on Starfleet Vessels. Just kidding. What he really says is that however much the geeks love Linux for the freedom it gives them, the customizability isn’t always a boon to the average users and the managers who just want things to work with as little tinkering as possible. And the untested intellectual property issues surrounding the GPL and the open source development methods are a potential quagmire. He says large companies need to consider these issues, religious fanatacism aside. Do you agree? Update by ELQ: Counterpoint at NewsFactor.
I don’t have a direct quote, but I do recall reading Eugenia point out that Linus doesn’t care about politics he just wants to see Linux being used and enjoy coding.
Well then does it matter who uses Linux? Be it a school, a large corporation, the govenment, NASA if you want to go that extreme. But since the question was raised then I would assume yes there are Linux users who believe Linux is worthy of enterprise deployment, good for them, there’s enough people who think that way to support each other and make it happen.
Whether or not Linux gets widely used in the enterprise or not is irrelevent, the develop keeps on going and hardly takes notice.
After reading the article I suggest that the title is flawed as the discussion centered more on Linux users than Linux itself. With this in mind perhaps the title of the piece should have been “Linux Users Are Not Ready For the Enterprise”
The author seems to think that the only arguments for Linux are ideological ones. All Linux advocates must be frothing-at-the-mouth zealots because there are no valid, business-oriented arguments for the adoption of Linux in the enterprise.
I have not yet met any of these types of Linux advocates. Not any real ones, anyhow. I know tons of frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Microsoft folks, but they just run Linux on a second HD at home that they never boot. They’re not serious Linux gurus, and they don’t have anything to do with the enterprise argument.
I’m just getting tired of “Linux isn’t ready” articles that refuse to address our valid arguments. Stop side-stepping the issue by focusing on a very small part of the pro-Linux crowd.
I think everyone has heard this enough. How about doing something besides typing articles about it. I am sure if there was more commercial software companies for linux, things would be easier. I guess the open source community doesn’t care about ease of use as much as we think they should.
This analyst is clearly not ready for the enterprise.
He is spreading FUD (SCO legal claims), repeating prejudices that were only true two years ago (applications centering around developers) and talking about the completely irrelevant issue of zealot behavior.
I have not found a single fact or even valid argument while quickreading this article. Stunning and not worth any further thought.
that large companies need to consider the issues. They should have been considerring them years ago. Today they should have already made the switch.
That they are hesitant is only amusing from my perspective. I just love watching them squirm.
Yet another manifestation of the me-me-me, now-now-now culture we live in. The issue is NOT whether I like to, want to, or need to tinker. A better question is whether all_of_us benefit from someone elses tinkering. The answer is, of course we do. Thank you Wright brothers for the airplane, thank you Nicola Tesla for AC power distribution, the list goes on and on.
A deeper question: Should the benefits derived from tinkering **necessarily** be contingent on some venture capitalist getting a return on his investment? No!
Sometimes the outcome is too distant, risky, or outlandish to spark a VC’s interest. Should further research then be abandonded. No, of course not.
An example: lean budgets in the US space program during the ’90s led to the development of the Beowulf cluster (Linux bsed of course). Now people are using these clusters everywhere from oil exploration to the human genome project. Nothing is particularly impressive about one of these clusters, that’s part of the design specification… commodity OS + commodity hardware = affordable, flexible, scaleable supercomputer!
Next time you get a tank of gas or get a vaccination, remember to thnk Linus, his kernel (along with the GPL) just might have made it possible.
[remove CAPS to email me]
A lot of tech companies think Linux is ready for the enterprise. A lot of enterprises think Linux is ready for them. A more interesting question is:
Assuming we only look at technical and price considerations, is Windows ready for the enterprise?
Regardless of whether it is already there.
If you think I must be smoking something, think about this: Until the late 1970s enterprise databases were IMS (a hacked up hierarchical/network model). It didn’t take that long for almost every enterprise to transition to SQL databases (a hacked up version of the relational model). Clearly, IMS was not really ready for enterprise needs, although widely used.
Ignoring the obvious flamebait at the start of the article, the author falls back the tired old “I don’t understand the GPL properly, therefore neither does anyone else” argument. Even better is he aparently uses the ramblings of SCO as somehow validating this argument. If it wern’t for the fact that the author calls himself an analyst I wouldn’t pay this a second glance, but as it does it shows a dangerous form of disinformation that is being passed around in corporate boardrooms.
Of course, when Microsoft infringes someones IP(1) and looses the court case(2) thats just business and I doubt the author believes there is any reason to be concerned about any possible IP infringment from your Microsoft Certified Vendor. Odd that..
(1): http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/53/29419.html
(2): SCO’s aligations are just that at this point
I guess the open source community doesn’t care about ease of use as much as we think they should.
Yeah, there are plenty of Open Source apps that aren’t easy to use. At the same time, there are plenty of shareware or commercial apps that are difficult to use, and an increasing selection of Open Source apps that are easy to use.
For the average user (apart from games) there tends to be an Open Source equivalent of most apps that are used on a daily basis. They’re not necessarly more difficult to use, it’s just that some people are familiar with what they use, and to them, there’s too much learning involved in switching to something else. For most people there is no point in switching to another platform.
Similarly, if someone is brought up using a particular set of Open Source applications (e.g. Phoenix, Open Office and Evolution) then there would be an equal learning curve switching to commercial equivalents of these apps.
I’d hate to go back to using MSN and AIM instead of Gaim. I’d probably feel quite comfortable using another web browser though. It all depends on what you’re doing with your current platform.
This bit from the article pretty much sums up any discussion of Linux being ready for large scale use:
“The Linux folks can certainly argue, sometimes viciously, for their platform. But when asked to come up with strong, well founded, business arguments, they too often go mute, or begin what often turns into the mother of all flame battles with little real content. ”
Whether the discussion is here, on other forums, or even on pro-linux sites where there is not a debate or a flame war. The lack of objective, dispassionate arguments for deploying Linux (arguments that have nothing to do with MS) is a huge liability for Linux enthusiasts.
The author’s discussion of how choice creates real problems in a business environment was sound. The analogy between the UNIX/Linux model of computing and the centralized mainframe model was apt.
Relating the SCO/IBM conflict to Linux is a new twist in the usual debate. Whether or not SCO is right, current events show that in the Open Source model, end users could be dragged into copyright disputes. This is a Very Bad Thing, and all by itself a reason to be wary of the penguin.
and you will see just how correct the author is. Just because I am an admin who knows tech inside and out does not mean that I have to authority to persuade the brass upstairs that we are ready to adopt a whole new system and infrastructure that is currently under a cloud of litigation. The who concept of “information wants to be free” means nothing to the people who are writing the checks, especially if nobody knows where those checks might be going in the next five years and who will truly have ownership of our “free” software in the future. If I were the boss, I would avoid linux at all costs until the intellectual property issues have been entirely ironed out.
It happens often these days that free software is implied to have problems that commercial software does not when in reality they have the same issues.
So, when you buy Solaris, how do you know that they don’t have stolen code in it? And that they won’t get sued into oblivion? Sure, Sun is big and can probably pay off whoever
sues them. But what about other smaller vendors of software?
Are you better off with close source software because stolen code is *less* likely to be discovered? Are employees paid to write code any more or less likely to illegaly incorporate code in the products they are working on?
Sure you don’t hear about it much, but how would you? The employeed who cribbed has 0 incentive to own up. The company in question has very little incentive to do anything but reprimand or fire the programmer and order a re-write. (And not one they’d announce either for fear of being sued.)
“many Linux supporters are a bunch of potty-mouthed malcontent ”
“Many Linux users are outspoken and militant ”
Militant: 1. Engaged in combat. 2.Working aggressively for a cause.
Didn’t Mr. Ballmer say something to the effect of “Linux is in our sights.” Hasn’t MS been very aggressive when it comes to recent pricing and handing out sums of money “in order to combat” the popularity of Linux? I think it’s wrong for any group to be covered by blanket statements and in doing so the writer lost a lot of respectability.
“If you are in manufacturing, you likely have a policy to buy off-the-shelf manufacturing equipment whenever possible, because it is vastly less expensive than having custom machines installed. ”
Please reconsider being able to re-use older, and once thought useless, HW. Not only are you buying off the shelf orignally but now you are extending the life of current products.
“Recently SCO (formerly Caldera) began to change that perception and began to demonstrate what could easily become a nightmare for the Linux community. ”
This case reminds me of someone being accused of a murder. News shows and local papers have the accusation as a page 1/top story news. But when the person is proven innocent of all charges the resulting announcement barely makes it to page 10/the wrap up section. The more SCO screams wolf, the more people like Mr. Enderle listen, even though SCO has provided little to no evidence. Logically speaking, if SCO had the goods, they would be showing the world. Instead they are acting like someone who is bluffing. I especially like their latest stance of, “we didn’t know what we were selling.”
Mr. Enderle, your 15mins are up.
I don’t find IE easy to use when I’m killing pop-up ads at work. Luckily, I can go home to mozilla.
Ease of use always scares me, because it often comes with bloat. However, some of the bigger free software projects still run on very modest hardware. Besides, with all the digital signing and crap that MS is trying to build in, I think the ‘ease of use’ playing field will start to level soon.
remove XXX to email me
I know tons of frothing-at-the-mouth pro-Microsoft folks. I think if you take any of the points raised and substitute “Linux” for “Microsoft” you have an equally valid arguement. For example, if you use Microsoft products you need to be concerned about litigation as well. Ever heard of the BSA forcing businesses (or schools) to do costly audits under threat of litigation? The author seems to think Windows is “Ready for the Enterprise”. Where is any information to support that claim? Just because a lot of computers use the Windows program doesn’t automatically make it suitable for business usage. I use Windows daily, I use some other platforms daily, Windows is the worst one when it comes to performance, stability, flexibility and reliability. I think these are worthy business considerations.
I also think that this analyst was using old arguments over free software but I think that the open source movement isn’t understood clearly.
Maybe he was talking about Linux, buy certainly the open source movement is wider… just talk about MySQL, Apache, PHP, perl, all of this open source software is widely deployed and is used by several companies.
I know that open source movement cannot be perfect but I think that these kind of articles shows a little of ignorance.
Why nobody talks bad about Apache or Perl, or even Darwin, just Linux… why? Maybe because Linux is the attention center, maybe for envy, maybe because the open source community don’t speaks too clear.
I don’t know.
I’ve been using Linux for many years now and I like it quite a bit. However, if I want to use my computer for what I built it for (Music composition, Games, Video production) after spending time with my family and still get a good nights rest my only choices are Macs and Windows PC’s.
As for the corporate world, I think the open source dev model does not allow CEO’s (who matter AND make the decisions) to sleep very well at night.
MS business tactics aside, if I was starting my own business and had the money to run MS products I probably would. They just allow me greater use and productivity of the PC’s I’ve invested in without all the hassle (I’m talking XP and Server 2003 here folks).
Just my .02
GB
“Militant: 1. Engaged in combat. 2.Working aggressively for a cause.
Didn’t Mr. Ballmer say something to the effect of “Linux is in our sights.” Hasn’t MS been very aggressive when it comes to recent pricing and handing out sums of money “in order to combat” the popularity of Linux? I think it’s wrong for any group to be covered by blanket statements and in doing so the writer lost a lot of respectability. ”
Yes, but the difference is that Ballmer, as the CEO of MS, is expected militantly advance MS. It’s his job. If you’re in an IT department and trying to make a decision about whether to use software A or software B, being militant about one is a huge flaw.
As for Linux being able to run on old hardware…that was not the point of the customization problem of Linux. It’s that the broad range of Linux softwares available do not adhere to a standard and need to be customized to use.
“the customizability isn’t always a boon to the average users”:
Use the default redhat desktop then.
“And the untested intellectual property issues surrounding the GPL and the open source development methods are a potential quagmire.”
Yeah sure, in closed source software, there’s never any problems!
Who owns Unix?
Or do you like to be visited by the BSA?
You can expect problems with the BSA if you have stolen software, and the visits are certainly a nuisance. What’s different and alarming about the SCO case is that you could get sued, not for anything that you do, but what the authors of the software you’re using have done. This is a whole new area.
Yes, but the difference is that Ballmer, as the CEO of MS, is expected militantly advance MS. It’s his job. If you’re in an IT department and trying to make a decision about whether to use software A or software B, being militant about one is a huge flaw.
And that is a distinction without a difference if I’ve ever heard one.
Just face the facts, its easier when you outsource. You don’t have to worry about all these details. And that is why they choose commercial solutions. The problem is when they are demanded by their CEOs to cut costs. And that amuses me. Capitalism shooting itself in the foot, again. They’ll sell out to anyone. Even Linux.
I am admin for a w2k system with Citrix with 25 users about half of which are Wise terminals through Citrix the rest full PCs on a server client network. We have several programs that will only work peer to peer, one old but dedicated to our field that does not understand networks at all and one that only works through the Citrix server, and we have three versions of MS Office. This is even before we get to the road blocks windows throws up each and every day. I keep very busy at work keeping this system going. In my off time it help a couple of small businesses with their Linux system, Once I got them running I changed the root password so that only I and business owner has it – they just work, no fuss no muss. True the businesses have no locked special software like my full time employer, however, even removing the problems from that source w2k is still a whole lot more work keeping it going. Oh whell w2k is where I get my real paycheck.
He has some points but it doesn’t get the final one
Linux is not user friendly. Nope not at all. If you grew up on Unix, yes it is.. If not. It’s not
You tell Linux people that it should be easier and then we will adopt it. Thats when the militants come out and explain how, lazy, stupid, foolish, microsoft tit-sucking, (er I don’t know add your own comment) you are.
So, when you buy Solaris, how do you know that they don’t have stolen code in it? And that they won’t get sued into oblivion? Sure, Sun is big and can probably pay off whoever
sues them. But what about other smaller vendors of software?
The key difference is that Sun takes on and assumes the liability for its software. If you are a user of Solaris, and someone makes claims upon Solaris, then that person goes after Sun. That person can not come after you, you’re truly an “innocent party”. Sun simply asserts that they’ve properly licensed the code that they are subsequently licensing to you and assume that kind of liability.
Now the claimant may well be correct, Sun may have violated some agreement somewhere and the claimant may well get a judgement against that Sun that dramatically affects their business and thereby indirectly affects Suns customers.
With the SCO issue, potentially all of the users of the restricted IP that SCO feels is at issue are potentially liable for its misuse. For example, Red Hat doesn’t warrant its software to be free of IP issues, and handily passes any of that liability on to its customers. So, in theory, someone could sue Red Hat, and then move on to bring suit against its customers.
Companies don’t like taking on potential liabilities that they don’t know about. It’s a possible black hole that is usually not worth the time and money to support.
That’s the unknown the SCO is pumping into the market right now. They’re stirring the pot. Linux has slowly been jumping the hurdle of reliability, performance, support, and now its first big IP dispute.
Right now, if you were running a company and wanted to deploy on x86, I think you should very seriously consider Solaris x86. Both Sun and SCO have made statements that Solaris is “Clean”. If nothing else, Solaris x86 brings that much less baggage with it today.
Just as Oracle.
“when asked to come up with strong, well founded, business arguments, they [Linux advocates] too often go mute, or begin what often turns into the mother of all flame battles with little real content.”
Well, it’s certainly good to see that hasn’t happened here!
;->
Sorry missed out the k but then oracular comments are ment to be cryptic.
Just ask Oracle.
I don’t find IE easy to use when I’m killing pop-up ads at work. Luckily, I can go home to mozilla.
Why not just install Mozilla at work? If you can’t “install” a program…then just download Mozilla Firebird. No installer needed
I think it is hilarious when people make statements that Linux is not ready for the enterprise when it is already in use in the enterprise.
I hope linux NEVER comes to the enterprize because it’ll keep out of the influence of stupid idiots like the author of this moronic article and the bastards he writes for.
“In 2001, Technology Marketing named Rob as the most influential industry analyst.”
Influential? To whom, his mom?
Every idiot with a word processor now is proclaimer of all things linux? NOT! Just another nobody with an unenlightened prejudice.
IBM may be trying to protect them but SCO is going after AIX customers… right? So what’s the difference? It doesn’t matter if you think the software you are running is legit, if another company comes along and demonstrates there is stolen code in it, you could still easily be forced to stop using the software, or pay additional license fees.
Now maybe your vendor will eat that fee for you but you could still easily end up paying money directly to the party whose code you’re illegally using. That is, if you want to keep using that software.
Again, I don’t see the difference. If you’re running code that you don’t have the rights to, you could get sued and have to pay more money or stop using the software. This applies whether or not the code was supposed to be free or OS or if it was commerical.
I’m confused. Do all Linux users only care about code and not about ideology, or are they all politically motivated religious zealots?
Perhaps the shocking truth is that there is as much as mix of opinions and attitudes amoungst Linux users as there are for any OS.
“The key licenses that surround Linux, for the most part, have yet to be fully tested in court. ”
Great, so I get to use software that has never been in court for licencing problems, or software licenced from a company that is constantly being dragged through the courts?
RE: Yea and No
Linux based distros are not initially easy to use because making easy to use software is very very hard, and takes enourmous amounts of boring work.
It’s frustrating, as Linux has the potential to be easier to use than Windows as the basic system is better integrated, and does not rely on a mixture of third party addons (eg drivers, apps etc) to be located, downloaded, installed and configured by the user.
For instance, on Windows I need three media players, on Linux I need one. On Windows, I have ASIO, GSIF, WDM, EASI and MME sound drivers, and have to download and labouriously install drivers for my sound cards, all of which support various permutations of the above acronyms, but few support all. On Linux, the sound cards are automatically detected, and I just have ALSA, which provides both the drivers and common interface in a single package.
With Windows, I have to search out propriatory chipset patches for the motherboard (VIA 4-in-1 arrgh!). With Linux, patches for the motherboard quirks are already integrated into the kernel.
The easy user configuring side is not there yet, but the underlying base is clean and simple, and hopefully one day this will carry through to the gui config interfaces.
There are certainly aspects of Linux that are not as mature as some of the proprietary UNIXes out there (e.g. autofs) but when companies like IBM, Oracle and CA are backing it /porting their applications to it I find it pretty naive to still hear this FUD/rhetoric.
I believe that the FUD is borne out of an incorrect assumption that “the Enterprise” equates to “gigantic RDBMS”. That is patently false. There is tonnes of Enterprise software that Linux runs very well.
Cheers
“You can expect problems with the BSA if you have stolen software”
You don’t have to do ANYTHING wrong to incur costly problems with the BSA. By using GPL and BSD style licensed products you avoid bringing this liability to your business.
“Linux is not user friendly.”
Well Windows certainly isn’t either. I know how to use NT, why do I have to learn a new way of doing everything to configure this XP product. Why do I have to answer questions incorrectly to get the wizard to configure networking properly. Why can’t I just edit a text file somewhere?
Rob Enderle hit the nail right on the head, but he didn’t say anything that IT managers don’t already know. He basically stated what many have been saying for years. Linux is not ready for the enterprise. The support isn’t good enough, it requires too much tinkering to make things work, you STILL have to do kernel recompiles to enable a fair number of features, etc.
The average enterprise wants something that works consistantly and without a lot of messing around. Even Red Hat has proven that their quality control is not up to par with commercial Linux. (Remember the GCC, Red Hat 7 disaster?). Their tech support is also not up to par. I had to call Red Hat tech support one time, and the tech I talked to knew less about the Red Hat system than I did.
Linux simply isn’t ready for large enterprise systems yet.
“Even Red Hat has proven that their quality control is not up to par with commercial Linux.”
Oops. Of course, that should have said commercial UNIX.
The most telling statement in the piece is the reminder that Linux (and Linus) seems to have no formal procedure in place to actively prevent the migration of proprietary code. This makes Linux very vulnerable to charges like SCO’s, regardless of their merit or accuracy. Why? Because the Linux community can’t provide evidence to the contrary. Look at the response to the SCO case. Linux people point to SCO’s avoidance of taking their evidence public as “proof” their claim is bogus. However, why hasn’t the Linux community gone public with the details of the review process in use to prevent this kind of thing from happening? Given Linus’ widely-applauded assertion that he doesn’t care about IP issues, the answer is that there is no process to point to.
I would expect Linus to be called by SCO to testify when the suit gets to court. I expect him to be asked, under oath, if he knows, and how he knows, that there is no proprietary code in Linux. I wonder how he will answer.
Come to think of it, I suspect IBM, RedHat and SuSe sales reps are hearing that same questions right now.
Funny, this author, because the ideological case for Linux is, in fact, even more of a business case. Linux on the desktop will be good, most of all, because it will help restore healthy competition to desktop computing. That’s the number one reason for rooting for Linux. A successful linux desktop will do for consumers, what AMD does in the chip market.
So you want Linux, or any other OS for that matter, to succeed for the same reason why you don’t AMD to go under, and for the same reason why you don’t want Oracle to be the only one hawking databases.
The author does not try to make a technical case for linux not being ready. rather he latches onto scox fud, and attacks linux advocates. Seem familiar?
>>IT organizations are simply not equipped to deal with intellectual property theft issues within a product they have deployed widely. They have neither the legal expertise nor the budget to even properly assess the risk, let alone effectively mitigate it. <<
>>Many Linux users are outspoken and militant. Like their OS/2, MacOS, and Unix predecessors and counterparts, they make personal attacks and broad public statements<<
I suspect the same can be said of almost every company that writes software (at least every one where I’ve worked). The difference is that Linux and OSS in general are open to viewing by the entire world.
Whenever a programmer writes an algorithm for OSS or proprietary code, I doubt they check EVERY patent and piece of copyrighted code to see if the code has ever been written. Can anyone really say that their company does this?
I’m sure many proprietary projects are “guilty” of the same thing, it’s just hard to prove when you have no access to the code.
Being anti-microsoft is very okay, because microsoft has abused its power on numerous occasions and inflicted a
of harm on a lot of people and companies. If you decide to avoid MS product because you would prefer that they
reform their business practices, that alone is a good enough reason.
Also, like Linux for ideological (freedom) reasons is very okay. Why? If MS is the only game in town, sabotaging the privacy of individuals and whole nations, especially in difficult times, becomes that much easier.
IBM may be trying to protect them but SCO is going after AIX customers… right? So what’s the difference? It doesn’t matter if you think the software you are running is legit, if another company comes along and demonstrates there is stolen code in it, you could still easily be forced to stop using the software, or pay additional license fees.
As far as I know, SCO isn’t going after AIX customer DIRECTLY. Their actions against IBM may affect the customers of IBM, but they’re not going directly to the customers themselves.
While in the end the results appear similar (unable to legally run AIX, therefore stop using it), the customers are not subject to any punitive damages or direct judgement by SCO.
With Linux, technically SCO could go straight to the user and get actual and punitive damages against, say, a Red Hat customer.
What makes this guy think that linux aspires to the corporate world? Linux is already in the enterprize and has managed this despite not trying.
Thanks to the enterprize efforts of IBM, all we have to look forward to is assholes like SCO looking for an unearned buck.
This guy then disses all the programmers that made linux happen. What a god-damn prick.
The business world is just filled with theives who can’t make a better mousetrap, so they just pimp their same old shit as something new or just steal it from someone else. It’s the enterprize that doesn’t deserve Linux, not the other way around.
Rob (the article’s author) is another shill for stupidity. No insight, no analysis, just more WHINING the world isn’t conforming to his (enterprise) needs.
He wants linux dumbed down to his idiotic petty inane needs.
He resents that power is not in his control and he feels entitled to state that he looks down on all the programmers who have brought linux this far, but not far enough to accomodate him.
The “enterprise” wants features? Then PAY for them, you cheap bastard, or write them yourselves.
But we know that’ll never happen because Corporate animal = NO TALENT.
We owe the corporate world NOTHING. The guy probably thinks that oracle should be free and he feels so entitiled that it isn’t handed to him on a sliver platter for nothing.
The fundamental battle here is to keep knowledge open and free, and if Rob and his cronies had their way, we’d all be locked away in prison until we sold out to some corporate giant which would exploit our talent and work for untold millions.
Rob, your ‘enterprise’ deserves microsoft as you both try to screw each other at every opportunity.
“The most telling statement in the piece is the reminder that Linux (and Linus) seems to have no formal procedure in place to actively prevent the migration of proprietary code.”
Oh c’mon, this is bullsh*t. Could you please give us description of this formal procedure? Imagine you’re shown an arbitrary chunk of code and want to check it’s not stolen. What exactly will you do? Can you do something about it AT ALL? And how is proprietary software different from open source in this respect, apart from the fact that it’s non-transparent and hence you’re less likely to be caught?
Fork Linux, use a *BSD instead…
I thought I was a strong linux advocate, but some of the comments here put me to shame. You guys just make me laugh!! I’m sorry for all these clueless journalists who are jumping onto the linux bandwagon from the wrong direction.
Oh well, the news gets better everyday. In my workplace, all our unix servers ran bsdi two years ago. Those who decided things didn’t want to hear about linux at all. Today, however, a lot of our systems run RedHat, and the remaining non-redhat systems will be officially phased out within 3 months. And that’s not even surprising.
The surprising thing is that, well, we’ve got quite a few linux desktops as well now! You know, I see the formerly anti-linux admins enjoying their redhat desktops now, and I am almost tempted to laugh out loud !
Go, linux, go!!!
This won’t be the last bit of rubbish from this idiot. Focusing on zealots and a meritless lawsuit shows you how much substance there is to his argument. His “advice”: think before installing Linux to see if it really makes sense. Gee, that’s brilliant advice, what a smart guy. I’m sure there’s lots of big companies that don’t think hard about this. It’s about money, plain and simple. What is cheaper. Can we get the same functionality and save money. Companies do their analysis and make their decision.
The SCO’s business plan is to sue large successful businesses, and there is no other plan. That’s the extent of that organization. If you want to support that hate than I question your morals and motivation.
Use the LGPL for software publishing, the GPL is for the platform itself, the kernel, and the GUI libraries. Having the GPL is like having a constitiution, otherwise you will have vendors taking advantage of customers without any rights and freedoms.
Development for Linux appears to be on the rise. The user base is increasing. Businesses that depend on information technology should take steps to prepare and adapt to a changing environment, opportunities for commerce are available in the open source market. I think that protocol standards should be emphasised, and this supports the theory of quality software which is the ultimate goal of open source.
The GPL much like the constitution of the United States was meant to support the group, make it so that one tyrant couldn’t control everything. If the SCO wins, than that would be just like the United States of America being run by a king.
If the GPL can’t do the job that it is meant to do, than the people have to try again, and again…
There’s a lot of SCO FUD in the comments on this article.
1. There is no legal basis for SCO to sue people who have been using Linux. If a customer buys a book published in violation of someone’s copyright, the purchaser of the book is not liable, ever. If you disagree, tell me what the possible basis would be.
2. There are many reasons to believe SCO will lose the only lawsuit they have filed thus far (the one against IBM). Just check the other articles and comments on this site.
3. Even after finding the second amendment to their agreement with Novell, SCO has no brought copyright claims against anyone (not even IBM).
4. SCO does not own any patents associated with Unix.
5. SCO had their own Linux distribution.
6. SCO distirbuted the Unix “ancient” source code.
7. SCO’s rights in Unix are subject to the BSD settlement.
8. Linus Torvalds’ statements about IP protection concerned software patents only.
9. etc. (there’s more).
Remeber GIF
The LWZ algorithm was patented but no one knew. Then the entire computer world got a shock.
That is the same case as SCO just in a commercial endeavor.
BTW how can SCO go against Linux customers? Legally they have no more case than against AIX ones.
This thread is overflowing with the kind of juvenile invective , bald ssertions, baseless claims and simple namecalling that would turn off anyone thinking about moving their busines to Linux.
Who would want to be part of any community that is so willing to behave like this in public?
People tend not to respect enthusiasm that is wrapped in open contempt and bad manners.
I found it strange to find a full of criticisms on “Linux folks” or “potty-mouthed malcontents” in the article that argues readiness of Linux in enterprise environment. It is like criticizing founders of Apple computer being ex-hippies in iPod review.
Here is Rob Enderle’s profile (I’m not sure if this is current though):
http://www.gigaweb.com/browsemktg/0,2973,strComp%25253Dtopics~*…
What intrigued me most is this part:
…His current client activities include helping companies work with Microsoft, anticipate future changes in personal computing technology and …
According to another site, he also proposed establishment of a “watchdog team” to monitor Microsoft’s activities as a *remedy* for MS monopoly (a la UN Weapons Inspector, which *happened* to be ineffective).
While he claims he is not Bill Gates’ “love slave,” he sure makes money by selling and promoting MS products. Looks like this is another example of fair and unbiased American journalism. Or is this smear campaign against linux and is Mr. Enderle an FUD machine? You judge yourself.
Linux is also attractive because it is not from Microsoft.
Linux being non-MS is a valid reason only for MS hater. Fact is that there are many reasons for Linux becoming more popular and widely used. Pro-MS argument is okay as it is someone’s personal opinion. However one should be aware that pro-ms IS pro-monopoly/anti-competitive, and in some cases journalists and analysts make pro-MS comments because they have close business relationship with MS and/or will benefit from MS monopoly. They don’t stand on consumer’s side.
… and more closely tied to the people who developed them than to the users that will live with the resulting software.
This argument may have some validity to it, as software developed for MS platform is much more closely tied to marketing and advertising and loosely tied to developer. While Linux users are rarely bothered by product registration, activation, popups and spyware, MS products -XP for instance- offers all of the above with no additional costs. I believe that an OS should be transparent to users. Linux is; Windows is not. Unlike 3.1 days, current versions of Windows are overly complicated, bolstered, filled with useless but annoying “enhanced features,” and widely used as marketing and advertising tools via broadband/dial-up/network. I don’t like XP making my modem blinking when I am not even on the web, but there is no cure for this.
If Mr. Enderle’s argument is valid, someone should send this article to the IT department of city of Munich in Germany and convince them to abort city-wide Linux deployment. Maybe then LinuxTag will shut him up quiet.
Is the new term for the goverments of the 21st century.
It is the mantle which coporations now use to control production, distribution, and to set prices and control unwanted entry into thier markets.
The result?
One company controls and dominates the production of a market place, as well as its wealth.
Sound familair? Yeah, well at one time it was named something else, but under the mantra of a political ideology called Socialism.
The difference of course, is instead of one country controlling an entire market, setting prices and production, a corporation does it.
What is the legal basis for this you may ask? It is called Patents and Copyrights of course.
Wanna lock out a market for 75-100 years? Make a copyright or Patent.
I would like to pose a question here. What would happen if Microsoft was forced to invest just HALF of its estimated 48 Billion in cash reserves into the IT market place right now?
Do you think it would help in the worse economy in 50 years or not?
As each year goes by, and Microsoft is allowed to lock that money up, letting it sit around, DOING NOTHING except using it to fund SCO, or buy up other companies since it hasn’t written any software of consequence in over 10 years, to seal markets…
What do you think that does to a market place?
Furthermore, what do you think is going to happen when Open Source takes off in China and businesses there don’t have to pump huge amounts of money to Redmond to have a server room?
How do you think the US is going to compete in the largest most expansive market in human history if companies have to shell out $298 dollars per seat with License Version 6.0, and Chinese companies don’t, just for an operating system?
Tell me, if you are an American manufacturer and want to break into this market, how can you compete against the Dragon PC when you can’t even sell a PC barebones in the US without being put out of business by Microsoft’s Legal team?
The US and Europe are heading for dire times in the not so near future when the Chinese decide to wake up and and tell us:
1) We don’t want your software in our country, or your electronics, or your services. (However, you can buy our goods if you want.)
2)You may have gone to the moon FIRST, but very soon the entire moon will be colonized BY US FIRST.
By the way, YOU ARE NOT WELCOME HERE.
3) We do not recognize software patents or copyrights. Don’t like that? Well, that is too bad. What are you going to do about it? (Pointing to its 1 Bliion Man Army sitting on our borders…)
-gc
It is time for firms like Forrester to seriously question the ability of their employees to write papers on subjects related to free software. Following in the footsteps of his “distinguished” colleagues DiCarlo and Didio, Enderle sounds as if he threw away all his documentation and decided to shoot crap, an attitude which certainly doesn’t correspond to what most people would expect from “senior” researchers.
My 2 cents
“This thread is overflowing with the kind of juvenile invective , bald ssertions, baseless claims and simple namecalling that would turn off anyone thinking about moving their busines to Linux.”
So, since when was a public debate and advocacy forum a good place to make technological decisions?
Besides, if I followed this logic down, I would come to the conclusion that Windows is a worse operating sysgtem for the enterprise. The most capable technical-support person I know for the Windows enterprise OS is also the most “colorful” speaker I know. And he makes no attempt to hide that from anyone, for the most part.
That comment about “potty-mouth” has no place in a society where people have been fighting agains censorship for the past 100 years. If I went by Hollywood’s example, I would suggest that maybe one should not give them any money for movies (except, I really don’t think the coloring of one’s language makes any difference.)
Now, if the issue is derogatory remarks or insults, let’s face it; none of the advocacy groups I know of on the Internet would be a good example for those who want to use “clean” language.
Also: if language is an issue for a forum, the forum can set policy and enfore it, If it is not an issue, then no one has any room to talk about others’ language.
And, finally: Technical people are not “language artists”. No one who is skilled at language artistry has any business telling laypeople how to express their emotions.
First, my CV. I’m a know-nothing, new-to-linux Mac person.
(that avoids arguments later – GRIN)
I’ll assume the people who install the servers and configure the desktop boxes don’t have to take the hit and miss approach I have had to do, to configure things for myself. GUI help and man pages not withstanding.
Your community has made great strides in user friendly-ness.
However, until the development community for linux understands the non-power user, who wants rock solid stability, and very few choices (outside of screen savers and audio player/audible alarms), they will continue to miss the boat.
Most people are sheep, and dumb sheep at that. They want to do their work, customize their workspace, and not a whole lot else. For the power user, great, have more options to configure their system hidden that they can easily get to.
Your apps and OS WILL eventually cripple the redmond giant, but not this year. I have to say again, that I Love your work as a community, but you really aren’t ready. SuSE is really close, but I give you about 3 more years until you are the best choice for the masses. (because Apple will somehow shoot themselves in the foot, yet another time – sorry Steve, look at your track record.)
OK, flame retardent undies on, let me have it.
Joelb
I believe that Linux is ready for the enterprise, in certain circumstances. For example, as an Internet server OS there is very little out there that can compete without charging a nasty overhead for the OS or dedicated hardware (a la Solaris). It becomes more confused with workgroup servers as ease of use starts to become an issue. I once worked for a company where a secretary was responsible for creating shares for use within the department, a task that is fairly trivial on a Windows desktop, not so easy on the average Linux machine.
On the other hand I would have to think carefully before introducing Linux into a business as a default desktop. There are too many applications that don’t use the default widgets for the desktop, still using Motif etc. This can give those apps a different look/feel to others on the same desktop. This is, however, starting to change. GNOME and KDE are slowly standardising the *NIX desktop, including Linux and in a year or two it will be possible to sit the average secretary in front of a machine without confusing them because this help button doesn’t look like that help button.
The other main point is support. Linux, even the commercial versions, just don’t seem to provide adequate support for the average desktop user. Of course, you can get help from usenet or dedicated web sites, but it shouldn’t be their job to do it.
Most companies will want guarantees that the company that they buy from is still going to be around for support in 3-5 years time. Most Linux suppliers still can’t make that promise. If you look at most of the major Linux distributions many of them are in dire financial straits, or just about breaking even. Few, if any, are making significant profits year on year and this is what customers will want to see.
I want Linux to succeed and I am sure it will, I just don’t think that right now is when it is going to happen.
<personal thesis>
I think using a computer is about intelligence.
What makes an average(~100IQ) (or below, which means more then fifty percent of mankind, gaussian distribution) intelligenced person at a computer: he will be troubled by having to learn to use it. He will be troubled by using it, and he wont really enjoy trying things. He wants it simple, real simple, because he gives a shit about options, which mean more decisions to make, i.e. more to think.
Now the above average intelligenced person (~geek) is real fascinated by this tooyl. He wants to see it all, have it all, do it all. He is that wired persons who sacrifices sleep for net time. And he *looooves* configurability. Because he wants to make decisions, he wants his system *his* way. And he wants a systematic logical c0ntrol unit to achieve that.
Now that are totally different types of users. It is most difficult to please both these groups equally good, especially since most programmers, especially in OSS, certainly tend to belong to the second group. But they are doing a very fine job at it. In KDE f.e., everything gets more customizable and interfaced, while on the other side there are efforts to make it possible to hide the advanced stuff.
And we will see more progress here, in both directions. I just thought, probably someone should explicitly speak it out. :==)
</personal thesis>
ciao Marcel
how big an organization has to be before it’s system requirements are labeled as “enterprise”
then i can say for certain whether the author is full of crap or not.