“Without a doubt, Linux has become fully accepted as a powerful, scalable and stable platform for enterprise deployments. Somewhat surprisingly, however, the cost of deploying Linux is getting pretty close to the cost of deploying some other enterprise platforms.” Read the editorial at eWEEK.
Linux Is Not So ‘Free’
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
1) Yes, companies like Red Hat need to earn money. I think it’s not badly portrayed in here, seeing that this could have easily turned into a “Linux is too expensive for you”-column.
2) Somehow Debian popped up in my mind when I read that article.
3) Once again, “free” is assumed to be “free as in beer”. T’is sad.
Does he think that the *ONLY* enterprise Linux vendor is Redhat?
Ok, lets do a comparision:
Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES: $799
SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 8: $749
Then there are the numerous “free” versions out there for those willing to do their own support.
Ultimately the person who did the article simply went out, saw he had to pay for Red Hat Linux and now screams, “Linux is expensive”.
Most people I know didn’t choose Linux because of some perceived “freeness”, most people I know chose it because it was a superior solution.
Also, the author fails to take in account the number of “server in a box” distributions SuSE sells such as
SuSE Linux Openexchange Server which provides a complete mail/collaboration server “in a box”.
It also seems to me that the author was more concerned about doing as little research as possible rather than investigating both sides of the story.
More anti-linux FUD put out by eweek (a ziff davis company)
An enterprise solution is not something that you throw together in your bedroom, it is almost always in the back office of your business.
you know, the back office, the place where them techie guys work ?
The same guys who should know how to administer a unix based system.
The same guys who know that if they can’t administer the system, they should pack in their jobs and go work for mcdonalds.
Red Hat etc do need to make money. They do need to pay the same techie types to help others by giving support. If you are not prepared to pay for support for you computer systems, then go back to paper and pen. simple as that.
>More anti-linux FUD put out by eweek (a ziff davis company)
Sorry, but this is not true. eWEEK has both Linux supporters journalists and others who are more traditional on their views. I know it for a fact, they usually have anti-MS articles too.
Been there done that. There’s much more newsworthy stuff at the same site here: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1236117,00.asp
1) Check out [url=http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20030817.html]this Dilbert[/url]. That’s my major gripe with the FSF’s “how to make money with the GPL”: it does not really encourage companies like e.g. RedHat to improve substantially on maintainability, documentation etc.
2) If you read the article, you will have read the paragraph saying that you’d lose e.g. the Oracle support if not using RedHat or Unified Linux. Besides, a company wants support for its platform, and that’s not as in “mailing list” or “web forum”, but as in consultants, 24/7 hotline etc.
3) “Oh jolly, look at the Linux I just downloaded, it’s a complete Windows replacement, and all free!”. This Joe Average meant free-as-in-beer. Everytime I voiced a major gripe with some GPL’ed software, I was told: “You didnt pay for it so don’t expect me to give a damn about what you think. Go fix it yourself.” When I looked at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/, I saw lots of things people are not supposed to do with “free” software. (I especially liked the UDI thing, setting “free software” <=> “Linux”.)
The article is dead-on. Linux does not come for free, at least not in the business world. The “freedom” of the sources does benefit <1% of the Linux users, the rest can perhaps run a compiler but doesn’t know zilch about coding.
And, very personally, I think the GPL is at least as restrictive and power-hungry as any EULA, and does not lead to better products.
If Red Hat didn’t offer this kind of service in such a package, this guy would complain about the lack of enterprise linux offerings. It’s catch 22, so if you’re like this guy and don’t want to support Red Hat, you could download it for free. Nothing’s stopping you!
> If you are not prepared to pay for support for you
> computer systems, then go back to paper and pen.
> simple as that.
Which is the bottom line of the article, so why do you flame?
I found this article to be quite good and to the point. He brings up several legitimate issues. Red Hats high pricing and current business tactics, such as cutting off their retail channel has led me to quit suggesting Red Hat to clients and others that ask me about Linux distributions. SuSE is starting to become a better value and will replace Red Hat in the near future I think.
I know that about eweek…. what I was saying that that article was more anti-linux fud. and it was….
but my point was…
if you are going to implement ANY enterprise solution, you need competent staff and should expect to pay for support.
Linux might be distributed for free, and you might be able to freely install it on as many computers as you want,
but dont expect a free/cheap support team.
It’s not a catch-22, it’s a “shut up giving me that ‘Linux doesn’t cost you anything’ crap”.
When I saw the headline here, I assumed it was another FUD article, but it’s pretty much on target with it’s characterization of Red Hat. They have been turning the screws to try to make a profit, and I for one can’t really blame them. Then again, I stopped using Red Hat about a year ago anyway.
What the article fails to mention is that there are many other brands of Linux. If you don’t like Red Hat, you can move to a myriad of other versions without any problem. If you’re running Windows, it’s nowhere near as easy to migrate to an alternate platform when the screws start turning. And, just because you run Red Hat Linux doesn’t mean you have to rely on them for future updates — just like Red Hat’s Bob Young has always asked, “You wouldn’t buy a car with the hood welded shut, would you?” The hood is still open at Red Hat, but if you go to the dealer to get it fixed, expect to pay a premium.
In any event, I’m willing to bet the equivalent Red Hat setup is still cheaper than a Windows-based one. Still, it’s probably a shock to the company who installed a “free” OS to find out that their OS is now costing them $100,000 annually to maintain. Cie la vie.
you sound like a suit.
a helpless one at that…the kind that complain how microsoft is crap, and linux is no savior either.
i’m an engineer.
i use microsoft AND linux as I see fit. i solve problems.
you are part of the problem, because you can’t wrap your mind around how things actually get done.
the article found it’s target audience in you.
because it’s not aimed at the “doers”
What the article fails to mention is that there are many other brands of Linux. If you don’t like Red Hat, you can move to a myriad of other versions without any problem.
Not if you have to use enterprise level applications like Oracle, that almost is only certified for Redhat enterprise. Which is the whole point of the article.
Less expensive? Easier? Bombproof? Easy on the user. Good desktop. I could waffle on alllllllll day about these angles.
Here are the facts.
No system is free. You can debate time/money but none are free. Everything requires hardware. Everything requires people to look after it in one guise or another. Everything *important* needs backups and fallbacks. Everything requires a commitment. Windows IS better in a general sense in some areas. Running IT in business requires intelligent people who are capable of implementing and organising, and then maintaining solutions. Its doubtful a full on just open source or not open source idealism is a winner in todays IT space. But hey, if you have the balls, the time, and the ignorance, go ahead. You implement an OSS based IT infrastucture. Or perhaps an all MS infrastucture. Go for it.
In the mean time in the real world, real people not rubber idiots with a chip on their shoulder, you’ll find businesses making the call on cost, support, ease of use, functionality and a host of other criteria that go beyond the OSS ideals, or the windows loving exasperation of the linux haters. Any business that just goes balls out to go OSS without fully considering it is going to both get it wrong and be in the shit.
I forget which clever German city went all Linux. I believe now they are running VMware, with Windows as a VM on EACH workstation. One would say looking in from the outside, that is not a stellar advert for making bold moves imho.
Maybe people can get back on track doing good IT and worry less where or who its coming from.
AdmV
So… did you ever try Linux? Or were you too busy practicing your prejudice?
Man, OSNews is in serious need of flame(bait)-filters! I volunteer for being a moderator of the forums…
– Simon
Sorry to feed the troll:
“right everyone ditch shite linux and go with windows. I cant stand people yapping to me about how linux is a more secure and robust OS.”
If you had bothered to read the article troll:
“While worm-weary IT managers at Windows shops have been putting in overtime the past few weeks, their Linux shop brethren haven’t spent a red cent fighting Blaster and SoBig.” … Yes Linux is more secure.
“new windows OS due out sometime in 2005” … No MS has now put back release to 2006
Back on topic don’t flame the the article before you read it. All in all it was a well balanced summary of the situation. On other distros he did mention you could switch to other distros and specifically mentioned Debian. And he finally mentions:
“But don’t expect an enterprise deployment of Linux to be completely free unless you have the expertise and capability to patch and support your Linux systems yourself.”
So he tells you how to do what Jeff Seifert has done.
Only if you outsource it from the same companies selling you the Microsoft or *nix solutions. Linux software is free. As in no cost. Its obviously much cheaper per license than any alternative software.
If you want to save money with Linux, figure out what hardware you need and buy it. Then deploy Linux on your hardware for free. That’s how you save money. Not by going to Dell and asking them if buying their systems with Linux will save you money. It might save you a few pennys but Dell will be happy to charge extra for free software. Afterall their interest is in making a profit, not providing you a lower TCO.
Want it even cheaper? Go generic and keep a running inventory system that is virtually paranoid and always acurate. If you know the failure rate of each piece of hardware in your desktop PCs you could save a bundle by moving to more quality hardware.
If you don’t know how to do this hire someone who does and pay them well. That’s part of being a good business, having employees.
Of course you can always outsource your heart out. Its your money. Good luck.
I forget which clever German city went all Linux. I believe now they are running VMware, with Windows as a VM on EACH workstation. One would say looking in from the outside, that is not a stellar advert for making bold moves imho.
Actually, the VMWare solution is only to use some legacy apps that run under Windows 3.1 (or 3.11 for Workgroups, I forget). These legacy apps are not used all the time, but they must be used regularly. VMWare will be used for these apps (and these apps only – which Desktop would you choose for regular use, Windows 3.1 or KDE 3.1?) until they are replaced with native Linux apps. So this only goes to show that a smooth transition is possible, even with old legacy apps. It is in fact a positive point for those who consider migrating to Linux.
Ok, here it is in a nutshell. MS charges for their software and for their support. Linux is free, but support is not. Simple….and Linux is still cheaper. Ive got several Windows2000, Netware6, and Linux servers I maintain here. I have not purchased a support contract for any of said platforms because I am the support. That said, Linux costs me nothing. Im getting really tired of these ppl saying Linux isnt as cheap as they say it is etc. Linux = Linux and its free. Support = support and thats NEVER free. Linux does not equal support. The truth of the matter is Linux IS as cheap as they say it is, but the support cost is about the same as any other platform. There is an important distinction there considering a wide range of companies do need support contracts.
When you buy RedHat Enterprise with a service contract, you are paying someone to blame. Blame is very, very important in large corporations, where no-one really knows what anyone is doing. For a large scale deployment in a huge corp. the cost of the OS is pretty much negligible, only a small fraction of TCO.
For a small company, though, Linux can save BIG bucks. A windows server box for 25 users with ISA (firewall), exchange, antivirus, and backup software costs around $4000 JUST FOR SOFTWARE! A comparable Linux box costs nothing for software. I used to work in a very large corp, now I run my own business. Over several weeks I built up a “do-everything” box based on Debian. File/print/vpn/mail/firewall/proxy/intranet/web, etc. Now I ghost it onto new machines as needed, and spend perhaps 0.5 to 1 hours customizing for the particular customer after ghosting. Then charge $500.00 for the service. I make lots of money, the customer saves lots of money, and gets a more secure, more stable system.
$4000.00 or so makes no difference to a large corporation, but it makes a HUGE difference to small to midsize companies.
Yeah, but if you can afford to run Oracle, what’s an extra couple of grand? Run Red Hat on your Oracle boxes and migrate the rest of them to Mandrake.
All the ranters in this thread fail to make the distinction between maintenance of a product and maintenance of a business.
““new windows OS due out sometime in 2005” … No MS has now put back release to 2006 ”
I may be wrong on that, but IIRC, Microsoft release date IS 2005, and that 2006 is only an estimation from some sort of “expert” that published a peper recently.
Still, until it change by MS itself, the official year is 2005.
Once again, the person who wrote this article is completely missing the point.
Linux and any other ‘Free Software’ for that matter is not necessariliy free as in $0… it’s free as in freedom!
Freedom is what this is about, not getting something for nothing!
OK, since people keep ignoring the issue: As an enterprise, you can not just switch to Debian or whatever because as an enterprise you are dependent on recieving support which you will not get from most third party suppliers (e.g. Oracle) if you don’t go RedHat Enterprise, bait, hook, and sinker.
The article says that Linux is not free as in beer. One half of the Linux evangelists in this thread say “that’s ‘free’ as in freedom, asshole”, and the other half insist that Linux is free as in beer.
Wise up, guys. You are part of the problem.
For some examples:
@ Jeff Seifert:
> What the article fails to mention is that there are
> many other brands of Linux.
Which are not certified for Oracle, SAP, or whatever else an enterprise needs to run business – an OS in itself doesn’t cut it, and MySQL doesn’t run enterprises.
@ Anonymous (Coward):
> you sound like a suit.
Guess again. I’m a software engineer hired to work on a mission-critical C++ application running on Solaris utilizing a Sybase RDBMS.
> a helpless one at that…the kind that complain how
> microsoft is crap, and linux is no savior either.
Because I believe it’s true.
> i’m an engineer.
Good for you.
> i use microsoft AND linux as I see fit. i
> solve problems.
Yeah, boast on. Hint: The article was about enterprise deployment.
> you are part of the problem, because you can’t wrap
> your mind around how things actually get done.
Come back when you grew up.