Posted on 04/05/2004 11:23:03 AM PDT by Bush2000
Moving to Linux may not save money--yet
Last modified: April 5, 2004, 9:45 AM PDT
By Matt Hines
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Migrating to open-source software may cost some companies more than simply upgrading their Unix or Windows systems, according to a study research company The Yankee Group released Monday.
Based on a survey of 1,000 information technology administrators and corporate executives at companies around the globe, Yankee's report concluded that the technical merits promised by Linux and applications built to run on the operating system have yet to overcome financial concerns related to adopting the software. At companies with 5,000 or fewer users, Linux can save more money than other systems, including Unix and Microsoft's Windows software, said the Boston-based company.
"Clearly, many people who have Linux like it a lot, but if you propose a wholesale swap to most large companies, you're looking at a significant up-front cost, and many executives are asking why they should do it," said Yankee analyst Laura DiDio, who authored the report.
Much of the expense of the open-source migration comes from shifting the IT architecture, DiDio said. However, many executives are reconsidering such a move because of a growing number of security threats and a dearth of experienced Linux administrators. Improved security has been one of the primary advantages Linux promises.
Another concern among users is the relatively small number of applications available on Linux, compared with Unix or Windows.
"Everyone has a Linux strategy, even if it's just to throw rocks at Microsoft," DiDio said. "But executives are asking if the advantages of Linux are substantial enough to justify the expense and inherent headaches of swapping all of their systems."
In response to the survey, Linux vendors said their customers often garner sizable savings from moving to their software. Leigh Day, a spokesman for Red Hat, the top seller of the Linux operating system, said their customers who switched say they have opportunities to spend less. Customers can also shift to cheaper hardware, specifically lower-cost Intel-based systems, she said.
According to DiDio, however, Microsoft has made inroads with many customers who were considering Linux. For example, the company has been improving its ability to protect against security threats and has reworded its product warranties to convince end users that it is willing to take on greater levels of liability than its Linux rivals.
Although Linux advocates will argue that open-source software will provide long-term savings, the analyst said executives remain unconvinced that the Linux market is currently mature enough to serve their needs.
"A lot of end users feel it's perhaps still better to deal with the devil you know than deal with the devil you don't know," she said. "They feel that it's great that Linux is out there as an alternative--in particular to Microsoft--but market maturity and the number of available applications are major concerns."
Yankee said it conducted the survey with Sunbelt Software and that the research was not sponsored by any outside company.
That's most companies, right there.
I wonder if they included the effects of LongHorn upgrades...
If you're currently a victim of MS Single-vendor lockin, it will cost you some up-front coin to get off the MS upgrade merry-go-round.
You'll save money in the long run, of course . . . but up-front you'll have migration costs.
I have been in meetings where Linux migrations are contemplated and hardware costs are hardly the concern. As far as the migration costs (reprogramming, moving from SQL Server to Oracle [or whatever], etc.) is a little different. Of course, many of these issues have to be contemplated when upgrading Windows, though admittedly to less of an extent. The upgrade from NT 4.0 to XP Pro was a major effort, most of which included sizable (and quite expensive) hardware upgrades.
The most interesting discussion I have heard is the well-known "thin client" approach, which we all started to read/hear about several years ago. McNealy and Ellison have been chatting this up for many years. But, it always seemed to fall on its face a bit.
[Aside]With the substantial increase in web-based enterprise applications, the thin-client seems to be more plausible for corporate environments more now than ever. Throw in a decent web browser (Netscape or open version Mozilla), mail client (including mail, calendaring, etc...such as Ximian's Evolution), instant messaging tool (such as GAIM), a decent Solitaire game, and a couple of dozen "cool" themes (background/screensaver/etc.) and you have pretty much hit the affinities of 70-80% of the corporate user base.
Changes to Linux-based desktop OSs is changing how "thin clients" can be deployed. There are many new desktop-oriented distros that are starting to turn some heads (e.g., Xandros, Lycoris, Ximian/SUSE). Are these as easy to use as Windows? For most, no. But they have a good GUI, are easy to lock, and provide some customization that the typical user likes (backgrounds, themes, and other cosmetic stuff that users like).I personally think that if people are to be valuable (to their current or potential employer), they need to be prepared to use both. Most didn't know where to even begin when all there was was a prompt. Now that there are some GUIs that "help" the user, the user base will be much more receptive about learning.
With this change (both with the GUI developments and the change in user openness to using something other than Windows), the thin client seems to be a bit more possible, even if some of the particulars about the "thin client" model have changed. For instance, most "thin client" proponents always talked about the productivity suite tools (word processor, spreadsheet, etc.) being hosted on a server, where OpenOffice and other opensource stuff is still installed on the actual client machine.
[/Aside]
I really don't think that the "game" is much more complex than that. If you are taking about converting users, you have to give them an easy to use tool. Holding onto the prompt and chastizing those who use Linux GUIs is no way to gain market share. In fact, I would argue that that type of elitist attitude is probably what turns people off to Linux. The last thing they need is "Nick, the computer guy" (ala Saturday Night Live) to taunt them because they can't use the prompt.
It has a ways to go, but there are certainly the seeds of major desktop competition. Add the ease of use to the extension of the life span of the hardware that a company has already purchased and that is fairly attractive proposition for any corporation.
Here is a review of the newest version of the SUSE 9.1 Pro.
Here's a review of Xandros Linux.
Well, duh. You replace the server room first, then you worry about the user desktops. Just eliminating the Windows server licenses and CALs will save a lot of money in the first year, which can be applied to the desktop migration and re-training costs next year.
Another concern among users is the relatively small number of applications available on Linux..
Companies rarely use off-the-shelf software for back-end functions; they hire consultants and developers for a custom solution. So the lower cost of FOSS development tools figures into this as well.
.. the analyst said executives remain unconvinced that the Linux market is currently mature enough to serve their needs.
Support contracts with IBM and Novell, et al, can help soothe these fears.
"A lot of end users feel it's perhaps still better to deal with the devil you know than deal with the devil you don't know," [DiDio] said.
Inertia may well be Microsoft's best advantage. But the risk-takers in the business world who ignore the FUD will reap the rewards of lower costs. Lots of them already have.
Microsoft has made inroads with many customers who were considering Linux. For example, the company... has reworded its product warranties to convince end users that it is willing to take on greater levels of liability than its Linux rivals.
Still on that "indemnification" kick, ignoring the fact that SCO has only filed suit against current and former SCO licensees.
The woman is simply not credible.
No need, Bubba. Like I said, SCO only eats its own young.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.