Linux Appeal Called Emotional, Not Technical

PCWorld.com ^ | 12/20/02 | Sandra Rossi

[What Is Ain't]

Linux has emerged as the darling of the "technical crowd" but interest is more emotional than realistic, according to Meta Group analyst Kevin McIsaac.

In a research paper released this week, McIsaac says interest in Linux is based on a "questionable" lower total cost of ownership (TCO) argument.

Consider All Costs

"The Linux OS license is free but that does not ensure that TCO will be reduced; for example, Linux requires more staffing resources and effort to match the reliability, availability, and scalability of high-end Unix and Windows 2000 or XP servers," the analyst said.

Users must purchase high-availability add-ons and support from third parties, which increases cost and complexity. Until 2004, this will limit Linux use to applications that do not demand high levels of reliability and availability, according to McIsaac. "Even if all other Linux costs were the same, the impact of its free OS license on total cost of ownership of a significant project such as ERP [enterprise resource management] or CRM [customer relationship management] would be minimal, because then OS license fee typically is less than two to three per cent of the TCO," he says.

McIsaac believes staff members that recommend replacement of Windows with Linux in their servers are doing so on a "flawed assumption."

He said astute IT organizations will recognize that Linux's true value is derived more from the price/performance of the commodity Intel hardware it enables than from its open-source characteristics.

Meta research indicates a strong interest in using Linux in the data center, but few clients understand the real value of Linux, and not many clients have embarked on major Linux projects outside of Web server farms, appliances, network storage, or general infrastructure servers.

Successes Seen

McIsaac expects Linux will begin to penetrate the application server tier, with IBM and BEA Systems targeting Linux on Intel.

In 2003, he said Oracle Real Application Clusters will demonstrate adequate high availability clustering capabilities, enabling Linux to begin penetrating the low-end enterprise database market.

Although Linux has established a foothold in the Web tier due to the popularity of the Apache Web server, McIsaac said it still ranks a distant third in Fortune 1000 companies behind Solaris and Windows.

He predicts that by 2007, Linux and Windows on Intel (Lintel and Wintel) will be the dominant platform for the application server tier, leaving RISC/Unix vendors competing with IBM mainframes in the high-end database server tier.

"The success of Linux will come primarily at the expense of Unix," he added.

[The Duke]

And here I was thinking it was just because Linux was more
fun(?)

[Cicero]

How can Linux be bad when it requires more techies to understand, maintain, and upgrade it?

[Poohbah]

How can Linux be bad when it requires more techies to understand, maintain, and upgrade it?

Well, to hear the unemployed techie whinging, that just means that American businesses will hire more H1Bs.

[goldstategop]

It doesn't. Linux distros have already penetrated the desktop arena. Xandros, Lycoris, Lindows, and Elx Linux are among a number of user friendly desktop Linuxes to have arrived in the last year - and they will only get better as time goes on. For stability and ease of use, people will discover Linux beats Microsoft hands down. Its just not for the uber-geeks any more.

[Drango]

How can Linux be bad when it requires more techies to understand, maintain, and upgrade it?

LOL...full employment for Geeks bump.

[TomServo]

Ping!

[Karsus]

Expect to be sued by Bush2000 for violating his patent on posting negative articles about linux on FR.

[Nick Danger]

This is truly weird. There are no serious, large-scale IT departments that get their wisdom from PC World magazine. The best of them also know that none of those TCO studies from the consulting houses match up with their own experience; they tend to run their own trials on stuff like this, and to believe their own lying eyes over claims from the vendors.

The placement of this article suggests that it is a PR stunt by somebody -- probably Microsoft -- to reach PC Users and tell them that "the experts" are doing this, when in fact the experts are all over the map.

Microsoft recently got caught feeding one of these supposedly-independent research houses, which dutifully produced a report which (a) praised Microsoft to the skies, and (b) was so glaringly in error that the Slashdot boys tore it to shreds... after documenting the "contribution" which Microsoft had made to the "foundation."

I don't know if that's what happened here, but certainly Meta Group is not one of the top tier houses for this sort of work, and they might indeed write something special for an exceptionally good client. I suspect most of them would. So do the IT directors, which is why they never believe the crap these guys write.

This isn't news, and it probably isn't even fact. It's a placed article from one of PC World's most generous advertisers, and should be taken in that vein.

[Drango]

There are no serious, large-scale IT departments that get their wisdom from PC World magazine.

No one I know gets wisdom from PCWorld...However, the report smacks of the truth 'cause dang it, Linux does take more "help".

[RockyMtnMan]

You’re completely wrong, no offence, Linux will not take over the desktop in my lifetime. It will make good inroads into the server market and stop there. IBM tried to compete with Microsoft, not very well I might add, and failed miserably with their OS/2 attempt. Windows is faster in every respect compared to Linux especially in the Java space. Currently the only thing Linux is good for is a cheap http,smtp,dns,ftp,pop server.

[Wisconsin]

We run a mixed Windows/Linux/Unix shop. Linux takes more work to set up than Windows. Once set up, it takes much less care and feeding, in our experience, than Windows.

Is it suitable for everything?. No. But neither is Windows.

What I do notice is that Linux is on a much faster development path than Windows.

I rather suspect that some of the "hard to administer" buzz is from a lot of Windows techs who are seeing a threat to their rice bowl.

[Knitebane]

You’re completely wrong, no offence, Linux will not take over the desktop in my lifetime.

You have a fatal disease that will kill you off in the next five years?

A region of Spain is installing over 100,000 Linux desktops. 10,000 are installed now with the rest to follow over the next year. Japan, the UK, Germany, Peru and India have stated that they intend to follow suit. Linux on the desktop is happening now. But do feel free to ignore it. Once all of the Amiga users die off we will need someone to snicker at.

IBM tried to compete with Microsoft, not very well I might add, and failed miserably with their OS/2 attempt.

Please take a business class, then come back and we can discuss the market differences between an OS sold by a company that is primarily a services company and an OS that is free. One might also point out that OS/2 is still a strong and viable operating system in it's particular field. The vast majority of ATM machines run OS/2, as do many banks. Ford uses OS/2 for their FordStar technical service units, installed in every Ford dealership in the world.

IBM concentrated on providing services where it was needed and they could make a profit. The desktop was a loser for IBM once Microsoft started playing "How can we change the W32 API this week?"

Windows is faster in every respect compared to Linux especially in the Java space.

Wrong!

Currently the only thing Linux is good for is a cheap http,smtp,dns,ftp,pop server.

Even Microsoft has stopped making those claims. If you're going to shill for Microsoft, at least have One Microsoft Way send you a recent FUD sheet.

[Knitebane]

I rather suspect that some of the "hard to administer" buzz is from a lot of Windows techs who are seeing a threat to their rice bowl.

Rather, it's the Windows "techs" that only know how to reboot machines that are scared. They might actually have to learn something about the systems that they administer. A goodly number of them don't have the intellect to learn that much. I recommend civil service jobs for them. That way they can continue to collect paychecks for doing nothing.

[Arkinsaw]

Currently the only thing Linux is good for is a cheap http,smtp,dns,ftp,pop server.

Not where I work. The stuff I work on is Windows based, but another business unit has some really cool stuff going on with good, cheap, Linux servers. Would like to describe it but won't.

[jrp]

Desktop aside, Linux is making in-roads into
the embedded systems arena.

We use a soft real-time version of Linux to power our product line of DSL access concentrators. I was skeptical at first, having come from a background in commercial RTOSs like vxWorks, but for this application it has worked out beautifully.

The flexibility and depth of the networking, packet filtering, and bandwith control capabilities built into the kernel would be impossible for us to duplicate in any reasonable amount of time and there are no royalties as with other commercial RTOSs. This allows us to get our products out the door quickly and cheaply.

As for the desktop, all of our office PCs run
Windows OSs. Our non-technical staff can barely
manage to use Windows without hand-holding from
the IT folks. Linux would completely baffle them.

Joe
www.viadux.com

[SoDak]

Bingo.

[Knitebane]

As for the desktop, all of our office PCs run Windows OSs. Our non-technical staff can barely manage to use Windows without hand-holding from the IT folks. Linux would completely baffle them.

I have not found this to be the case. In several offices where I have installed Linux desktops, I find that I get fewer problems, especially with less-than-clueful users.

Primarily this is because that Linux and the apps I installed simply work. They don't crash, they don't give weird, cryptic error messages and they do what they are supposed to do. Since they conform to published standards, they interact with other applications properly, reducing the frustration of the end user.

Additionally, the help files that accompany OpenOffice and Evolution are far superior to the help files in their competing Windows apps. More than once I've had a request for help left in my voicemail and, upon calling them back less than an hour later, have been told that they looked up the answer in the help file and my services were not required.

The learning curve between Linux apps and Microsoft apps is no greater than the learning curve between one version of a Microsoft app and the next. Users regularly make that transition without major problems. Moving to Linux is no more difficult than that.

[Bush2000]

Microsoft recently got caught feeding one of these supposedly-independent research houses

Aw, Nick. You should know better than to open that can of worms. The fact of the matter is that IBM bought and paid for the so-called "study" purporting to show lower Linux TCO. Studies are generally worthless. They all have an angle. Smart organizations, as you suggest, rely upon their own testing.

[Bush2000]

Please take a business class, then come back and we can discuss the market differences between an OS sold by a company that is primarily a services company and an OS that is free.

You missed the point: Linux ain't free. The cost of running it is higher.