[ Thanks to Jason
Greenwood for these stories. ]
Computerworld.NZ: MS Fumbles Anti-Linux PR
“Microsoft looks to have made a misstep in the public relations
war against Linux.“A Microsoft-commissioned case study on a reseller website touts
the example of a South Island company switching from Linux to MS
Small Business Server on the grounds of performance. But according
to the reseller which implemented the changeover, it’s more a case
of finding the right technology fit.“Christchurch horticultural products exporter Pacific Wide had
been running the Mandrake distribution of Linux as its network
operating system for three years, with Microsoft Office 97 on the
desktop…”
Lane: Open Letter to Andrea Malcolm
…The case study related to Pacific Wide makes a lot of vague
statements. which range from being unsupported assertions to
outright falsehoods. For example, Linux can (and does) do just
about all of the things they state it doesn’t do, including the
ability to provide “remote network access.”
I’d say that they might have run into a poor supplier of Linux
services, but even then, I’m not convinced that the case study
wasn’t simply politically motivated–i.e. the former “Linux
champion” at Pacific Wide, or whoever got Linux in there to begin
with, might have moved on, and the next person wanted to “make
their mark” by undoing what had been there before regardless of
whether or not a change was warranted.
It’s also unclear how recent a version of Linux was being used.
If it was, say, five years old, then yes, it wouldn’t have all of
the capabilities required, but then again, neither would any
Microsoft product of that vintage. If it was a relatively recent
Linux system, then this quote by Anthony Washington is uninformed
and/or patently false: “The Linux system also didn’t provide us
with remote network access or Web site hosting, which became
increasingly important as we expanded…”
I have built a business around Web Site Hosting on Linux–if
anything, that task is the reason companies switch to Linux! Linux
is the most widely used web serving platform on the Internet (see
www.netcraft.com). 60% of
websites are powered by the open source Apache web server, and the
majority of those installations are on Linux.
As for remote network access, it’s quite trivial to set up–I
have set it up for clients personally, and use remote access (on
various levels–from command line to full desktop access) daily for
all manner of system administration, document management, and
software development tasks. The remote access tools available for
Linux equal or surpass those for Microsoft in nearly every context.
They are also available for free or a much lower cost than Terminal
Server–e.g. commercial products like Netraverse’s Win4Lin Terminal
Server allow a Linux server to provide Windows sessions to remote
users just like Terminal Server, at a much lower cost (see www.netraverse.com/products/)
I also find it hard to believe that their Linux system was an
“unstable and unreliable platform.” You might ask them
- when was their original Linux platform installed?
- what version was installed?
- what services did it provide?
- what was the hardware specification of that platform?
- did they ever upgrade the Linux version after it was initially
installed? - does the new Microsoft system run on the same exact hardware as
the Linux system? - who was their Linux supplier? If they are running the MS system
on new hardware - did they get any proposals for functionally equivalent systems
built on a current version of Linux? - do they know what sort of hardware requirements a Linux system
providing equivalent functionality would have?
Also, what does “strategic advice” or insight on “technology
mapped to their business” mean? I suspect that they are utterly
subjective. They simply give Datasouth an opportunity to say things
like “we think you should go with Microsoft because that’s the only
vendor we deal with. We’ve bet our company on Microsoft retaining
its monopoly hold on NZ businesses, and as such we believe it is a
platform that will be around for a long time, and is therefore
worth of your investment.” A Linux vendor such as Egressive might
say something like this: “We believe that you’ll get good value
from a Linux-based server solution because it allows you to
leverage your existing investment in Microsoft desktop systems and
software, while providing you with huge increases in capability,
lower server hardware requirements, and a much better security
record.
What’s more, you no longer have to worry about server software
licenses, you can use as many desktop clients as you like with no
additional cost, and because Linux is an open platform, you’re not
locked into any one vendor or software package. If you don’t think
we’re providing you with a good value for your IT dollar, you can
go to any one of the hundred or so other Linux vendors active in
NZ, including many small and medium sized local vendors or larger
ones, for example, Gen-i, Computer Concepts, HP, and IBM.”
The statement by Aarron Spinley that “Microsoft is the industry
standard” is also very much an assertion without proof. For better
or worse, Microsoft is the defacto desktop standard, yes.
But it is by no means the standard server platform. Issues of
unreliability (especially related to webserving), virus
vulnerability and security holes (see this recommendation from the
Gartner Group: http://www3.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?doc_cd=101034),
high maintenance requirements, and significant expense (especially
in the face of MS’s new licensing regime) make it very unattractive
compared to Linux. Many businesses and organisations have shifted
to Linux as a server platform, and many others still use Unix and
Novell-based networks.
A number of Microsoft partners, including Datasouth, install
Microsoft servers because they don’t have Linux expertise (and
Microsoft licenses and the intensive support requirements of their
products afford them the highest margins). That lack of expertise,
however, is their limitation, not a problem with Linux.
The most telling comment is this on from Anthony Washington:
“Having a standardised Microsoft platform has lowered our Total
Cost of Ownership (TCO) and helped us become smarter about our
licensing and asset management. Furthermore, because we will now
upgrade our IT systems every three years, we expect a quicker
Return on Investment.”
I can’t imagine how he can make a statement like that. How can
he compare the cost of an equivalent Linux system in terms of TCO
if he hasn’t got one? What aspects did he take into account to
determine TCO–it’s a lot like a “how long is a piece of string”
type problem. I have clients who would say that their Linux systems
cost them less than half, in total, than what they were paying for
the Microsoft-based systems that our Linux systems replaced… and
enjoy much higher flexibility and reliability, and reduced
administration costs, in the bargain. Oh, and one of their
favourite things it the fact that they can upgrade… when they
need to, and not when Microsoft starts shifting the playing field
by
- making it impossible to purchase new versions of the software
they’re still using quite happily (i.e. Windows 98 and Office 97 in
some cases), thereby forcing a mix of new and old software into the
company which inevitably causes compatibility issues between new
Microsoft software and their own older stuff… Strong arm tactics?
You bet. - forcing clients to register for new ways of extracting revenues
like “Software Assurance”… which provides those clients with…
nothing.
As for becoming smarter about licensing and asset management,
that’s a red herring–how hard is it to manage something with a
license that doesn’t place any limitations on you at all?! Unless
it’s used with proprietary software, having a Linux server does
away with any server and network software per-client license
management requirements full stop. Do businesses like Pacific Wide
ever consider how much easier (and therefore less costly) their
lives would be if they didn’t have to manage licenses? I suspect
they don’t, nor, I suspect, does their TCO statement… I wonder
what else they forgot to take into account?…