Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
Microsoft vs. Linux vs. vendor lock-in (NewsForge)
NewsForge looks at
vendor lock-in and Linux. "In other words, instead of "world
domination," Linux needs "strip mall presence." We need to see lots of
small businesses offering Linux computers, software, service and
support. We need to see smiling penguins in store windows and ads in the
Sunday paper that say, "Now you can have the same operating system that
runs some of the world's most powerful supercomputers on your office desk."
We need highly visible competition in selling Linux to retail customers,
either in dedicated stores or next to white box Windows computers in
generalized computer sales environments."
(Log in to post comments)
Microsoft vs. Linux vs. vendor lock-in (NewsForge) Posted Sep 7, 2004 5:36 UTC (Tue) by frazier (guest, #3060) [Link] from the article: "Free as in beer" doesn't help much when trying to talk a corporate person into choosing a volunteer-run distribution over one with plenty of engineers on staff you can call for help -- for a price. The cost of an operating system is trivial compared to the other costs of running a mission-critical server.Now, if there was a distribution (UserLinux) that combined the benefits of a community-based model (like UserLinux) with the professional services advantages (like UserLinux) typically associated with commercial distributions, that distribution (UserLinux) would go over well in the business segment. -Brock Frazier
Microsoft vs. Linux vs. vendor lock-in (NewsForge) Posted Sep 7, 2004 6:15 UTC (Tue) by gvy (guest, #11981) [Link] Keyword: would.
Do s/UserLinux/ALT Linux/g and the phrase holds. But in another place of the same world, looking at the popularity.
And it seems quite like what they say there -- there are Big Two and a score of companies of that kind. Maybe even those among Local Big.
(http://altlinux.com, just in case)
Microsoft vs. Linux vs. vendor lock-in (NewsForge) Posted Sep 7, 2004 7:51 UTC (Tue) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] Now, if there was a distribution (UserLinux) that combined the benefits of a community-based model (like UserLinux) with the professional services advantages (like UserLinux) typically associated with commercial distributions, that distribution (UserLinux) would go over well in the business segment. You mean, like RedHat? ;-) Depending on a single supplier for your IT needs is not a bad thing in itself. In fact, that is what both customers and suppliers want. The problem of lock-in occurs when you want to switch to another platform, for instance. Lots of TCO/migration research papers silently ignore the fact, that by allowing yourself to be depend on companies like Microsoft (or any other company that has created its own little niche market), you have already made the move to another platform incredibly expensive because all your assets (people, software, whatever) are worthless on that platform. It's quite annoying that these costs always end up in the wrong column. ;-)
Microsoft vs. Linux vs. vendor lock-in (NewsForge) Posted Sep 7, 2004 16:41 UTC (Tue) by frazier (guest, #3060) [Link] Actually, Red Hat Enterprise introduces some of the disadvantages of proprietary software to GNU/Linux systems. The manditory service contracts for Enterprise-level product are not what most businesses are looking for. They want professional service but aren't looking to be tied to it.
As you mention, there's an employee skill set hit with migratation. There needs to be incentive on the other side in balance. Getting away from manditory licensing is one of several selling points. Take that away and GNU/Linux migration in general looks less attractive.
Microsoft vs. Linux vs. vendor lock-in (NewsForge) Posted Sep 8, 2004 7:37 UTC (Wed) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] The manditory service contracts for Enterprise-level product are not what most businesses are looking for. They want professional service but aren't looking to be tied to it. In my experience it is quite the other way around. There is no way that any Linux distribution would ever seriously enter the big financial institutions where I work, without a solid support contract that stretches over, say, one or a couple of years. They want to be tied for at least a reasonable period. Having a support contract does not mean that you're locked in. (I am still waiting for a thorough comparison between community support and "professional" support. I think companies fool themselves if they think their expensive support contracts are worth more than what you can just ask or google on the web. ;-)
Microsoft vs. Linux vs. vendor lock-in (NewsForge) Posted Sep 7, 2004 8:51 UTC (Tue) by janpla (guest, #11093) [Link] 'We need highly visible competition.....'
Why is that, exactly? Using and developing Linux has made sense from the very beginning, and it will by necessity seep into everything eventually, just like the idea of using fire, clothes and the wheel. As far as I can when looking back, Linux has grown from nothing, despite the lack of advertising, corporate development and experienced leadership - or perhaps even because of this. The Linux kernel is good now because there's a group of people who are not interested in making the 'coolest' etc etc OS in the world, but only want to make a piece of SW that is good - so they improve it little by little, cutting out all that is bad in the process.
This is the reason why Linux is now a very good platform to develop things on. Is it the best? Don't know, don't care; it's GOOD. And that is why it will eventually take over everything - not because of anybody's ambitions for power, but because it simply makes sense.
Who wants to "compete" with commercial operations anyway? Posted Sep 8, 2004 23:54 UTC (Wed) by bignose (subscriber, #40) [Link] > And it's going to be especially hard for volunteer-run operations like> Debian to compete with commercial Linux distributors that have substantial > marketing budgets when it comes to the corporate purchasing world.
Just as well, then, that volunteer-run software projects (like Debian) have never needed the "corporate purchasing world" to be the least bit interested in them. The projects flourish quite well without that. If the project happens to be volunteer-run, that just means they're doing it for reasons other than monetary gain; that gives me *more* confidence, not less, that the project will survive.
Corporate purchasers are welcome, like any other software user, to use free software; but if a high-quality software project happens to be volunteer-run, that levels the playing field for all users.
Thus, I don't see why volunteer-run organisations should feel *they* need to do anything different to "compete" with commercial operations. There's plenty of room for both kinds.
|
|||||||||||||