Linux Is Not Ready For the Enterprise (Opinion) (TechWeb)

Posted Jun 19, 2003 7:27 UTC (Thu) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link]

It has never ceased to amaze me how low people will go to get money.

Posted Jun 19, 2003 7:39 UTC (Thu) by csigler (subscriber, #1224) [Link]

... or are these "Linux is not ready for the desktop/enterprise" analyses starting to come out more frequently in the last month or so?

Either Linux _is_ (just about) ready and the entrenched OS/apps community is scared of the competition, or this might (indirectly) have something to do with the SCO all-your-OS-are-belong-to-us fiasco. Or maybe a little from column A and a little from column B? Comments?

Clemmitt

Posted Jun 19, 2003 7:54 UTC (Thu) by svachi (guest, #2177) [Link]

In 2001, Technology Marketing named Rob as the most influential industry analyst.
I can't believe he is named the "Most Influential" by anyone if he cannot write better analysis than this crap.

"Besides, many Linux supporters are a bunch of potty-mouthed malcontents."
Hmm... this writer sounds like a potty-mouthed guy with malcontents toward Free/Open Source movement ;-) Personally, I would like to get bad language from the guys who wrote the software(s) I use, rather than having polite speech from soft-speaking lawyers slapping lawsuit at me (think SCO).

The article is quite funny, though, if you don't take it seriously. :-)

Posted Jun 19, 2003 8:01 UTC (Thu) by cell (guest, #12187) [Link]

My preferred part :

> The arguments raised by the writer on the Linux
> side revolved around fuzzy political, almost religious,
> concepts like freedom of choice

So, there! I am sure that you'll be glad to hear that
"freedom" is a "fuzzy political, almost religious" concept...

Posted Jun 19, 2003 8:13 UTC (Thu) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523) [Link]

He state he was payed to write the Windows side of
a Windows vs Linux debate. What independance of view !
Someone should pay him to write the Linux side next
time.

Posted Jun 19, 2003 8:14 UTC (Thu) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link]

Hi, Rob.

I assume you'll get a lot of feedback on this. Here's mine.

"Besides, many Linux supporters are a bunch of potty-mouthed malcontents."

This is a logical fallacy known as the Ad-Hominem Attack, and I'm
surprised you'd stoop to it.

"Linux is anything but a high-volume platform and applications are
generally highly customized and more closely tied to the people who
developed them than to the users that will live with the resulting
software."

In fact, Linux is supremely easy to roll out in high volume. Google
has done so; Spain has done so
(http://www.businesswire.com/cgi-bin/cb_headline.cgi?&story_file=bw.061803/231695068&directory=/google&header_file=header) and
Munich is about to do so. Until now, it's true that Linux has been
used mostly for customized applications, but that's changing. It's
perfectly fine for the business desktop, and Linux Web servers are
dirt-cheap commodity items. Just ask Rackspace.

"You can see why programmers love Linux: It gives them apparent power,
control, freedom, and flexibility at a low initial cost. But this is a
zero-sum game and when one group gains power another often loses
it. Granting this kind power to any one group, particularly a staff
function, is often not in the best interest of an enterprise, which
needs to focus more on business needs, including time to market, and
competitive advantage."

That doesn't make sense. Who says it's a zero-sum game? Can you back
up that assertion?

As an ardent capitalist runinng a thriving small business, I am flummoxed
by that paragraph. Explain again to me why I should *increase* the cost
of production by paying for software. Explain why lowering my profits
(by paying money to commercial software vendors) increases my competitive
advantage.

The plain fact that seems to elude many analysts is that using free software
confers a tremendous competitive advantage on the users of that software.
Just ask Hollywood studios why Linux is the standard OS for rendering.
The answer is: It's cheaper and confers competitive advantage.

"Unless the business is a software business, putting much of the cost,
talent, and control into the hands of software developers is generally
inconsistent with business needs and company goals."

What does this have to do with anything? Why is using Linux on the desktop
any different from using Windows on the desktop?

"If you are in manufacturing, you likely have a policy to buy
off-the-shelf manufacturing equipment whenever possible, because it is
vastly less expensive than having custom machines installed."

Again, this is irrelevant. If you want to use Linux, you buy an
off-the-shelf copy of Red Hat and duplicate it across all your
machines. How's that any different from using Windows?

"SCO earlier this year issued a letter to 1,500 of the world's largest
corporations, warning that Linux users might be liable for
intellectual property violations in Linux."

SCO has made a lot of unproven assertions, and it's irresponsible to
raise the alarm based on SCO's press releases and posturing.

"The key licenses that surround Linux, for the most part, have yet to
be fully tested in court."

That's because they are very solid. Do you honestly think that if a large
company believed it could overturn the GPL, it wouldn't try? The Free
Software Foundation routinely settles GPL violations out of court, because
no-one has yet been willing to challenge the GPL. It's too solid.

"The SCO-IBM lawsuit is the latest example of these kinds of tests, as
are NTP's patent lawsuit against Research in Motion, Intergraph's
litigation against Intel, and even Sun's Java lawsuit against
Microsoft."

Please note that none of these cases have anything to do with the GPL,
so I fail to understand their relevance.

"Many Linux users are outspoken and militant."

So what?

"Like their OS/2, MacOS, and Unix predecessors and counterparts, they
make personal attacks and broad public statements."

So did you.

"Clearly any "alternative" platform that has backers who can't control
their language, or worse, use methods which now are classified by
several governments as terrorist acts, should be on the list of things
you would like your competitors to use but would avoid yourself like
the plague."

Ah, the terrorism card. :-) Come on, Rob. You can do better than that.

Sure, there are idiots who support Linux. But so what? It doesn't affect
the bottom-line business case: It's cheaper and confers competitive
advantage.

"In short, while Linux is technically a very competent product, it
still lacks the necessary maturity for a mission critical enterprise
deployment."

Linux is as old as Windows NT. Its API is very similar to UNIX, which
predates most modern OS's. So please explain your statement about
"lack of maturity."

Linux (and other free software) is *already* being used all over the
place in mission-critical deployments. Surely you're not unaware of
them?

- CGI rendering in major Hollywood studios.
- Bastion mail hosts that do scan/virus scanning for a major US PC
manufacturer.
- Google.
- Yahoo runs on FreeBSD, another free OS.
- A former employer of mine runs mission-critical reverse-engineering
software on Linux. Their entire business is dependent on that software.
- My small company is entirely Linux- and FreeBSD-based. :-)

For more examples, why not write to the Linux divisions of IBM or Oracle?

If I were more cynical, I'd say you recycled your article simply to get
hits on InternetWeek.com. However, maybe you really are unaware of the
true state of the market.

Regards,

David.

Posted Jun 19, 2003 8:17 UTC (Thu) by arcticwolf (guest, #8341) [Link]

backers who [...] use methods which now are classified by several governments as terrorist acts [...]

Err... like? To me at least, terrorist acts are things like blowing up buildings, killing innocent people, hijacking airplanes and the like, not writing free software.

Posted Jun 19, 2003 9:12 UTC (Thu) by TimGraf (guest, #12155) [Link]

I had to e-mail the author of this article. renderle@forrester.com

My comments bellow.

I read your article and yes I do belive it was biased against Linux. I just wanted to give you the perspective of someone that is in the IT industry and has used many proprietary products as well as Linux and open source / free software. I have to say the open source and free software tools more than stand up for them selves against proprietary products. Who could argue with, gcc, emacs, apache / Tomcat, eclipse, grep, jboss, or Linux. These products are great. Have you become so out of touch with the tools and the industry you write about that you no longer have a clear perspective?

I am a consultant in the IT industry and I have used many operating systems and software from companies that have never meet the advertised capabilities, suffered from severe bugs and instability, and require multiple patches and upgrades just to have the software do what the vendors claim it can do. The fact is that Linux provides as many capabilities as any other proprietary software and in many cases out performs its competitors.

1. IT organizations are simply not equipped to deal with intellectual property theft issues.

This maybe so but Linux is certainly not the only product that has had these charges brought against it. To your point however the Linux may be more susceptible to these attacks without a large company and resources to back the software and defend itself.

2. Many Linux users are outspoken and militant. Like their OS/2, MacOS, and Unix predecessors and
counterparts, they make personal attacks and broad public statements.

Perhaps this is so because the product that these individual so passionately belive in is attacked on an almost daily basis by groups of individuals who know very little about Linux. They become very defensive about Linux because many of them know that Linux is at least as good of an operating system as anything else out there and perhaps better than most.

3. Linux returns us to the days when the computer industry was a cottage industry, when programmers
and engineers drove the industry and users were overwhelmed by the difficulties in getting what they wanted done.

You dismiss Linux because only programmer and engineers staunchly back it. These are the most technically competent individuals to make an assessment of Linux as an operating system. In any other industry, such as the auto industry, a product which could claim that, "Most mechanics and professional drivers prefer our car over any other.". This would only encourage other to buy that car and would be highly touted as a great selling point. Yet the argument that since Linux is only loved by programmers and engineers it's not good enough for anyone else is ridiculous.

Posted Jun 19, 2003 9:17 UTC (Thu) by chel (guest, #11544) [Link]

"SCO earlier this year issued a letter to 1,500 of the world's largest
corporations, warning that Linux users might be liable for
intellectual property violations in Linux."

SCO is not threatening Linux users but is threatening AIX users directly.

"Clearly any "alternative" platform that has backers who can't control
their language, or worse, use methods which now are classified by
several governments as terrorist acts, should be on the list of things
you would like your competitors to use but would avoid yourself like
the plague."

Please, could you be more specific? I only see major damages caused
by hackers using the numerous flaws in other OS-es. There is no justification
to name these hackers "Linux addepts"
If you look at the list of software companies found guilty of illegal
practices in the US and Europe, you will not find Linux companies
but other companies.

"In short, while Linux is technically a very competent product, it
still lacks the necessary maturity for a mission critical enterprise
deployment."

The SCO/IBM cases just proves this is not true. BTW in the ammendment
SCO removed the part were it stated "Linux _was_ not suited for
mission critical enterprise employment."
With a sound OS and the technical and legal support of companies like
IBM, HP, SGI, Oracle, etc. I think Linux users made a good choice.
Even SCO still supports Linux. The SCO/IBM case shows that all
code that migh have orginated from SysV, now is under GPL.
The claim is IBM transferred code to GPL and has to pay for it.
so one thing is sure, now the code is GPL.

etc.etc.

Posted Jun 19, 2003 10:17 UTC (Thu) by migloo (guest, #12198) [Link]

According to Rob:
"The market may soon be defined by the ability to litigate rather than the ability to develop"

Another triumph for parasitism.
Is that what marketing is all about?

Posted Jun 19, 2003 10:45 UTC (Thu) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link]

When I buy a physical item, I can see how it's designed. Unless it's hermtically sealed, I can make whatever modifications I choose. I can also (if I get a good look ahead of time,) decide if it's a good purchase.

How do I do that with proprietary software?

Also, making a case for some technology based on whether lawyers will be involved really strikes me as sad. Makes it clear to me that we here in America are seriously decadent, regardless of what a leftist or a rightist might choose to say.

If I follow this fool's views logically, I come to the conclusion that no one should ever try to innovate without asking Microsoft or SCO for permission, or hiring a lawyer.

One final point: Based on what the entertainment industry has to offer, when, in recent times, has one's choice of language had anything to do with their standing in society, or their value as an innovator? Also, with regard to language; I believe that Linux developers would have established some kind of code of behavior on this issue a long time ago, if fools like this guy had bothered with us. But it wasn't worth the money in the past, I guess.

Now, if the issue is published source code and language, how hard would it be for Linus to add routines to clean up the language of existing code, then notify future contributors that it's an issue? And why didn't this fool make any effort to propose that? Is it possible that he was more interested in insulting people than advising businesses?

Posted Jun 19, 2003 11:29 UTC (Thu) by skybunny (guest, #4478) [Link]

I'll have to come, at least a little, to the defense of Mr. Enderle, the writer of this article - on why the article was written.

Consider several of the quotes he makes, and let's presume we can take what he says at face value.

A few months ago I was asked by a major publication to take the Windows side of a Linux vs. Windows debate.

As an analyst I have to be able to argue both sides of a position because often we are asked to step in and help justify decisions that have already been made.

What follows is clearly not unbiased, it was originally written specifically to be an argument against Linux and, just as clearly, there is a pro side that I will leave for others or a future time. ...

Remember this is a "think" piece and not an offer to write me with your sincere opinion that I am Bill Gates's love slave. ... Assuming someone doesn't put a bomb under my car I'll be back with another column in a few weeks. The working title for that one is "What's Wrong With Microsoft."

Mr. Enderle has pretty clearly told us the purpose for his piece. Imagine you're engaging in a policy debate, with the assertion 'Linux is ready for the Enterprise'. Mr. Enderle is taking the negative position ('Linux is NOT ready for the Enterprise') as opposed to the affirmative ('Linux IS ready for the Enterprise'). He says outright, several times, that this is what he's doing; he doesn't even say that he believes all the arguments he outlines.

An excellent debater is capable of turning on a dime, and successfully convincing a judge, jury, or other audience that he's right no matter what position he is instructed to take. They can argue the affirmative OR negative position in successive hour blocks, and win both times.

It's done by providing strong arguments, and compelling evidence.

If any objection should or could be taken with Mr. Enderle's position, it should NOT be the very fact that he's arguing in the negative. This is, in fact, what he was asked to do 'by a major publication for a Linux vs. Windows debate'. He may just as well have been asked to take the other position; that's immaterial.

What CAN be argued is that either his individal arguments are not strong, and/or are not backed up by evidence. On these two points, I could find a lot to say, yes.

Arguments he makes:

1. Linux returns us to the days when the computer industry was a cottage industry, when programmers and engineers drove the industry and users were overwhelmed by the difficulties in getting what they wanted done.
2. Granting (the power to determine the direction of a piece of software) to any one group, particularly a staff function, is often not in the best interest of an enterprise, which needs to focus more on business needs, including time to market, and competitive advantage.
3. With the failure of the dot-coms the concept of solid business plans and solid cost containment practices are once again more like laws than suggestions, changing dramatically the way decisions are viewed and approved.
4. Whatever the outcome, it is clear that not enough consideration was put into the protection of intellectual property in the creation of this platform and that, currently, much of the risk seems to be getting passed downstream to enterprise users of the product, rather than upstream to the distributors.
5. The key licenses that surround Linux, for the most part, have yet to be fully tested in court.
6. Clearly any "alternative" platform that has backers who can't control their language, or worse, use methods which now are classified by several governments as terrorist acts, should be on the list of things you would like your competitors to use but would avoid yourself like the plague.

Those are direct quotes. The strength of the arguments themselves are weighed by the evidence used to support them.

Point (3), for instance, uses only analogies and the assertion that 'During the rapid growth of Linux during the Internet years, the idea of containing costs and minimizing risk was something that many seemed to forget.' It doesn't make any cohesive statement about how budgets have changed between 2000 and 2003; why Windows is logically a better choice for this reason, or a study which shows that Linux is more expensive because it requires 'customization' - which is another unproven claim in the context of the paper. It also doesn't take into account that IT costs are inherent to a business, which means that if a reduction in overall IT costs can be achieved in the long run by using one OS over another, then an argument can be made for it. It assumes out of the blocks that Linux is more expensive to deploy, without specifying function or number of machines.

Point (4) may yet be proven. Linux can use some large voices supporting its positions, and the IBM-SCO debate is far too early in to draw any conclusions from. We are only seeing what may happen, not what did or will happen. There have not been any arrests or IP violation lawsuits based on the use of Linux in an enterprise, and SCO's 1,500 letters to corporations as yet carry no legal weight. However, we do not yet know the full scope of who SCO intends to go after, or what the courts will decide. This is definately uncertainty, but a counter-argument may say that Microsoft (or anyone else) has the same problems, provided specific examples.

Point (5) could use specific names or evidence to support. I have seen many many companies, from Merrill Lynch to Sherwin Williams (links available on LWN) support Linux in terms that don't involve obscenity, embarassment, etc. When a business makes its choices on whether to use something, I could make an equally unfounded claim; that they will weigh more heavily the statements of their corporate peers rather than the designing engineers, no matter what the designing engineers say. But I take that one back, since I have no proof.

I'm sure replies below are going to pick apart one part or another of the specific arguments I or Mr. Enderle made. That's not the point I'm trying to make.

I think if anything would have been very much welcome, it would have been specific examples and evidence to support his points.

I understand what Mr. Enderle was trying to do, and we will probably see what his counter-argument is in a couple weeks. I do hope, though, that it is entitled 'Linux IS ready for the enterprise', rather than 'What's wrong with Microsoft'. I'd like to hear, as he alludes to, what the other side of the debate says, in his eyes. That will close the debate off well.

Posted Jun 19, 2003 12:07 UTC (Thu) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]

I confess, I confess
Very often i tend to be caustic on my words,... but that´s because one can see the truth and justice of proposed solutions and applications far, far beyond the hype of big marketing;- and then the so called tendency to sometime use more harsh words against that deceiving marketing.
But i belive that when is the truth and value of technical or bussiness model decisions, what counts is that truth, and not politeness of words.
And is with all politeness that i also state that when the goal is to defend owns job, by emiting others opinions for money, inspite of all evidence against it, is a sign of low moral and caracter, no matter how long one's known in his business medium.
So!... what makes Mr. Robert Enderle so right and, IBM, RED-HAT, SUSE, HP, MANDRASOFT, SUN, ORACLE, HUNDREDS OF OTHER LINUX DISTRIBUSHIONS..., CENTRAL GOVERNMENTS OF COUNTRYS..., so wrong.
Although, and if open-source is causing so much disrupt in the live of Mr. Robert Enderle i'll be willing to offer him a job, if he gets unemployed by that disruption,... but i fairly belive that in virtue of evidence, and with all politness, that Mr. Robert Enderle is capable of emiting "others well known opinions against all evidence" in clear prejudice and lack truth, no matter how nice words he uses, that job position "can only be lower" of what he is used right now.
You can contact me at: mmarq@netvisao.pt
(Unless i expand, that job offer is for certainty in Portugal)

send to email renderle@forrester.com

Posted Jun 19, 2003 12:30 UTC (Thu) by naughty-artkitekt (guest, #10552) [Link]

Isn't it clear that ms wants to "be everything to or for everyone" and to remain a
monopoly?

Then, does it follow that ms is dangerously treading on becoming a "utility"?

As such, isn't ms sorely in need of being regulated?

After all, ms has some 92% (or, if you accept recent "claims" down to "80"%) of
the marketshare for desktops. THey want to be in games, real estate, marketing,
music, search engines, and more. Hardware vendors keep waffling between "we
support Linux" to "HP <6 or 10 other h/ware vendors' names can go here>
recommends using microsoft windows XP for your mobile computing
experience...."

Then throw in databases, cell phones, and more, and soon you have ONE huge
American company trying to be more Keiretsu than Oscar Meyer/Hershey and
their sibblings/parents.

We need to start sending up the message that as a FORCED (little choice about
it) option upon us when we buy hardware and operating systems, ms is de facto
becoming a "utility". If power suppliers, cable co's and telecoms can be regulated
(by rules or by full-regulation powers as the ATT/Bell days), then ms deserves to
be regulated HEAVILY.

Regulation as a utilty for ms, anyone?

David Syes

Posted Jun 19, 2003 12:39 UTC (Thu) by NerdlyMcGeek (guest, #8453) [Link]

"The last refuge of a scoundrel!"

"Clearly any 'alternative' platform that has backers who can't control their language, or worse, use methods which now are classified by several governments as terrorist acts, should be on the list of things you would like your competitors to use but would avoid yourself like the plague."

I would not worry to much about this drivel. My mom can see through this nonsense and if thats her perspective we don't have a lot to worry about just yet. ;-)

Posted Jun 19, 2003 12:42 UTC (Thu) by kmself (subscriber, #11565) [Link]

Winer's not exactly penguinista rabble.

Scripting News

I finally got so bored with the news I actually had something to say about Rob Enderle. If you want to get on the record about him, send me an email and I'll try to oblige.

Michael Williams: "That guy has always struck me as all hat and no cattle. Drives me nuts to see him quoted as an 'expert.' I'd be shocked if he's ever installed anything more than Windows on a laptop or written any code other than pseudo in an e-mail."

John Robb: "The guy is a carpetbagger quotemill of the worst sort. Nobody ever called him on it until today."

Joe Rotello: "Why don't we just replace him with a large switch marked OFF, and be done with it."

...and...

Scripting News

Yesterday one of my favorite columnists, Cydney Gillis of the Eastside Journal ran a column about the departure of Linda Stone from Microsoft, using quotes from Rob Enderle of Giga Group, someone I think of as a quote mill, happy to give you a line about anything, including things he knows nothing about. Gillis seemed to be different, not just a fill of space, she seemed to have sources at Microsoft, and had the guts to write stories that weren't as cleansed and vacuous as most of the crap written by the Big's. Enderle's presence is a warning sign. I see a quote from him I get the message. The reporter is out of ideas and has decided to cut corners.

So I guess if Enderle's quoting Enderle, the bottom of the barrel's scraping the bottom of the barrel...

Posted Jun 19, 2003 12:42 UTC (Thu) by donstuart (subscriber, #4550) [Link]

I have a very different take on this piece. I find it encouraging, even comforting. It is true that the middle sections are a pathetic collection of irrational, irrelevant and unsupported arguments against Linux but the beginning and end should put them in a different perspective.

He really is an experienced, well-known and respected writer. I am sure he is capable of objective analysis but that is not what he is doing here. He states clearly that this is an advocacy piece intended to make the case against Linux. He says that this sort of advocacy is a large part of what he does for a living. His history and reputation tell us that he is pretty good at it and yet, despite his experience, his reputation and his presumed skills as an advocate, this is the best he could come up with.

It makes me almost giddy.

Don

Posted Jun 19, 2003 13:23 UTC (Thu) by walterbyrd (guest, #11620) [Link]

I just scanned the article. Saw a lot of crap about: linux folks are like this or that.

But nothing about: linux is missing this or that enterprise level feature. No substance. Just a lot of opinion about law cases and linux culture etc.

Considering that the most advanced server in the world is running linux. I can see where the author has much of a case.

It does seem like the more success linux has, the more "linux is not ready" articles seem to come out.

Posted Jun 19, 2003 16:03 UTC (Thu) by strombrg (guest, #2178) [Link]

People, please don't click through to FUD so much.

I wrote to the author saying I wasn't going to read his article, and he wrote back saying they're getting a record number of hits!

By reading this stuff, you increase the publisher's advertising revenue. We're teaching them that publishing the most awful anti-linux FUD they can think of is the way to make money.

Posted Jun 20, 2003 1:43 UTC (Fri) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link]

This reminds me (humorously) of a comment I saw on TechWeb last year, on this very same topic:

"Linux is not ready for the Enterprise. There is not a single voice-controlled app for any of the mission-critical functions of the Enterprise. Conspicuously absent are warp core control, phaser bank activation, interstellar navigation, transporter operation and the all-important self-destruct sequence. Until these and thousands of other important apps are written and deployed, Linux will just be a toy in the Enterprise."

Posted Jun 20, 2003 19:53 UTC (Fri) by whitleych (guest, #6866) [Link]

I hope SCO group doesn't sue me for quoting here.......
If you are in manufacturing, you likely have a policy to buy off-the-shelf manufacturing equipment whenever possible, because it is vastly less expensive
than having custom machines installed. If you are in field services, you typically don't have custom trucks built, but buy from a large manufacturer and
then make relatively minor changes to fit your specific needs. If you are a successful builder you ask your architect to minimize the custom components
used so that you can maximize your profits.
Aren't all of the above what open source and only open source permits in the enterprise? Since when could you customize NT? Office? IE? Moving icon's around isn't customizing. Painting a truck isn't customizing it......

You can customize GNU/Linux, a distributor can, a service company can, a contractor can..... Bottom line, with open source you get open choice. Assuming you're using the mod's internally, you don't even have to let them out of house, so you can retain your advantage. In short, the first real argument he used against Linux is one of it's primary advantages!

Posted Jun 21, 2003 9:04 UTC (Sat) by davidl (guest, #12156) [Link]

This was a reasoned response that I sent to our dear Rob. There is no
religion here and no massive flaming (although that is difficult to
avoid). I have posted my reply to his reply underneath, which didn't say
anything - as I thought it would. Basically, it's butt covering - "It was
just an article to get people to think....". Personally, I don't worry
about articles like this - I really do welcome them. Unfounded articles
and studies will only serve to increase the interest in Linux and free
software. Remember, Linux and free software in general has a lot of
companies scared s***less now as they lose their license to print money.
We are in the fighting and mud-slinging stage now. We are going to get
more of this.

Dear Robert,

I understand that after your article 'Linux is not Ready for the
Enterprise' you'll have had a lot of unbelievable e-mails - that's if
your box isn't overflowing! I want to give a reasoned response to your
article, and I hope you'll read it. There's no religion here, I can
assure you.

Personally, I think you're wrong, but I'm going to outline my reasons
why, backed up from my experience as an IT person and industry events,
along with quotations from your article.

Your definition of enterprise is also rather vague. I don't work for a
huge company, but I'd say we are enterprising. By enterprise I'll take
that to mean medium to large businesses.

> The arguments raised by the writer on the Linux side revolved around
> fuzzy political, almost religious, concepts like freedom of choice and
> the need to be counted in the battle against the Microsoft monopoly.

There seems to be a real contradiction here. You claim that this CIO was
using fuzzy, political almost religious concepts. Freedom of choice for
people generally results in competition, something the IT industry has
had a complete lack of, especially in the choice companies have for
their operating systems and office suites. I fail to see how this does
not make sense to businesses.

> I found this somewhat entertaining since she is a CIO and IT
> organizations generally don't give their users a lot of choice.

You seem to be admitting that this is what she is talking about. That
sounds like a solid business case to use their products to me. If their
products are any good I'll stick with them.

Many business people, especially those in SMEs (and this has filtered up
to enterprise level), are fed up to the back teeth with IT people and
companies coming in and installing generic software and solutions, and
using buzzwords and marketing to sell them, which cost a great deal of
money in licensing fees and associated support costs. The business then
depends on that software, but because the formats etc. are closed (a
classic use of technology to get 'lock-in') the business cannot buy
competing software if it wants to. IT organizations don't generally give
their users a lot of choice, but if IT is to survive at all, they now
need to.

At the moment it is not such a good time for the IT industry, but this
is not just because of the economic downturn. Businesses are seeing IT
as a never-ending cycle of spending that is simply not justified by
increases in productivity or efficiency. Even when the money returns, I
think you will be very surprised by the number of organizations who will
refuse to throw themselves into spending large amounts of money on IT,
like web services. In short, if you can't navigate this path in the
future and assure your employer that they will have the choice to use
competition in the IT industry and move elsewhere (in the interests of
the business not you), you WILL be unemployed. This is the very reason
why Linux and free software have come to prominence in the first place.
For far to long IT people have hidden behind technical speak to instill
fear and doubt and to make money. Those days are fast coming to an end,
so try and enjoy them while they last.

Put simply, imagine a situation where there was one company (perhaps
Robert Louis Stephenson - I'd certainly be well employed where I live!)
in the world who made track for the railways and, somehow, they managed
to keep the metrics of that track secret from everybody. In order for
the railways to operate you would need to buy rolling stock from this
one company. All the passenger and freight trains would be the same all
around the world and there would be no diversification or innovations of
any kind. Would that be good for the transport economies of countries
around the world? No - it would be so unthinkable people would never
believe it. However, that's the situation we have in the IT industry.
Tell that story to the next non-IT business person you see and he/she
will draw parallels from it and say "Yes that's exactly it - we're over
a barrel." In short, you get a quick monopoly with some awesome rates of
growth and profits, but in the long run it spells the death of IT. We
are all in danger here. There is a long history of monopolies being bad
for everyone apart from the monopoly itself. Now there is your business
case.

> Linux is anything but a high-volume platform and applications are
> generally highly customized and more closely tied to the people who
> developed them than to the users that will live with the resulting
> software.

This is not the way free software works at all. The users ARE the
developers in free software projects along with all the people who join
mailing lists and contribute (and criticize) new ideas. However, the
vast majority of users will not be aware of this process - they will
simply use something that works. These ideas and concerns are not driven
by the idea of locking people into certain ways of doing things to
extract yet more money. The people involved are actually using the
software product to do something! Again, yet another reason why free
software has come to prominence. The fact we are talking about this is
testament to that. As technology gets better the line between developers
and users will get steadily more blurred.

> Most of the value, and cost, is on the hardware and services that
> surround it. This idea of attaching a low value to software is a
> throwback to the beginnings of computing.

There was nothing wrong with the early ideals of computing. All that was
lacking was the cohesion and the standards, which free software and
Linux is now bringing to the industry. It's also bringing back many of
the good early ideas of computing, such as thin-client computing,
without the ridiculous baggage of licensing. Software today is perceived
to be of little value for the reasons I have outlined above. Businesses
and enterprises simply do not rate software anymore - they want stuff
that works. Now and in the future, as an IT professional, you will have
to show that you are delivering value through what you do and the
services you provide rather than making easy money out of software
lock-in and 'the next best' version, whose features provide no business
benefit whatsoever. If you can't, you're out the door.

> You can see why programmers love Linux: It gives them apparent power,

There is nothing apparent about it - the power is there.

> control, freedom, and flexibility at a low initial cost. But this is a
> zero-sum game and when one group gains power another often loses it.
> Granting this kind power to any one group, particularly a staff
> function, is often not in the best interest of an enterprise, which
> needs to focus more on business needs, including time to market, and
> competitive advantage. Unless the business is a software business,
> putting much of the cost, talent, and control into the hands of
> software developers is generally inconsistent with business needs and
> company goals.

This doesn't make any sense whatsoever and seems to show a woeful lack
of understanding for an 'IT professional'. If an outside IT consultant
had presented this argument to me and my directors he'd be out the door
very fast. It's full of the sort of flowery language that simply puts
non-IT people off IT and, as I have outlined, is driving our industry
into long-term non-existence. I'm sorry to disappoint you but if someone
asks you a question about Linux, you can't come back with a number of
phrases that simply have words inserted such as "competitive advantage",
"time to market", "business needs", "generalization" and
"specialization". They aren't backed up. The days of businesses
listening to the ramblings of an IT consultant are over - unless of
course those ramblings actually make sense. The very fact that Linux and
free software has come to such prominence is that companies are sick of
the above language being used and then nothing being delivered. However,
as a supporter of Linux (because I've seen what can be done with it) I
would advise you to keep on writing these articles!
No one is suggesting that a business has a huge IT department developing
their own operating systems and software. If you want to do that, fine -
and free software gives you the tools to access YOUR software and
systems and to do things yourself. However, many businesses now use
support companies to provide their IT services. Through the use of free
software and open standards and protocols a business can change easily
and use competing software and companies' services if it wants to.
Office documents will not be rendered unreadable if they change their
word processors - get the picture? We have a contract with a company to
service our air conditioning systems and our hardware is not fixed so
that only they can service it. They are built to industry standards. If
it gets serviced by another company it won't stop working (if it does
they will be in trouble). Again, the business case is competition, and
the IT industry and it's people simply getting themselves into the real
world.

> Even in the case of a large software company, putting
> top human resources into the development of software for internal use,
> rather than developing a marketable product, would seem counter to
> running a successful business. We are in a period where
> specialization, not generalization, appears to separate the successful
> companies from those whose longevity is not so certain.

I don't understand this either, and again, shows a woeful lack of
understanding. Companies are not going to develop all of their software
internally. The whole point of free software is so that common software,
standards and protocols can be shared and used to facilitate the
'software ecosystem' that one company is so eager to talk about. Through
the services of IT companies (IT companies actually doing something)
this software can be specialized in many ways which proprietary software
cannot.

> If you are in manufacturing, you likely have a policy to buy
> off-the-shelf manufacturing equipment whenever possible, because it is
> vastly less expensive than having custom machines installed.

You can do this. That's the whole point. Free software, open standards
and protocols simply gives companies the power to choose. There are
competing companies delivering manufacturing equipment the last I
looked. Manufacturing is generally based on industry standards, IT isn't
- bad example. By this I don't mean closed-source products that have
managed to capture 90% of the market. They are not standards because you
can't get access to YOUR vital company information without paying for a
license for a specific piece of software. Virtually no other industry or
profession in the world today works this way, and it certainly isn't the
way forward.

> If you are in field services, you typically don't have custom trucks
> built, but buy from a large manufacturer and then make relatively
> minor changes to fit your specific needs.

Ditto. A company will use software that is 'freely' available that uses
open standards and protocols and an outside contractor/business will
package it up for them. You then make minor adjustments, which you can't
do very well with proprietary software. This competition thing doesn't
seem to be catching on with IT people, but it will have to.

> With the failure of the dot-coms the concept of solid business plans
> and solid cost containment practices are once again more like laws
> than suggestions, changing dramatically the way decisions are viewed
> and approved.

Agreed. Business plans based simply on selling software (per-seat
licensing) rather than what that software actually does, and how you
enable people and business to get the best out of it, will not be viable
(buzzwords and marketing statements do not count). If it's only software
that floats your boat, you're in the wrong one.

> While I've seen a lot of discussion of Linux licensing, the general
> impression seems to be that most of it has little relevance to an IT
> organization in a company that is not, itself, in the software
> business.

Totally wrong, especially in SMEs - I know I work in one. There has been
many TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) arguments in the past, but one thing
has been overlooked. The smaller the business the more prohibitive
software licensing is. Once you've bought fifty copies of Windows and
Office you have very little money left to run a network, facilitate
file-sharing, get broadband.... The stuff that will really help a
business is, in many cases, put out of reach by licensing. Then there is
the support contract. Contrary to popular belief, commercial software
companies do not provide support. If you want it, you pay extra. The
client access license is the most boneheaded idea I've ever heard of and
is the final nail in the coffin for commercial software, as far as I'm
concerned. "I've legally bought a client OS and a server OS - and now I
have to buy a license to get them to talk to each other!?"

The biggest barrier to IT and computing being a massive success is
per-seat licensing, and has ensured that client/server computing and
technologies like CORBA cannot deliver the advantages that were promised
of having a network. Web services will go the same way, simply because
companies like Microsoft need to preserve their monopolies and revenues
based on licensing. Now that many organizations have networks the
physical notion of a 'seat' does not exist, but because of licensing
they cannot take advantage of it. Want to part-run an application
centrally off a server? No. Want to run an application off a server
through a thin-client? Yep, need a license for that as well. The
physical notion of 'per-seat' licensing is making IT's position within
business untenable because businesses are more dynamic than that. In the
future business will demand that IT companies make their money from
fulfilling business need, rather than shifting boxes. The general
impression seems to be, judging from the popularity of Linux, that it
provides some compelling cost savings and allows an enterprise to do
more with their IT systems.

Scale this up to a large enterprise level and you've got the beginnings
of a - digital nervous system! Imagine the efficiency and cost savings.

> Recently SCO (formerly Caldera) began to change that perception and
> began to demonstrate what could easily become a nightmare for the
> Linux community.

SCO has not yet presented any evidence that any code was copied or
misappropriated and has not been proven in any court (nor is it likely
to be). At this stage it's not even certain what SCO's case actually is.
One minute it's the contract with IBM and AIX, the next it's attacks on
Linux - not exactly professionalism. Even if some code is similar, it's
not even certain that the code actually belongs to SCO. BSD Unix code
has been used in teaching establishments and projects all over the
world. There is a precedent for this with the BSD case some years back -
go and look it up. Interestingly, because Linux has it's source code
open, it can be transparent with accusations of IP theft, and once the
SCO situation has settled down I think we will see that. How much stolen
(or GPL'd) code is hidden in Windows? We shall never know, but you may
be sitting on a time bomb.

> IT organizations are simply not equipped to deal with intellectual
> property theft issues within a product they have deployed widely. They
> have neither the legal expertise nor the budget to even properly
> assess the risk, let alone effectively mitigate it.

They won't have to. SCO's actions will see to that. Besides, many
businesses who have deployed Linux and AIX are continuing to use it and
are sitting on the fence. No one is deploying massive amounts of legal
expertise apart from those directly involved.

> The key licenses that surround Linux, for the most part, have yet to
> be fully tested in court.

This may come as a shock to you, but just about any software license has
yet to be fully tested in court. All of that stuff in Microsoft's EULA,
claiming no responsibility if it all goes up in smoke....

> The market may soon be defined by the ability to litigate rather than
> the ability to develop, and products like Linux, which have a weak
> defense, may simply not survive this market phase.

The companies who live on litigation will die with it. It won't make
their products any better. That's one of the fundamental reasons why
we're talking about Linux and free software. You're painting a picture
of a very stagnant and boring IT industry here. Is that really what we
want? Judging from the uptake and interest in Linux, I'd say not.

> One of the things that most concerns me, because it was major failing
> in previous anti-establishment (read "anti-Microsoft") initiatives, is
> the behavior of the most visible advocates for these alternative
> platforms. Microsoft has clearly been blessed with challengers who
> apparently never learned not to run around blindfolded with sharp
> objects pointed at their own hearts.

Have you met the average MCSE or Microsoft employee? The language of the
average Microsoft (and other IT companies) employee can be obnoxious in
the extreme. They are impossible to have a straight conversation with.
As Microsoft moves into new markets and industries they will find that
the IT language they have used in the past will no longer be tolerated.
Ask a question about Linux and they come up with alarmingly defensive
phrases full of "business need", "competitive advantage",
"specialization" without actually saying anything - hence Linux is being
deployed more widely. Besides, I don't see any evidence for the last
sentence you wrote. It's quite amusing, but not what I would expect from
an IT professional.

> Some avid Linux defenders make statements that are unprofessional, and
> filled with words we wouldn't accept in the workplace.

Such is life when you have a public and open debate about things, but I
don't see anything like this on a widespread basis. Evidence?

> These arguments create embarrassing situations which could, in some
> cases, percolate up to board levels.

The clear evidence against this is the unabated growth of Linux. There
is no evidence to support this statement.

> Public "debates" about Linux contain behavior that could easily
> violate HR rules as the arguments drift into language that has become
> unacceptable in the enterprise and has little to do with the topic
> being debated.
> Not all Linux folks are like this, any more than their predecessors
> were. The bad behavior is limited to only an increasingly vocal, and
> apparently growing, minority. But an enterprise, by nature, has a huge
> number of employees who are held to solid policies about appropriate
> workplace behavior that have to be enforced.

You're going off on a massive tangent here. What has this got to do with
the software and tools I use? They are there, they do the job we want
them to, end of story. Actually, I find the situation to be exactly the
opposite. I find the sort of rubbish I get from commercial software
companies obnoxious in the extreme - and that's directed to me and my
business, not at general public debate. Yet another reason for the
growth of Linux.

> Clearly any "alternative" platform that has backers who can't control
> their language, or worse, use methods which now are classified by
> several governments as terrorist acts, should be on the list of things
> you would like your competitors to use but would avoid yourself like
> the plague.

99% of users of Linux will not be exposed to anything like this. The
debates over many aspects of Linux happen in another domain, and because
people care they can sometimes get heated. I don't see your logic here.
Besides, to what language are you referring? You really need to back up
your statements with evidence i.e. hyperlinks to the offending language,
and not just one or two examples picked out. Judging from the growth of
Linux, the many debates do not seem to be bothering too many people who
use it.

> In short, while Linux is technically a very competent product, it
> still lacks the necessary maturity for a mission critical enterprise
> deployment.

This is a very, very, very, very old and tired argument, is totally
untrue and does not have any basis in fact. What evidence is this based
on? The rendering for the film Titanic was done using a Linux cluster
which was on 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for months on end. No Windows
system has ever been trusted in such a scenario. The vast majority of
the web servers that matter on the internet run Linux/BSD and free
software round the clock, with near 100% uptime. Many of them are
e-commerce sites that need to respond well under heavy load and remain
up. Now that's mission critical. Free software code such as that from
the various BSDs is used in dozens of commercial products such as Mac
OSX and even Windows. There is even some talk of Microsoft moving
Windows to a BSD core - so much for the billions of dollars of R & D
then. There is no evidence to back up this statement and is now very,
very old and tired news.

> It does have a place as solution for small companies who, themselves,
> occupy cottage industries and where a handshake is all the contract
> you really ever need; in an enterprise, unfortunately, cost controls
> and solid policies that put the business first must take precedence
> and place Linux off the list of consideration, possibly forever, for
> many enterprises.

Cost consideration and solid policies are the very reason why
enterprises ARE deploying Linux. There are many enterprises and Fortune
500 companies who obviously do not agree with you along, with the City
of Munich, amongst others. Besides, you have a fundamental lack of
understanding here. If you want to download Linux and use it everywhere,
you can. Obviously there are no guarantees or support, unless you choose
to pay for it. Enterprises are being supported with contracts from IBM,
Suse and other companies - companies that are actually doing something
and providing a service, rather than shifting boxes. Linux is most
definitely ON the list of considerations for this very reason.

> OK folks, take a breath, let it out, and now take another. Remember
> this is a "think" piece and not an offer to write me with your sincere
> opinion that I am Bill Gates's love slave (it's already been done
> anyway), I know Bill, and trust me, we aren't that close. Assuming
> someone doesn't put a bomb under my car I'll be back with another
> column in a few weeks. The working title for that one is "What's Wrong
> With Microsoft."

Oh, I don't think you're a Microsoft supporter, but your livelihood does
seem to depend on the commercial software model that is becoming more
and more untenable as the years pass. An MCSE and other specific
qualifications will no longer be enough to qualify you as an IT
professional as it has been for so long - the ability to go through
point and click wizards is simply not enough. One thing that confuses
many business people is that, as IT people, they think we know about all
the alternatives and get very confused when Microsoft/commercial
software-centric people cannot provide any kind of coherent answer when
asked about Linux and free software. Unless you and others depending on
the commercial software industry wake up to these facts you will never
present a coherent business case as to why 'free' software should NOT be
used in an enterprise. It will only increase peoples' interest and
uptake of Linux and free software in general.

Linux and free software is expanding, is being used for many useful
purposes, is fulfilling business needs and is providing competitive
advantage through discarding the software licensing model, amongst other
things. Enterprises are paying for Linux and their supporting companies
to do things that THEY want, and not 'features' drawn up on the white
boards of a commercial software company. Articles like this will only
prove my points and ensure that Linux continues to get deployed.

If you can provide an answer to this and provide evidence where I have
asked for it, I will be more than happy to eat humble pie and agree with
you. Somehow, I doubt it.

Thanks for reading this, even though we may disagree :).

regards,

David

Rob Enderle's reply:

Typically an enterprise is a Fortune 5000 company, often a multinational
but not always. I know some folks use it to mean a company, but we
don't. Enterprises have strong rules and policies, typically are public,
can be a government, and worry a lot about the documentation of
decisions. They tend to be the most conservative of buyers as a result.
Hope that helps.
On the Freedom of Choice, you don't use it to justify a decision, for
instance I may be free to move to Iraq I wouldn't use it as the reason to
move there. Its a context thing and I wasn't as clear as I should have
been. (Got flamed by a couple of ex-GIs).

This was intended to get people to talk and I did make very broad
statements which on point could easily be challenged. It was intended to
get people to think about what they were saying and to realize Linux not
only isn't perfect it has some broad shortcomings that need to at least
be considered. Hope you enjoyed it even though its clear you disagree.
(Wouldn't it be kind of dull if everyone agreed?).

Best!

My reply:

> Typically an enterprise is a Fortune 5000 company, often a
> multinational but not always. I know some folks use it to mean a
> company, but we don't.
> Enterprises have strong rules and policies, typically are public, can
> be a government, and worry a lot about the documentation of decisions.
> They tend to be the most conservative of buyers as a result. Hope that
> helps.

Thanks for clearing that up.

> On the Freedom of Choice, you don't use it to justify a decision, for
> instance I may be free to move to Iraq I wouldn't use it as the reason
> to move there. Its a context thing and I wasn't as clear as I should
> have been. (Got flamed by a couple of ex-GIs).

Don't see how Iraq comes into it. Are you comparing Linux to Iraq? When
buying products in any other industry, freedom of choice and competition
are vital to any considerations. That's the point I'm trying to make,
and up until now it's been alien to IT people.

> This was intended to get people to talk and I did make very broad
> statements which on point could easily be challenged. It was intended
> to get people to think about what they were saying and to realize Linux
> not only isn't perfect it has some broad shortcomings that need to at
> least be considered.

Mmm. As I pointed out many of these 'perceived' shortcomings have no
basis in fact. There are many companies, including mine, who are looking
at some great cost and efficiency savings using Linux and free software
that just wouldn't be possible with proprietary software. That doesn't
mean we are unsupported though. We choose what is best for us, not
something that fits into an IT company's money making scheme. If you
have some concrete facts, then I look forward to your next article very
much.

> Hope you enjoyed it even though its clear you disagree.
> (Wouldn't it be kind of dull if everyone agreed?).

Yes it would be dull! You have certainly caused much consternation on
mailing lists and chat channels all over the world, but such is life.
Personally, I'm not worried or angry at all, as the more shaky articles
that are produced about Linux and free software, the stronger the
arguments for it will become. Keep on writing. Thanks!

regards,

David

Really guys and gals, don't worry about articles like this. If they were
actually backed up....well that would be different. But they never will
be.

regards to everyone,

David

Posted Jun 21, 2003 15:31 UTC (Sat) by wweber (guest, #11678) [Link]

This letter is being written from a Windows system, because Mandrake Linux could not see a modem on my PSET6-ML motherboard and the only external one I had around kept getting kicked off my ISP. There is time to do a few chores, between hitting the power switch on my main Linux system and when I actually hear KDE signing on. Whatever edge in efficiency Linux has over Windows 98 does not carry over to the Graphic User Interface. Are GUI's still a mere frill in the sight of the Linux community? How can Linux ever hope to displace Windows when a user can grab a coffee while waiting for StarOffice to open?

It isn't as if it is expected to be the case. One friend from Archimedes said KDE and Gnome are "pigs", even with 512 MBytes. A friend to whom I showed KDE under a 433MHz Celeron with 256MB asked me about the repaint ghosting that trailing a window I was dragging - and he had Unix and X-Windows experience. Asking a Windows user to put up with this kind of GUI performance may be tantamount to asking an Accura driver to trade down to a Case tractor.

Maybe if I selected fvwm or olvwm or the like, my present-generation machine would feel almost like a Win98 machine. In the meantime, I think I will continue to do my GUI-intensive work on one of my Windows machines, use my old 486 laptop running Caldera as a Samba print-server, and use the Mandrake machine when I want to study PHP or mysql or print a document in AvantGarde Gothic, sometime when I have the time to wait for it to come all the way up. Linux is not ready for many computer users I know.