Can small businesses afford NOT to run Linux?
- Performance
- License issues
- Costs
- Security
- Stability
I would also add 'vendor lock-in' as a reason to avoid proprietary software. Proprietary data formats are a trap that one can so easily fall into. It's a bit like a tar-pit, actually, sucking the user into these formats and then requiring continuous payments to the software vendor (license renewals, upgrades, etc.) just to stay afloat. Open source software by definition can only support open data formats, and thus greatly reduce risk and exposure to future costs for the business.
Tag(s):
Other related posts:
Smooth sailing with the Karmic Koala
A Linux distro for Cuba
Follow up: How to write a Linux virus
Comment by sbiddle, on 14-Nov-2007 09:47 , user id: 1387)
I am by no means a Windows or troll. I use both operating systems and feel I am pretty neutral when it comes to recommending either. Both have huge pro's and con's and there are definately situations where Windows beats Linux hands down and just as many situations where Linux beats Windows hands down.
I have to say however that the article you linked to it nothing but the work of a great troll. It contains all the usual anti Windows rhetoric that have been repeated over and over for years and doesn't really tell us anything new.
It also fails to cover the issue of staff training and usability. Open Office is *not* MS Office. In this respect MS beats Linux hands down.
Comment by chakkaradeep, on 14-Nov-2007 11:18 , user id: 30477)
Do not forget that even with Linux you are into "distribution-lock" instead of "vendor-lock". And thats what exactly frietasm was asking.
Take this simple example - Will Ubuntu package work in Novell SLED or RedHat or vice versa?
The real truth is - There is no standard or format in Linux and when there are many packaging formats available, the only common thing that the customer can depend on is the "source compilation". Thats hell lot of job and when things are in migration , thats a big headache.
CNR is coming up with a standard installation platform for most of the distributions, but then Linspire is struggling a lot to make it stable and still there are lot of problems.
The "distribution-lock" is really a big show stopper for linux.
I have had my personal experiences when my firm had to switch from Fedora to Ubuntu. None of our packages we built (which were in RPM) worked and we had to build debian packages to be used in Ubuntu. And also the debian packages had some conflicts in Debian due to dependencies which resulted in another debian package build for Debian.
Things are complicated even with Windows if you are migrating, but most of the time we have Microsoft providing with the migration tools.
Comment by freitasm, on 14-Nov-2007 11:39 , user id: 206)
And that's my point. When OSS talks about "costs" I don't see people discussing the "distribution-lock" cost and the cost of moving away from one distribution to another.
While I agree with foobar that having a standard format for your data is paramount, small companies may not have the money to pay when things need to be changed.
Hence the "cost" discussion is worthless. Cost of paying a license to Microsoft or Apple for their OS and server OS is clearly stated. The cost of keeping an open source environment is hidden.
Comment by freitasm, on 14-Nov-2007 11:42 , user id: 206)
The perception is that Linux is Linux. Everyone knows Windows is different of Mac. But people have the impression Linux is the same all over - so it's kind of a misrepresentation.
As for migrating from a Windows Vista program to Windows XP... Seriously, companies go up, not down in version. Unless it is a program on XP that requires specifc things so better stay at XP.
Comment by chakkaradeep, on 14-Nov-2007 11:59 , user id: 30477)
foobar, Programs working in XP work in Vista and vice versa. If you havent seen those, please try. Vista tightened the Security Layer which was not there in XP. Remember, in XP every user is an administrator, whereas in Vista its not.
Telling that XP programs wont work in Vista and vice versa is lack of development knowledge.
Comment by chakkaradeep, on 14-Nov-2007 12:03 , user id: 30477)
OMG, Windows and MAC are totally different platforms. I was talking about "distribution-lock" and not "platform-lock" !
foobar, "distribution-lock" is a known problem prevailing in Linux industry which you just cant say it isnt!
Comment by chakkaradeep, on 14-Nov-2007 12:10 , user id: 30477)
foobar, there is additional cost and man hours and labour cost to be put in if I have to develop a package for every distribution. In my firm, developers were more inclined towards RedHat when company suddenly wanted to change to Ubuntu platform due to various reasons and we developers had to spend a lot of time in migrating. And not to say that we needed to hire people to do some of the future jobs.
Comment by freitasm, on 14-Nov-2007 12:29 , user id: 206)
I think businesses can and should run Linux - or Mac OS X or Solaris or even Windows. It all comes really to realistic knowledge of the total cost of ownership, avalability of resources in the market to manage the environemtn, support costs from providers, and most importantly the suitability of the OS in relation to the tools required to the task at hand.
And with that I will go away ;-)
Comment by chakkaradeep, on 14-Nov-2007 13:30 , user id: 30477)
foobar, well, unless you see how and what Vista does that makes XP programs incompatible or atleast exploring the "Run Compatible" option in Vista...well, its not fair to comment.
I am not against Linux, but dont like the fact that one should throw away Microsoft or Apple for the cause of Linux. Open Source is not technology. Linux is. So, Microsoft or Apple can become Open Source but they cannot become Linux. When Linux users bring that statement, as the article you have linked is just a troll where he totally puts Windows down and praises Linux...dude, I am seeing comanies earn billions with Windows and also using Linux in the same place...its nothing like one has to use only Windows or Linux or Mac...Each one has its pros/cons, for Linux there are many to enter to Mainstream Market..heck everyone speak about Open Document Format, Open Office, for me OO is nothing but just a starter, but MS Office is not just about typing and editing documents...Business people who use MS Office will know the real importance...
With this, I will also move away..Before leaving, I would suggest you to read more on XP and Vista from Microsoft than any other Media/Linux articles.
Add a comment
Please note: comments that are inappropriate or promotional in nature will be deleted.
E-mail addresses are not displayed, but you must enter a valid e-mail address to confirm your comments.
Are you a registered Geekzone user? Login to have the fields below automatically filled in for you and to enable links in comments.
If you have (or qualify to have) a Geekzone Blog then your comment will be automatically confirmed and placed in the moderation queue for the blog owner's approval.
Comment by freitasm, on 14-Nov-2007 09:31 , user id: 206)
I would like to find out more about the "vendor lock-in" worry... Does it mean that if I get Ubuntu Server running on some project and later I want to move to a Red Hat version or Suse it will all work ok?
I am asking as a Devil Advocate, because what I've seen before is that a lot needs to be done if moving between environments, which basically is a "lock-in" anyway.
Of course one is free to move from one to another, but still is not a transparent process all the way, surely?