UNIX, Linux, FreeBSD, etc. have all been around for quite some time now, but they have yet to make significant penetration into the enterprise market.
Have we reached the point in history where open source should be considered a viable enterprise solution?
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
Emphatically: Yes. Linux has for a long time been more appropriately an enterprise-ready solution than Microsoft's various Windows OSes ever were, and yet NT-based Windows OSes have been considered viable enterprise solutions since their inception in the early- to mid-'90s. Granted, Linux has not always had the same maturity as a network server as other Unices have, but that has changed.
RedHat has focused its attentions on the Enterprise market almost exclusively in the last couple years specifically because, for them, that's where the money is. RedHat enterprise solutions are stable, robust, scalable, and easily maintained as Microsoft enterprise solutions can only dream of being.
The phrasing of this prompt for discussion is misleading: Unix has been a major enterprise-level player for decades -- since before Windows even existed. Short of actual mainframes, Unix is about as "enterprise" as you can get in the IT industry. The only point at which it fell down, in comparison with the more hyped Windows OSes, is as a graphically "friendly" desktop system. Even this disparity is being nullified with the continued advancement of X-Window system GUI environments, though. In fact, MacOS X uses a GUI environment that is nearly identical to, and somewhat derived from, one of the most commonly used GUI environments available on Linux (the Gnome Desktop Environment). It would be difficult to convince anyone that knows what he's talking about that the Windows GUI is in any way significantly "better" than MacOS X.
In fact, MacOS X is now another Unix-based OS. You tell me: has Unix matured as an enterprise-level OS? Considering it was THE enterprise-level OS before Windows even existed, the question seems to answer itself.
Frankly, I'm a little surprised the question would even need to be asked, considering the desirability in the enterprise of having servers that don't need to be restarted regularly to refresh memory and flush out persistent errors. The only BSOD I've ever seen on a Linux system was a screen saver.
RedHat has focused its attentions on the Enterprise market almost exclusively in the last couple years specifically because, for them, that's where the money is. RedHat enterprise solutions are stable, robust, scalable, and easily maintained as Microsoft enterprise solutions can only dream of being.
The phrasing of this prompt for discussion is misleading: Unix has been a major enterprise-level player for decades -- since before Windows even existed. Short of actual mainframes, Unix is about as "enterprise" as you can get in the IT industry. The only point at which it fell down, in comparison with the more hyped Windows OSes, is as a graphically "friendly" desktop system. Even this disparity is being nullified with the continued advancement of X-Window system GUI environments, though. In fact, MacOS X uses a GUI environment that is nearly identical to, and somewhat derived from, one of the most commonly used GUI environments available on Linux (the Gnome Desktop Environment). It would be difficult to convince anyone that knows what he's talking about that the Windows GUI is in any way significantly "better" than MacOS X.
In fact, MacOS X is now another Unix-based OS. You tell me: has Unix matured as an enterprise-level OS? Considering it was THE enterprise-level OS before Windows even existed, the question seems to answer itself.
Frankly, I'm a little surprised the question would even need to be asked, considering the desirability in the enterprise of having servers that don't need to be restarted regularly to refresh memory and flush out persistent errors. The only BSOD I've ever seen on a Linux system was a screen saver.
Thanks for the post.
Actually I agree with your general points ? the question was intended to be explorative. I too believe open source OSs and associated applications are viable in the enterprise, but the real question is what is holding back their widespread adoption?
You obviously believe many of the Windows-based enterprise applications are inferior to their open source competitors, but that has not translated into market penetration.
Do you have any insights as to why? What are some open source alternatives for ERP, CRM, Sales force automation, and all the other enterprise apps?
Actually I agree with your general points ? the question was intended to be explorative. I too believe open source OSs and associated applications are viable in the enterprise, but the real question is what is holding back their widespread adoption?
You obviously believe many of the Windows-based enterprise applications are inferior to their open source competitors, but that has not translated into market penetration.
Do you have any insights as to why? What are some open source alternatives for ERP, CRM, Sales force automation, and all the other enterprise apps?
You have my apologies for not responding sooner. I forgot to subscribe to this discussion, and didn't notice your response.
Mostly what it boils down to is marketing and fear of change. Most corporate middle-management is used to a slower-moving world than the IT industry. In IT industry terms, Microsoft is a venerable leader, but in financial services industries its twenty-year rise to market dominance would be something of a flash in the pan.
The IT industry relies on other industries for its market. The pointy-haired bosses in those other industries are sold on the necessity of computers in the workplace, but they are very cautious about changes in general, and thus tend to be very slow on the uptake where adopting new technologies is concerned. Linux is two things to these people: 1) Unix's little brother, and 2) a buzzword. Knowing the power of the buzzword, Microsoft is using the ephemeral quality of buzz against Linux to portray it as being entirely smoke while continuing to produce its own buzz about Windows-platform systems. Unix, meanwhile, is seen as "outdated".
Finally, MS puts a lot of pressure on people with decision-making powers to buy Microsoft products and reject competing products. MS has a powerful marketing presence and a lot of financial leverage with which to work.
Of course, part of the problem lies in the fact that we, IT professionals, who are supposed to know the facts of the industry and give good advice, are often at least as susceptible to buzz as anyone else. As a result, it's difficult for your average pointy-haired boss to find someone to go to for advice on the matter that won't lead him astray.
As a result of all of this, the biggest reason that Microsoft has such a strong market presence and Linux sometimes isn't as well-recognized as it should be is simply that Microsoft has the money and cohesive market presence to throw around that it needs to perpetuate its own market saturation.
Ironically, Linux acts as sort of a flagship for a whole slew of other products that never get noticed by many managers, but should be. An example is the various BSD versions, which have their uses as well in low-cost servers. BSD doesn't get media mentions, however, the way that Linux does, even though it really should. Depending on your needs, BSD is every bit as valid an operating system for enterprise deployment of low-cost servers.
The American public is somewhat wed to the idea of having two choices in any matter of importance. Those who take note of Linux view it as the only real alternative to Windows. The same can be said of those who take note of MacOS. There are as well those who view MacOS and Linux as the only viable solutions to their computing needs, often grouping BSD in the same category as Linux (even though MacOS X has more in common with, for instance, OpenBSD, under the hood).
There are a great many misconceptions in the IT industry. They won't go away in a day. I'm sure I have a few of my own. Linux will continue to gain market presence, as long as Microsoft doesn't manage to effectively outlaw it by lobbying with Congress. Before it becomes a true equal contender for the end-user's desktop, though, we may see something else entirely on the rise that will supplant both Windows and Linux on the desktop -- maybe BeOS will see a resurgence. Frankly, BeOS would probably have been a better desktop OS than anything else on the market if it had been allowed to mature before it went the way of the Dodo, and if it gets picked up in force by the open source community it may still become a major player.
Only time will tell.
Mostly what it boils down to is marketing and fear of change. Most corporate middle-management is used to a slower-moving world than the IT industry. In IT industry terms, Microsoft is a venerable leader, but in financial services industries its twenty-year rise to market dominance would be something of a flash in the pan.
The IT industry relies on other industries for its market. The pointy-haired bosses in those other industries are sold on the necessity of computers in the workplace, but they are very cautious about changes in general, and thus tend to be very slow on the uptake where adopting new technologies is concerned. Linux is two things to these people: 1) Unix's little brother, and 2) a buzzword. Knowing the power of the buzzword, Microsoft is using the ephemeral quality of buzz against Linux to portray it as being entirely smoke while continuing to produce its own buzz about Windows-platform systems. Unix, meanwhile, is seen as "outdated".
Finally, MS puts a lot of pressure on people with decision-making powers to buy Microsoft products and reject competing products. MS has a powerful marketing presence and a lot of financial leverage with which to work.
Of course, part of the problem lies in the fact that we, IT professionals, who are supposed to know the facts of the industry and give good advice, are often at least as susceptible to buzz as anyone else. As a result, it's difficult for your average pointy-haired boss to find someone to go to for advice on the matter that won't lead him astray.
As a result of all of this, the biggest reason that Microsoft has such a strong market presence and Linux sometimes isn't as well-recognized as it should be is simply that Microsoft has the money and cohesive market presence to throw around that it needs to perpetuate its own market saturation.
Ironically, Linux acts as sort of a flagship for a whole slew of other products that never get noticed by many managers, but should be. An example is the various BSD versions, which have their uses as well in low-cost servers. BSD doesn't get media mentions, however, the way that Linux does, even though it really should. Depending on your needs, BSD is every bit as valid an operating system for enterprise deployment of low-cost servers.
The American public is somewhat wed to the idea of having two choices in any matter of importance. Those who take note of Linux view it as the only real alternative to Windows. The same can be said of those who take note of MacOS. There are as well those who view MacOS and Linux as the only viable solutions to their computing needs, often grouping BSD in the same category as Linux (even though MacOS X has more in common with, for instance, OpenBSD, under the hood).
There are a great many misconceptions in the IT industry. They won't go away in a day. I'm sure I have a few of my own. Linux will continue to gain market presence, as long as Microsoft doesn't manage to effectively outlaw it by lobbying with Congress. Before it becomes a true equal contender for the end-user's desktop, though, we may see something else entirely on the rise that will supplant both Windows and Linux on the desktop -- maybe BeOS will see a resurgence. Frankly, BeOS would probably have been a better desktop OS than anything else on the market if it had been allowed to mature before it went the way of the Dodo, and if it gets picked up in force by the open source community it may still become a major player.
Only time will tell.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
