[fewt]

Originally Posted by ericinboston

Well, as a technologist but not a Linux guru here are my thoughts about Linux both in the workplace and the home...and my thoughts reflect/include my peer's views too (some of which are CIOs at large companies as well as IT directors):

1)The big problem with Linux is there is no support...well, I should say there is no support like coming from a single vendor like Sun or Microsoft or IBM (for IBM's mainframes)...Linux vendors over the past few years have begun to offer pay-for-support for their enterprise class versions, but the problem is that it's still wishy-washy...since nobody owns Linux and everyone owns Linux, the phone-support people you talk to STILL need to post the problem to linux boards/forums to get the answer...unless the problem (rarely) is specific to their particular distro. Companies don't like this...they want to know that if they have chosen Linux to be their app server or other type of "server" for mission critical or even somewhat critical applications, that they can have problems resolved in hours...not days or weeks.

See, this is why a non Linux person shouldn't talk about Linux without researching.

There are TONS of Linux support options.

Canonical
RedHat
System76
Dell
Novell
Oracle

Not to mention hundreds of small companies that will sell you a contract to support Linux. Just google linux support contract purchase for an example.

Uhh Sun supports Linux. IBM also sells Linux contracts. You only need to post on forums if you choose to. There are more forums for Windows support than there are for Linux support, the argument cancels it out when you compare apples and apples.

Phone support people post on forums? Where? examples please.

You state companies don't like this. My career consists of mostly fortune 50 companies, I haven't seen this. I have been using deploying and supporting Linux in large enterprise environments for over 14 years.

Companies hire people that know Linux and can resolve problems without support. The support argument expired years ago. I have rarely found anyone's support to be anywhere near the level of internal staff capability.

Unless you are changing hardware or need to submit a memory dump of your oracle instance, support is practically useless.

Originally Posted by ericinboston

2)It's great that it is free and there are plenty of options...but you feel a bit on your own because everyone offers Linux.

Not sure what this means.

Originally Posted by ericinboston

4)Generally speaking...very generally...Linux is just as good if not better than Windows for enterprise stuff like acting as a mail server or app server or j2ee container or what not. It typically has a smaller footprint than Windows and generally does not need to be rebooted as much when patches are applied.

It is much better at scaling, running on obscure hardware like your F5 or your Checkpoint firewall, and tons of other places you wouldn't even think about running Windows. All enterprise grades.

I'm a SME for Windows and Linux professionally, so I can compare them fairly. Windows is great for lots of things.

Originally Posted by ericinboston

5)Most people have thought (still think) that Linux is just Unix's little brother...but there seem to be quite some major differences (don't ask me for the details)...so there is a bit of miscommunication out there.

Linux has been eating Unix lunch for years. 5 or 6 years ago, yes. Today not so much.

[QUOTE=ericinboston;1453]
1)I think Linux was on a good roll to beating Apple at home marketshare and shot their own foot...it's like Linux got 92% of being "user friendly" and then all

Originally Posted by ericinboston

Well, as a technologist but not a Linux guru here are my thoughts about Linux both in the workplace and the home...and my thoughts reflect/include my peer's views too (some of which are CIOs at large companies as well as IT directors):

Define user friendly. User friendly to me is getting out of my way, yet providing me with tools for me to get my job done quickly and efficiently. Email is not my first priority. User friendly is different for each user, it can't be rated as "92%" just like Windows can't. If I had to rate Windows for user friendly I would have to rate it lower than 92% because it gets in my way and slows my efficiency. That's not a knock against Windows, its just how I use computers.

Originally Posted by ericinboston

Overall I think Ubuntu and other similar Linux distros have a great opportunity to capture more marketshare than Apple. I don't think Linux will ever replace Windows simply based on the fact that nobody owns Linux and there are 900 flavors of it. People want consitency...they want to know someone is there to help them if their $800 purchase doesn't work.

Did you see the article today about the new Nokia Linux cell phone? Linux is in so many places Windows can't be that it is inevitable.

Originally Posted by ericinboston

Linux has to step back and look at this from a private company's point of view:

Software has to take a step back?

Originally Posted by ericinboston

1)How do we price this attractively?
2)How do we CONVINCE people to nuke Windows and install Linux? (This has a lot of sub-questions and answers)
3)How many other competing Linux vendors are there? Will they purposely or accidentally cause confusion or dilute the Linux brand recognition or scare people away from trying Linux?

1. Anyone in technology knows price is the smallest component when talking TCO.
2. Who cares about convincing people? They will find their own ways there. It's already purvasive enough to be in most peoples homes and they don't know it. Just look at your WIFI router.
3. Competition is good, creating a Linux "monopoly" is bad.

Originally Posted by ericinboston

Currently I think Microsoft is more worried about Apple getting 10% of personal computing OS marketshare than Linux...but if Linux played its cards a bit better, it would easily have more marketshare than Apple...maybe as much as 30% by 2012.

Actually Microsoft just told the SEC that they were scared of Linux.