Quote:
Originally Posted by fewt
I'm not the one getting heated over nothing. 
Your CIO and 400,000 employees could be made up for all I know.
Love the assumptions, but everything I posted is based in fact, you can google all of it or none of it. What you choose to do with it is up to you. Your original post was filled with misinformation, sorry if you didn't know that. |
We can agree to disagree.
If you want to reply stating what was misinformation, be my guest. But be warned--this is not a topic about bits and bytes...this topic was talked about from a high level...about why Linux is not successful in the consumer market and fairly successful in the workplace. A lot of your points, although true, were at the "tree" level when I'm talking at the "forest" level...bring it up a notch...I'm talking about business problems and solutions...not that Linux may run faster than Windows.
Just like buying any other major purchase (car, house, pool, whatever) you are going to weigh a lot of factors. Businesses who already have literally millions of dollars invested in IT infrastructure are not going to switch to a different model simply based on 1 particular fact (or fiction) that the new model is 25% faster. The business needs to be sure the new model is supportable from a lot of points of view...the new model needs to be flexible...compatible with other systems....supported by software and services...and other factors.
You and I know, as techies, that Linux beats Windows hands down on a few things...but obviously there is some reason that Linux, after 10 years of hard pushing, is still not a major player in corporate in critical core infrastructure. Sure, yes, it may be INSTALLED somewhere in a fair share of corporations...but that doesn't mean the installation is CORE or CRITICAL functionality.
Example for Linux: I sold a $500k+ enterprise software solution (that's what I do) to a very large and popular University in New England. They wished to install it all on Linux...which we supported and approved. In a few different conversations, I asked why they used Linux so much and their answer was "it's practically free"....(cost is always the top of the list for higher ed and gov't...they'll go to an Atari system if it saves them 11cents)...and about 5 seconds later they said "but supporting it is a REAL challenge"...the University had super smart people and plenty of Linux knowledge...but when they were stumped or found a bug or unsupported problem, they told me it was hard to get "support" and it was not timely. That's my example. I'm sure there are examples that Linux is perfect and it's all roses and cherries...but these are my experiences as a techie and business liason who sells enterprise solutions to corporations (and higher ed and government). And my pal that is the CIO of that very large company is no dummy either...they gave Linux a shot (think it was RH) at a few major projects/replacements of Unix and/or Windows and it technically worked...but when they needed "support" it was much poorer than Sun or MS. That's all I can tell you...and from a biz point of view (not Mr. Java Developer), the business said "that's it...we can't OPERATE like this...pull the plug and put back the other OSes". Again, I can't stress enough that there is a "bigger picture" when a corporation who has SLAs (Service Level Agreements) and costs stick their nose out to try a new product/service.
Again, not knocking Linux...I think it still has growth potential for true embracement...but the Linux teams/vendors/communities need to figure out a better way to get it embraced. Don't ask me how...ask them.
-Eric
Linear Mode
