On 26 May 2001, Kenneth E. Lussier wrote:
> However, when several businesses start to spring up to support the same
> OS, I can see where it would lead to the impression of the OS being to
> difficult to use.
Perception is a difficult thing to manage. There are a large number of
people who perceive Linux as worthless simply because it has no license fees
associated with it. No charge == no worth. They honestly believe that the
more expensive the product is, the better it is.
I am not worried about people like this. They will either come around, or
they will believe themselves right out of existence. The freedom to choose
the company or companies one uses for IT support is a huge advantage of Open
Source/Free Software. No one complains that there are too many automobile
repair shops around; competition is considered a good thing there. Why should
software be any different?
> If a corporation wants to use Linux, then they will most likely go with a
> corporate-backed distro like RedHat. In a case like that, why deal with a
> 3rd party when you can get the support from RH itself?
For the simple reason that the third party meets your needs better than Red
Hat.
Note that I'm not saying that Red Hat's support is good *or* bad; I have too
little experience with it to say. All I am saying is that Red Hat may not be
(and almost certainly is not) the best solution for all people.
> They offer a full range of support services, and the perception is that
> who would know the distro better than the people that created it?
For the same reason that many people bring their car back to the dealership
when it needs maintenance, doubtless many Red Hat Linux users will go to Red Hat
Software for support. However, they are not obligated to do so. They can go
to LinuxCare, or IBM, or Mission Critical Linux, or Net Technologies, or even
Microsoft, should they start offering Linux support services.
It is interesting to note the false conceptions that surround the usual
object of comparison here: Microsoft. The first is that one gets the best
support for Microsoft's products from Microsoft. Anyone who has ever called
their tech support people will know this is an outright lie. The second is
that you can call Microsoft for support in the first place. In most cases,
when you buy a PC, Microsoft will not support the Microsoft software that came
with it. You must call the system OEM for support.
Linux gives you freedom. Microsoft takes it away.
> Support companies that deal with the entire range of technology are more
> suited for this rather than a Linux-scentric support company.
I agree completely, and this is one of the things the company I work for
puts forward. We specialize in Linux, but we also support Microsoft, Novell,
and other platforms. You have an IT problem, you call us. We will solve it
for you. The market for customer-focused system integration remains a
lucrative one.
However, there will always be a market for specialists as well. Certain
things (e.g., development of clustering technology) can only be done on a
larger scale, and the economies of scale you get at that point are not to be
dismissed. A large organization can afford to hire specialists for the
technologies and products they use in large numbers. Look at all the
consultants specializing in this or that platform.
Again, choice is a key factor.
> If you need someone to support, hire a few sysadmins that can do more than
> "just Linux", since most environments have several different platforms.
What about the majority of companies, which are too small to hire even one
full-time IT system administrator?
> If someone wants to outsource their support, I believe that they would
> want to contract a single company that will cover everything rather than 5
> companies that only cover one thing each.
Indeed, but it is entirely possible that one company will subcontract for
the specializations they need. Consider: You are building an office building.
So your hire a company to manage that for you. They hire a planning firm, an
architect, and a general contractor. The GC hires an electrician to do the
inside wiring. The electrician out-sources his data comm wiring to another
company. And *they* hire still *another* company *just* to terminate the
fiber optic cables they run. This scenario is real. Why should business
change just because the business deals with IT?
--
Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not |
| necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or |
| organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. |
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
