LOL wait till they get to the next round of compulsory upgrades! On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:11:44 +1300 Jason Greenwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all, > > I had an interesting discussion with several people yesterday regarding > this article: > http://computerworld.co.nz/webhome.nsf/NL/D15D1179C0CAFE78CC256CE10008DC54 > > It quoted David Lane and so I emailed him to get his thoughts while > simultaneously submitting the story to LT. I also rang the company in > the article to do some Linux advocacy. I also forwarded David's rebuttal > to the company as well just so they had both sides of the story. As it > happens, I also forwarded the rebuttal to Brian Profitt (Managing Editor > of LT) and he is going to post it too, once he gets David's permission > (which was forwarded to him this AM). Thought it might be of interest to > you all. > > Here is David Lanes rebuttal: > > The Datasouth URL is at > http://www.datasouth.co.nz/case_studies/pacific_wide.htm > > My critique is below. > > Cheers, > > Dave > > Hi Andrea - just looked at their site. The case study related to > Pacific Wide makes a lot of vague statements. which range from being > unsupported assertions to outright falsehoods. For example, Linux can > (and does) do just about all of the things they state it doesn't do, > including the ability to provide "remote network access." > > I'd say that they might have run into a poor supplier of Linux services, > but even then, I'm not convinced that the case study wasn't simply > politically motivated - i.e. the former "Linux champion" at Pacific > Wide, or whoever got Linux in there to begin with, might have moved on, > and the next person wanted to "make their mark" by undoing what had been > there before regardless of whether or not a change was warranted. > > It's also unclear how recent a version of Linux was being used. If it > was, say, 5 years old, then yes, it wouldn't have all of the > capabilities required, but then again, neither would any Microsoft > product of that vintage. If it was a relatively recent Linux system, > then this quote by Anthony Washington is uninformed and/or patently false: > "The Linux system also didn't provide us with remote network access or > Web site hosting, which became increasingly important as we expanded..." > > I have built a business around Web Site Hosting on Linux - if anything, > that task is the reason companies switch to Linux! Linux is the most > widely used web serving platform on the Internet (see > www.netcraft.com). 60% of websites are powered by the open source > Apache web server, and the majority of those installations are on Linux. > > As for remote network access, it's quite trivial to set up - I have set > it up for clients personally, and use remote access (on various levels - > from command line to full desktop access) daily for all manner of system > administration, document management, and software development tasks. > The remote access tools available for Linux equal or surpass those for > Microsoft in nearly every context. They are also available for free or > a much lower cost than Terminal Server - e.g. commercial products like > Netraverse's Win4Lin Terminal Server allow a Linux server to provide > Windows sessions to remote users just like Terminal Server, at a much > lower cost (see www.netraverse.com/products/) > > I also find it hard to believe that their Linux system was an "unstable > and unreliable platform." You might ask them > a) when was their original Linux platform installed? > b) what version was installed? > c) what services did it provide? > d) what was the hardware specification of that platform? > e) did they ever upgrade the Linux version after it initially installed? > f) does the new Microsoft system run on the same exact hardware as the > Linux system? > g) who was their Linux supplier? > > If they are running the MS system on new hardware > h) did they get any proposals for functionally equivalent systems built > on a current version of Linux? > i) do they know what sort of hardware requirements a Linux system > providing equivalent functionality would have? > > Also, what does "strategic advice" or insight on "technology mapped to > their business" mean? I suspect that they are utterly subjective. They > simply give Datasouth an opportunity to say things like "we think you > should go with Microsoft because that's the only vendor we deal with. > We've bet our company on Microsoft retaining its monopoly hold on NZ > businesses, and as such we believe it is a platform that will be around > for a long time, and is therefore worth of your investment." A Linux > vendor such as Egressive might say something like this: "We believe > that you'll get good value from a Linux-based server solution because it > allows you to leverage your existing investment in Microsoft desktop > systems and software, while providing you with huge increases in > capability, lower server hardware requirements, and a much better > security record. What's more, you no longer have to worry about server > software licenses, you can use as many desktop clients as you like with > no additional cost, and because Linux is an open platform, you're not > locked into any one vendor or software package. If you don't think we're > providing you with a good value for your IT dollar, you can go to any > one of the hundred or so other Linux vendors active in NZ, including > many small and medium sized local vendors or larger ones, for example, > Gen-i, Computer Concepts, HP, and IBM." > > The statement by Aarron Spinley that "Microsoft is the industry > standard" is also very much an assertion without proof. For better or > worse, Microsoft is the defacto *desktop* standard, yes. But it is by > no means the standard server platform. Issues of unreliability > (especially related to webserving), virus vulnerability and security > holes (see this recommendation from the Gartner Group: > http://www3.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?doc_cd=101034), high maintenance > requirements, and significant expense (especially in the face of MS's > new licensing regime) make it very unattractive compared to Linux. > Many businesses and organisations have shifted to Linux as a server > platform, and many others still use Unix and Novell-based networks. > > A number of Microsoft partners, including Datasouth, install Microsoft > servers because they don't have Linux expertise (and Microsoft licenses > and the intensive support requirements of their products afford them the > highest margins). That lack of expertise, however, is their limitation, > not a problem with Linux. > > The most telling comment is this on from Anthony Washington: > "Having a standardised Microsoft platform has lowered our Total Cost of > Ownership (TCO) and helped us become smarter about our licensing and > asset management. Furthermore, because we will now upgrade our IT > systems every three years, we expect a quicker Return on Investment." > > I can't imagine how he can make a statement like that. How can he > compare the cost of an equivalent Linux system in terms of TCO if he > hasn't got one? What aspects did he take into account to determine TCO > - it's a lot like a "how long is a piece of string" type problem. I > have clients who would say that their Linux systems cost them less than > half, in total, than what they were paying for the Microsoft-based > systems that our Linux systems replaced... and enjoy much higher > flexibility and reliability, and reduced administration costs, in the > bargain. Oh, and one of their favourite things it the fact that they > can upgrade... when they need to, and not when Microsoft starts shifting > the playing field by > a) making it impossible to purchase new versions of the software they're > still using quite happily (i.e. Windows 98 and Office 97 in some cases), > thereby forcing a mix of new and old software into the company which > inevitably causes compatibility issues between new Microsoft software > and their own older stuff... Strong arm tactics? You bet. > b) forcing clients to register for new ways of extracting revenues like > "Software Assurance"... which provides those clients with... nothing. > > As for becoming smarter about licensing and asset management, that's a > red herring - how hard is it to manage something with a license that > doesn't place any limitations on you at all?! Unless it's used with > proprietary software, having a Linux server does away with any server > and network software per-client license management requirements full > stop. Do businesses like Pacific Wide ever consider how much easier > (and therefore less costly) their lives would be if they didn't have to > manage licenses? I suspect they don't, nor, I suspect, does their TCO > statement... I wonder what else they forgot to take into account? > > There you have it, Andrea - there're probably a dozen other holes in the > article, but I think I've covered the high points, and I haven't got > time to say more. You must really enjoy the fact that I rise so quickly > to these challenges you send me :o) (I thought my Effusion Group > colleagues might also enjoy reading the "case study"... ) > > Regards, > > Dave > > ====================== > > Regards, > > Jason Greenwood -- Nick Rout Barrister & Solicitor Christchurch, NZ Ph +64 3 3798966 Fax + 64 3 3798853 http://www.rout.co.nz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
