OK, I've held back on saying this, but reading this post didn't surprise me one bit. I used to work for Datasouth and when I was there management didn't really seem to "get it" when it came to networking. It was Microsoft or nothing. When I started they had 2 Novell engineers, which got whittled down to one, and finally they dropped all Novell support after their final cross-grade. During my time there not one new Novell install went in. Needless to say, their attitude towards Linux doesn't surprise me, and rings kind of familiar.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >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] > ------------------------------------------------- Hamish McBrearty MCSE MCSA Network Engineer Rangi Ruru Girls' School 59 Hewitts Road Christchurch NEW ZEALAND Ph 03 355-6099 Fax 03 355-6027 CELL 021 999770 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------
