Comments on: Migrating the Enterprise from Windows to Linux

By: Jason Webb

Jason Webb — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 07:38:08 +0000

That is a great suggestion. I will do my best to highlight some of the the key challenges that one will face early on in this journey. Thanks and Regards/- Jason Webb

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 04:03:58 +0000

Roman, I’m not sure if “random” means what you think it means. Perhaps you meant “arbitrary.”

One possible answer: They don’t like the taste of Kool Aid.

By: James

James — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 03:43:39 +0000

@Roman:

Did you read the article? This was discussed early in the first section.

“Most importantly, understand why you are moving to Linux. For many organizations, cost is the #1 driver. It’s expensive to run a Windows environment, moreso if you also run Microsoft applications on the back-office (think MS Exchange and MS SQL Server.) Why are you making the move? If you don’t have a good answer to this, you’re going to have an uphill struggle the rest of the way.”

By: Roman

Roman — Sun, 27 Jun 2010 00:10:35 +0000

The basic question is still unanswered:

WHY SHOULD A RANDOM ENTERPRISE MOVE TO LINUX AT ALL?

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 21:59:32 +0000

You are correct.

But the corporate culture has to change. People at meetings where these things are discussed, when someone says “It’s better to have one system on every machine” need to do something other than what they do now. First, the person saying it needs to say it differently. They need to say “it’s lower cost in some ways to have the same exact system on every machine, but there are costs as well. You maybe giving up important funcitonality”

And the other people at the table have to say “why? What are we losing by doing that”

I’ve sat on two different IT committees for major enterprises, and I’ve never seen those questions asked. The idea that one system deployed across all machines is pure fetish at this point.

By: Lyle

Lyle — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 21:51:27 +0000

To stick up for the IT director, she is constantly under pressure to reduce costs reduce costs reduce costs. So uniformity does reduce costs if nothing else by minimizing the training required. To go the other way the business types must be educated in the value add that diversity provides, and then indicate that they are willing to pay for it. Once you understand that business types regard computing as a necessary evil so they want it to cost the least possible.
Diversity being harder implies more overall costs.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 19:33:05 +0000

Simon, I think we basically agree but for one point: The idea that exceptions must be controlled. That, in my view, is a myth perpetuated by lazy IT directors. Diversity is better. Diversity is harder.

(Within reason)

By: SimonG

SimonG — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 19:28:50 +0000

Many years ago, when I was still an MVS SysProg instead of an out-of-work UNIX SysAd, I remember seeing the early IBM thin-client products. Even then, it seemed that using a Web Browser as the main application interface was an excellent idea. It frees one up from worrying about the actual client platform. For an external client it’s not appropriate to dictate to them what platform they should use, (although all too many companies and even public bodies don’t recognise this). But even for an internal client, it’s good to have flexibility.
There are excellent reasons for restricting the number of platforms in use: trying to support umpteen different operating systems, different types of hardware, different versions is a real pain. But being too rigid about it can be a bad idea. Maybe the graphic designeres would really benefit from using Apple. Maybe somebody else really needs an application which really is MS only. Maybe your sales people would benfit from using a mobile device.
Exceptions need to be controlled, but if you make the browser the interface to your key applications – email, time and attendence, whatever – you can have that flexibility.