Why Linux will win and Micro$oft will lose

[Matt Alexander]

On Sat, 10 Nov 2001, Leonard, Robert B Mr EACH wrote:

> Here's a link re: the amazon/intel migration stories.
>
> Let's keep the FUD in redmond.
>
> http://www.wininformant.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=23086


Well...  I wouldn't exactly call the wininformant article "unbiased."
There is some subtle use of FUD in his article by mixing statements like,
"lack of robust office packages" with an article that should be only about
server OS migration.  What's this got to do with servers?  Who knows, but
some people might interpret it as, "*Linux* isn't ready so don't use it."
The purpose of FUD is to create Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt in the mind
of the customer so they instead stick with the "safe choice" and don't
choose a competitor's product.  By making Linux look like there's no real
office suite (apparently the only qualifying "real office suite" is MS
Office), he paints Linux as a whole as somehow unsuitable for business
use.  He also quotes the Intel rep saying that the overall cost of Windows
and Linux is almost identical, once you factor in support and maintenence.
Two problems here:  (1)  Are we just referring to a single Windows install
vs. a single Linux install?  Usually companies have multiple Windows
installations which means the cost of Windows is going to go up with the
number of installations because each additional server/workstation adds
the cost of an additional license.  (2)  "Almost identical" could be
interpreted as $100 difference or $100,000 difference, depending on the
person's perspective.  This perspective is most obvious when the OS cost
is factored in with the hardware cost, where it's usually seen as
insiginificant in comparison.

He also downplays Linux's importance because it *only* has 24% of the
server market (according to the IDC figures he quoted) and that Windows
has 38%.  To me, when I hear that Linux has 24%, I'm astounded.  Just a
couple years ago most people hadn't even heard of Linux and now it has
24%.  That's pretty impressive growth in a very short period of time,
although I will concede that this rapid growth will slow down because most
of that growth has been at the expense of proprietary *nix boxes.  If
you've got a business that has been running only Windows for the last 5
years and only has Windows admins, well, then that company probably isn't
going to be switching to Linux anytime soon.  These admins would have to
spend time outside of work teaching themselves Linux to a level where they
felt comfortable deploying it on the network.  I'm guessing that there's a
very small percentage of Windows admins that have the
time/energy/motivation to do this.  If Microsoft's licensing changes
really pissed them off then all they'd have to say is, "We won't upgrade
anymore."  Or, if they're a big enough company, I'm sure they could use
the threat of switching to Linux as a negotiating tool against Microsoft
for a better licensing arrangement, whether or not they actually would
switch.  So future server growth for Linux is probably going to slow
somewhat, but with a lot of college CS/EE students picking it up, it will
probably continue to chip away at Windows server installations as these
individuals enter the job market.  One of the common fears that managers
have about deploying Linux is that there's not a large enough pool of
qualified Linux administrators available.  So they decide to stick with
Windows because the belief is that there's always a Windows administrator
available.  This is true, for the most part, but I'm guessing that it will
change in the near future.

Also, if you read his comment in the user posting area, he basically wrote
this article to combat a lot of the excitement surrounding Linux and to
make it clear that Amazon didn't switch from Windows to Linux; they
switched from *nix to Linux.  But the end result is the same:  A large and
visible company has shown that Linux has what it takes to run their
business.  As far as I can tell, the majority of Amazon's cost savings
came from switching to cheaper x86 hardware, but this also means they
chose not to use Windows on that platform.  Most likely it was too costly
to rewrite their back-end code for Windows, but it's still a win for Linux
and a huge promotion for it's future success, in my book.
~M