Why is Linux not good for large business?

Why is Linux not good for large business?

Post by Russell Nelso » Sun, 31 May 1998 04:00:00




Quote:> I have read several articles written by unix professionals saying that
> Linux is not for large enterprises but works great for webservers etc.
> Why is this?

Cluelessness.

--

Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok |   Freedom is the primary
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice |   cause of Peace, Love,
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  | +1 315 268 9201 FAX   |   Truth and Justice.

 
 
 

Why is Linux not good for large business?

Post by Sanat Kumar » Sun, 31 May 1998 04:00:00



> I have read several articles written by unix professionals saying that
> Linux is not for large enterprises but works great for webservers etc.
> Why is this?

> Thanks,

> Steve

Only that there is no SAP, Baan, i2, PeopleSoft or other
enterprise-level software available.

Linux is the best alternative to Micros**t Windows NT in just about any
smaller business, though.

Sanat

 
 
 

Why is Linux not good for large business?

Post by Steven H Mell » Mon, 01 Jun 1998 04:00:00


I have read several articles written by unix professionals saying that
Linux is not for large enterprises but works great for webservers etc.
Why is this?

Thanks,

Steve

 
 
 

Why is Linux not good for large business?

Post by F. Woodbrid » Mon, 01 Jun 1998 04:00:00



 I have read several articles written by unix professionals saying that
 Linux is not for large enterprises but works great for webservers etc.
 Why is this?

Steve, I have no idea who these "unix professionals" are and in which
articles they wrote the *you're spewing here.  I suspect you're
trolling.  If you aren't, know this:

Linux has come a very long way since version 0.99pl? when it was
essentially a toy.  Considering that Unix took a heck of a long
time to come this far, Linux's rise has been nothing short of meteoric.
It is stable, infinitely useable in just about any application environ-
ment you can think of and (God bless Linus) it's free!  Just because
one doesn't have to pay for something doesn't mean it's sub-standard.'
This frame of mind has kept some companies I almost worked for from
utilising such a great tool prefering to throw their lots in with the
more expensive (and therefore "better") Unices which eventually didn't
work as well!  Until the so-called Unix professionals take off their
damned blinkers, they'll remain Unix professionals!

Cheers and don't you know not to believe anything a "professional" says? :)

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                                               |
Fred Woodbridge            ____________________|____________________

Le Baron Rouge                             `.#####.'
                                            /`#_#'\
                                          O'   O   `O
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 
 
 

Why is Linux not good for large business?

Post by digital_terroris » Tue, 02 Jun 1998 04:00:00


If I can interject an opioion here; I think this situation is temporary.
With the amazing amount of development work going on in the Linux
community, as well as the staggering number of new places in which linux is
making itself at home, I think it's only a matter of time before world
class-enterprize level software is commonly(?) available for linux...



> > I have read several articles written by unix professionals saying that
> > Linux is not for large enterprises but works great for webservers etc.
> > Why is this?

> > Thanks,

> > Steve

> Only that there is no SAP, Baan, i2, PeopleSoft or other
> enterprise-level software available.

> Linux is the best alternative to Micros**t Windows NT in just about any
> smaller business, though.

> Sanat

 
 
 

Why is Linux not good for large business?

Post by Frank Sweetse » Tue, 02 Jun 1998 04:00:00



> If I can interject an opioion here; I think this situation is temporary.
> With the amazing amount of development work going on in the Linux
> community, as well as the staggering number of new places in which linux is
> making itself at home, I think it's only a matter of time before world
> class-enterprize level software is commonly(?) available for linux...

i was just at the linux expo this weekend (absolutelly *rocked*), and
they're definatelly starting to eye enterprise level stuff.  software raid
has been around for awhile (it got a very nice review in a recent issue of
SysAdmin, too).  even cooler is the stuff planned for ext2 in kernel 2.3 -
btrees and extents to speed up directory access and huge file seek times,
the raw devices everyone has been wanting for their databases, and even
metadata journaling!  so, like you say, it's definatelly just a matter of
time... :^)

--
Frank Sweetser rasmusin at wpi.edu fsweetser at blee.net | PGP key available
paramount.res.wpi.net RedHat 5.0 kernel 2.1.104p1  i586  | at public servers
"How about marketing?"                          
"I *HAVE* a soul.  It's just a small one."    
   --Dogbert and Phil, Demon of Heck          

 
 
 

Why is Linux not good for large business?

Post by Steve Resnic » Tue, 02 Jun 1998 04:00:00


The biggest argument I have heard about Linux's feasibility in the
corporate world has been one of commercial support (which CAN be bought
for RedHat).

I used to run Solaris. We had a $10k/year support contract. The
machine's sole purpose in life was to be a netowrk server. When we had
networking problems, we called Sun Support who told us that "Networking
is not within their charter" (When the network is the computer the
computer has to be Sun?????!??!?!)

So much for commercial support, and I coulda bought a lot of copies of
RedHat for $10k!



>  I have read several articles written by unix professionals saying that
>  Linux is not for large enterprises but works great for webservers etc.
>  Why is this?

> Steve, I have no idea who these "unix professionals" are and in which
> articles they wrote the *you're spewing here.  I suspect you're
> trolling.  If you aren't, know this:

> Linux has come a very long way since version 0.99pl? when it was
> essentially a toy.  Considering that Unix took a heck of a long
> time to come this far, Linux's rise has been nothing short of meteoric.
> It is stable, infinitely useable in just about any application environ-
> ment you can think of and (God bless Linus) it's free!  Just because
> one doesn't have to pay for something doesn't mean it's sub-standard.'
> This frame of mind has kept some companies I almost worked for from
> utilising such a great tool prefering to throw their lots in with the
> more expensive (and therefore "better") Unices which eventually didn't
> work as well!  Until the so-called Unix professionals take off their
> damned blinkers, they'll remain Unix professionals!

> Cheers and don't you know not to believe anything a "professional" says? :)

> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>                                                |
> Fred Woodbridge            ____________________|____________________

> Le Baron Rouge                             `.#####.'
>                                             /`#_#'\
>                                           O'   O   `O
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--
/|\ Steve Resnick * 0x2b |~ 0x2b What was the question?
\|/ Please note the REMOVE-BEFORE-SENDING in my e-mail address above.
/|\ Make SPAM once again be the odd looking stuff in the blue can!
 
 
 

Why is Linux not good for large business?

Post by Jeffrey C. De » Wed, 03 Jun 1998 04:00:00



>Large Enterprises like support and upgrade contracts and stuff like that.
>They want someone to point a finger at when things doesn't work.
>So even if the support for the commercial products aren't any better
>they have some kind of garantee since it's on paper.

Actually, I don't think that's such a big deal.  Large enterprises expect
that they will have to hire competent administrators, they don't assume
that a $500/yr support contract will suffice.  The big issue is the
pool of competent administrators, and Linux's is fairly small, compared
to Solaris, HPUX, or Netware.

Quote:>Linux scales really well up to a certain point, and the simplicity of it
>makes it a better high-availability solution than the big guys.
>For instance, you can't compare Linux with NT.

Sure you can.  And it compares very well in most areas.  But if your
system is such that downtime costs you $3000/minute, neither is an
appropriate choice.

Quote:>But if you are in need of real high-end no Unix will do.

Actually, the high-end Unices are getting much better.  Sun and HP have
365x24x7 solutions that look different from MVS, but they work nearly as
well (and cost nearly as much.)

--
When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.  

 
 
 

Why is Linux not good for large business?

Post by Paul Colquho » Thu, 04 Jun 1998 04:00:00



|
|> If I can interject an opioion here; I think this situation is temporary.
|> With the amazing amount of development work going on in the Linux
|> community, as well as the staggering number of new places in which linux is
|> making itself at home, I think it's only a matter of time before world
|> class-enterprize level software is commonly(?) available for linux...
|
|i was just at the linux expo this weekend (absolutelly *rocked*), and
|they're definatelly starting to eye enterprise level stuff.  software raid
|has been around for awhile (it got a very nice review in a recent issue of
|SysAdmin, too).  even cooler is the stuff planned for ext2 in kernel 2.3 -
|btrees and extents to speed up directory access and huge file seek times,
|the raw devices everyone has been wanting for their databases, and even
|metadata journaling!  so, like you say, it's definatelly just a matter of
|time... :^)

And, hopefully, they will reduce the number of superblock copies stored on
the disk.

Has anybody ever needed more than 1 or 2 copies of this info, let alone the
several hundred copies ext2 seems to put on big (10+ Gig) filesystems?

How much disk space have these unneeded superblock copies taken up, worldwide?

--
Paul Colquhoun                          Ph:  +61 2 9850-0800
Systems Administrator                  fax:  +61 2 9850-0817

65 Waterloo Rd
North Ryde, NSW 2113            Unless otherwise stated, this message
Australia                       does NOT reflect official TPGi policy

 
 
 

Why is Linux not good for large business?

Post by Steven M. Coh » Thu, 04 Jun 1998 04:00:00


We're making inroads.

I think that Citicorp qualifies as a large enterprise ;-)  I have
persuaded my management to allow me to deploy a paging system for netowrk
management (Tcl/Tk stuff) on a RedHat 5.0 box.  (Big project, small
budget)

I look forward to becoming the Linux evangelist within Citicorp.
Hopefully, I'll look like a hero when this thing turns out to be more
stable than the other Unices we run around here.

Just thought you'd all want to know.

--Steve

Disclaimer:  The above opinions are mine alone, and not those of my
employer (and definitely not those of my wife).


> I have read several articles written by unix professionals saying that
> Linux is not for large enterprises but works great for webservers etc.
> Why is this?

> Thanks,

> Steve

 
 
 

Why is Linux not good for large business?

Post by Kevin Mart » Thu, 04 Jun 1998 04:00:00




>I think that Citicorp qualifies as a large enterprise ;-)

Large, decentralized, and very confused (I was in Head Office Accounting
- Corporate Financial Control for eleven years).  :-)  We experimented a bit
with the 0.9 kernel but the networking wasn't there for us back in '92.
Should be a real butt-kicker by now.

Quote:>I look forward to becoming the Linux evangelist within Citicorp.

You know what pioneers get...?  (Turns and points over his shoulder)
Arrows in their backs.  But I wish you luck anyway.

BTW, I have no idea why the original poster (not you, Steve) started this up
in the networking group, so I'm scooting it gently over to the advocacy
group where it belongs.

 
 
 

Why is Linux not good for large business?

Post by Bill Stege » Thu, 04 Jun 1998 04:00:00


On Wed, 03 Jun 1998 11:02:32 -0400, Steven M. Cohn


>We're making inroads.

>I think that Citicorp qualifies as a large enterprise ;-)  I have
>persuaded my management to allow me to deploy a paging system for netowrk
>management (Tcl/Tk stuff) on a RedHat 5.0 box.  (Big project, small
>budget)

>I look forward to becoming the Linux evangelist within Citicorp.
>Hopefully, I'll look like a hero when this thing turns out to be more
>stable than the other Unices we run around here.

>Just thought you'd all want to know.

>--Steve

Good luck Steve! Give it all you got and make us all proud :)

--

PGP-key available at a public key server near you      Powered by Linux 2.0

 
 
 

Why is Linux not good for large business?

Post by Mark Eva » Fri, 05 Jun 1998 04:00:00



: >
: > I have read several articles written by unix professionals saying that
: > Linux is not for large enterprises but works great for webservers etc.
: > Why is this?
: >
:
: Linux is the best alternative to Micros**t Windows NT in just about any
: smaller business, though.

Maybe that is why MS are trying to produce Windows specific NC's...

--
Mark Evans
St. Peter's CofE High School
Phone: +44 1392 204764 X109
Fax: +44 1392 204763

 
 
 

Why is Linux not good for large business?

Post by Jim HIck » Fri, 05 Jun 1998 04:00:00


Some people would rather spend $1,000 per copy of an operating
system than do the whole company for $30.


: I have read several articles written by unix professionals saying that
: Linux is not for large enterprises but works great for webservers etc.
: Why is this?

: Thanks,

: Steve

--
-jim hickle

 
 
 

1. Why is Linux not good for large business?


Large, decentralized, and very confused (I was in Head Office Accounting
- Corporate Financial Control for eleven years).  :-)  We experimented a bit
with the 0.9 kernel but the networking wasn't there for us back in '92.
Should be a real butt-kicker by now.

You know what pioneers get...?  (Turns and points over his shoulder)
Arrows in their backs.  But I wish you luck anyway.

BTW, I have no idea why the original poster (not you, Steve) started this up
in the networking group, so I'm scooting it gently over to the advocacy
group where it belongs.

2. backup more than 2GB

3. Why LINUX is so very good for business!

4. Internet connection tester?

5. I am nervous about switching to Linux for business.

6. ANNOUNCE: xldlas v0.60 (Stats) is now available

7. what's a good book about linux for small business?

8. vi editor FAQ (Frequently Asked Question List), Part 2/2

9. Any good software for small business on Linux

10. Why am I not 'Logged in' ?

11. Why am I not getting the right port number?

12. Why am I not logged in wtmp?

13. Q: Why am I not authorized to use efnet irc servers