If you want applications from different suppliers to interoperate,
Linux is the way to go, writes Julia Vowler.
Fear of Microsoft's effective monopoly is fertilising the open
source movement - but is corporate IT ready for Linux?
Views are mixed, but those who have already tried it, or are
inclined to, agree that caution is necessary.
The Infrastucture Forum (Tif) advises its members to consider the
future direction of their organisation's infrastructure - which
products to use, and how much involvement they want in the
development process - before adopting open source.
Tif identifies the benefits of open source as better quality,
security and flexibility. "Open source is seen as faster to
innovate and at no cost." There is also far less of the us-and-them
tensions between supplier and user communities because of the
self-help culture of open source, says Tif.
"The producers of the product are the consumers and that alone
drives the development time. The open source community offers
unparalleled support in comparison with the commercial
environment," says Tif.
Getting senior management buy-in for adopting Linux, designing and
moving to an open infrastructure, having to mix-and-match products
from several suppliers instead of a highly integrated product from
a single supplier will all present particular challenges.
So where should Linux best be deployed? "A replacement for
Microsoft Office in the Linux environment has become a mandatory
prerequisite for any rational decision to adopt Linux as the client
PC operating system," says David Rippon, chairman of IT directors'
group, Elite.
"Star Office currently does not provide the seamless interchange of
documents, spreadsheets and presentations of Microsoft Office, and
this is the single biggest factor preventing large scale adoption
of Linux in the commercial environment."
"Everyone would love to have a real alternative to Windows Office;
unfortunately Linux isn't there yet."
As ever, the key factor affecting take-up is applications. "The
cost of retesting and any conversion will be significant. Where
application software has been installed on client PCs this could be
the single biggest cost incurred in converting to Linux," warns
Rippon.
At the server level things are easier, says Rippon.
"Server PCs will only process one application, so the compatibility
between Linux and that single application will be cheaper to manage
- specific server applications could be successfully located on a
Linux server," he says, especially Web hosting, where Linux has
been chosen where there is no Microsoft legacy.
Even so, noted Tif members at a recent workshop on open source
computing, corporate users will have to cope with fewer
enterprise-class management tools; more doubt about utilities; many
diverse flavours of Linux; and the fact that Linux is optimised for
multiple processes rather than multiple threads, so scaling has
been an issue. On the plus side this last issue is being addressed
in the next release, 2.6, and kernel quality, say Tif members, is
high. They also see Linux as inherently more secure, and getting
patches is faster than in the proprietary world.
Lack of Linux skills is a problem, and retraining costs have to be
factored in, as do the cost of support and professional services
associated with real-world implementation. Linux is "not as free as
one is led to believe", says Rippon.
What the IT directors say:
- "We have been using Linux in Web services for two years. The
decision was made by a tecchie who did not ask, he just did it. The
board would not have been interested. Linux - it works well and is
less vulnerable to viruses. We are now looking to use it for file
and print services, but we will never be a 'Linux shop' - it is
just part of the jigsaw rather than the answer to everything. We
already use a lot of Unix - we would not have used Linux
otherwise."
- "We don't use Linux. We might when it has become more
productised and does not need advanced, in-house skills. We have
got one tecchie looking at it because he hates Microsoft (he is a
Netware man), but he feels Linux is still too tecchie so we should
not adopt it yet."
- "We use Linux for some server-based applications, but Microsoft
for end users."
- "We use Linux for our Web server, but we want to get it to
Microsoft as soon as possible. Linux will always be for specific
areas. Take-up will bubble up to, say, 10% (of overall IT), but it
will never be major - it is too wacky, too 'beards and sandals'. We
do not want to head into a technical backwater with Linux - we want
to concentrate on business advantage from IT."
Linux for the millionnaire set
Jet-set car-maker
Ferrari has been using Linux in the UK for five years, and has just
extended its use by replacing a Novel network with five IBM eServer
xSeries systems with two local area network (Lan) servers, a proxy
server, a Web server and firewall from Linux supplier, Trustix.
The aim was to avoid the Novel upgrade cost but not lose
functionality, says Chris Rooke, IS manager at Ferrari UK. "We have
been using Linux at Ferrari UK for the past five years on the
recommendation of a contractor. We have suffered no major
problems," says Rooke.
Asked about the benefits of using Linux he said, "The pros are that
it is a stable and cost-effective alternative to other leading
solutions. The cons are that there is lack of [Linux] experience
throughout the industry.
"Our utilisation of Linux is for specific functions and
applications. These tend to be more cost-effective and stable than
alternative solutions on different operating systems. This still
requires a degree of technical expertise and experience. The risk
is that this skill is not as readily available to the industry
leaders.
Rooke sees the major barrier to adopting Linux as the lack of
inherent Linux knowledge in his current IT team. Nevertheless he
plans to adopt it for some critical operations. "Trustix Linux
solutions and IBM eServer xSeries systems are to be used for file
and print sharing and firewall control," he says. "We will also use
Linux to create a low-cost disaster recovery environment. This can
be run/updated at the same time as the production systems without
extra licence costs.
Persuading business managers to go for Linux was not an issue. It
was purely an IT decision, he says. But, he agrees, "Linux skills
do not come as standard. Therefore an element of additional
training for the IT team is required."
There were no significant implementation issues, according to
Rooke. "Linux runs on our existing hardware without issues, does
not require expensive licences and is easier to install than other
operating systems" he says.
The lesson Ferrari has learned is not to dismiss the benefits that
Linux has to offer. "We are fortunate in that we already have a
Linux resource within the team which is able to educate and
demonstrate the benefits and ease of implementation." he says.
Other organisations considering introducing Linux should be
prepared to keep an open mind, says Rooke. "Talk to somebody who
understands the benefits and can demonstrate the ease of use, and
the potential cost savings." The key benefits Ferarri has
identified come from cost avoidance, says Rooke, and from the
ability to deploy increased numbers of users in areas that would
have required further licences.