Linux fails in small business market

[Frank]

Most small businesses do not have a guru on full time staff.  I think many small businesses are wary at being so closely tied with an outside consultant.

Many of my customers like to try to fix things themselves.  Usually, that just makes more work for me to do.  I currently have only one regular customer where I installed Linux myelf to run as an Windows NT4-style file and print server using Samba.  It works pretty well and is fairly invisible to the customer.  Actually it's quite invisible because it is headless.

585725873[/snapback]

It depends on the size of the "small business". We have 32 employees and have 3 people in IT. We are currently a all windows shop but we are looking at a Linux server to replace our Nexland router, Sonicwall Firewall, Wewbsense and Internal Web Server.

Now to the very small business I agree, Linux is a scary thing to them and I can't blame them.

Linux can't compete w/windows as long as they're 1,000's of distro's.

585728277[/snapback]

This is exactly how I feel.

[ichi]

Of the respondents only 27 per cent runs Linux inside their organisation. Of the group that doesn't have Linux today, 48 percent said they weren't interested in the open source operating system, and only 10 percent said they planned to look at it over the next three years.

OK: 27% using Linux + 52% out of the 73% not using Linux that are either interested or actually planning to look at it. That makes a 64,96% using or interested on Linux, versus a 35,04% not using it and/or not interested.

How are those numbers that bad? :huh:

[Winston]

I can see why it would lose in the small business sector, small businesses, don't have that kind of money to hire someone with expertise in linux/unix to manage their systems, they want easy to deploy system solutions for their businesses.

[markwolfe Veteran]

Oh!  Now it's completely obvious how the two are so dissimilar...

585728538[/snapback]

And some people think sarcasm can't be heard through text. :p

As an example, a Linux user can fire up Synaptic, and browse through a "shopping mall" of software, select what he/she wants and install them all (and.or remove some, too). This one application handles it all. It also updates every single piece of software on your system - something Windows Update cannot do.

Go from that unified one-application model to the Windows world, and you see that you have to google (or go to downloads.com, or other site) to find your software - so you fire up your browser to search. Once found, you download the application and it throws an icon on your desktop (or other directory you specify). You quit the web browser and double-click the installer. It runs its own installer routine, which varies from app to app. You click through EULA and a few "next" prompts and your program is installed. Wanted several? Well, it is pretty much a one-at-a-time process. Time to repeat, as each app has its own separate installer wrapping it up. And uninstalls depend on the application providing the method. This is part of what makes spyware and adware so difficult to remove - they don't provide the 'remove' very often. ;)

[Fred Derf Veteran]

It depends on the size of the "small business".  We have 32 employees and have 3 people in IT.  We are currently a all windows shop but we are looking at a Linux server to replace our Nexland router, Sonicwall Firewall, Wewbsense and Internal Web Server.

585728574[/snapback]

3 IT salaries? 10% of staff? That seems rather high IT staffing costs to me. I can keep 32 employee companies going by visiting once per week with no other IT assistance.

[strekship]

I don't like most of the linux distros. I have tried some and found that i just like Windows/Mac better.

[EduardValencia]

I don't like most of the linux distros. I have tried some and found that i just like Windows/Mac better.

585733384[/snapback]

yup me too.,i don't understand why linux fanboys don't accept it,

Sometimes i think linux users are jehova's witnesses or something like that,trying to convince everybody to join them.

[joseph-]

As an example, a Linux user can fire up Synaptic, and browse through a "shopping mall" of software, select what he/she wants and install them all (and.or remove some, too). This one application handles it all. It also updates every single piece of software on your system - something Windows Update cannot do.

I'm sorry, but that is simply a horrible analogy. In ubuntu, one of the distros which I use regularly, firing up Synaptic greets a user with a deluge of generic, two sentence descriptions of *thousands* of programs, arranged by universe, multiverse, stable, testing, source, non-free source, source from your mom...that is *nothing* like browsing through a supermarket.

To make your analogy more accurate, one would have to create a massive, multi-block supermarket, filled with aisles and aisles of completely similar, black-text-on-white-box products arranged by categories such as "kitchen stuff", "garage stuff", etc etc. A great mind once posted "linux is only free if your time has no value". This is very true. I'm by no means a newb, since I've been in a love-hate relationship with linux since late '96...but to imply that linux is easy for the average user is laughable. To *use*, perhaps. The *time* required to sit down, muck through descriptions of software and find one *working* application that does exactly what you want it to do 90% of the time, with no myserious error messages...good luck. Gnome and KDE have improved this, but it's still not on par with anything comparable to the WinMac world. And as long as there are people out there, who continually harp and chide others with this whole "Oh, apt is easy, just type-this-and-that-and-forwardslash blah blah blah thats SOOO much better than simply clicking an installer"...that's half the problem. Linux is a huge plunge for the uninitiated, and it's mostly a leap of faith on their part, because it's essentially a shot in the dark.

This really had nothing to do with Linux in the small business, but I get bored to tears with this continual holier-than-thou attitude that is displayed by (usually new) linux advocates. Not everyone has the time or the priorities to even want to be at your level, and some of us have progressed beyond it to realize the more important things in life...and most of them don't involve customizing your shell prompt. ;)

[+Warwagon MVC]

Linux can't compete w/windows as long as they're 1,000's of distro's.

585728277[/snapback]

I agree

[darkobjects]

i could agree with you in certain things,but i think if we are in a opensource enviroment,where everyone shares freely their work,it will be tougher to sell products.so if i want to develop an application and sell it,users will have 10 times free choices in opensource enviroment.so why pay?

correct me if i'm wrong  :unsure:

585728377[/snapback]

Although i still want to learn linux, and be able to use it fluently. I usually spend a lot of time programming, and i completely agree with you.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

well I'm positive agree, I run Linux and Windows XP, and be honestly Linux is a pain in the ass to install any simple application, in particular with Mandrake, I can run videos and music without problem but the only thing that the Open Source need to make is a installer like the Windows OS, that the only u need to do is click and install automatically.

585725616[/snapback]

That's far from the only thing Linux needs to compete in this environment.

Windows makes network administration extremely effecient. Group Policy alone is huge for this market.

[+M2Ys4U Subscriber¹]

OK: 27% using Linux + 52% out of the 73% not using Linux that are either interested or actually planning to look at it. That makes a 64,96% using or interested on Linux, versus a 35,04% not using it and/or not interested.

How are those numbers that bad?  :huh:

585729007[/snapback]

exactly what I thought when I read the article.

I'm sorry, but that is simply a horrible analogy.  In ubuntu, one of the distros which I use regularly, firing up Synaptic greets a user with a deluge of generic, two sentence descriptions of *thousands* of programs, arranged by universe, multiverse, stable, testing, source, non-free source, source from your mom...that is *nothing* like browsing through a supermarket. 

To make your analogy more accurate, one would have to create a massive, multi-block supermarket, filled with aisles and aisles of completely similar, black-text-on-white-box products arranged by categories such as "kitchen stuff",  "garage stuff", etc etc. A great mind once posted "linux is only free if your time has no value".  This is very true.  I'm by no means a newb, since I've been in a love-hate relationship with linux since late '96...but to imply that linux is easy for the average user is laughable.  To *use*, perhaps.  The *time* required to sit down, muck through descriptions of software and find one *working* application that does exactly what you want it to do 90% of the time, with no myserious error messages...good luck.  Gnome and KDE have improved this, but it's still not on par with anything comparable to the WinMac world.  And as long as there are people out there, who continually harp and chide others with this whole "Oh, apt is easy, just type-this-and-that-and-forwardslash blah blah blah thats SOOO much better than simply clicking an installer"...that's half the problem.  Linux is a huge plunge for the uninitiated, and it's mostly a leap of faith on their part, because it's essentially a shot in the dark. 

This really had nothing to do with Linux in the small business, but I get bored to tears with this continual holier-than-thou attitude that is displayed by (usually new) linux advocates.  Not everyone has the time or the priorities to even want to be at your level, and some of us have progressed beyond it to realize the more important things in life...and most of them don't involve customizing your shell prompt.  ;)

585733459[/snapback]

yes, and looking in one application for a program is soooo different than browsing multiple websites, downloading the products and installing them.

*click* *click* scroll, read *click*

vs

*click* type in URL *scroll* *click* type in search phrase, scroll, read *click* *click* wait for download * double-click* *click next, again, again* reboot

Yeah, I can see how having everything in one place is so bad.

[joseph-]

exactly what I thought when I read the article.

yes, and looking in one application for a program is soooo different than browsing multiple websites, downloading the products and installing them.

*click* *click* scroll, read *click*

vs

*click* type in URL *scroll* *click* type in search phrase, scroll, read *click* *click* wait for download * double-click* *click next, again, again* reboot

Yeah, I can see how having everything in one place is so bad.

585734920[/snapback]

Yes, and I'm sure upon downloading any distro, the complete description of each and every one of those umpteen thousands of programs listed in synaptic is immediately uploaded into your brain. :rolleyes:

When something comes out for Windows or Mac...yes, you may have to go to a website to download it...but that will also *typically* give you the oppurtunity to read reviews and descriptions, view screenshots, and read full feature lists..all sorts of things. Does synaptic have that? No...it has a little 30-word blurb on what it does and it's dependencies and what will be installed to fill those deps. Like a *USER* cares about such things.

I'll polish up your version of Synaptic a tad;

"Oh, a media player!" *click*..."wait..another media player, maybe this one is better..?" *click* "three more media players, but this one uses GTK2...and this one...what the hell..?" *click click* "This one is console based...but it has has a KDE frontend, but it won't play mp3s because of some..weird...huh?" *click *scroll* *scroll* *click*. "What the..? This won't play DVDs? What do I need for that..? *google* *wikki* *click* *scroll* *post* *post* *click* etc etc ad nauseum.

So, for those of us that may have actual real adult lives, sitting around, mucking through a text-based catalog of a thousand or so programs for a few hours just trying to find the best version of a barely-usable hobby project isn't as exciting as it may be to others. Especially if you want to add full functionality to your system...manually adding a plethora of mystery repositories is oodles of fun. A definate step in the right direction, but not as impressive as it *could* be if the developers would start valueing the free time of their users.

[markwolfe Veteran]

Getting the thread back on-topic a bit...

A small business would have a set of pre-selected apps anyhow. They would not worry about "which media player" as much as indicated.

[joseph-]

Then the usability of Synaptic itself is a moot point, is it not?

[markwolfe Veteran]

Then the usability of Synaptic itself is a moot point, is it not?

585735961[/snapback]

99% true. It would probably only be used by the IT department when electing to try installing a new application for testing as they bring on new roles for a Linux box. Normal users would be forbidden this type of root access.

Even updates would be handled automatically to a locally-controlled server.

So, I guess that really just leaves costs, security and usability as concerns most smaller businesses would be concerned about. That, and ability to mesh in what I would assume was likely a Windows network.

[Aaron Veteran]

To me the reason is obvious why Linux isn't gogin to work in the "business" arena (outside of servers). Applications. There are few businesses out there that don't use some sort of specialized application in their palce of work, for example specialized scheduling software (there are thsoe tailored for Dentists, lawyers, vets, etc). Most of my computer aided work comes from applications in which there is absolutely no Linux alternatives. I can't imagine a business doing nothing with their computers outside of the basic office/interent/email apps.

[joseph-]

Well, at my work, I've been seeing more and more applications coming out using java, specifically the frontend to the massive database we access daily. While this wasn't (presumably) done to facilitate more OS choices as it is that we have widely-varied versions of Windows out there, it would be quite simple for a linux or OS X system to hop onto the network and log into the database, assuming they could jump through the hoops required for network authentication. However, I wouldn't consider the DoD a "small business", so take it for what it is.

[markwolfe Veteran]

To me the reason is obvious why Linux isn't gogin to work in the "business" arena (outside of servers).  Applications.  There are few businesses out there that don't use some sort of specialized application in their palce of work, for example specialized scheduling software (there are thsoe tailored for Dentists, lawyers, vets, etc).  Most of my computer aided work comes from applications in which there is absolutely no Linux alternatives.  I can't imagine a business doing nothing with their computers outside of the basic office/interent/email apps.

585736046[/snapback]

One of the things working against Linux is the "chicken and the egg" syndrome. It doesn't have a large desktop share, so vendors don't release versions of apps for it. Without the spectrum of apps, you can't get a large share of the desktop market.

However, as more organizations and businesses (Novell, Munich and others) start migrating even basic desktops, the marketshare will go up and a larger userbase will be established. It just won't happen overnight.

[nicedreams]

Lies, lies, and more lies.

I've installed several Linux servers for a bunch of medium sized businesses and they love it. I don't charge licenses so I have businesses with 20 people that can access the file server (SAMBA) and I have the same servers setup as VPNs for remote clients. I do this all for $1200.00 including the cost of the server.

If I would have done that with a Microsoft solutions, then we'd have to pay for licenses and then get a separate box for the VPN which is probably harder to install, manage, and bad uptime, then the Linux solution.

These people doing this survey don't know what the hell they are talking about.

I've even installed Ubuntu for a morgage company of 8 employees and they love it since they run web apps through Firefox and Thunderbird they don't have to worry about spyware, viruses, and the system just screwing up from users installing apps they shouldn't be installing.

LINUX RULES!!! If you don't agree then you don't know what you are talking about or don't know what you are doing.

[markwolfe Veteran]

There are situations where it does not make sense to add a Linux server. A wholly-MS shop would have to hire someone with Linux experience. This would almost certainly have to be a +1 headcount to the department, as they could not reduce their Windows staff (if they were properly staffed to begin with). Anything less than a capable Linux admin would just end up as trouble that would just be listed under the column "Linux Problems" to the department managers.

Linux cannot just be just thrown in for every situation. It must be evaluated and see if it makes business sense. There are a lot of savings available, and Linux can be a real value-added commodity that delivers on reliability and security. It just needs to be done right.

[nicedreams]

Linux = Job Security

LMAO

[dotRoot]

There are situations where it does not make sense to add a Linux server.  A wholly-MS shop would have to hire someone with Linux experience.  This would almost certainly have to be a +1 headcount to the department, as they could not reduce their Windows staff (if they were properly staffed to begin with).  Anything less than a capable Linux admin would just end up as trouble that would just be listed under the column "Linux Problems" to the department managers.

Linux cannot just be just thrown in for every situation.  It must be evaluated and see if it makes business sense.  There are a lot of savings available, and Linux can be a real value-added commodity that delivers on reliability and security.  It just needs to be done right.

585746728[/snapback]

Back before I enlisted, I was the network admin and mainframe operator for a branch in the eastern US for one of the world's largest frieght forwarders. I was their Windows IT guy and their Linux IT guy.

Headcount +0

I'm not saying every IT dept. has someone who does both Windows and Linux, but maybe companies could start looking for someone who do both.

[g-n-t]

There are situations where it does not make sense to add a Linux server.?  A wholly-MS shop would have to hire someone with Linux experience.? This would almost certainly have to be a +1 headcount to the department, as they could not reduce their Windows staff (if they were properly staffed to begin with).?  Anything less than a capable Linux admin would just end up as trouble that would just be listed under the column "Linux Problems" to the department managers.

Linux cannot just be just thrown in for every situation.?  It must be evaluated and see if it makes business sense.? There are a lot of savings available, and Linux can be a real value-added commodity that delivers on reliability and security.?  It just needs to be done right.

585746728[/snapback]

most linux admins know their way around windows server, which would make them more valuable than a windows guy. so its a +1 -1 situation.

Edit: i didnt read dotRoots post till now. we said the same thing.

oh well, +1 post count fo;)me ;)