[lug] MS Apps ported to Linux???

Harris, James James_Harris at maxtor.com
Fri Feb 9 09:10:55 MST 2001


I think some of the _concepts_ Mr. Miller has introduced are based on
reality, but don't seem truly important when you get down to it:

He argues that Linux is not Enterprise ready.  Yes, there are some specific
portions of Linux that are not quite up to snuff, but there are other pieces
that can offer as much enterprise power as any other operating system today
and can do it with more stability.  The same argument is true with Windows
2000.  It does some enterprise things well, but others it lacks in.  No OS
is, or ever will be, perfect.

It bothers me that one of his main arguments is based on solution offering
and that Linux does not do so with a suite of applications.  This is
absolutely narrow minded -- and that is not a flame, simply reality.  Why is
the mentallity that _one_ single software vendor needs to provide a suite
that can do everything _and_ wipe your nose.  Sure, "Linux" does not have a
full suite if you look at it with this extremely narrow view.  Linux _does_
have a full suite of solutions, you simply have the freedom to get what you
want and leave behind what you don't need.  Why is it that one single
company has to provide the world?  Diversity of applications by different
vendors provides just as much support, and in my opinion, better software
and more flexible solutions.  Windows 2000 is an incredibly stable OS, but
do you really need 1GB of RAM and dual processors to run a DNS server that
only handles 1000 people - no.  That lack of a modular model ultimately
overrides it's stability.

On the previous note, why is it that a single platform needs to run the
whole world?  I'm perfectly happy using each available OS, with it's
applications to do what it does best.  Is the combination of MS Exchange
server with Outlook one of the most powerful and easy to use workgroup
applications for your users?  In my opinion, yes.  However, is Exchange
server powerful and stable enough to be the Internet MTA and DNS server?
No.  So why can't we just accept what each OS can do well and use them
together?  At my site, we're running Exchange for the users and Solaris to
run the backbone.  We're replacing all of our aging Solaris machines with
newer Linux machines because Linux does it just as well and is cheaper.  Can
someone tell me how it is that Linux does not provide solutions then?

My two (hopefully somewhat educated) cents...

-----Original Message-----
From: J. Wayde Allen [mailto:wallen at lug.boulder.co.us]
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 11:31
To: lug at lug.boulder.co.us
Subject: Re: [lug] MS Apps ported to Linux???


On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, John Starkey wrote:

> Just ran across this article which addresses a concern that was posted
> today.
> 
> netscape.zdnet.com:80/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2680345,00.html
> 
> Doug Miller says they haven't ruled out the possibilty of porting to
> Linux.

That is an interesting article.  I'm curious, what do people think about
the following comments from Doug Miller:
   
   ... "While we are threatened by the Linux business model, where
   companies give away free software, we are not at all worried about that
   operating system from a technological standpoint," Miller told eWEEK
   before heading off to the conference. "There are no earth-shattering
   technological innovations in Linux -- actually, there's a lot less than
   can be found in the Windows and Unix platforms." ... 

   ... I think the shine is dulling around Linux as people scramble to
   find a business model based on free software that actually works," he
   said. "Ultimately, there's no such thing as a free lunch -- someone has
   to pay for continued innovation and support." ...
   
   ... While there has been much talk about Linux as an operating system,
   there hasn't been nearly enough talk about how it is solving customer
   problems through a full suite of business applications, Miller
   contended, adding it has a "long way to go" to solve the range of
   business problems that companies like Microsoft solve today. ...

   ... "Linux is many, many years away from being an enterprise-ready
   operating system that can compete with, and challenge, the Windows
   platform," he said. "There is also no vision or driving force around
   it. We are already in very good shape on the enterprise today and are
   leading the charge on the Web services front and in new ways of looking
   at delivering value. ... 

I'm looking for honest, thoughtful discussion here as opposed to Microsoft
bashing.  Can these criticisms effectively be addressed?  What hard
examples/evidence can we provide?

It seems to me that a little serious introspection can't hurt the Linux
community.  I also think we need to expand our list of arguments from the
old standby of Linux generally being a more stable platform.

- Wayde
  (wallen at lug.boulder.co.us)

_______________________________________________
Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug



More information about the LUG mailing list