Linux and SMBs

[DMuse]

Seems like more and more companies are targetting the small business market with Linux products. Are small business really looking to deploy Linux? Seems to me that you would need to have a dedicated IT department to get into open source operating systems. Unix certainly never took off with SMBs.
What is the allure of Linux?

[bhafner]

Linux is not easy to use or install. It is deff. not cheap or free.

The attitude of most Unix / Linux types is that if a user is not a computer geek they should not use computers.

Go to systems that are easier to use - or at least hide the fact that they have a 'Linux'/'Unix' variant under the hood (IE Macintosh)

Personally I prefer Windows XP. For all its problems it is

1) Easier to maintain
2) Has more software
3) Has more people that can help you or get advice from

[ccrowell]

I have to disagree in some respects. I am currently a Windows network admin and am trying to learn Linux on my own. I paid $40 for a book titled "Red Hat Linux 8 Unleashed", and it even came with 2 CDs containing Red Hat 8. I installed with no problems whatsoever. I do, however, agree with the fact that it's hard to learn. I'm having a helluva time. But, I joined a local Linux user's group and am learning more and more every day. Also, I do think that XP is a fantastic OS. My network has a mixture of Windows 98, 2000, and XP computers running off of Windows 2000 Server and I couldn't be happier with it.

[walterweeks]

It is not necessary to have a dedicated IT staff to deploy Linux systems for SMBs. The magic of outsourcing to an effective IT firm is that your business can get a good ROI using Linux. In fact, the business that I work does this on a regular basis.

Of course the more complex the IT solution, the more there is a need for a dedicated staff to maintain any system. But for the most part, SMBs closely resemble the mass consumer market--they can use off-the-shelf solutions adequately (i.e., put up with their limitations until the enterprise reaches a critical mass).

What this means is that most SMBs do not need extremely custom solutions and can outsource much of their IT demands to a good outside firm for any computing platform.

[DMuse]

I, too, have a hard time envisioning a lot of SMBs jumping to Linux in the immediate future; however, with so many businesses still on NT and Microsoft dropping support at the end of the year, it seems like if you are going to make a move a new OS, now could be the time.

IBM certainly has its partners geared up for that Linux possibility. However, as some of these posts have mentioned, outsourcing network and IT services is fairly easy regarding Windows -- every city and town has consultants and such that specialize in Microsoft OSes. I don't get the sense you can pick up the Yellow Pages and find local Linux outsourcing options.

[DMuse]

For a little more on the Linux debate, you may want to check out Drew Robb's article on Linux on the Desktop. I'd be curious to hear what everyone thinks.
http://www.smallbusinesscomputing.co...le.php/3330991
--Dan

[owen]

Linux can be a wonderful, cost-effective operating system that can save most small businesses a lot of money in licensing costs AND consulting costs as well. It's my feeling that a staffed IT department is more necessary in a Windows-based server environment than a Linux based environement because Linux is much more stable and trouble-free.

For instance, compare a Linux machine acting as a mail server in a small business organization vs. Exchange Server running on Windows 200 Server. With a Linux machine configured with, say, Postfix and Cucipop it's a fair statement to say that the machine will run for about a year or two before it needs even a reboot. If you were to install Fedora (the offshoot from Redhat) you can configure it to get its own patches automatically. With Exchange Server, there needs to be patches applied, the system itself will likely require attention throughout a given year, and the licensing costs are significant. Either way, most people will need professional help to install the Operating System and the Mail Server software. Why not choose an OS that is stable, trouble-free, and FREE. There was an earlier post that said that the installation of Linux is neither free nor easy. I beg to differ. I have installed dozens of Linux machines and I have never paid a dime for any software related to Linux. I don't even pay for the media, because I do FTP installs. It's also a trouble-free installation. You can literally walk away from it.

In all, I can't see how a small company wouldn't want to use this superior operating system.

[walterweeks]

I agree, Windows support is easier to find than Linux.

I think we have not mentioned the big picture in this thread: businesses do not care about what the technology is, they care about the value generated using them. Linux, Windows, or whatever. It seems that many people are on the "Linux bandwagon" just to be on it; this is slightly similar to the dot-com bandwagon a few years ago.

I love Linux, don't get me wrong. It's my first choice for server software, but we are still in the early stages. Any technology that has a lot of buzz simply has a lot of hype surrounding it. Hell, my dad knows about Linus Torvalds and Linux--and my dad doesn't even own or use a computer and never has really used one!

For the most part, most small businesses put up with Windows and are fine. If they run across support for Linux, they can and will use it because of its benefits (e.g. robustness, no licencing costs, etc.).

[stomfi]

I've tried them all, from mainframes to communications to embedded micro controllers, and the one thing that would make life easier for SMBs is a universal OS.
My team generally finds it harder to install windows than Linux, especially when it comes to getting drivers, and having to be there for reboots.
We have found that running win4lin or vmware, solves the problem of missing apps.
You get more bang for the buck with Linux and can utilise all your older hardware, even 486s.
One tech head can service 400 Linux users.
Using a made up custom psuedo language, users can be taught shell scripting, and get all those hand written systems onto the corporate information network.
Just move sideways from the Microsoft approach, and the benefits to SMBs accumulate very rapidly.

[pcassell]

I believe that Linux in the small business sector is a nice option. Many people would say that a windows server would be the way to go to handle a small office due to the ease of administration, and that would offset the licensing issues.

However, I would disagree, if the business' needs are right. I recently deployed a Linux SAMBA domain controller to a small business and it has been working flawlessly for about 6 months. Up for 50 days currently without a hitch, and it only goes down for upgrades.

Here is my reasoning: they do not need many of the advanced AD solutions that windows server family offers. The licensing for a windows server OS is extremely expensive. I already knew linux so there was no learning curve, and I was able to quickly set up a SAMBA server. I can also accomplish tasks pretty quickly with linux's many command line tools.

If you are a consultant and worried about the overhead of managing mutliple linux servers in small businesses, dont be. Linux is pretty easy to rollout in large numbers and manage. The package management solutions offered by the various distributions make mass updates and installations smooth. Also, things like redhat network make this idea on a large scale practicle.

In larger organizations, I would look at a heterogenious environment. Windows could be used to run RIS servers and AD servers if more advanced features are required, and for exchange. However, linux could be used to backend the file servers, and for web servers, database servers, dns servers, etc. Linux is extremely reliable and is good for getting the most out of your hardware and for critical applications.

[pnorilsk]

There are no technical and/or technological reasons to use MS solution outside of desktop. The only one single reason I think of, is an affinity to this solution based on a previous experience. All argumentation in favor of MS, leave alone “previous experience”, is an insult of human intelligence.

[pcassell]

How do you recommend business' manage their windows workstations then? Active Directory is extremely powerful in this sense. Other tools that work with/along side of active directory are also useful. As I stated earlier, RIS is one of these. Using windows servers to decrease administration tasks and reliability of desktops (yes, through group policies so that users dont destroy critical files, etc) is not "unintelligent".

Its all about using the right thing for the job, and its nice to be able to save money wherever possible.

[pnorilsk]

I can pontificate on the Linux vs. MS forever. You must understand and accept that on the DOS level MS has one user (root) and one group (root) with one permission (remove all). This is a major and very simple issue to comprehend. This is why any penetration into the system via RPC, HTTP, or any other protocol with ports below 1024 is catastrophic. You obviously can physically disconnect your system from the network, but it will be nonsensical action.
Second issue - Active Directory. You will be much better off if you will use OpenLDAP. Active Directory was implemented with a serious deviation from the canonical LDAP. And it's a shame. But MS needed it a lot to compensate somehow deficiency in ACL of DOS OS design.

I can go on and on. I am obviously very subjective in my opinion. But, I do have on my laptop two partitions, one for the Linux and the other NT. All my servers are Linux boxes. And I like this arrangement very much.

[pcassell]

Yes I am aware of the security issues of both operating systems. That is beside my point. Hell, if your looking for an extremely secure system go with OpenBSD default (and somewhat useless) install, yes they audit every single line of code so you can rest easy. However, there are *still* some features for corporate desktop management that windows server holds over linux/samba combinations and friends.

AD is not fully LDAP combatible, yes, but I am concerned with all the features and utilities that come with AD. If you've ever seen group policy objects in action, you'll know why they are so crucial. Also, there is no good replacement software for RIS and pushing patches/applications over Active Directory.

The only other option is to turn the corporate desktop in the direction of linux. Redhat is working on this, but its a way off. Users dont want to switch their desktop's they are so used to.

[pnorilsk]

With a risk to be redundant and to annoy public more then I should, I cannot allow it to stay without an answer.

1. Yes, I will recommend to have MS on the desktop almost always. And I would never recommend to use it on the back-end.

2. Please don't equalize MS and Linux. Linux OS, OpenBSD, and different flavors of Unix fundamentally are the same OS. All of them are based on the Berkley Software Distribution (BSD) and MIT tape. So, when you mentioned OpenBSD you meant (I hope) also Unix, Linux, etc. They all have the same properties including security provisioning.

3.I know Active Directory well enough to have an opinion about its functionalities, pro and cons. And I must say again, its existence is a necessity for MS to survive as a back-end for .NET solution. I would never use it as a Enterprise Directory Services.