Michael Callahan, CTO and co-founder of PolyServe, says his company has seen an explosion of Linux interest in the last six months. PolyServe announced its Matrix Server multi-server file system/application manager software Thursday, and the product is first available for Linux, with a Windows version slated for early next year.
Although "Linux hype has ebbed and flowed" in the two years the PolyServe team has been working on Matrix Server, Callahan says he's seen a continually growing interest in Linux during that time, with interest "burgeoning" in the last six months.
"We talk to customers just about every week who say, 'Six months ago, if you'd been talking to us about Linux, we'd have said we're interested in that, but we're not really ready to look at it that seriously. But today, we're really interested because we see Linux taking over our operation in 24 months.'" He adds, "I think Linux at the moment is a victim of under-hype."
Over at HP, a recent announcement of Reuters moving its Reuters Market Data System to Linux servers is an example of a company that was interested in Linux from the start, says Judy Chavis, director of the HP Linux Programs Office.
Reuters' customers had worked with the old Compaq in the past in moving Solaris applications to Linux, Chavis says. So Reuters approached HP after it was considering moving the the Market Data System to Linux and was already interested in the total cost of ownership advantages of Linux, although Reuters also was considering staying with Solaris. Many customers are asking for total cost of ownership comparisons, says Chavis, and one of HP's best Linux sales tools is running a TCO study comparing Linux to other choices.
Chavis says she sees a lot of customers porting their old Unix applications over to Linux because they see cost savings. "I don't think there's a lot of convincing any more of customers around Linux," she says. "Their question to me is, 'Can the new HP support me?' That's really what we're down to -- when you look at enterprise customers like a Reuters, they're used to a very complex environment, and they want one throat to choke."
Some customers do have questions -- about Linux scaling or support or applications available under Linux -- but there's little time spent on convincing customers they should look at Linux. "We've lived through this 11-year history around Linux, and the last year or so, it's really taking off," Chavis says. "People are using it for applications, they're not playing around with it. It's not an engineer exercise anymore, it's solving a business problem."
One of IBM's recent big announcements was paint seller Sherwin-Williams adopting Linux for its in-store PCs, one at each store working as a server, with a second Linux box as the store manager's workstation. Like Reuters, Sherwin-Williams was interested in Linux because of its stability and its cost savings over the company's former OS, SCO Unix, says Scott Handy, director of software solutions for IBM. Sherwin-Williams was also interested in Linux's open code, which allows the company to customize its applications easily.
IBM customers considering Linux, like those at HP, are looking for one company to provide service, Handy adds. But after one company in an industry moves to Linux, word gets around and Linux interest seems to snowball. IBM customers tell Handy their first source for information about Linux is people they know in the same field.
One recent IBM Linux customer is NextWine, a seller of high-end wines that uses its Web site, plus phone and email sales, to sell its products.
NextWine is using IBM's WebSphere Commerce 5.1 and Linux to tie its Web site to its database. In moving from Windows to Linux, the company can update two separate database "orders of magnitude" more quickly than in the past, when workers had to manually update inventory lists, says company president Dain Dunston. That instant inventory update is important, he says, because NextWine deals in rare wines and sometimes has only one or two bottles of a particular vintage.
NextWine uses Linux as the connection between the Web site database, its bookkeeping databases and a proprietary inventory management system.
While NextWine didn't approach IBM about using Linux, it didn't take much convincing to make the switch, says Dunston. Linux's cost wasn't even a big consideration, other than it was much less expensive than other options that were hundreds of thousand of dollars higher.
Dunston says he was aware of Linux and has followed the open systems vs. proprietary systems debate. But choosing an operating system isn't a priority for the company; Dunston just wanted something that worked.
"The advantage here was very clear that if it's running on Linux, it's going to be really easy to access data in and out," he says. "There was zero resistance on our part. What I'd thought in my head was, 'Yeah, that's kind of hip. What I'd heard was Linux was this hip new system doing a lot of good things. It was like a no-brainer for us."
Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
Next step would be to get them to recognize PostgreSQL. Today the situation is not good. Managers heard only MySQL as an open source DBMS. When they are required to cut the budget they gave a try to MySQL and found that MySQL is not reliable (ACID) and it's very limited (SQL, DBA, extensions). If not primitive. Thus they are very disappointed in MySQL and then in all open source databases. They conclude that open source databases are only good for small web applications. That is bad for all open source community.
The problem is that most of managers don't know even the name of PostgreSQL. They don't know that there is very reliable and very functional open source DBMS. They don't know that this ORDBMS is functional enough to work as a workgroup database as well as it is reliable enough to work at a corporate backend. And once you start to explain it to them then managers ask questions: "Who is behind PostgreSQL? Who will support it? Where can I train my people? Where are books about it?"
Managers already asked such questions about Linux. And they are satisfied with answers. Lucky for Linux there are a lot of commercial vendors delivered Linux to corporations. Their work includes improving the distribution (compare RedHat with Slackware), training, support and even book publishing. Unfortunately for PostgreSQL there is no such commercial effort pushing PostgreSQL to the market. There is no good distro (especially on M$win platform), there is no good training programs, there are few useless books (mostly introducing this DBMS for beginners). Most of available web-applications are connected by default to MySQL.
Conclusion: PostgreSQL needs more aggressive pushing of itself to the market. PostgreSQL is very capable to compete and beat Oracle, M$FT, IBM and Sybase. But today PostgreSQL is loosing a market competetion with MySQL.
I can say same thing about Linux, which still have to catch BSD by security and Solaris by multi-threading.
When the budget is not a last thing in mind Linux is OK to be considered by corporations. Well, begin to OK. Why not apply same logic to PostgreSQL?
And I doubt that SAPDB is ready for corps. Let's look at their docs: NOT supported features:
Read what other people say about it.
MySQL is a real shame of Open Source community. All I hear from real users is : "We have switched from MySQL to [...commercial ackage ...] after this list of problems. And we don't want to have such problems again. So, we stick with commercial packages. We don't trust all Open Souce Software."
It's a real shame. And it will take a lot to fix it.
MySQL is a different story - the chance of loosing or corrupting data in concurrent environment and or with complicated DB schemaa is the same as with M$access. Big size of DB just makes it even worse.
As a personal DB - MySQL is fine.
Crazy people.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 14, 2002 06:17 PMLinux, as well as windows, are not by a very far shot ready for enterprise. There are a huge number of companies actually running mission critical systems on those two systems, they must have balls like mellons or something.
How much unit testing is there in linux and other open source software, almost zero and yet people let these systems run mission critical application when system behaiviour is undefined under critical errors.
There are a lot of crazy people out there, thats for sure.
#