Linux.com

Feature

Enterprise customers now ask for Linux by name

By on June 14, 2002 (8:00:00 AM)

Share    Print    Comments   

- By Grant Gross -
Companies pitching Linux to enterprise customers say they're seeing a change in attitude from potential clients in recent months -- the customers are now asking for Linux instead of getting it sold to them.
Linux specialists at companies such as IBM and Hewlett-Packard, both of which seem to be announcing new Linux conversions weekly, say some of their recent high-profile Linux sales went to customers who specifically asked for Linux.

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."

Share    Print    Comments   

Comments

on Enterprise customers now ask for Linux by name

Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.

Crazy people.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 14, 2002 06:17 PM
I just don't realize who people are reasoning out there.

Linux, 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.

#

Re:Crazy people-NOT

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 14, 2002 07:01 PM
i will be tickled with M$FT falls on its face, with as much money as they have i am sure M$FT will not disappear off the face of the earth, i hope this will be a humbling experience for the big wheels at M$FT when hardly anybody anymore uses or buys their bug infested/virus propagating OS, remember the old saying "The bigger they are the harder they fall"...

i bean using Linux for a year now and i don't even miss windoze...

got /root?

#

Re:Crazy people.

Posted by: fitzix on June 14, 2002 07:23 PM
How can you say that there's not a lot of unit testing?

It seems to me that there is a lot of testing going on and that there has been for years. Are there a lot of public tests? No - but I haven't seen a hell of a lot of them with many other systems either.

But, it's the hardened tests that count. If a company says "I need this functionality" and they test the system thoroughly before implementing it, I really don't see a conflict there.

If they just put their business on any system without committing to internal tests (even if unit tests have been performed) I'd have no sympathy for them. Test everything, even if you think it works - that's my motto.

#

Re:Crazy people.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 14, 2002 09:27 PM
Do you not think software systems are tested before release?
If you're imagining that IBM et al are pushing business solutiosn without testing them first then you're having a laugh, which you probably are.

#

Re:Crazy people.

Posted by: DCallaghan on June 14, 2002 09:42 PM
You make a valid point. There are a lot of crazy people out there, running every kind of OS on every kind of hardware for every kind of company. And any untested system, no matter what, is not ready for the enterprise.

But there are a great number of large companies running Win2K Enterprise or SuSE on mission critial applications. I've worked on both NASDAQ, DOD and CIGNA, all of whom considered their missions critical, and we've successfully deployed a MS solutions. MS itself seems to be happy with BSD running HotMail. I'm working on an enterprise SuSE contract now far a large electronics company, and I'm surrounded by QA.

Its not true to say that there has not been unit testing There are ISO9000-certified IT structures using these systems. And there are well-known stable GNU apps, like Apache. There is a lack of published specs, but they're usually skewed to benchmarking and/or are performed on hardware you don't have. You need internal testing, and you don't have access to those figures to state whether or not they are happening.

You sound like an AS/400 veteran, in which case your comments make sense. An AS/400 is more stable than granite. But I've seen them brought to their knees by things like CASE tool conversions gone bad.

As you said, testing is paramount. But you needn't assume that there is no testing going on because you haven't seen it.

#

Apache is not GPLed

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 15, 2002 01:42 AM
FYI, Apache has it's own license, which, according to the FSF qualifies as a free license, but which is not GPL compatable.

#

but at least you CAN unit-test any GPL'ed software

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 15, 2002 11:27 AM
See, the cool thing is that at least you CAN unit test anything you want. Say you want *proven* mission critical system? Get Linux and hire someone to unit test every last bit of it. At least you CAN do that. That's cool :).

Now, try to do that with Windows. Heck, even if MS says they did it, would you trust it, with them lying (a fact) in court and all that?

Mind you, unit testing is not a panacea. If you have studied any CS at all, unit testing is a good strategy but it doesn't guarantee mission critical software by any means. Many bugs exist within high level interactions between the actual units.

;). Nice point tho, in favor of Linux, thanks!

#

Re:but at least you CAN unit-test any GPL'ed softw

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 15, 2002 11:40 PM
No one does, and people doing unit testing should be the same people who have developed it.

#

Re:Crazy people.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 15, 2002 05:24 PM
Umm, actually unit and functional testing is being done by quite a few opensource projects. It also seems to be growing in usage from what I see.

The apache project springs to mind, they are using continuous integration (gump), junit, and other testing frame works.

http://www.thecortex.net/clover/eg/index.html has some coverage of the Jakarta tests and Jboss.

http://www.xprogramming.com/software.htm has test software.

#

Judy Chavis?

Posted by: Adriano M. Galano Díez on June 14, 2002 07:25 PM
What about with Martin Fink at HP? and Bruce Perens? What is the organization of the Linux Operations at the new HP?

#

Re:Judy Chavis?

Posted by: Grant Gross on June 15, 2002 05:19 AM
Both Martin and Bruce are still at HP. Chavis just knew more about this particular deal, the Reuters one, that's why I talked with here.

Grant

#

next would be PostgreSQL

Posted by: axxackall on June 14, 2002 08:24 PM
It's good that managers begin to ask Linux by its name.


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 love PostgreSQL, but...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 14, 2002 08:33 PM
It needs some work before it's enterprise ready. It's better than MySQL, but is missing some critical areas of functionality to really be considered an enterprise database.

I doesn't have the robustness and extensive tunability of Oracle (of course, nobody really matches Oracle for the sheer functionality and quality of the database). It lacks well integrated, well tested replication. It lacks failover clustering. And I think the security model could use a little work.

That said, it's a fantastic piece of softare. What it needs is more work, and some money from someone to fund development.

#

Re:I love PostgreSQL, but...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 14, 2002 09:29 PM
Agreed. I use and love PostgreSQL but it can't compete with the big packages. Right now it's best touted as a replacement for MySQL.

#

Re:I love PostgreSQL, but...

Posted by: axxackall on June 14, 2002 10:10 PM
It's better than MySQL, but is missing some critical areas of functionality to really be considered an enterprise database.


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?

#

i wasn't knocking PostgreSQL

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 15, 2002 01:00 AM
It's perfect for many applications. It's more featureful in many ways than commercial database servers (MSSQLServer, particularly; I hate that piece of crap). It's stable, has a nice command line utility (nicer than Oracle's, I think; nothing need be said about the crufty MySQL one), and is generally suitable for important applications.


When I say "enterprise database," I assume something about the nature of the applications to be run on it. It's definitely capable of handling online commerce and other OLTP type apps. Just, when your business is really big, and really, really important - you need more than PostgreSQL provides right now. I'd love to have it mature more, and I think it will.


I think it deserved to completely displace MySQL, and probably MSSQLServer (which has some clustering and failover, but lacks so many of the features that, once you find them in PostgreSQL you wonder how the MS people never got around to stealing them). The ease of server side programmability in a variety of languages alone makes it incredibly powerful (Java, Perl, Python, TCL [ugh]).


But it's not Oracle, and can't replace it in the places where people need to use Oracle. That was my point.


Oh and yes, Linux has a way to catch up to BSD. :-)

#

Look elsewhere Re:I love PostgreSQL, but...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 14, 2002 10:43 PM
SAPDB. It is freer (GPL) than PostGreSql and was designed from the ground up for business use where you need scalability, security and round the clock operation. No need of reorganizations like in PostGreSql. It is a direct descendant of Adabas D and was liberated by SAP.

#

Re:Look elsewhere Re:I love PostgreSQL, but...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 15, 2002 12:07 AM
about "reorganizations" - it's a pretty much a history in PostgreSQL.


And I doubt that SAPDB is ready for corps. Let's look at their docs:

    NOT supported features:
  • Multi version concurrency for OLTP
  • Hot stand by


#

Re:Look elsewhere Re:I love PostgreSQL, but...

Posted by: DCallaghan on June 15, 2002 12:10 AM
This is very good news! I'm downloading this now to experiment with porting a MySQL supply chain management system to SAPDB. Being able to support all SAP solutions with the SAP name using a GPL database is a very, very big deal!

#

Re:Look elsewhere Re:I love PostgreSQL, but...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 15, 2002 03:45 AM
Without MVC you will migrate from one poor DBMS (MySQL) to another one (SAPDB). Better go strightforward to PostgreSQL.

#

Re:Look elsewhere Re:I love PostgreSQL, but...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 15, 2002 11:38 AM
SAP DB is a piece of crap, imo. I tried it and it failed to install on Solaris 2.8. That's crap. Then I read their docs and it says they didn't even test it with Solaris 2.8. Both PostgreSQL and MySQL easily install under Solaris 2.8. My point is, if you claim to be "enterprise", as SAP DB does, you dam better support Solaris 2.8. And if you don't, then clearly state so on the home page so that people don't even bother trying.

Secondly, SAP DB has very little history and track record in the open community. Even if it installed, I would still be suspicious of it, because I just don't know its track record. Both MySQL and PostgreSQL have proven track record. They have both been used for heavy duty apps and publicly so, and there are no secrets about their shortcomings. And that's good. On the other hand, using SAP DB is like using a mysterious box (unless you have time to audit every single line of code), because no one knows of its track record or real-world use.

#

Re:Look elsewhere Re:I love PostgreSQL, but...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 17, 2002 06:19 AM
SAPDB has a record called Adabas and who cares about Solaris?

#

Re:I love PostgreSQL, but...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 15, 2002 10:31 AM
Read here about how MySQL isn't "enterprise ready."

http://www.innodb.com/userstories.html
http://www.mysql.com/articles/user_stories.html

#

Re:I love PostgreSQL, but...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 16, 2002 02:26 PM
These people are nutcases, it isn't enterprise ready.

#

advertisement

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 16, 2002 09:28 PM
Don't read what they say about their own product.


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.

#

No room for CrashGreSQL

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 15, 2002 04:29 AM
The PostGreSQL team is better off not promoting PostGreSQL because then people will try it and discover two problems: (i) server crashes, and (ii) corrupted tables.


        Until very recently, it was true that MySQL didn't support transactions. However, MySQL very rarely crashed and very rarely had corrupted tables. With PostgreSQL, most potential adopters tried it out, discovered the problems with crashes and data corruption, and then switched to MySQL.


        I'd often hear two stories. One of them is that somebody got an app working with MySQL, but he had a pointy-haired boss who told him to use PostgreSQL instead because he believed the FUD about transactions. The other one is that somebody built an app with PostgreSQL, had problems with crashes and corrupted tables, and switched to MySQL. It happened to me twice.


        Today, MySQL contains the InnoDB table manager -- a high performance table manager that supports transactions and referential integrity checking. So now, MySQL offers the best of both worlds -- it's reliable (doesn't crash, doesn't get corrupted tables) and it supports transactions. So now there's no room for CrashGreSQL.

#

Re:No room for CrashGreSQL

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 15, 2002 11:42 AM
Crashes and corrupted tables? Can you substantiate your argument with some kind of numbers or real life stories? Sounds like you're spreading FUD here. And please learn how to spell PostgreSQL.

#

Re:No room for CrashGreSQL

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 15, 2002 09:54 PM
Can you give any examples and details? This because I'm using PostgreSQL for a long time now as DBMS for my own company and customers and didn't have any problems. And its handeling a lot of data and requests. Hopefully you can support your comments with hard proof or else its FUD. Also MySQL 4.0 (that contains transactions) isn't a stable version yet, so putting your customers and your own data on development code isn't that wise. Another thing is that all the other cool stuff is hopefully coming with MySQL 4.1. You must use what you like, but don't spread fud.

#

bullschiz

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 16, 2002 12:57 AM
You're making crap up. PostgreSQL is stable; I've used it in relatively high volume production environments without trouble. I've never experienced server crashes or table corruption.


MySQL still doesn't do transactions in a stable version, still lacks subselects (these are actually very useful/performance enhancihg), and still doesn't support stored procedures/server site procedural language functions. Sorry, MySQL isn't near the quality of PostgreSQL; your assertions to the contrary are ill-informed and the aspersions you attempt to cast are thin and transparent. Back under the bridge, little troll.

#

Re:No room for FUD

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 16, 2002 09:20 PM
In my experience (tens big and mid-size various databases) PostgreSQL works not worse than Oracle. "not worse' in terms of chances of crashes and corruption on same DB sizes and same complicated DB schemas.


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.

#

This story has been archived. Comments can no longer be posted.



 
Tableless layout Validate XHTML 1.0 Strict Validate CSS Powered by Xaraya