Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature: Unix
A centralized server architecture could be the killer Unix app
Share
Print
CommentsIf you're like me, you probably use Linux or Unix at home and then go to work and wonder why all the people struggling with Microsoft products don't just upgrade to Linux. Despite all the cost and security issues, business's commitment to Microsoft's Windows desktop products shows few signs of waning. The key to turning this situation around may be to place the user's perspective above that of the systems staff.
Ask people why they make the systems decisions they do, and you'll get some interesting answers. Unix and Mac users usually talk in terms of the available technologies and the requirements they're addressing with their chosen platform. A primary driver is something like functionality, sufficiency at lowest cost, or the opportunity to contribute to a community.
Ask the average Windows user or corporate CIO the same question, however, and the primary behavioral determinant usually turns out to be some variation on "I'm doing what everyone expects, because it's what everyone is doing."
It doesn't take Mr. Spock to realize that making systems choices without considering either the technology or the requirements to be addressed cannot possibly be logical. But logical or not, that is the fundamental attitude those working toward wider acceptance for Unix ideas, including open source and network computing, are up against.
Back in the mid-'80s, when the Macintosh was first introduced, no reasonable individual could objectively weigh the merits of the Mac against those of the PC and decide in favor of the PC. What appears to have happened to the Mac then, and seems to be happening to Linux today, is that the better product succeeded when users made technology decisions based on their own needs, but failed when organizations allowed those decisions to be heavily influenced by systems professionals.
In 1984 users bought Macs but organizations bought IBM. Today technical users install Linux but organizations buy Microsoft. The products have changed but the underlying behavior hasn't, and it is this difference between individual and organizational behavior that now blocks the widespread acceptance of desktop Linux.
Part of the reason may be found in an odd phenomenon: individual decisions tend to be prospective, meaning heavily influenced by the expectation of value to be received, while organizational decisions tend to be retrospective, meaning heavily influenced by the vendor's track record. (This is why authors like Tom Clancy and J. K. Rowling, for example, received rejection notices from every major publisher before getting their first books into print.) Thus organizations then bought the IBM PC/AT and now buy Microsoft Windows while individuals bought MacWrite and MacDraw then and OpenOffice.org products now.
How can organizations break out of this self-perpetuating loop? Only through application of an external force.
Outside of the United States Linux is getting that extra kick from national economic policy. Governments in countries like Germany and China are pushing Linux mainly because it isn't American, while India and Japan push it in an effort to seize national economic advantage in computer services. Obviously, however, those forces not only don't apply within the US, but represent long-term competitive threats.
Inside the United States what's needed is a true killer application for Unix, something that is so obviously preferable to what came before that it can overcome organizational inertia and drive significant cultural change.
The replacement of the Microsoft client/server architecture with the Unix business architecture is a candidate for the role of that missing killer application.
In contrast to the "one man, one computer" fragmentation inherent in the Microsoft client/server, a properly implemented Unix architecture tends to extend the reach of the individual by providing the coordination and focus needed for large groups of people to pursue a common goal.
Unfortunately, the fact that it's possible for Unix to draw organizations together doesn't mean that it usually does. On the contrary, that requirement for decentralized control makes the Unix business architecture anathema to traditional data center managers and almost completely unintelligible to Windows people struggling to achieve productivity and uptime through desktop lockdown and server centralization.
| What's a smart display? |
|---|
A smart display is a terminal with a big screen and a powerful graphics engine. It typically runs Java/OS, an X server, or Display PostScript, often concurrently. Notice, however, that applications run only on the server, not the client. This is not a diskless workstation (a.k.a. a Microsoft thin client); there is no double licensing, no Microsoft security issue, no Windows server, and no local application processing. From the user perspective a smart display offers fast, high-resolution, big-screen graphics with no noise, no heat, and a reasonable expectation that it'll go 300,000 hours between failures. Reliability is a big part of the appeal of these devices to systems management staff too, but the best thing about them is the exact opposite of what you might expect: the range of software, inherent security, and easy updateability of the Unix host environment mean that smart display users can be given greater desktop control and greater application flexibility than is possible at any practical cost with the Microsoft client/server architecture. The 1998 IBM Redbook IBM Network Station - RS/6000 notebook" by Laurent Kahn and Akihiko Tanishita provides an excellent, if somewhat dated, introduction to the technology covering setup, operations, benefits, and typical business deployments of smart display terminals. |
As a result most Unix installations in business are fundamentally mismanaged. There are currently very few business success stories for the Unix/smart display architecture.
Sun itself provides one example of a success in the making. According to a recent presentation by Bill Vass, Sun's CIO, about running Sun on Sun, he now has around 25,000 smart displays installed and is starting to see significant benefits.
To demonstrate the benefits this architecture offers users, just turn on a smart display, log in, and show users that the applications they care about work instantly and without any of the frustrations -- file losses, reboots, help desks, multiple sign-ons, noise, having to relearn the OS every few months, cantankerous application clients, viruses, PC networking, and so on -- that characterize the business PC.
It's almost equally easy to demonstrate some direct cost savings to organizations. Just talk about things like reduced capital costs, reduced maintenance, and the benefits of having a single point of service for software and file management; then discuss the elimination of various Microsoft Windows cost sinks including PC networking, the help desk, and the maintenance organization.
Try to go beyond that, however, and the supporting research hasn't been done. For example, it is reasonable to believe that organizational returns on major systems investments in things like an ERP/SCM application are significantly higher with the Unix architecture than with client/server, but the research needed to support or debunk the idea has not been done.
| Big numbers, little evidence |
|---|
|
One line of reasoning holds that the inherent complexity of the Windows architecture
requires the company to operate a PC help desk and thus to put first-line
application support into the hands of people who know the infrastructure but don't
know the user's job or applications.
Replacing the client/server architecture with the Unix approach eliminates most of the ambiguities in problem diagnosis because things that aren't there can't break. That eliminates the need for a help desk and allows companies to have lead users provide application support to their peers, thereby removing both cost and social barriers to user experimentation and learning. The resulting productivity increase flows directly to the bottom line. For a company adding a billion dollars in value to its annual inputs, a 1% change amounts to a $10 million increase in funds available for shareholder distribution or re-investment -- easily dwarfing all other systems-related cost/benefit considerations. |
The critical issue with Unix for business isn't technology but management. The key component is a deep commitment to combining decentralized control with centralized services. Real long-term productivity gains don't come from cash savings on software, desktops, or staffing, but from peeling away layers of complexity and risk to let people do their jobs as they want to do them. Unfortunately that's also where the biggest risks with a Unix/smart display architecture are: if systems management tries to use the system to seize control of business processes -- in effect trying to recreate the old mainframe terminal days -- everyone loses. Think of Unix as a central information switch and you can see the danger: put the wrong people in control of it, and they'll strangle the company.
To counteract that, you have to set things up to give users genuine control of their applications and computing environment. You arrange for things to stay that way by educating users to exert a balancing force against IT's centralizing tendency. The best way to truly educate users is to get them to adopt Linux or BSD at home. A knowledgeable user base can counter any attempt by the IT people to pull off the kind of power grab represented by desktop lockdown and related Microsoft client/server strategies.
Though the way to better productivity is through a different organizational model rather than reducing hardware or software costs, there are some clear lessons one can learn by running the numbers. Next week we'll look at the differences in demonstrable costs for the two architectures.
Paul Murphy wrote and published The Unix Guide to Defenestration. Murphy is a 20-year veteran of the IT consulting industry.
Comments
on A centralized server architecture could be the killer Unix appNote: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
Re:Good stuff...however Dick Tracy disagrees...
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 18, 2003 11:21 AMDick Tracy's wrist watch will be a reality (however, no processor that is wrist watch size will ever work because of the amount of MIPS and power that it would take to do it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... instead, the wrist watch will rely on a bunch of that kind of power that will be static, stationary, and somewhere else)!
Re:Good stuff...however Dick Tracy disagrees...
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 22, 2003 01:12 AMHistorians agree that the major force of change was IBM, obviously. A huge sales organisation and a presence in industry like no other company certainly displaced technical issues into second place. Apple, meanwhile, didn't exactly have that kind of influence.
Remember, in the early days the PC was little more than an extended typewriter and calculator. Windows (both MAC and MS) came along and it looked pretty and clever, and had a WOW factor, but no real significant commercial role.
The PC only gradually slipped into the big role it is now, and it did so by a "surround and conquer" method. MS managed to get one on each desk, and it was what people were familiar with, and it was what was available.
The IBM PC slowed down the personal computing world by about 10 years. It wasn't until 1995 that I bought my first Intel PC - because I wanted to access the internet, and Linux (and NT to a lesser extent) was available. I also got a neat little notebook in the same year on which I ran Windows 95 (Compaq Concerto).
IMHO it took about 10 years to the Wintel system to get back to where we were in 1985 - and really deliver a "next generation".
Of course, we had PCs at work which I had to use - but fortunately, most development was done on Unix boxes.
A laptop makes an expensive remote display, but X11's network features means you can remotely login to the central server and work the same way as from a 'smart display'. BTW, how is a 'smart display' different from an X-terminal?
If you need the big monitor a laptop isn't a good substitute anyway.
You can have some kind of "dual booting" protocol so the PC "knows" if it is conected to the network or it isn't (in fact faster than in Windows, since you don't have to reboot the box).
Now you have added complexity.
Then you add any remote sync'ing technology: you sync to your local<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/home copy, go home, do some work, go workplace, do some work oops! I forgot resyncing, resync, ooops! lost either work/home or home/home changes!!
Now, my sysadmin added and automatical sync procedure so I can't forget. Sync a shared file with some project related data. Work on it at home, go workplace, resync, oooops!!!! I deleted other's work!!!
Again, this can be avoided, but at a cost: it is more and more dificult.
But in the airport bar, I sure hear a lot of loudmouths acting important (and making sure I can't down my whisky in peace), and making sure all the strangers around them know they'll be working on something "very important" as soon as the plane takes off.
Re:German decision is *not* an anti-US decision
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 20, 2003 01:23 PMIIRC, these concernes were lifted after Microsoft opened his source code for inspection.
Re:German decision is *not* an anti-US decision
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 22, 2003 01:22 AMIf anything there is no management for the entries in the inboxes; box full start clearing out. Mail in inboxes is often not shared. If anything there is both a lack of proper business management and a lack of system management. Many of the PC software is not up to what is actually required. Then again most users do not understand what is lacking in many applications to coloborate properly.
Giving users "genuine" control is as silly as only providing system management. The whole point of proper system management is that it is the system management necessary for THAT company. "Genuine" controlled systems get stolen, are not backed up, do not get their virus updates regularly and reliably do not share data with other "genuine" controlled systems.
When system managers have an eye for what their business requires, it becomes less relevant if it is windows or unix, central or local, it is the service that fascilitates the organisation.
1. they are limited to a single host (the desk where used)
2. they cannot be shared (you want to try using your smart card to authenticate to a server farm? not gonna happen)
3. They do not support large computations
4. they do not support distributed applications
5. the basic platform provides such weak security that the results should NOT be trusted.
This has been mandated and that is what I am trying to show. If the implementation is that weak, why doesn't the Open Source Community come with a better hardware implementation. And believe me when I say PGP is not that implementation.
I admit that applications like FormFlow are a problem, but they will be fixed as large organizations start asking for solutions. Until then, Linux may be used where the apps are already available.
Microsoft, allow me to introduce the competition!
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 18, 2003 03:40 AM> While Unix and Linux for the home user is very good. Working for big corporations and the US Government that has spent millions developing Windows specific applications that have no plans to go to Unix will still be the killer.
But that's looking at things the wrong way.
It doesn't matter if some businesses will always be tied to Microsoft, because the objective is NOT to kill Microsoft (as nice as that idea might be).
The real objective is to prevent Microsoft from destroying (polluting, taking over, breaking) the Internet and Linux (and other non-MS protocols and software).
Open Source software doesn't have to take over every desktop in order to achieve that goal, in fact, we don't even need a majority.
What is required is much more reasonable, for example:
1. Non-MS office software must be used by enough businesses that MS Office file formats are no longer considered the defacto standard.
2. Non-MS e-mail software must be used by enough businesses that MS is prevented from decommoditizing e-mail protocols (any further than they already have).
3. Non-MS platforms and browsers must be used by enough people that websites cannot afford to ignore web standards.
4. Non-MS PC operating systems must provide a large enough target market that Microsoft cannot control the PC industry and hardware APIs.
I could think of other examples, but you get the idea.
In order to achieve these more modest objectives, we only need a fraction of the market, say between 2 and 10 percent, depending on which area.
So how are we doing in the areas I listed above? Let's look...
1. Open Source has just started to move into the office software market, with products like OpenOffice, and now OpenGroupware. There have been some high profile migrations to Linux on the desktop. Although progress will be slow, we have a major ally on our side, namely, the current install base of MS Office and Exchange. Since Open Source software already supports the existing protocols, Microsoft will need to introduce new protocols in order to maintain their lock-in, and that will take time -- time enough for Open Source to capture a credible percentage of the desktop market.
2. Microsoft's attempts to decommoditize e-mail have so far been limited to local office networks. Over the Internet, Microsoft has been blocked by the fact that the e-mail standard is extremely entrenched, and any incompatibility would be noticed, and the blame placed where it belongs. Microsoft's greatest victory has been to mess with the protocol between HotMail and the browser, which is of limited use to them. Meanwhile, there has been growth in non-MS platforms, such as Linux, Mac OS/X, the Playstation, not to mention non_MS e-mail clients, such as Evolution. I think the window of opportunity for Microsoft to decommoditize e-mail is quickly closing.
3. Regarding the Internet, if you ignore the propaganda put out by Microsoft's shills, and seek out some realistic statistics, you find that between 10 and 15 percent of web surfers use a browser other than IE. Add to that the fact that over 60 percent of websites run Apache, and you will see that, despite all their efforts, Microsoft is still not in a position to control Internet protocols. Now, with the continued growth of non-MS browser platforms, and the wisespread use of non-MS languages like Java and PHP, I think it may be too late for Microsoft. Microsoft's only chance to pull victory out of the jaws of defeat may lie in government legislation and DRM, but there are a lot of forces allied against them. In other words, I'm feeling pretty good about the Internet these days.
4. I think that the 30+ million Linux users is already too large a market for the hardware manufacturers to ignore. Microsoft's attempts to control the hardware market have already failed.
On the last item, I would point out that the more tightly Microsoft tries to control the hardware market, the more it will contribute to the failure of Microsoft.
Over the years, Microsoft software has steadily become less efficient, and more expensive. The only reason Microsoft has gotten away with it is because the underlying hardware has become more powerful, and less expensive.
But the hardware advancement has been entirely due to competition in the market, i.e. due to the fact that the PC is a commodity product.
Therefore, if Microsoft imposes too much control over the hardware business, they will only end up with a situation where Windows-ready PCs are more expensive than Linux-ready PCs.
I think Microsoft had better learn how to survive in a competitve market, and do it soon. In fact, I'll give them a hint on how to start:
Hey, Microsoft! You know those people that you currently refer to as "marks"? Well, most companies call them customers, and if you treat them well, then they may choose your product over that of a competitor...
I knew my post was long, and I expected it to get cut off, but I thought that at least the opening paragraphs would be visible.
There is also a <A HREF="http://mydemo.personalwebtop.net/" TITLE="personalwebtop.net">demo</a personalwebtop.net> available.
Great for a managed, hosted desktop solution!
One cannot change a paradigm thru culture only. "Affirmative action" steps must also be done, that is one cannot only demo the benefits of Linux and expect them to magically impact everyone.
No sane manager will jeopardize his job, just for theorethical gains. He needs tangible proof or better yet, proven success cases.
Another problem with the approach is that it basically gives no short term benefit, and several short term investments.
We at Linux need to rethink our role inside the IT, rather than exclude ourselves from the mainstream. We need to focus on integration, rather than isolation.
As you stated, one of the key values of Linux is X Windows but most of us have read the solution (and problem) wrong.
The solution really isn't about creating decentralized APPS or DESKTOPS but rather on shifting the client/server axis. With Windows, Windows XP clients spin around a Windows Server (NT, 2000, 2003, etc.) platform. You have the apps, he has the data.
In smart displays things drift off balance, in a situation where he (the server and in escence, the IT network manager) has both the apps and the data, destroing user empowerment and killing the investment on intelligent user devices, resurrecting the VT100, 3270, et. al. model. This has silently happened with Web models.
Web browsers are the heirs of the VT100, with fancy graphics and GUI interfaces. Using HTML thru Java or VBScript it is easier to develop pseudo GUIs than using VB or C++. The idea is killer, but the long term reach is in doubt.
This is where X Windows comes to the rescue, but we need to shift the client/server schema backwards. Users PCs must become SERVERS of all sorts, starting with Display Servers (X), File and Device Servers (FireWire, USB, IrDA, Bluetooth, etc.). In these new paradigm, ancient "servers" are just CPU and Memory Servers. You have the data sources and he has the apps. Sounds strange, doesn't it.
Let me give an example. You have several cashiers on a bank, all of them with a PC.
In old client server each cashier has a teller client connected to the central computer. Checks are cashed, bills are payed, all thru the interaction with the central NT with a common protocol.
Problem is if the protocol changes, all clients must change. Service Pack bonanza.
No let's change things to a smart display setup.
Cashiers no longer have PCs but rather big LCD displays that think they are PCs, but are quiet as church monks. The problem is, they cost about the same are essentially useless for anything else. So managements doesn't like them because, they are worthless outside the bank. PCs in contrast are worth something outside it, even if Windows crashes one or twice.
The problem is the Bank is tired of Service Pack bonanza, and so chooses a Web browser based solution.
Suddenly the cashiers get to keep their PCs but they suddenly became "lobotomized". They don't have the apps nor the data. They are essentially terminal emulators. So in the long run, the company destroyed several hundred dollars worth of equipment without firing a single gun.
Now let's shift the lane. X computing doesn't destroy the PCs, nor forces people to buy useless hardware. They even can keep Windows (thru Cygwin XFree86). The company installs cygwin in the server and Linux on cashiers.
Later the company patches the original client/server software so it can act as x client to several X Servers. Now the client is really running in the server, so the transactions are blindingly fast.
Next, we instruct the software to be able to print in the local printer, or read the local smart card reader, etc. For this we create a local Device Server running in port 8080, maybe made in Java or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net/mono. We could use XML web services or just plain dumb sockets.
Finally we mount the shared SAMBA volumes into NT and share the floppy and a part of the hard disk.
In two to four years with decide that the original NT system is obsolete, so we switch to a 100% Linux system. Voila, paradigm change in just 80 (corporate) days.
I hope this gives most of you ideas on how to make this work. Bye and sorry for the long response.
If you're like me, you probably use Linux or Unix at home and then go to work and wonder why all the people struggling with Microsoft products don't just upgrade to Linux. Despite all the cost and security issues, business's commitment to Microsoft's Windows desktop products shows few signs of waning. The key to turning this situation around may be to place the user's perspective above that of the systems staff.
And if you're like most people (90%+ of the population), you go to work and use the same operating system and probably the same software as you have at home. I'm sorry, but people *do not* struggle with software in the workplace nearly as much linux users seam to think. Usually problems with software are "how do I do this..." or "I hit some key and this went away, how do I get it back?". While I agree linux has got far superior security and core system stability, Microsoft has the software market cornered.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a hardcore gentoo user - and I use openoffice.org routinely - but have you ever used this thing? It's slower than dirt, even on a decent machine (Athlon XP 2200+ with 512 MB ram), and I still have problems getting it to print.
I agree with the principles of your argument: centralized servers and thin clients will be *the* standard in the future for businesses, but a few things have to happen before that future can become a reality.
The single greatest thing threatening the OSS community is its lack of unity. Yes, choice is great. Yes, diversification can be beneficial and encourage competition. But who cares about *either* of those points when most of your software is at odds with one another? What's going to happen when you have normal people using KDE at home, but Gnome in the work place? It might be a cliche, but it's true: there can be only one dominant desktop environment. Microsoft realized that years ago; it's part of the reason they're so sucessful, regardless of everything else. When you write your new word processor for windows users, you can be sure it will print for *all* windows users. Can you say the same for linux?
As other user(s) have commented, mobility is the other issue here. Until it becomes cheap enough and widespread enough to have wireless connections nationwide (with speeds of at least 11mbps; and preferably worldwide coverage), servercentric computing will not become a viable option for companies.
Luckily, linux is poised to take this market. Unluckily, however, we are years away from having cheap, nationwide high speed wireless - ample time for Microsoft to develop, market, and dominate such a field; not to mention OSS developers need to get their act together and agree on a *real* standard that *everyone* follows, so that the rest of the world can enjoy the benefits linux has to offer.
MS thrived because they went after the home user first, they raised a generation of future IT professionals on their system and then designed their business systems around their market.
I use linux both server and workstation and love it, wont use windows again, but personally, 5-8 years is a conservative estimate for linux to be truly accepted on the personal desktop. The main reasons why are
1- Have you ever tried to explain the number of flavors of linux and why they exist to a life long MS user? it takes a min 30 minutes before the blank look goes from their face and they change the subject.
1A- Percieved lack of support. Linux is intimidating to a novice and even more scary to a person with their first computer. Massive hand holding is needed and nobody in opensource can afford to give that kind of 'one on one' yet.
2- Have you ever tried to install something like RedHat 8.0? what a mess. Nobody would ever come back after that.
3- RTFM is still the most popular answer in any support board/chat. Personal users wont stand for this *at all*.
4- Too many assumptions are made from the users perspective, far too often documentation "assumes" a certain level of knowledge and user feel like they are being driven in circles
5- Games.. windows is easy to run games on, even the stupid ones, (and if you think this is not a good reason then you have never had a teenage kid in your house.)
6- As mentioned above, no unity. OSS is seen by most American business owners as a communist/socialist movement. A place for chaos and flame wars, why do you think companies like Oracle, Sun, IBM and MS make so much money? They put an organzed front on an otherwise un organized "culture" that has little (if any) accountability and no sign of any being assigned any time soon.
Until major resources are focued more to the desktop than to enterprise computing linux will be doomed to the same market share that it has now. It's all about making it "so easy that every idiot can do it"
Thanks
Good stuff...however
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on July 17, 2003 06:02 PM#