A research report landed on my desk this week, the conclusions of which will be controversial to a few readers. But for the rest of us the report independently confirms what we already knew or suspected. It also tends to confirm what Microsoft has been saying, slaps down some zealots and reminds us that media hype can't always be trusted. Here's the lead from the press release that arrived attached to the report: "Most mid-sized enterprises are simply not interested in Linux, according to a recent study by Info-Tech Research Group. ... A tiny 10 percent of mid-sized enterprises plan to evaluate Linux within the next three years and only a portion of these will actually adopt it." The just-released report includes results of a survey of more than 1,400 IT executives that was conducted in January. It includes responses from the United States, Canada and the U.K. and defines "midsized enterprise" as a business with less than $1 billion in annual revenue. Most of the respondents were from companies in the $250-$500 million range. The margin of error is +/-2.4 percent, Info-Tech said. Other findings: Only 27 percent of respondents currently have Linux installed. Almost half of respondents said they had "no interest" in Linux. Of the companies where Linux is not already installed, 48 percent have no interest and an additional 15 percent are not sure. Read the rest of the article at eWeek.
FTA: "Linux is free, but the support for it is not." Windows is not free, and the support for it is not free either. I think part of the issue here is that these 'mid-sized' companies sprang up within the last 20 or so years, and typically all they've used is Windows. They've already commited a lot of time and money into the platform, and it'd be a hardship to change it if it's working well enough for their needs. Smaller companies are quicker to adopt Linux because the TCO is attractive and they are looking for a competitive edge. The company I work for sees only millions, not billions, but GNU/Linux/FOSS has already saved us a lot in time and money. Conversely, they were a Windows-only shop before I came along, and at that time they spent more and got less for it. When you're not that far in the black, things like that matter more. In the performance/stability arena, you could say that they would definately notice if we went back to a MS-only shop. Larger businesses often have the resources (mainly of the experienced human type) in order to pull off enterprise-wide Linux migration, or at least a complete back-end migration. The 'competetive edge' point also comes into play here. IBM has been in the computing business since 1888, and they feel FOSS is worth using and supporting. On the other hand, one could say that OSS doesn't need business at all. If nobody pays for free software, does anybody care? It's not as if FOSS (free, open-source software) will suddenly go out of business. If organisations do take advantage of Linux, it will surely pull its weight. If not, than it won't. Simple as that. -AT P.S. - If my math is right, about 54% of mid-sized companies are either using Linux or are interested in it. Does that constitute 'no interest'?
So what is it that was already "suspected?" That Linux isn't being used in mid-sized businesses? If so, then I dont see why Linux users should be even remotely offended that mid-sized businesses don't use the operating system. To us, it just means that they haven't gotten the brains yet to try a superior operating system. But I'm assuming that what is implied is that, because mid-sized businesses aren't using Linux, it must not be very good. In which case, it's a shame that this one report, in itself, confirms "what we already knew." And I don't see how [assuming it's factual], this article "slaps down some zealots." If anything, it is more like an ant bite between the toes; just irritating and you wait for it to go away. In fact, I'm betting that this article doesn't do anything close to putting anyone in their place. Linux users are either waiting for this to be proven wrong or for the businesses to come to their senses and start using the more stable, secure, and flexible product. P.S. Nice way to post an unbiased report.
I'm just posting the news as it is on quite a few sites, in fact this article I orignally found on an Open Source site. This is the researchers/authors position, and if you feel differently that's how you feel. I've seen both sides, businesses that won't touch Linux because there are no certified individuals around and they can find an MCSE easily or because their applications are Windows native. And I've seen other companies go with Linux for cost/security reasons. I'd tend to go with this article just based on the certification fact, I've had quite a few times when a companies IT staff wouldn't let me install applications for them until I was able to show them a certificate that I was certified as both an MCSE and with the app I was adding to their enviroment.
Sorry about that.. I was under the impression that some parts of that text was your own opinion as opposed to text directly from the site. The lack of [/QUOTE] or "s made it a bit confusing in that respect.
This is an older article though. I remember reading it quite a ways back and being a bit irritated. The major thing that bothers me about it is that it's definately an anti-Linux bias, since the article might have easily said "More than half of mid-sized businesses either using or intersted in the Linux platform"; or, God forbid, they might have just presented the information as-is. The 54% I got comes from the very same data from which eWeek claims midsized businesses don't care about Linux. Where's the discrepancy, in my math or theirs? -AT
Incidentally, I became curious as to the claim that medium-sized businesses comprise the bulk of US businesses. So curious in fact, that I headed over to the SBA to see what their stats had to say about it. It seems I was right to be suspicious, because their data seems to strongly contradict the data from Mr. Coursey's eWeek article. Here's a little snippet from the SBA: How important are small businesses to the U.S. Economy? Small firms Represent more than 99.7 percent of all employers. Employ more than half of all private sector employees Pay 44.5 percent of total U.S. private payroll. Generate 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs annually. Create more than 50 percent of nonfarm private gross domestic product (GDP). Supplied 22.8 percent of the total value of federal prime contracts (about $50 billion) in FY 2001. Produce 13 to 14 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms. These patents are twice as likely as large firm patents to be among the one percent most cited. Are employers of 39 percent of high tech workers (such as scientists, engineers, and computer workers ) . Are 53 percent home-based and 3 percent franchises. Made up 97 percent of all identified exporters and produced 29 percent of the known export value in FY 2001. Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census; Advocacy-funded research by Joel Popkin and Company (Research Summary #211); Federal Procurement Data System; Advocacy-funded research by CHI Research, Inc. (Research Summary #225); Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey; U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration. In conclusion, it seems Mr. Coursey was wrong about many things... Linux has no place in medium-sized corperations -- FALSE Medium-sized enterprises have no use for Linux in their existing infrastructure -- FALSE A majority of medium enterprises have no existing Linux infrastructure -- FALSE The US economy is comprised mainly of medium-sized businesses -- FALSE There are no existing growth trends for Linux in the mid-sized corperate market -- FALSE It would be infantile of me to make fun of the man's looks in addition to criticizing his heavily partisan views. So I'm just going to post his picture... If you are to laugh at him I claim no responsibility for, nor do I support, such childish actions. For shame! -AT
