LinuxSA Mailing list archives

  From: Matthew Geddes <mgeddes@xavier.sa.edu.au>
  To  : <LinuxSA@linuxsa.org.au>
  Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 09:55:37 +0930

Re: A view on MS and licencing ...

Richard Sharpe wrote:

> >Software licensing costs are a minimal tax-deductible portion of IT
> >expenditure. IT users spend the least amount they can here to obtain maximum
> >benefit. At most of the clients I've been to, the expenditure of around $250
> >per annum (Select pricing averaged over the two-three year lifespan) per
> >desktop on software is completely minimal compared to the income derived
> >from the employee (my last client: about $650,000 pa). If training costs of
> >(say) $1250 for a two day course to introduce FrizzleWord 23 per employee is
> >compared to spending nothing on training and $250 for the next version, you
> >can guess what's going to happen.
> >
> >In the early 90's most temp agencies supplied people proficient with Word
> >Perfect. If you didn't have WP, you couldn't use most temp agencies for
> >overflow work. Today, the situation is similar wrt Word, Excel, etc.
> >Companies do not like taking risks when it comes to using additional staff
> >that might cost extra. For example, try and find a contract tech writer who
> >is proficient in the superior and more flexible Adobe Framemaker, and then
> >do the same costing for a person proficient with Word, and the Word person
> >will be a lot cheaper due to more people with that skillset. To
> >beancounters, this sort of argument will win out everytime, regardless that
> >the Frame person will likely be faster, and the resulting document more
> >cohesive and with accurate indexes and so on for the end users.
> >
> >At most of my clients, the IT function is outsourced, and a visit to reload
> >the desktop (regardless of OS: we had several choices based upon make and
> >type) was about $250, which is roughly the price you'd expect if you treat
> >your time as worth something.
> >
> >For server tasks, you use the servers that accomplish the business function
> >first and platform ideology second. If a server can do tasks a,b,c and do it
> >well, then you should use it. If another server comes along that just
> >happens to be "free" (as in cost, not "libre"/freedom) and it does a,b,c
> >well, then maybe at the next time it comes time for an upgrade or a new
> >server, then you should use it. But if you need to do a,b,c, and d, and the
> >free version can only do a,b,c then you are costing your company money
> >whilst you work around the platform limitations. That's not smart.

Most servers are planned purchases, so it is possible (and essential) to
evaluate any products you may be considering. This gives you ample
opportunity to test free and commercial software alike and make the best
decision for your situation. Use the right tool for the right job (which
you can't do without first evaluating the tool).

> >For example, Stuart Edwards stated that Active Directory is equivalent to
> >Samba + Unix backend. It's not. AD is a directory, not a file store.

Agreed.

> In
> >combination with Win2K Server and clients, AD enables companies to reduce
> >the most significant costs associated with desktops: support. AD enables
> >remote automated software distribution, remote management (client and
> >server), large scale object management, file replication, fast diskless
> >automated client installs, global and local lockdowns, enforced security
> >policy, reduced WAN costs through more efficient object replication and so
> >on. IT users deploying Active Directory over a Samba (or NT 4.0) solution
> >will save money, even though Samba costs $0 and AD costs money because the
> >support costs are far more than the licensing costs, not to mention the WAN
> >savings. And again, the licensing costs are tax deductible.

But only useful for those that have AD capable clients. It is just as
possible (and easy) to manage a network full of unix workstations (most
flavours, commercial or free) and has been for years.

It is still possible to do some of this stuff running Windows NT and 9x
clients with a Samba or NT Domain Controller. With a little research,
System and Group Policies can help remotely manage workstations (OK, you
have little client side security, but what can you do with a client that
has no capability for being secured).

> >Yes, Microsoft are abusing their monopoly position to increase revenue from
> >traditionally friendly corporates, and expect them to voice their
> >displeasure, but realistically, MS desktop and server products are still
> >cheaper and more functional than the "free" competiton.

For someone who knows only Windows, perhaps. If you were looking at
implementing a free version of anything, you would still need to know
how to drive that anything. Having worked a great deal with both
Microsoft and Non-Microsoft Products, I now find it as easy (if not
easier) to use non-microsoft products on my servers. Having said that,
we still run an NT PDC, because Samba doesn't yet have a feature we're
looking for. Use the right tool for the right job.

> >For example, an Exchange server in a small-medium business (single site,
> >less than 400 employees) will take approximately 10 minutes to set up. The
> >last time I munged through a sendmail compile + m4 munge, it took me more
> >than 10 minutes. Try it yourself and see how long it takes to get a workable
> >sendmail 8.12 beta10 install going, or if you believe that comparing beta
> >software to release sofware is wrong, try sendmail 8.11.4 instead.

Yet, given my experience with Exchange it would take me more than 10
minutes (I haven't a great deal of experience with exchange), but 10
minutes is not a bad estimate for a stable and secure sendmail
installation (even from source). Obviously, it would take more time if
you were to use some of the more advanced features of sendmail.

> >Exchange server has more functionality out of the box than sendmail +
> >openldap + Cyrus IMAP + PAM LDAP + LDAP gui,

Every piece of software has things that another won't. Not being much of
an Exchange person, I can't give any specific answers, but sendmail is a
very, very flexible piece of software. Obviously, if there's a feature
available in Exchange that you need and can't get in sendmail, go with
Exchange (or vice-versa). Use the right tool for the right job.

> >and far greater reliability,

This could be debated for as long as the vi / emacs thing.

> >including transaction rollback etc.

Not being an Exchange person, I don't understand why this would be
necessary in a mail system.

> >Exchange costs a goodly sum of money,

:-)

> >but its administration costs are fairly minimal and can be maintained by a
> >monkey, which is unfortunately often the case. But Exchange makes good
> >business sense rather than good platform ideology sense. If the "free"
> >software camp seriously wish to change this, they must make stuff as easy to
> >install, administrate, use and functional as Microsoft do today. It's no
> >good slagging software with unsubstantiated rumors as to its reliability,
> >scalability, etc.

How can it make good business sense to have a monkey running your mail
system? I think it was one of Murphy's Laws of technology that stated:
"Create a system that a fool could use and only a fool would want to"
(or words to that effect). I believe that a lot of Open Source software
*is* user friendly and easy to administer, because it allows you more
control over the system, instead of placing a restrictive interface in
front of you. How often have I wanted more control over the machine
trust accounts in a Windows SAM database, but not being able to easily
(if at all) due to the black-box nature of a Windows-based server. With
Samba, I can edit a text file or an LDAP entry (using *standard* tools
too). Use the right tool for the right job.

> >http://www.arrayservices.com/projects/Exchange-HOWTO/html/book1.html

I actually made use of parts of this document once :-). I wouldn't say
it completely replaces Exchange in all cases, but it does make a good
substitute for most of the more common Exchange features (again, from
what I've heard).

> >Right tool for the job,

Always. :-)

Hope it helps,
Matt

-- 
LinuxSA WWW: http://www.linuxsa.org.au/  IRC: #linuxsa on irc.linux.org.au
To unsubscribe from the LinuxSA list:
  mail linuxsa-request@linuxsa.org.au with "unsubscribe" as the subject