With Linux, there are no absolutes

In his piece on Linux's TCO in this week's InfoWorld, Senior Contributing Editor David L. Margulius analyzes the true costs and benefits of moving to Linux from a Unix or Windows environment. It's interesting to see the debate over Linux turning from "if" to "where." The financial numbers for Linux can be spun many different ways depending on your point of view. If you're a CTO who wants to migrate to Linux from any platform, there is probably some way to line up the numbers in your favor. Internally at InfoWorld, we've made a strong commitment to Linux in certain areas while keeping Windows running in others. It's not really an either/or argument, although I would concede that I tend to prefer Linux on the back end more than Windows. If I look at my environment from a functional perspective, Windows and Linux both have positives and negatives, and choices should be made not for ideological purity but to get the job done.

Free IT resource Open Source Business Conference (OSBC) May 22-23, 2007 Sponsored by OSBC Free IT resource TechNet: More ways to know it, share it, and keep it running. Sponsored by Microsoft

It's not incredibly profound to note that Linux is not quite ready for the desktop, but I'll repeat it again for good measure. I find KDE and Gnome very simple to navigate, and at various times, I've toyed with the idea of testing Linux on the desktop. In the end, though, I'm not ready to take on the task of training an entire company that needs to be focused on editing, sales, and marketing, rather than learning a new OS. From a system-stability perspective, Windows XP is the least disruptive solution for now (even taking into account persistent Microsoft security issues), and I'm not ready to rock that boat. (Mac OS X can also be a viable desktop alternative -- look for a column soon on that topic.)

For run-of-the-mill file and print services, Windows 2003 is a reasonable choice if you're already sticking with Windows on the desktop. File/print servers on most office LANs are within relatively easy reach of administrators and usually behind firewalls; thus, they're well-protected from typical Windows security holes, so dealing with problems is usually simple. You can handle the same function quite well with Samba on Linux, but in most environments you probably won't save that much time or money going that route.

On the back end, however, Linux still maintains the strong edge for a very simple reason. Judging from some of the announced improvements in Windows 2003, Microsoft recognizes one area where Linux excels: remote administration. Remote administration on a Windows box continues to be painful compared to a Linux box, although Microsoft prominently markets "low-bandwidth access to data" with Windows 2003. A former colleague of mine who has gotten into Linux systems administration after an early career in the Windows world told me recently (and I paraphrase): When you have a problem with a Linux box, you launch SSH (Secure Shell) to access it, take a quick look at the process table, and generally figure out what's going on in about a minute. With Windows, despite advances in Terminal Server and improvements with remote management solutions such as pcAnywhere, you're still facing a clunky progression through various GUIs to get to the heart of the problem. With Linux, you can have the problem solved in the same time it might take to get a Windows login screen. For a lights-out environment, the advantage of quick and easy remote administration can't be overstated.

Despite strong feelings on the fringes of the discussion, there are no absolutes to guide any OS choice. It's all about what works best in your environment, and often that is a complex mix of problems and solutions.