The Limitations Of Linux Lisa DiCarlo, 06.16.03
There have been so many glowing stories on the use of Linux that one might come away with the impression that Linux is an elixir that solves myriad business problems, and that it is always cheaper than alternatives. But like a lot of technologies before it, Linux has, to some degree, been overhyped.
There is no question that companies can sometimes cut costs and increase productivity by using Linux systems instead of Unix or Microsoft (nasdaq: MSFT - news - people ) Windows. But there are costs and technical limitations associated with Linux that don't typically make headlines.
Customers say these include a lack of mature development tools, too many Linux variants, acquisition costs for more sophisticated versions of the software and lack of applications for small and medium-sized businesses.
Master Nursery Garden Center, a $500 million gardening cooperative, has been using Linux for several years and is satisfied with its cost and performance. Yet Michael Baeta, director of technology communications, concedes that there is "not a lot of depth" in some areas. "Figuring out stuff...like production, low-end desktop publishing or using a consumer-oriented database will take some outside consulting," he says. "You run into problems when you try to do something that it's not designed to do."
That's partly because, at this point, Linux lags Windows in terms of integration with hardware and software. That's changing--Oracle (nasdaq: ORCL - news - people ), Dell Computer (nasdaq: DELL - news - people ), IBM (nyse: IBM - news - people ), Veritas Software (nasdaq: VRTS - news - people ) and others are making inroads--but it takes time to test for every permutation and make sure everything works well together.
What about cost?
Ask anyone to name the first thing that comes to mind when they hear the word "Linux," and most likely what he'll say is "free." While less complex versions of Linux are often free, enterprise-class variants are more costly.
Tom Fisher, assistant vice president at Guide One Insurance, was stung by the $10,000 price tag of the mainframe version of Linux, distributed by SuSe. "IBM was preaching that Linux was free," says Fisher. "But it's not free on the mainframe. That was a big surprise." Still, he says he avoids support fees, which can run in the tens of thousands of dollars annually, by leveraging the worldwide network of Linux developers on the Web.
Most companies measure cost not by the initial one-time purchase of hardware or software, but by what it costs over a period of years, or the total cost of ownership.
"Linux is not free when you count maintenance and support," says Aaron Barnham, vice president of operations at TMP Technologies, a unit of Monster Worldwide (nasdaq: MNST - news - people ), which runs career Web site Monster.com. "Every company, product and Web site is different. With tech budgets tight, everybody needs to look at their true cost of ownership and determine what is the right fit."
Barnham explained that the cost of swapping out Windows or Unix servers, retraining and maintenance might wipe out whatever initial cost savings Linux provides. That said, "If Microsoft keeps raising software prices, it will change our total cost-of-ownership numbers and that would force us to reconsider."
Last year, Microsoft sponsored a study by International Data Corp. that found Windows systems to be cheaper than Linux over a five-year period. The study looked at five common business uses and concluded that Windows is less expensive in four of five instances. IDC pointed out, however, that Linux developers and supporters are quickly closing the price gap. Packaged Linux software will increasingly be built into server hardware, reducing the need for extra development. Further, the report said, "system management tools are emerging and can be expected to expand rapidly," thus reducing the total cost of Linux servers.
For smaller customers, Linux might not be cost effective. That's because there aren't as many Linux applications available for small businesses as for larger ones, and also because small customers generally don't have the resources to do much custom development.
"I'm not a fan of Linux at all [because] there wasn't a lot of off-the-shelf software," says Jalem Getz, president of Buyseasons, a $10 million costume e-tailer that dumped its open-source Web servers for Windows in 2000. "We had to build everything from scratch and we didn't have the budget for that."
Getz says there were technical problems with Microsoft's Commerce Server products but that the company made good by giving Buyseasons four free weeks of development time with Microsoft engineers.
John Groenveld, associate research engineer at Pennsylvania State Applied Research Lab, says he is "no fan of Microsoft" but is distressed by the fact that there isn't a single standard for Linux. There are many companies, including Red Hat (nasdaq: RHAT - news - people ) and SuSe, producing their own versions. "Each has [its] own peculiarities," Groenveld says. "What if you choose one that doesn't succeed" in the marketplace?
Most experts agree that there will be a shakeout amongst Linux distributors simply because the market, however large, will not sustain all the players.
So, in the end, this is what we know: Linux is here to stay; it will get better; and sometimes it's cheaper than alternatives, but it's not right for every application. We know the very same about Windows.
Source: www.forbes.com