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.