Fundamental Difference in the Mindset for Updates of Linux vs. Windows Admins
-
Opps medication addled typo
-
And to be clear, I'm not saying that Windows is bad or that it should not be chosen. I'm saying that buying Windows when you can't afford to, can't commit to or simply won't embrace it is reckless and silly. If you want to go Windows, fine, but go Windows. We do at NTG. Windows 10, Server 2012 R2, Azure, Office 365. We use MS tools, we keep them up to date. When we use Windows, we embrace it. We don't pay for something we hate and then refuse to maintain it and wait for the wheels to come off.
-
@Dashrender said:
@johnhooks said:
It kind of reminds me of a discussion I had with a buddy in college. We were talking about cars and I said it would be cool to have an H1 but no one could afford it. He said "my dad could afford it" and I explained that the gas and maintenance alone would be so much more than a normal car. He said "well he could afford the car." The whole cost goes into this, not just the initial purchase.
yeah, my friend gets pissed when the news puts surburan owners on complaining about gas prices - you know your vehicle only gets 10 mpg, why are you complaining? you know gas prices go up (normally) so again, why are you complaining.. you should have been aware when you made the purchase.. but the reality is 90% of people don't think about the future like that. that includes most SMBs.
The difference is, consumers don't have a "job" to think about the future like that. But for a business executive, it is quite literally their only job.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
That's the thing... it cost more up front, it costs more every day. Every day is a chance to start fixing the situation without an investment. Every day companies decide to either pay more, or just wait for the engine to seize.
The without an investment is not true. There is user training, finding comparable apps and deploying OS and said apps. Those things aren't free.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@MattSpeller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
In the Windows world, we get very much the opposite. People routinely implement patching controls not to accelerate patching but to control holding it back. Patches are often rolled out grudgingly and infrequently. Major updates, like moving from Windows 7 to Windows 8, 8.1 or 10, are often actually avoided.
Upgrading version is Linux is free. Until Windows 10, upgrading was never free. Most people that I know allow windows update to run (well because the default in Windows 7 was to run automatically) and those people don't have issues, generally. But they apply the updates because they are free. Where do they stop? when they have to spend money.
Same is true of the initial purchase. If "free" was a real factor, it would have played a role much earlier. I can't believe that they stop "when they spend money" because that fundamentally goes against how the situation was arrived at.
To you a forward thinking full on business man sure - but most SMB's by your own definition are not such thinkers... soooo
Nor should they be unless that is their intended business model. Stay with tried and true recipes for success and use OS's that just about anyone you hire will be familiar with.
Windows is not tried and true in the SMB. It's actually the opposite.
You've totally lost me - are 100% linux / macos SMB's a thing anywhere?
-
@Dashrender said:
The without an investment is not true. There is user training, finding comparable apps and deploying OS and said apps. Those things aren't free.
True, they are relatively free, however. Keeping Windows up to date has the same costs over time. This is a common myth that people point to to keep people from moving off of Windows. But if you watch the real world, Linux can, in some cases, actually lower the cost there. It's not uncommon for the pain of moving to Linux to be lower than the pain of updating Windows. And no matter how much someone avoids updating Windows, it has to happen at some point. And all that "cost" of the Linux move bites you regardless.
And, in fact, the more that rolling updates are avoided on windows, the more costly and painful that becomes as the changes are not small, they are disruptive.
-
@MattSpeller said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@MattSpeller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
In the Windows world, we get very much the opposite. People routinely implement patching controls not to accelerate patching but to control holding it back. Patches are often rolled out grudgingly and infrequently. Major updates, like moving from Windows 7 to Windows 8, 8.1 or 10, are often actually avoided.
Upgrading version is Linux is free. Until Windows 10, upgrading was never free. Most people that I know allow windows update to run (well because the default in Windows 7 was to run automatically) and those people don't have issues, generally. But they apply the updates because they are free. Where do they stop? when they have to spend money.
Same is true of the initial purchase. If "free" was a real factor, it would have played a role much earlier. I can't believe that they stop "when they spend money" because that fundamentally goes against how the situation was arrived at.
To you a forward thinking full on business man sure - but most SMB's by your own definition are not such thinkers... soooo
Nor should they be unless that is their intended business model. Stay with tried and true recipes for success and use OS's that just about anyone you hire will be familiar with.
Windows is not tried and true in the SMB. It's actually the opposite.
You've totally lost me - are 100% linux / macos SMB's a thing anywhere?
that's not his point.
-
@MattSpeller said:
You've totally lost me - are 100% linux / macos SMB's a thing anywhere?
Linux shops don't tend to be religious like Windows ones. They are "neutral" most often, letting people choose what works for them. But yes, 100% ones do exist and I've worked in them with a level of success I've seen no Windows shop ever hit, not even the ones that actually embrace Windows.
But regardless, Windows is not tried and true. Look at SW. How many of those shops are being successful at being safe, cost effective, etc. Very few. Very, very few. Windows is the costly solution that goes along with the "average SMB goes bankrupt." The mainstream is almost always the wrong choice. Average means failure in the business world.
Windows is tried, yes. And the product itself is good. But businesses choosing it are almost always examples of companies not making good business decisions and losing money.
It's like saying that a SAN is tried and true in the SMB. Lots of shops say that. But when you actually analyse their needs, costs, benefits you find that "tried and true" simply means "no one checked to see if we failed fiscally."
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
The without an investment is not true. There is user training, finding comparable apps and deploying OS and said apps. Those things aren't free.
True, they are relatively free, however. Keeping Windows up to date has the same costs over time. This is a common myth that people point to to keep people from moving off of Windows. But if you watch the real world, Linux can, in some cases, actually lower the cost there. It's not uncommon for the pain of moving to Linux to be lower than the pain of updating Windows. And no matter how much someone avoids updating Windows, it has to happen at some point. And all that "cost" of the Linux move bites you regardless.
And, in fact, the more that rolling updates are avoided on windows, the more costly and painful that becomes as the changes are not small, they are disruptive.
Oh sure - I'll give you that. Definitely an interesting look. So you're looking to move from Windows X - should you even stay on Window? Should you move to something else? Linux? Maybe. Now is kinda of a unique situation. MS is giving Windows 10 away for free. If you are considering moving to Windows 10 like I am.. what Scott is saying is that I should be asking - should I be moving to Linux instead?
While I don't keep up with new OSes, I don't run EOLed OSes here. We have very little purchased software in house, and most (not all) that we do have I do pay for upgrades to (adobe Acrobat), so I don't have that issue.
So now I have to put a test together to see if my uses could do all of their daily jobs from a Linux system.
Damn - this is an interesting challenge.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
The without an investment is not true. There is user training, finding comparable apps and deploying OS and said apps. Those things aren't free.
True, they are relatively free, however. Keeping Windows up to date has the same costs over time. This is a common myth that people point to to keep people from moving off of Windows. But if you watch the real world, Linux can, in some cases, actually lower the cost there. It's not uncommon for the pain of moving to Linux to be lower than the pain of updating Windows. And no matter how much someone avoids updating Windows, it has to happen at some point. And all that "cost" of the Linux move bites you regardless.
And, in fact, the more that rolling updates are avoided on windows, the more costly and painful that becomes as the changes are not small, they are disruptive.
I would like to bet that the savings in licensing and maintenance will allow places to purchase real cross platform software solutions.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@gjacobse said:
In the regard of licenses it doesn't. It's the physical ability to use the add-ons and such.
But the license is the sole different between Office 2013 and Office 365.
No. A user with Office 365 now is getting the Office 2016 local apps, not 2013.
@gjacobse Worded his statement poorly. The problem is that Office 2016 does not support some add-in that does work with Office 2013.
-
@johnhooks said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
The without an investment is not true. There is user training, finding comparable apps and deploying OS and said apps. Those things aren't free.
True, they are relatively free, however. Keeping Windows up to date has the same costs over time. This is a common myth that people point to to keep people from moving off of Windows. But if you watch the real world, Linux can, in some cases, actually lower the cost there. It's not uncommon for the pain of moving to Linux to be lower than the pain of updating Windows. And no matter how much someone avoids updating Windows, it has to happen at some point. And all that "cost" of the Linux move bites you regardless.
And, in fact, the more that rolling updates are avoided on windows, the more costly and painful that becomes as the changes are not small, they are disruptive.
I would like to bet that the savings in licensing and maintenance will allow places to purchase real cross platform software solutions.
Maybe - but what seems more likely is the need to have one written. Not just finding an off the shelf product already ready to go.
An example. I have a client that is a distributor for HVAC systems. They have a quoting tool that only works on Windows. This tool has all of the information needed to make quotes for the things they sell. To the best of the clients knowledge, there is no other tool like it. So if they wanted to move to Linux, they would either have to use RDS or VDI to provide access to that tool, or they would have to have a custom application written for them.
It's hard to say without putting pen to paper to know which would be cheaper (Linux with either custom app or RDS/VDI solution, or run Windows on the desktop).
-
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@gjacobse said:
In the regard of licenses it doesn't. It's the physical ability to use the add-ons and such.
But the license is the sole different between Office 2013 and Office 365.
No. A user with Office 365 now is getting the Office 2016 local apps, not 2013.
@gjacobse Worded his statement poorly. The problem is that Office 2016 does not support some add-in that does work with Office 2013.
yep, just like many add-ons are only 32 bit and won't work with 64 bit Office.
-
@Dashrender said:
@johnhooks said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
The without an investment is not true. There is user training, finding comparable apps and deploying OS and said apps. Those things aren't free.
True, they are relatively free, however. Keeping Windows up to date has the same costs over time. This is a common myth that people point to to keep people from moving off of Windows. But if you watch the real world, Linux can, in some cases, actually lower the cost there. It's not uncommon for the pain of moving to Linux to be lower than the pain of updating Windows. And no matter how much someone avoids updating Windows, it has to happen at some point. And all that "cost" of the Linux move bites you regardless.
And, in fact, the more that rolling updates are avoided on windows, the more costly and painful that becomes as the changes are not small, they are disruptive.
I would like to bet that the savings in licensing and maintenance will allow places to purchase real cross platform software solutions.
Maybe - but what seems more likely is the need to have one written. Not just finding an off the shelf product already ready to go.
An example. I have a client that is a distributor for HVAC systems. They have a quoting tool that only works on Windows. This tool has all of the information needed to make quotes for the things they sell. To the best of the clients knowledge, there is no other tool like it. So if they wanted to move to Linux, they would either have to use RDS or VDI to provide access to that tool, or they would have to have a custom application written for them.
It's hard to say without putting pen to paper to know which would be cheaper (Linux with either custom app or RDS/VDI solution, or run Windows on the desktop).
Ya if you're a 5 person shop it probably won't save much. But if you've got 200-500 desktops that's enough to have a decent custom solution.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@gjacobse said:
In the regard of licenses it doesn't. It's the physical ability to use the add-ons and such.
But the license is the sole different between Office 2013 and Office 365.
No. A user with Office 365 now is getting the Office 2016 local apps, not 2013.
@gjacobse Worded his statement poorly. The problem is that Office 2016 does not support some add-in that does work with Office 2013.
Oh okay, that makes sense. I thought that he was saying that one 2013 install worked and one did not.
-
@Dashrender said:
Oh sure - I'll give you that. Definitely an interesting look. So you're looking to move from Windows X - should you even stay on Window? Should you move to something else? Linux? Maybe. Now is kinda of a unique situation. MS is giving Windows 10 away for free. If you are considering moving to Windows 10 like I am.. what Scott is saying is that I should be asking - should I be moving to Linux instead?
Correct. In a way I would say that you should always be asking that. And, likewise, you should be asking if you should be moving to Windows if you are a Linux shop. Basically, I believe that you should always be considering what is the best option going forward.
Now, that being said, you can't spend every moment of every day considering every possibility. That would be overwhelming. So we tend to stop when something triggers us and look at those times. So when doing an update or when considering one is a perfect time to not just casually run scenarios in your head but to really evaluate if the cost of the move to Windows 10 might not be better served moving to Linux.
Sure, since Windows 10 is free and you are likely coming from something relatively similar to it (rather than Windows XP) Windows 10 has a lot of a lead on any given Linux solution. But it is always worth asking the question. It's never good to go with a solution just because there is momentum, that's how we drive off of the cliff.
-
@Dashrender said:
So now I have to put a test together to see if my uses could do all of their daily jobs from a Linux system.
It's a good exercise, if nothing else. I've tried it before and gone back to Windows. But tried it again and stuck on Linux. Having just one person on Linux will introduce certain types of overhead, but it will also break the "everything has to be one way" condition, too. There are benefits all three ways (all Windows, all Linux and hybrid.)
-
@johnhooks said:
I would like to bet that the savings in licensing and maintenance will allow places to purchase real cross platform software solutions.
That's a great point. So often the software is chosen because "we already paid for it, we can't afford to move" then we get the "argh, this Windows stuff is SO expensive." Well, if you hadn't done the first thing and committed to the expensive Windows platform we might have solved that other problem (maybe.)
The expensive software world often remains the expensive software world. What incentive is there for a third party vendor to make cheap software for Windows when they know that their customers were already willing to spend lots of money on Windows. Few companies want to give software away for free when their customers are happily paying someone else already. But if they are getting their OS for free, it makes more sense to at least consider being more price conscious. Doesn't mean that they will be, but there is at least more incentive. It's why Linux isn't just free, it's ecosystem is free. Sure lots of free things are available on Windows too, but a large number of the best ones come from Linux and get better support there and only make it to Windows as a "well we already made it, might as well make it for them, too."
-
@Dashrender said:
An example. I have a client that is a distributor for HVAC systems. They have a quoting tool that only works on Windows. This tool has all of the information needed to make quotes for the things they sell. To the best of the clients knowledge, there is no other tool like it. So if they wanted to move to Linux, they would either have to use RDS or VDI to provide access to that tool, or they would have to have a custom application written for them.
I hear this a lot. But no company that I've ever worked with has had this as an actual limitation. I'm not saying that it is never true, but the feeling that I have is that it is fractionally as true as often as people claim it. I feel like this is one of those "it's socially acceptable to make this excuse" situations where we often just give companies a pass if they state this and never press them further even though it goes against the common sense of business that there would be an amazing gap in the marketplace with a fortune and no one has filled it or is trying to fill it.
Do you know specifically what product this is?
Also, Wine may solve this, you never know.
-
@Dashrender said:
It's hard to say without putting pen to paper to know which would be cheaper (Linux with either custom app or RDS/VDI solution, or run Windows on the desktop).
Sometimes the numbers are close, sometimes they are wildly all over the place. There is both the cost today and the cost tomorrow. Once you start breaking with the investment in technical debt you will generally have a long term improvement in cost even if you don't get it up front. Because when time does come to replace any given piece with something new, you will have broken the "well since we are already stuck on Windows, we don't care that we are stuck with it for another reason" problem that plagues so many companies.
One of the things that kept and keeps NTG nimble is that I tend to put my foot down about any technology that would mean investing in a lack of agility. Even if something seems ideal for us, if it requires us to suddenly be locked into things we don't want to be locked into that's a huge negative and requires a lot of value to overcome. Over the years we've had lock in issues, but we have organizationally fought it and by and large are platform agnostic and free to implement what makes the most sense for us at all times.
