Updating Free Software in the Enterprise? 367
wallykeyster asks: "I'm an IT Director for a small private university in the U.S., and we are largely a Microsoft shop. We pay over $15,000 each year for our Campus Agreement so that we can upgrade the desktop OS to our version of choice, run Office, and have some Client Access Licenses. I would like to move to FOSS solutions, but I'm having trouble finding support for Enterprise management. For example, OpenOffice and Firefox (both of which I use personally) would be easy first steps, but IE is updated automatically via our SUS server (and settings pushed to clients via group policies) and Office updates will be included soon. How are other larger organizations (i.e. more than 200 desktops) dealing with software deployment and updates? Is anyone using Zen with Novell Desktop Linux?"
do what we do (Score:1, Insightful)
that way, you only upgrade one copy on the server.
-Dirtbag
At $15,000 a year...... (Score:3, Insightful)
Same boat (Score:5, Insightful)
Totally obvious (Score:2, Insightful)
Pay 45K per year to hire someone to manage a homegrown house of cards "solution" based on rsync, rpm, apt-get, crontabs and other such industry stalwarts.
I think the choice is clear!
Please think also "free software on WINDOWS"!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
The question is most probably about updating free software on Windows desktops!
Re:small colleges (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you have classes (in either IT, CS, MIS, or similar) that claim to teach real-world skills? If so, a project to automate such an effort would be a wonderful class project for you guys to undertake.
Even if the class isn't about IT, this project can be used as a case study - for example, a class about software methodologies and software lifecycle mangement - or even a business class evaluating build-vs-buy tradeffs.
Re:$15,000 a year... (Score:2, Insightful)
It was awful, and I will never do it again. I ended up spending all my time fixing stupid mistakes, and it was more work than just doing it myself. Especially since the ultiumate solution was to convert to linux, and set up a server to dish out rpm's and schedule updates via crontabs.
This has got "duh" written all over it (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:At $15,000 a year...... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:$15,000 a year... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Totally obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
While I agree that the 3X differential in cost may be too high for this person's institution just to migrate, the "house of cards" comment is laughable. Centralized software management has been done successfully for years on *nix platforms and is done for a much lower cost than what you cite in yorur comments.
But we also manage large *nix server farms for research and maintain Solaris, AIX, HP-UNIX and other varieties of non-Microsoft OSs. The incremental cost of adding Linux administration for our workstations is a 1/4 of what you cite.
As always, YMMV.
The same way it has always been done... (Score:3, Insightful)
Nowadays, with RPM and DEB package managers, you also have the option to put all packages on a central FTP server and then schedule an update using the native update utility eg. apt, rpm or urpmi.
So, my reaction to anyone claiming that there is 'no support' for Unix, or that Unix is 'hard to manage' or that Unix 'doesn't have enterprise tools'. Is one of incredulity - like where have you been the past 500 years, man??? Sleeping???
Re:At $15,000 a year...... (Score:3, Insightful)
This could be cheaper than $15,000.
Re:At $15,000 a year...... (Score:3, Insightful)
(I've done it for a small office, and it wan't pretty. None of the corporate standards switched, so everytime wo opened an old document, the formatting was toast. Trivial, though annoying, for you and me, but "the world is coming to an end"-level crisis for older, entrenched, barely-computer-literate secrateries. And, no, you can't just fire them all - they're the ones who can walk into an office, listen to a minute and a half of drivel from a $150/hr principal, then turn it into a formatted letter saying exactly the right thing and ready for signature.
Re:At $15,000 a year...... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Totally obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, that can be problematic. That is why someone considering coverting would want to pick a distro and be consistent.
If you are honest in your assessment, though, you will concede that Microsoft updates often break apps that have been created by customers. We often experience a lag time in deploying Access when Office upgrades come out due to the updates thrashing our custom-built apps.
No one solution is without its warts.
Fanboy moron! (Score:1, Insightful)
He's a Windows shop manager and may or may not have Windows centric staff. He does not have an Linux people so, hiring Linux people for just the migration would probably cost him more than the $15,000. But, the cost doesn't stop there, he will need to have Linux knowledgeable support personnel for ongoing support. That means either train what he has now or hire other people. Either way, he is likely to run over the $15,000/yr. Microsoft tax.
I love Linux and use it exclusively, as I have for over four years. but, there are times when Linux is not the best solution and it sounds like this is one of them. $15,000/yr. is dirt cheap for Windows server licenses and CAL's, probably Exchange and SQL licenses, Windows Desktop licenses and Office licenses. It WILL cost him much more, at least for the short term(1-2 years) to switch. And, that all assumes that he truly can switch and that some application isn't going to force him to continue buying Microsoft anyway.
Re:At $15,000 a year...... (Score:3, Insightful)
It would be at least a few years and many hours of downtime before they would see any of that money recouped. As someone who has sat down and done an actual cost analysis, I can tell you, it's not cheap to switch to something that's "free" (beer).
Re:Same boat (Score:2, Insightful)
Stick with Windows (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:At $15,000 a year...... (Score:3, Insightful)
What you'll end up with is a complicated mix of operating systems, offices suits and browsers that you will need to support. You will increase cost rather than cut cost. Forget about eliminating MS from your systems, you'll end up doing all the work you do now + the additional work for maintaining your home built linux enterprise management kit (I'm assuming you are not interested in commercial linux support with per seat licensing).
Re:$15,000 a year... (Score:3, Insightful)
When I started my latest academic sysadmin job, we were talking about hiring a couple of students, as that's what they'd always done in the past. I kept putting it off because the systems were so screwed up that I had to spend a huge amount of time trying to figure out what kind of crack people had been smoking when they set them up and didn't have the time or energy to train anyone.
In the end, we bought a brand-new server (we needed the disk space, anyway) that I set up from scratch. I migrated the data and built a bunch of tools to keep everything up to date, then moved on to automate handling the workstations. I never did get around to hiring anyone else, and the only time I remotely regret that is when I'm taking vacation.
Hiring students to do things is a cool idea in theory. You get some extra help and some backup, and they get some experience that they can take to their jobs. Unfortunately, their lack of experience, professionalism, and often just general understanding of how things work mean that important things get broken or never get finished because they lack the knowledge or the time to do the work.
It gets really fun when you have a couple of people who think they know what they're doing making changes without telling anyone else.
These days anyone can set up a Linux box themselves if they want to learn about the OS and how all the pieces work, and I'm happy to help out where I can. But having students work on ``mission-critical infrastructure'', such as the departmental web server or faculty workstations, just isn't worth it.
Re:Same boat (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds like a Windows Server Administrator Template Policy would go a long way towards Firefox acceptance in corporate environments. You'd need some kind of plugin for Firefox that makes it read values from the Windows registry, as well.
Alternatively, a Firefox plugin could read the Group Policy restrictions targeted at IE, and "translate" them internally to the Firefox equivalents, but such a solution would be a sloppy hack at best.
Re:Easy... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Zenworks for Linux/RedCarpet (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Same boat (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Zenworks for Linux/RedCarpet (Score:2, Insightful)