Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

Microsoft and Linux must co-exist

Filed under
OS

The fact that such a Linux pioneer as Central Scotland Police should rethink its strategy may lead some open source fans to reconsider their opinions.

The Scottish force reviewed its technology strategy and realised a standardised infrastructure was the key to increased integration with other criminal justice agencies. And, as a result, it's replacing much - though not all - of its open source infrastructure with Microsoft technologies.

Of course there is a whiff of 'man bites dog' about any story that involves companies replacing Linux with Microsoft, simply because there seems to be such a general shift towards open source, especially in the public sector.

But at the same time this case illustrates an important point.

Technology decisions are not made in isolation.
Few IT organisations have the luxury of being able to choose an all-Microsoft or an all-open source infrastructure. And even if they could, it's unlikely they would survive by doing business only with suppliers or customers that had the same simple set-up.

Co-existence and integration has to be the name of the game in IT. If you've installed a great technology that won't integrate with the rest of your - or your partner's - systems then you've wasted your money.

The history of tech is littered with the rusting hulks of companies that built great technology that just didn't fit in. Developers have to think broadly about not just what their applications or systems will do but how they will relate to the others around them.

This is likely to be one of the big challenges for open source, as at the moment Microsoft is the de facto standard for many corporate applications - especially when it comes to the desktop.

Open source can bring many benefits for its users. But if businesses that start using open source find it hard to do business as a result they will head back into the Microsoft fold.

silicon.com.

More in Tux Machines

Uselessd: A Stripped Down Version Of Systemd

The boycotting of systemd has led to the creation of uselessd, a new init daemon based off systemd that tries to strip out the "unnecessary" features. Uselessd in its early stages of development is systemd reduced to being a basic init daemon process with "the superfluous stuff cut out". Among the items removed are removing of journald, libudev, udevd, and superfluous unit types. Read more

Open source is not dead

I don’t think you can compare Red Hat to other Linux distributions because we are not a distribution company. We have a business model on Enterprise Linux. But I would compare the other distributions to Fedora because it’s a community-driven distribution. The commercially-driven distribution for Red Hat which is Enterprise Linux has paid staff behind it and unlike Microsoft we have a Security Response Team. So for example, even if we have the smallest security issue, we have a guaranteed resolution pattern which nobody else can give because everybody has volunteers, which is fine. I am not saying that the volunteers are not good people, they are often the best people in the industry but they have no hard commitments to fixing certain things within certain timeframes. They will fix it when they can. Most of those people are committed and will immediately get onto it. But as a company that uses open source you have no guarantee about the resolution time. So in terms of this, it is much better using Red Hat in that sense. It’s really what our business model is designed around; to give securities and certainties to the customers who want to use open source. Read more

10 Reasons to use open source software defined networking

Software-defined networking (SDN) is emerging as one of the fastest growing segments of open source software (OSS), which in itself is now firmly entrenched in the enterprise IT world. SDN simplifies IT network configuration and management by decoupling control from the physical network infrastructure. Read more

Only FOSSers ‘Get’ FOSS

Back on the first of September I wrote an article about Android, in which I pointed out that Google’s mobile operating system seems to be primarily designed to help sell things. This eventually led to a discussion thread on a subreddit devoted to Android. Needless to say, the fanbois and fangrrls over on Reddit didn’t cotton to my criticism and they devoted a lot of space complaining about how the article was poorly written. Read more