In recent years, Linux has proven itself a credible alternative server operating system, and application support has also improved greatly. These days, the question is not whether you can use Linux, but where you can best use it. Is there more to Linux than Apache and file and print serving?

Published in Technology & Business, October 2002

If you've spent any time hanging around Linux-friendly discussion sites such as Slashdot in the past few years, you could be forgiven for thinking that Linux is still poised to take over the world. Reality is not quite as kind.

Linux continues to play a role in enterprise markets, but its growth spurt of recent years appears to have slowed a little. In 2001, Linux server environment shipments by revenue declined by five percent to $80 million, according to IDC, after two years of solid growth. That decline does need to be seen in context, however. While three years ago the argument for IT managers was whether Linux would ever have a permanent place in their environments, that discussion is all but over. "Two or three years ago Linux was the province of geeks," says Geoff Lawrence, Linux business manager for IBM. "It's definitely moved from that world into the mainstream."

According to a recent Morgan Stanley survey of CIOs, 29 percent of companies are now using Linux servers. That's hardly dominance of the kind Microsoft likes to enjoy, but it's a respectable enough basis for a competitive market. "Lots of people really expect it to have gone from nothing to everything, and it's been so quiet," says Katrina Troughton, general manager software for IBM. "But many technologies in our industry just slowly gain momentum and develop."

Of course, naysayers remain. "We're getting a lot of warmed-over [expletive]," says John McCarthy, group director, Forrester Research. "Linux is goddamned Berkeley [Unix] warmed over 30 years later! Whoopee that the development model is different."

Boosted by that open source development model, many (though by no means all) mainstream business applications are supported on various Linux flavors. Companies like Oracle are proclaiming that Linux is the only platform moving forward; others are less zealot-like but have added Linux to their list of standard development environments.

Indeed, it often seems easier to identify companies whose applications don't have a Linux version available. "Any company in the process of selling tools can't afford to ignore it," says Mark McLaughlin, marketing and business development manager for Rational Software.

"One of the shifts that I've seen is that in large environments, clients have, over the last couple of years, really made the mental shift to put Linux on their shortlists," says IBM's Lawrence. "And Linux has found its way into the standard operating environment for an increasing number of these large customers."

IDC is predicting Linux server environment sales will still be worth more than US$260 billion globally by 2006. Desktop use is projected to grow by 30 percent a year over the same period (albeit from a much smaller base). True believers are also quick to point out that as Linux can be obtained for free, revenue figures may not provide a complete picture of where the operating system is being used.

When it first emerged, Linux advocates seemed almost manic in their zeal to promote the operating system. In cost-conscious times, religious arguments over platform choices seem less relevant. "Linux in the end is an operating system, and it competes with many others," says Roland Slee, director of business and technology solutions for Oracle. "But it provides magnificent performance at very low cost on industry standard hardware platforms." IBM's Lawrence agrees: "There is no one platform that is the best answer 100 percent of the time."

Linux is enjoying two major advantages in the current market. For existing users of Unix systems, it offers a way forward that promises to slash hardware costs by reducing dependence on proprietary architectures. Why pay up big bucks for a dedicated Sun or Alpha box when the same task can be accomplished with cheap Taiwanese components?

"We found ourselves replacing boxes costing $60,000 with new ones priced at about $10,000, saving $50,000 per server," Joe Barker, senior systems engineer at Amazon.com, noted in a white paper last year. "When calculating the economics, most people focus on free licenses, saving about $500 per box. This is trivial compared to the savings from Linux versus Unix servers."

That point hasn't been lost on the major Unix players. "The attraction of Linux is the commodity hardware that it runs on," says Duncan Bennet, director of Linux products for Sun Microsystems, which itself recently began selling low-end Intel-based servers that can run either Linux or Solaris, Sun's own Unix variant.

In the Windows server market, the hardware argument is obviously less relevant. Until recently Linux's main advantage has been the widespread belief that it provides a more stable operating environment. "Linux is rating pretty well," says Lawrence. "It's stable, it's reliable, and security is a good story."

This year, however, it has also benefited from Microsoft's unpopular switch to an ongoing licensing model for its enterprise products. Quantifying this difference is challenging, but for companies seeking to cut costs, Linux has developed much greater appeal as a result of a decision by its major market rival. "There is some movement afoot in reaction to the licensing policy," notes Sun's Bennet.

Linux's emergence as a viable option is likely to be an essential element in price competition. "The industry will benefit from a strong alternative to Windows, and Linux is the only non-Windows game in town," says Ovum research director Philip Carnelley.

Just like Windows

Although Linux is often portrayed as the antithesis of Windows both culturally and technically, it has followed a near-identical route into the enterprise. "In some ways, it's going to grow in a similar way to Windows," says Mark Lazarus, senior consultant for NetIQ. "People put it in because it's cheap and easy, and suddenly it's running mission-critical applications."

"It's going to follow a similar path to the adoption of other OSes in history," concurs Dominic Schiavello, marketing manager for Computer Associates. The Morgan Stanley CIO survey confirms that trend: 31 percent of those companies installing Linux were using it to replace Windows systems, compared to 24 percent using it to supplant Unix. Whether that transition will be followed by greater use in enterprise systems remains to be seen.

One reason Linux continues to remain popular is its strong security model (which could be seen as an important differentiator from Windows). In a survey of 400 Linux-based developers by Evans Data, 94.2 percent of respondents said they had never been infected with a virus, and 75 percent had never knowingly had their systems hacked. Away from the mainstream, Linux is also becoming increasingly important in specialized markets such as scientific research and movie production, with its appeal again centered on low overall costs. "Linux has almost become an industry standard in this area because of its Unix heritage, combined with low-cost hardware and software," notes Lawrence. From the Muppets to The Lord of the Rings, Linux has become a core component of the entertainment industry.

Linux clusters are also being used in increasing numbers for high technology and biotech research. Melbourne-based biotech company Cytopia, for instance, has deployed a Linux-based supercomputer system for its drug screening systems.

Interestingly, despite such projects, there's a widespread perception that Australia is falling behind the curve relative to other countries in terms of enterprise Linux uptake. "Within Australia, the Linux thing hasn't taken off to the same extent, yet," says NetIQ's Lazarus. A number of recent high-profile deals, including Air New Zealand and Centrelink, may see a shift in this perception over the coming year.

Even on a global level, Linux remains the province of smaller companies. According to IDC, 48 percent of total Linux usage by companies is in enterprises with less than 100 staff. Companies between 100 and 999 staff account for 23 percent of the market, those ranging from 1000 to 4999 cover another 12 percent, and companies with more than 5000 employees account for the remaining 17 percent.

Where it gets used

Despite the increasing availability of specialized business applications, enterprises that are using Linux tend to follow a simpler and more predictable path, implementing Linux as a cheap, stable replacement for basic server functions.

"The first applications that they'll start using Linux for is file and print serving," says CA's Schiavello. "Another area they can target pretty quickly is messaging systems such as mail servers and Web servers." Again, this echoes the deployment patterns for Windows in the past.

"Typically, the first deployment is infrastructure: Web, file, print, firewalls, and LAN domain controllers," agrees Lawrence. "This is where Linux has usually been deployed first, and this is where Linux is most mature."

What this means is that Linux has yet to make a major impact in the heart of the enterprise. "Somewhere between 85 and 90 percent of the demand is in one to two CPU servers, primarily at the edge of the network," says Sun's Bennet. "None of our mission critical, large-scale customers are wanting to put Linux in the core of the data center."

"While Linux has been gaining momentum, there hasn't been a lot of middleware opportunity until recently," says IBM's Troughton. "We're seeing the next level of Linux really starting to emerge.

"The first thing we saw a lot of customers asking was could they use it for important but not necessarily mission-critical kind of servers, consolidating file and print servers, for instance. Customers are starting to say those strategies are working quite well, so what's next?"

Issues to consider

Once Linux is introduced into the environment, training can quickly become an issue for many IT staff. "A company needs to build some core competencies in the OS before they start," says Schiavello. "If they've come from a Windows environment, it's a big challenge," adds Lazarus.

It's generally assumed that the transition from Unix to Linux is rather more straightforward. "People with skills in a Unix platform can pick up Linux in no time at all," says Lawrence. "For users with a Windows background, it's more of a challenge. But in the server world, there's a lot of skill available."

But not everyone is convinced. "That is a little bit of a fallacy," says Bennet. "If you look at any developer shop, the costs in running multiple environments are rather high, even if the environments are quite similar. Many of our customers look quite closely at that."

Assuming that you don't commit to a Linux-on-every-system philosophy, your network management tools and strategies will also need upgrading and refining. "With any operating system, you need tools to be sitting in the background, monitoring what's going on," says Lazarus. "People are realizing that whatever they run, they really need to manage it."

One ongoing concern with Linux has been the proliferation of distributions. This has led to two related questions: Will the number of Linux distributions available cause maintenance headaches, or will a single Linux distribution achieve a Microsoft-like dominance over the market?

Of the two scenarios, the latter seems the more likely at the moment. According to IDC's figures, Red Hat makes around 75 percent of total Linux server sales to the enterprise. In a bid to counter the distro developer's growing influence, its major rivals, including Caldera, Conectiva, SuSE, and Turbolinux have joined forces to create UnitedLinux, a rival distribution currently in beta testing. (For its part, Caldera recently announced plans to change its name to the SCO Group, reflecting the popularity of the SCO Unix versions which it acquired in 2000.)

Ultimately, observers don't think that a single supplier will exert undue influence on the market, if only because the open source nature of Linux development means that it's rather more straightforward to switch suppliers in the event of a dispute. "I think the market will sort itself out in terms of dominant suppliers," says Schiavello.

For enterprise customers, the selection of a distributor will be an important choice, as close collaboration will usually be required to make the most of new Linux-based systems, especially for early adopters. "Clients are going to lean heavily on their major suppliers of software to support these systems," says Schiavello. In some cases, clients may actually change their preferred distribution to better meet their application needs (see sidebar AusRegistry turns to Linux clusters for details). Because the software can be acquired for free, enterprise distributors must ensure they offer good service to remain competitive.

In a similar vein, Sun is hoping offering a combined support offering will separate it from the pack. "Our Linux products are fully supported by Sun, both hardware and software," says Bennet. "We see that as a differentiator."

Better off without?

Having established possible uses for Linux, another issue remains: identifying where you don't want to use it. The most obvious case is if a critical business package simply isn't available under Linux. "Customers don't choose a platform, they choose a business application, and that can constrain their choice," says Lawrence.

The next area where Linux seems unlikely to make major headway is in desktop applications. "I don't think you're going to see it on the desktop," says Forrester's McCarthy. Even Linux proponents tend to agree. "In general, Windows seems to be the best fit for most people [on the desktop]," says Lawrence.

Other than these areas, however, few see many potential roadblocks for Linux use. "I couldn't think of any applications that it wouldn't be suited for," says Schiavello.

Some observers are still skeptical about the use of Linux for databases and other mission-critical systems. "I'd be cautious about mission critical applications--not because it is likely to fail, but to minimize risk in the case of failure," says Rational's McLaughlin. "Linux support is pretty good these days but there is a risk that you might not get support when you most need it. A solid vendor might come in real handy at that point."

"By 2007, Linux will become mainstream in replicated and distributed deployments on commodity Intel architectures, but lack the proven ROI in high-end applications for widespread replacements of Unix and Windows platforms," predicts Gartner Group analyst George Weiss.

As with most IT deployments, a pragmatic approach will generally reap dividends. "There's some tremendous value in Linux, but it's not a silver bullet," says Bennet. "Our industry tends to hype everything."

According to Lawrence, application selection tends to be based on a combination of financial, strategic, and technical factors. Despite Linux's undoubted technical clout, "the one that Linux makes people sit up and think about is the financial one," he says. "While it may not be the best, it's certainly good enough for most deployments."