commentary Sixty years ago, Alfred Kinsey turned an
academic research interest into fuel for a cultural revolution
after extensive research revealed what was really going on behind
America's closed bedroom doors.
These days, revolution is all about Linux. The word alone has
become a catchcry for everything anti-establishment, anti-Bill,
anti-licensing fees. If you listen to the hype, it's being used
everywhere, in businesses of all sizes, to do everything but make
Just because everybody's using Linux, however, doesn't mean
everybody's happy for that fact to be known, as I found recently
while looking for potential candidates for a series of profiles
about companies that had made the switch between Windows and
Linux, and vice versa.
Based on the ongoing enthusiasm about Linux, I presumed it
would be simple to find companies just busting to tell how they'd
ditched their Microsoft server software and moved onto Linux
servers. Everybody's doing it, after all, aren't they?
Not exactly. Despite numerous enquiries with Linux
integrators, discussions with Linux-heavy vendors including IBM,
Hewlett-Packard, Red Hat and Novell, heavy Web research, and
perusing the usual channels for potential candidates, I wasn't
able to find more than one big company willing to share their
experience migrating from Windows to Linux.
That doesn't mean nobody has done it -- only that they weren't
happy to talk about what they've done. However, this startling
conclusion led me to wonder just why it was so hard to get
anybody to come out of the closet. The answer I did get -- from a
person who is well acquainted with the reasons behind these
things -- was perhaps as surprising as Kinsey's own research:
"They may be doing it, but they're scared to talk about it", he
Many companies, it appears, are concerned that Linux is still
seen as high-risk, and don't want their move away from Windows
advertised in case things go pear-shaped. Others see Linux as a
competitive weapon and don't want their rivals knowing how
they've cut their costs -- or that they've taken a promising yet
risky migration path.
The biggest reason, however, was something of a surprise: the
reference companies the vendors could offer were all companies
that had migrated to Linux not from Windows -- but from Sun
Solaris, HP-UX, IBM AIX or any of a dozen other versions of Unix.
Yes -- Unix, not Windows.
For these companies, Linux represents just another iteration
in the Unix story -- and therefore poses commensurately low risk
compared with making a complete jump from Windows. Linux for them
is effectively little more than an infrastructure modernisation
play -- and not a philosophical statement. Everyone may like to
complain about Microsoft, but Windows Server is still an
inescapable fact of life for most.
This conclusion is backed by IDC's February server market
figures, which showed shipments of Linux servers growing 20.8
percent during the fourth quarter of 2005 compared with a year earlier, to be worth
US$5.7 billion for the year. Windows server shipments were lower,
at 4.7 percent growth for the quarter and annualised revenues of
US$17.7 billion -- nudging out Unix systems, which shrank 5.9
percent for the quarter and notched up US$17.5 billion in
revenues for 2005, from first place for the first time ever.
Pull back the covers, so to speak, and -- just as Kinsey found
-- the truth seems far removed from accepted beliefs. These
figures suggest that Linux's gains are actually coming at the
expense of Unix -- and not Microsoft, as the histrionic Linux
faithful seem to assume. Perhaps, we must consider, Microsoft has
far less reason to be perturbed by Linux than everyone
We want to know what's going on behind your closed doors. Have
you moved from Windows to Linux? Happy to tell us your dirty
little secret? Drop us a line at email@example.com
and let us know. We'd love to count you in.