By Andy McCue, 19 December 2003 16:35
NEWS Linux is not a viable desktop proposition for most large organisations because the service issues surrounding it negate any cost savings on licence fees, according to the CTO of one of the largest IT operations in the world.
In an exclusive interview with silicon.com, Kevin Lloyd, CTO at bank Barclays, said Linux on the desktop for most companies will be limited to niche operational areas for many years to come.
"Linux on the desktop - I understand the arguments, I understand the availability of it, but it's not in this organisation and I suspect it would be some time before you would see it at scale and I don't think you'd ever see it, certainly not in my perspective, on the desktop," he said.
Barclays itself signed a £210m seven-year desktop services deal for 41,700 PCs in the organisation earlier this year as part of plans for the bank to standardise as an early on adopter on Microsoft's Windows and Office 2003 software products.
Lloyd admitted that many companies had been forced to look at alternatives when Microsoft introduced its controversial licensing changes in 2001 but he said the switch to open source on the desktop is not as compelling when the total cost of the move is taken into account.
"If you do a fully absorbed cost analysis my perspective there isn't that degree of clear water between one equation and the other, not if you've got a well run environment. Believe me, we've done the numbers," he said.
The big factor that often isn't taken into account with Linux is the service proposition, he said.
"It's all about the service wrap. You get the software free but it's a service wrapper and gaining clarity of your perspective on what you're prepared to accept and not accept in terms of service."
The server environment is a different proposition and Lloyd said Barclays already has examples of Linux in the UK retail bank and Barclays Capital through supply partners IBM and Hewlett-Packard.
Lloyd said he is watching the SCO and IBM legal battle but that it has not yet had any direct impact on Barclays.
"If the legal position ends up favouring SCO that would be a worry for a lot of people. The arguments that both sides erect are going to make it difficult to get a clear decision," he said. "From what I see, both have defensible positions and I think it will take some while before we see the outcome of that."
Check silicon.com on Monday for the full interview with Barclays CTO, Kevin Lloyd.
Comments
There are 32 comments. Join the discussion
1. Photocrimes
Perhaps the CTO of Barclays should chat with the CTO of Burlington? It seems that companies who actually "use" Linux have a view that couters his:
"So Burlington Coat Factory is now deploying about 7,000 Linux-based clients, according to Prince."
Note "clients" not "servers"
and what about supporting them?
"We have more people supporting a handful of Windows users than roughly 7,000 Linux systems," Prince said. He added that the Linux systems "just sit there and don't break. They run and run and run. People can't mess them up. They don't get messed up on their own. Unless there's a hardware problem, we almost never have to do anything with them."
Should of asked people in the industry that actually "use" Linux and not the Microsoft salesman. ;-)
http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/linux/story/0,10801,88191,00.html
2. James Smith
I find just the opposite.
Linux requires LESS maintenance than MS Windows.
3. anonymous
Interesting article. Barclays is a bit biased since they are a major investor in SCO (see http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=SCOX )
4. anonymous
And this is the guy who's boss thought a Barclaycard was a very bad idea?
What he forgets is, while linux admins may be a damn sight more expensive than Windows ones, they also need far fewer of them because, amongst other things, they're not fighting viruses, idiot-proof software, and all those other hindrances that make adminning a nightmare...
Cheers,
Wol
5. John
I think its time to dump stock in this company if you own any.
How can this guy justify over $1000US per PC per year just for software? Is he a complete idiot? hello?
6. anonymous
<yawn> We've heard variations on this theme before. Usually we hear it from those who have just spent a lot of money on the proprietary choice and need to justify it all.
7. anonymous
Interesting to hear this but since Microsoft are making > 80 % margin on its desktop it makes you wonder where the alternatives options are using up this cost.
Also did I read correctly re: SCO, "From what I see, both have defensible positions and I think it will take some while before we see the outcome of that."
Has he been following this legal comedy?
8. anonymous
Very Amusing. If he had lived in the 14th century, he would have scoffed at the foolish notion that the world is round...
9. Dave Howe
"Interesting to hear this but since Microsoft are making > 80 % margin on its desktop it makes you wonder where the alternatives options are using up this cost. "
Or more probably - who fed him the information? CTOs are used to making decisions based on the reports of subordinates, not doing research themselves. If you took the worst possible scenario for Linux (expensive training for staff expressed as a one-year cost) and the best for Microsoft (calculating the one year cost of say Windows Xp Pro by taking the "sticker price" of an OEM build and dividing though by six or so), you *might* get to the point where Linux isn't noticably that much cheaper; Most linux companies make money from corporate support contracts (which are per-machine) and while that is ideal for servers, it is probably overkill for linux on the desktop.
The same goes for the SCO deal - the MS fudd is that SCO has a viable case; nobody is going to dare put that in writing to their CTO, but could well say something along the lines of "they have good arguments and a victory can't be ruled out in court" which the typical business-degree CTO will go along with happily.
10. Steve Brown
I think the comments I've seen so far sum it up. Linux is still immature on the desktop and the following a 'fanatical' one. You can't make business decisions based on immature fanaticism and as a Barclays customer (for my sins) I'd rather they looked at all the options and then chose the one they believe gives them best value for money (which outsourcing to India won't but thats another issue)
Interesting how all the pro Linux comments are 'Anonymous' too? I fail to see what a flat earth has to do with the hard facts of sums and a business organization needing to know that its IT support infrastructure is sound.
I've been on both sides of the fence, and I'm sorry to all the Linux fans out there (and no disrespect at all, Linux IS a great OS) for my business Windows gives a lower TCO.
11. anonymous
Pull the other one Mr CTO! I for one don't believe him when he says "If you do a fully absorbed cost analysis my perspective there isn't that degree of clear water between one equation and the other, not if you've got a well run environment. Believe me, we've done the numbers," ... Well, show us the numbers for the capital cost and ongoing license fees for an MS commercial product against buying a couple of dozen CDs with a linux distribution. What is this twaddle about "Service" Does he really get great service from MS.
12. anonymous
I did not detect much structure to his argument that might have shown that he had examined the paths he might have taken to make the change i.e. evolving or big bang etc. Or that he done a balance sheet on benefits e.g. functionality, capital and operating costs, security or product stability and flexibility.
If it is so self-evident why did he both to comment, especially with 'we may never change' (i.e. please don't both me!). It may be part his company’s general attitude to risk cost rather than the general merits of the case either way?.
13. anonymous
Oh really? This must be news to the many European and other governmental organizations around the globe (several states in the US too) who are switching to Linux and OpenOffice on the desktop for precisely those reasons.
More likely, MS just give better corporate Christmas dinners!
14. Ivy Jelvers
cost of services? What the heck is guy blabbering about? He cleary HASN'T done the numbering, or trying to *brown up* his microsoft accountant?
Dzjee, if I would be his boss and have a clue (admittedly, that is rare, but even so) this guy would be walking...
15. anonymous
What else can he say. A CTO who has just committed his company to a 7 year technology path commitment and signed a £210m seven-year desktop services deal can't turn around and say I "Oops I made a mistake - sorry" to the board of directors.
16. Howard B. Golden
So Mr Lloyd just paid Microsoft a lot of money for a seven-year deal. Clearly he doesn't expect to change for seven years. Did you expect him to argue against his own decision? I would be more interested in hearing the comments of someone without a vested interest (other than reputation).
17. anonymous
Well your prespective is worthless than. Take the clue now or die. Many larger than Barclays has had linux in all facets of their IP infrastructure. From desktop to server. The era of proprietary OS's are over. I will add your name to my database of "where is he know, looser."
18. Paul
This CTO is typlical of many I am afraid. They have little to no general IT infrastructure knoweldge and love to spout off what they are obviously ignorant of. I can give him four major reasons why an organization should seriously consider a switch to Linux Desktops (one of which he already denies):
1. Cost: They argument that paying hundreds of dollars for a desktop verses $ 0.00 is really a no brainer. Anyone with a modicum of financial knowledge should understand this one.
2. Security. Linux Workstations are much more secure than their Windows counterparts. They need less frequent updates and script viruses from EMail attadchments, are virtually unheard of. This security also comes at a lesser to no cost.
3. Centralized Control for IT admins. Linux has terminal services built in that are more scalable, require less hardware, handle more simultaneous connections, and handle personal profiles better. Compare any terminal server on Linux to Linux clients against any Windows terminal servers and Citrix terminal Servers connecting to Windows clients. The cost, reliability, and ease of administration, much more profoundly favor Linux than Windows terminals and servers and also comes at no cost.
4. Industry standard protocol support. Linux always adheres more closely with W3C and ECMA standards. Windows always seeks to proprietize all and any protocols, languages, rutimes, and binaries. If you want totally and complete control by MS, keep using their products. If you want the best solutions that ensure compliance, use Linux or another flavor of Unix.
Mr. CTO, start looking objectively at the solutions and get main industry players outside of Redmond, WA. to share the real experiences of Windows verses Linux. You are in for a rude awakening.
19. Matthew C. Tedder
Providing the numbers you crunched and how you crunched them would be greatly appreciated.
We deployed GNU/Linux using the thin client model and integrated a Windows terminal server for Windows applications that we still required. The "service proposition" was the greatest benefit to long term return on investment.
Also, you can log on to your desktop from any workstation in the network, never need to send a support technician to physically visit a workstation (extras are in local supply cabinets for plug & play in the event of hardware failure), and have never experienced a hardware failure....since they have no moving parts.
Help Desk support can share a user's desktop while talking on the phone, to show how to do things or look at problems. And only the servers need upgrading, to update the whole enterprise.
20. joe
Translation “I upgraded the bank to 2003 Office and got a few million Euros kick back now I have to justify and cover up the money sitting in the off-shore account”. Since 90% of users actually use only 10% of MS Office features it doesn’t cut any ice. He just basically cost his bank and the stock holders millions.
21. Hans
uh... yeah. That's I would say too if I was dumb enough to sign a 7 year deal for more than 300MM dollars with MS!
22. Richard Corfield
What setup did he try? Linux is probably pretty poor in the traditional Microsoft "Personally Yours" environment. Its strength would be in a traditional UNIX thin client environment, using the XWindow system.
The gain will be in the environment switch to centrally managed, centrally maintained, pooled resource, and swappable client machines. The time saved in client machine maintenance should provide quick payback.
Commrcial UNIX has been stronger in slightly fatter clients. I've seen good implementations of centrally maintained CAD system on Solaris, using the cacheing network filesystem to distribute updates. Linux has these systems now, so could run in such a way. I've only seen it in a fully thin client environment, and it worked very well. For office apps, this should be all you need.
23. titus
Barclays CTO doesn't seem to have a mid-term view of what he is doing.
Migration occurs one time, licensing occurs every year.
Once the migration is done, it's done.
The service costs has to be spent no matter what your software solution is.
I don't think the service costs associated with OSS are bigger than those of the monopoly company.
24. anonymous
Saying that tho, at least he has managed to get to CTO of Barclays and I bet none of you have jobs like that.
All the power to him I say.
25. anonymous
Kevin Lloyd just blew £210m on a seven-year desktop services deal for 41,700 PCs in hes organisation earlier this year and is (surprise, surprise) disparaging Linux.
I wouldn't expect him to say much different for the next say, seven years. Would you?
26. anonymous
Give us the numbers please!
27. anonymous
Since this CTO comes from one of the largest banks in the UK, the phrase "knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing" comes to mind.
28. keep_ur_trapshut
IT Managers should be the last ones to talk, since their jobs encompass
no creativity and no intelligence at all. What would you know about writing
software???
29. anonymous
What is this cost of support they all talk about? In my limited experience and from just about all anecdotal evidence I have heard, Linux desktops only need 1/3 the support of Windows....probably even less when you take into account lost time due to worms etc.
30. anonymous
Too bad he should have asked me. I would have upgraded his current systems to linux and only charged him $100 Million US, and given him 10 years software support. Okay maybe $150M to make it look good :)
31. enthalpie
first : I just will conctact him in 3 years !!
second what price for freedom ?
32. anonymous
Why do you people care so much? Do you work for the company? Do you hold stock in the company?
A CTO has decided to make a purchasing choice. If Barclays had decided to replace their car fleet with Ford as opposed to Nissan would you really find this religious zeal? Of course not.
If you happen to work in this industry I can understand that you may be partial to one OS or another, and may reasonably argue the benefits of one against the other. But it really sounds like a lot of you lot need to get a grip. I happen to enjoy my job, but to be honest with you, and this may come as a shock, I do it for the money.