Linux Mindshare: Getting inside the buyer's head

Linux Mindshare: Getting inside the buyer's head

a guest column by John H. Terpstra

In this guest column at DesktopLinux.com, former SCO evangelist and Samba.org team leader John H. Terpstra weighs in on what is needed to win the consumer in the bid for Linux on the backend and desktop. Terpstra argues that emphasis on open standards and what Linux can offer an organization is a powerful message that is often mired down in arguments about TCO and other contrasts that often don't add up in a straight line comparison of Microsoft versus Linux. The essay explores the issues and offers some food for thought . . .

Linux Mindshare: Getting inside the buyer's head

by John H. Terpstra

DesktopLinux.com

January 30, 2003

Comments about "single-source" as opposed to "proprietary" software abound today. There are different definitions or perhaps interpretations of what constitutes these approaches. One common thread in these opposing models is consumer expectation -- and how both sides approach the customer is key to shaping the desktop computing market.

What follows are key issues that must be addressed for Linux to win the buyer's agenda. Over the past 5 years I have been asking a lot of questions. So far I have polled well over 1000 VARs, about 300 senior business IT people, and around 50 government employees from around the world. Here are some key themes from feedback received.

Users/buyers want freedom of CHOICE

This is a prevailing theme from all parties -- it is inherent in business, in life, and in software choice. Consumers understand that a choice of a single solution is not a choice at all. In a marketing climate that bombards buyers with messages, explaining the open source proposition takes a little time and patience. This simple process can be summed up for the buyer to recognize that:

A single aquisition source point is risky
A single solution from that point increases the risk
Any attribute of that solution that is unique to that single solution expounds the risk
If that unique attribute is transient (ie. changes frequently) risk abounds
Security factors that are associated with the unique attribute intensifies a potential security emergency in the event of alien assault (eg: Worm and/or virus attack).
All factors that induce lock-in and remove choice force organizations into a situation where choice becomes a non-issue, or "non-choice"
Non-choice is not an option.

Companies that have been helped over the proprietary data format hurdle using this logical approach have adopted a stance that favorable of open standards. What follows, in reality, is that the buyer has adopted open source.

Complexity versus simplicity

This shift in paradigm, that is a logical progression for a consumer, translates directly to productivity issues. Complex software requires additional user training, which is costly in terms of a training budget, up front costs, and total cost of ownership. However, often overlooked in the equation and considerably more costly to a company or organization is lost productivity. Corporate budgets that are training-centric can be shifted or replaced, but lost time in actual productivity in the company's own business cannot be recouped.

For example, many companies are just as concerned at the cost of training as well as the employee's productivity that is lost while being trained. In fact, one manager stated the while the price paid for a staff member to attend IT training was used as the reason for rejecting the employee's request for training, the real reason for refusing the employee was the estimated TOTAL cost of training. This total of course included an estimate of the value of lost time.

Highly complex products also incur higher infrastructure support cost. As an example, the cost of gaining MS MCSE certification has surged from about $4000 in 1996 to over $25,000 in 2002. Those with MS MCSE certifications seek radically higher salaries for their merit. The best of MS MCSE's land well-paying roles because of the shortage of skilled and competent MS MCSEs.

All of this just emphasises the fact that all complexity comes at a price. Technologists are quick to provide supporting agruments for complexity, but upper management often prefer a simpler and lower cost solution. We should keep this in the forefront of our thinking when we offer competing solutions to an existing complex one.

Integrity is a big issue

Integrity covers a wide number of factors. Take any single issue -- performance, reliability, security -- and on its own, there is not enough compelling evidence to cause a change in buying behavior. Bundle these issues together and the buyer feels greater need to remedy the larger problem.

Issues

Performance

One vendor's -- in this case Micosoft's -- answer to performance problems have traditionally been to install faster, bigger, better hardware. This works in favor of the hardware vendor and has actually caused much fear for those working to promote Linux adoption.

Large customers/organizations that have a long-term budget cycles for IT infrastructure can easily be compromised by unplanned hardware upgrades. The proliferation of core infrastructure hardware, such as servers, exacerbates the cost of managing the operational infrastructure base.

This is currently generating a growth explosion in the management software market. There is significantly more business to be gained in the management software market as a byproduct of recent server proliferation.

Linux is seen by many as suffering the same blight of increased complexity and disk-image size as other non-open source solution offerings. Linux can run in larger spaces and on resource rich machines. But it does not have to do this.

Scalability to fit on more constrained resources is something Linux can do rather well. Additionally, there is plenty of evidence that Linux-based alternatives offer very attractive server consolidation opportunities by reducing system administration and overall task of system management.
Security record

There is growing and wide-spread concern over malicious threats posed by exposure to viruses, worms, and trojan horse invasions of information systems. Pro-Microsoft, or more anti-open source, press have recently hyped open source as being "more vulnerable" to attacks than Microsoft-based products. There is evidence that the message is appearing ever more frequently. The message has been based on misinformation.

Every incident of a security advisory is counted. For each Microsoft product the threat is counted just once. Linux incidents are often counted for every communication by each and every player in the field despite the relationship of a security flaw to a single piece of code. I believe that this is a deliberate activity because security is a prominent and effective issue that lends itself to being used as a powerful communications weapon.
Enforced software registration

Many parties are concerned that Microsoft may use their internal software licensing database as a tool to prosecute suspected copyright infringers. There have been estimates that legitimate corporate software users have bought up to 20% more additional licences than required simply out of fear of prosecution for violation of Microsoft software licensing.

We should use opportunity to highlight the safety from license infringement afforded by open source software. Users are more completely within their rights to total confidentiality in use of open source software. At the same time we should stress the urgency to comply with all software licensing terms and conditions. If the cost is too high, come to open source solutions and avoid the tax!
Uptime reliability

Users respond to system outages by demanding assured service availability. IT staff respond by installing duplicated servers and clustered solutions. In large companies the growth in numbers of clustered servers is astounding. A major increase in network infrastructure management costs is unavoidable as the number of servers escalates.

Clustering of file and print services is a great way to bury (hide) the inadequacies and unreliabilities of the systems a business depends on. There is significant emotional appeal in the mental concept that having a "fall-back" server is a "good thing". But should we really buy three new cars in case two should break down?

Whatever happened to efficiency and cost control? Of course, there are situations that are best addressed by a clustered server environment.

Examples include, clustered compute farms for scientific purposes, load distribution for web servers, etc. We should recognise the difference between a legitimate situation and one where the cluster servers purely to render invisible grossly inadequate systems. In the latter case, the increase in cost and complexity alone should drive the buyer to a better solution.

In any case, when back-end servers are reliable, users tend to be happier. Happy users equate with a more peaceful life in the network administration department. There is also a direct relationship between such peace and the costs of network maintenance and management.
Update and Migration Control

IT management remains concerned over their ability to control the introduction of software features and updates system-wide. This is a point of concern in respect of all automatic update processes and service offerings.

Samba users that rely on Linux-based systems for file and print capabilities have been caught off-guard by incompatibilities introduced by MS Windows' automatic update features. Interestingly wnough, incompatibilities and inconsistencies have also affected pure MS-only environments as well.
Too many platforms

Microsoft would like it's customers to propagate "Windows" as a single platform. This message has only partly succeeded. Many users regard each MS Windows product as a separate platform. Some even regard each service pack update as a new platform.As an example, one website recently reported to the Samba mailing list that the "platforms" they run include: "MS Windows 95, MS Windows 98, MS Windows ME, MS Windows NT4 SP3 and MS Windows NT4 SP6a, MS Windows 2000 SP2 and MS Windows 2000 SP3"

Unfortunately, the Linux camp has not succeeded with our message that Linux is Linux is Linux either. This can be addressed, and is currently the focus of organizations such as The Free Standards Group and other initiatives that promote unified deployment standards and
interoperability. The single best feature of Linux is one single file format standard that complies with open industry standards.

Unrealized Functionality

There is a significant perception in MS Windows BackOffice 4.5 and MS Windows 2000 BackOffice are not meeting user expectations. Oftentimes, Microsoft users are not getting the functionality they thought had purchased.

Factors that create the gap between expectation and realization are many and varied. Most stem from buying based on a slick sales brochure, rather than from research and careful trial-based evaluation. There is a rabid belief that Microsoft solutions are so simple that anyone can deploy them. The truth is, they are complex. And, just like Linux implementations, require expertise.

Buying prior to testing, and without evaluation usually leads to implementation, since oftentimes software has already been paid for upon acquisition. Deficiencies are later excused since the budget has already been spent. Open source effectively creates a different evaluation and purchasing cycle -- one that focuses on the merits of the software itself.

Fear of problem situations

It can take 4 hours or more just to get a Microsoft support person on the telephone. The cost per incident is high (approx. USD$150), but the success rate for issue calls is not reported to be very high. Many inquiries result in confirmation of a problem that cannot readily be solved. Although the resolution rate is far less than ideal, the inference that creates customer concern about open source is the continued perception that there is no one to call and fix Linux.

The long and the short of it is that Microsoft customers and VARs feel exposed and helpless in the face of problems with core infrastructure IT solutions. Linux is seen as posing an even greater risk since there is no one organization responsible.

Reality, and a positive track record, have proved that open source Linux has responded swiftly and completely to security alerts and other issues.
NO CHANGE

One of the strongest selling points for consumers evaluating a Linux-based solution is the fact that a change of back-end or desktop solution does NOT need to cause ANY change in user experience at using the changed environment.
SOLUTIONS focus

Microsoft sell MS Windows 2000 as a total solutions package. They do not sell technology. They do sell the sizzle - but not the sausage. Linux propositions have generally been heavily focused on technology.

In any approach to selling Desktop Linux to the enterprise, it is important that the community and commercial interests touting open source related solutions focus on the end goal. That is satisfaction and open standards - and NOT necesarily Linux. Sure, Linux can cost less, but the end goal affordable results is a far better reason to select Linux over other OSs. Linux is open source, and that is powerful. However, customers need to focus on Linux as a platform that is based on open standards. The real value to the comsumer is the proposition of not being tied to any company or specific technology that could lock them into a costly or dead end proposition. Embracing Linux is NOT anti-Microsoft, it is pro-user and pro-results for any company seeking to unencumber its software infrastructure.

At the end of the day, Customers/Buyers want freedom of choice, seamless interoperability, managed and controlled budgets, and happy end users -- all things Linux can deliver better than any other operating system available today.

By focusing on the hot spots of the customers'/users'/buyers' agenda we standa greater probability of gaining his/her attention and commitment to our cause.

About the author: John H Terpstra is a respected business computing authority, John Tersptra co-founded Samba.org and specializes in transitioning businesses to Open back office alternative technologies. jht@primastasys.com.