And while we don’t typically cover mobile Linux on SearchEnterpriseLinux.com or even here on the quirky Enterprise Linux Log, I couldn’t resist a quick link to a Slate article that discussed Google’s plan to take over the world. Here’s a free Pro Tip: Microsoft is but a small rival in the overall big picture. This isn’t so much a battle between technologies as it is a battle between ideologies.

Google’s truest and most formidable foes are much older and more powerful. Today we call them Verizon and AT&T, but their real name is the Bell system. Their ideology, which today governs the cell phone world, is called “Vailism,” and it can be traced back to 1907 and the origins of AT&T’s domination of American telephony. The Bells’ philosophy, as promulgated by AT&T’s greatest president, Theodore Vail, is based on closed systems, centralized power, and as much control as possible over every part of the network. Vailism is the antithesis, in short, of everything Google stands for. It is this—conquering the business culture of the telephone, as opposed to the computer—that is Google’s great challenge.

Do no evil? You tell me. I, for one, welcome openness not only in my software, but in my Internet and my wireless as well. But that iPhone sure is tempting…

The classic UNIX magic poster by Overacre was distributed at a USENIX conference and featured a wizard with UNIX related signs, portents and doo-dads around him. I wonder what a Linux wizard keeps in his hat these days? And, would the Linux wizard be shown totally owning the Unix one and stealing his market share? I wonder…

I’ll have an article up a bit later this week (or early next) detailing just exactly what is going on in this space, but for now I thought I’d include one of the recent emails Charlie sent me that covers some of the basic cost advantages of the mainframe.

Architecturally-based advantages in the hardware, the operating systems, and in the virtualization functionality enable mainframes to manage multiple diverse workloads based on business objectives and deliver exceptional cost reductions. If we compare the costs of using mainframes to those of conventional servers as noted earlier, we find the following:

• Technical support and maintenance costs. By consolidating and centralizing the capabilities of dozens of servers into a single platform, use of a mainframe drastically reduces the redundancies and differences that are de rigueur in server farm environments. If we accept conventional industry wisdom that states a minimum of 70 percent of IT costs are labor – and that the majority of labor costs are training and support – it’s easy to see how mainframes can quickly free up IT budgets for more strategic investment such as new application development.
• Software licensing and maintenance costs. Since most operating, middleware, and application software is licensed to each server it is used on, a mainframe offers substantial software savings. In a mainframe, the computing capacity applied to software can scale dramatically. Literally, hundreds of virtualized server images can operate in a single mainframe under a single license, thus, avoiding additional license and maintenance fees. In addition, the IBM System z has the capability of running specialized processors for Linux and for some application workloads. These processors are priced substantially lower than the base processors. Thus, the System z delivers both hardware and software saving on a broad scale when compared to individual x86 server platforms.
• User and IT training costs. Training costs tend to be driven by the number and complexities of multiple applications and operating systems. By enabling the use of all leading operating systems and applications within single platform, mainframes drastically reduce the need for training.
• Utility and environmental costs. Mainframes require substantially smaller amounts of power, UPS capacity, cooling, and floor space when compared to the environmental requirements of an x86 server farm with equivalent processing capacity. The mainframe’s advantage is even more substantial when one considers the reduced amount of storage and inter-connection equipment compared to an x86 server farm.
• Security costs. Mainframes enable centralization of software and application interfaces. Centralization of software enables vastly improved security management by reducing the number and types of access points. Additionally, because of its heritage, security is architected into the mainframe and is uniquely robust. For example the IBM System z family of mainframes provides security against information flow between virtual machines. The System z was first certified in mid-2003 as Evaluation Assurance Level 5 (EAL 5) by meeting the Common Criteria standard ISO 15408. Comparatively, virtualization on x86 server platforms require security to be added and layered as part of the operating system, applications, databases, and so on – further increasing both the complexity and cost of security, while adding more points of vulnerability due to incompatibilities between security systems and other software.

An Elementary Roadmap
Saugatuck recommends that every company with more that 20 x86 servers should perform a thorough evaluation of existing workloads and servers with the following steps in mind:

1. x86 servers yielding the largest savings should be migrated to the mainframe first (e.g., those with unique infrastructure support requirements)
2. x86 servers with the lowest utilization should be migrated early
3. Assets with an upcoming compelling event (e.g., need for capacity upgrade, lease expiration, etc.) should be migrated before incurring the expense
4. x86 servers/workloads should be aggregated by user department to leverage strong buy-in
5. Oldest technology x86 servers should be migrated early
6. Focus on real estate by freeing up contiguous raised floor space or eliminating sites as early as possible

Today, Red Hat announced two customer wins: The French Ministry of Education (an educational institution adopts Linux? Really?!) and the Swedish Association of the Pharmaceutical Industry–because even Swedish penguins need to stay healthy.

Noe, for those of you keeping score at home, you’re out of luck, because I don’t keep track of every Red Hat and Novell customer out there. I am, however, interested in Linux migrations, of which we now have two more to add to the ol’ quiver.

The first, in France, involved the migration of 2,500 servers across 30 local education authorities to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. “Avoidance of vendor lock-in” was one of the main reasons given in the press release. “”In 2004, over 95%of the servers ran on Linux. Today we are close to 100%, since we withdrew the last AIX servers at the end of 2006,” said Michel Affre, the ministry’s IT systems manager.

In the land of Swedes Red Hat managed to get FASS.se, the main medicines portal run by the Swedish Association of the Pharmaceutical Industry, LIF, to migrate its servers from Sun Solaris to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Ian Murdock will not be too happy about that coup.

In a canned PR quote, Per Manuell, chief technology officer said the move was in part due to a desire to make operations run more smoothly. During evaluations, he said it was noted that RHEL was just that, and it was an “easy decision” to leave Solaris for RHEL.

To me, that’s like saying Starbucks is still a regional coffee shop business. That’s so three years ago.

Of course, Linux got its start on the edges of the enterprise, but – from what I’ve seen — Linux’s role in the data center isn’t edgy anymore.

Sure, at the turn of the millennium, Linux was an edge player. IT managers who’d tried and liked Linux put their file, print and Web servers on it. It took improved kernels and support from major systems vendors, particularly IBM, to get upper management on board for Linux. Then demand for Linux-based apps began to grow, forcing ISVs to port their apps to Linux. Oracle got on board with Linux in 2003, for example.

Corporations’ move to mission-critical Linux began in earnest in 2004 and has been growing ever since. Today Linux does play on the edge — actually, it’s the dominant file-and-print and Web server platform — but it’s making a strong showing inside the data center. It may not be the dominant mission-critical app platform today, but evidence shows that it’s certainly a significant player there.

Exhibit A: At this month’s LinuxWorld Open Solutions Summit, IDC’s analysts tagged today’s Linux server and software market at $18 billion. By 2010, the market will be worth $40 billion. IDC says that Linux’s current and near-future standing isn’t coming from “edge” deployments, by the way, but from growth in deployments to databases and other data center applications.

Exhibit B: Fifty-three percent of the 140 corporate executives surveyed by Forrester Research run mission-critical applications on Linux, and 52% choose Linux for new apps.

Exhibit C: About 50% of mission critical apps will be running on Linux by 2011, according to a recent Saugatuck Technology study (reported recently by Jack Loftus). About 20% of that survey’s respondents have deployed mission-critical apps on Linux or will deploy them this year.

Exhibit D: In another survey, members of the Independent Oracle Users Group (IOUG) said that Linux will overtake Sun Microsystems’ Unix-based Solaris as the top operating system (OS) for Oracle database deployments in 2007.

Enough said about surveys. For me, users offer the real proof that Linux is more than an edge computing platform. I’ve met dozens of IT managers who have moved Oracle, SAP, email, high-volume transaction and other business-critical apps to Linux. Indeed, SearchOpenSource.com has published a slew of case studies about businesses that run mission-critical apps on Linux. In 2003 — 2003! — I wrote a story about Golden Gate University’s migration to Oracle 9i on Linux. More recent stories concern mission-critical app migrations by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Metropolitan Bank Group, R.L. Polk Company and others.

These first-hand reports have shown me that Linux is not just an edge player. Any evidence I’ve seen to the contrary has been delivered in surveys and advertisements funded by Linux’s competitors. If you’ve seen valid reports that put Linux only on the edge, please show them to me!

Can your company be added to that list of mission-critical Linux users, or does your IT organization still relegate Linux to the edge? Do you think Linux is a mini-player the mission critical platform game? Let me know by responding to this entry, or write to me at jstafford@techtarget.com.