back to article Migrating from WS2003 to *nix in a month? It ain't happening, folks

Some people take exception to my recommendation that those running Win32 applications try to move to a newer version of Windows. They believe that if I were a "credible" IT professional I would counsel a move to *nix technologies such as Linux, Unix or BSD. The context for this debate is that Windows Server 2003's end is upon …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Unhappy

    Sorry...

    ...but your rational, well thought comments have no place on the Reg.

    The are so many blinkered dick heads here that their preferred platform is the correct one, even if it isn't.

    No, no, no...don't use the correct tools for the job, use THEIR solution, even if it's shit.

    1. Teiwaz
      Facepalm

      Re: Sorry... what OS were we talking about again?

      I think everybody thinks their 'preferred platform' is the 'correct one', 'even if it isn't'.

      The amount of times I get 'why don't you buy a real OS?' when my choice of OS comes up, comes to mind.

      Migrating to another entirely different platform (or even upgrading to a new one of the same) is not something anybody should consider doing 'inside a month'. Any organisation only considering their options at this point has all the IT expertise and acumen of the NHS.

      1. Michael Habel

        Re: Sorry... what OS were we talking about again?

        Migrating to another entirely different platform (or even upgrading to a new one of the same) is not something anybody should consider doing 'inside a month'. Any organisation only considering their options at this point has all the IT expertise and acumen of the NHS.

        I couldn't have said it any better myself! I mean if your just rolling along, and have only just heard about the passing of both XP, and now WS2k3, then you really only have yourself to blame. As likely that, old chestnut of porting apps... to WS2k12 R2 will turnout to be just as messy for some organizations, as if they'd just went ahead and adopted *nix right this instance. Or was WS2k3 exempt from the IE6 lockdown?

        If you were an IT Engineer worth your Pay... You'd have already seen this train wreck coming, and would had a solution in place ahead of time....

        But, as one Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz, was once said to remarked;

        "But, if you can't be bothered to take an interest in local affairs, that's your own lookout! There's no point in acting surprised about it now. Energize the demolition beams!"

        1. Joe 48

          Re: Sorry... what OS were we talking about again?

          Echo the above.

          This article could have been a simple one liner. If you haven't migrated from 2003 its already too late!

    2. Tomato42
      Linux

      Re: Sorry...

      I don't see "Do the right thing and migrate them to the next version of Windows" as rational and well thought, sorry.

      Even a shred of "if you depend on MS for this or this only, then you should see if maybe this whole Leenyux thing is up your alley" would be ok. Not this decree given from ivory tower.

      1. Captain Underpants

        Re: Sorry...

        @Tomato42:

        Even a shred of "if you depend on MS for this or this only, then you should see if maybe this whole Leenyux thing is up your alley" would be ok. Not this decree given from ivory tower."

        You're totally missing Trevor's point.

        There's nothing wrong whatsoever with your suggestion as a general idea - but in the context of "You've got a month to do it in, because that's when vendor support on the current platform runs out and a non-optional requirement is for business applications to be run on a vendor-supported platform" it's a non-starter.

      2. Grikath

        Re: Sorry... @tomato42

        I strongly suspect the tower you're referring to is the one you're sitting in, given the way you completely miss the relevant parts of the article where TP clearly indicates he has, and will move towards a 'Nix solution if given the opportunity, a feasible time table, and a case for a reasonable ROI. But hey....

        I'm also quite surprised about peoples' reactions regarding TP being a microsoft partner. Anybody who has paid attention knows ( or could have read up and figured out) he's got his feet firmly planted in both IT biotopes and cultures, and uses either where applicable. He does not, afaik, try to fit square pegs in round holes, and has always been very vocal about the tunnel vision the more ...extreme afficionados... display when it comes to "solutions to problems".

        And really.. given the specifics of the real problem: 4 weeks to cut-off, you're working on a problem that has very little to do with actual IT, but with Management. You're in a situation where the decisionmakers FUBARed, and you're never going to get them to admit they dropped the ball. So all that can be done realistically is have them sign off on the upgrade to the next iteration of [the current devil] and hope and pray it won't break too much, or anything important.

      3. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: Sorry...

        As a Unixer with experience dating back to 7th edition days I'd obviously recommend a Unix-like platform wherever feasible. But Trevor's right: you can't make a cross-platform move like that in a month, especially if you've no existing Unix experience. OTOH I'd have thought that a month is cutting it fine even for moving a small estate from one Windows platform to another. Apart from the acquisition of any new hardware you have to allow for testing and plan a good time for the migration. Realistically you have to allow for the possibility that testing will reveal some problems there may be no suitable time for the move within the month, especially if you have to work round some problem discovered in testing.

    3. Jim 59

      Re: Sorry...

      I agree with Trevor's comments, ie. that windows->unix migration is a major project in itself and should not be confused with a Windows -> Windows upgrade. I disagree with the (rude) commenter on all points.

      However, TP probably should have mentioned in the original article that his company is a Microsoft partner, that he profits through that partnership by obtaining free licenses, that he has "made a living from Microsoft" for "decades".

      A declaration of interest is a pretty basic part of journalism, I thought. And it wouldn't make me value Trevor's opinions any less (more if anything).

      .

      1. Roo
        Windows

        Re: Sorry...

        "I agree with Trevor's comments, ie. that windows->unix migration is a major project in itself and should not be confused with a Windows -> Windows upgrade."

        It is a mistake to *assume* that Windows->Windows upgrades are always less effort than migrating off Windows (Note: this applies to other OSes too). Have all you guys forgotten Vista already ? Besides if folks have left it this late to jump off the sinking 2K3 ship they either don't care enough, or they can't move due to something missing/changed the later cuts of Windows.

        Trevor does briefly mention a more sensible nuanced approach where the low-hanging fruit is moved away from 2K3. I wish he made more of that instead of dedicating yet more column inches to banging the "You must upgrade Windows or be Doomed Drum".

        1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

          Re: Sorry...

          It is a mistake to *assume* that Windows->Windows upgrades are always less effort than migrating off Windows

          Who is assuming? I've done this for ages. I know what's difficult and what's not. NT --> 2000 was a pig. 2000 --> 2003 was not. 2003 --> 2008 was a pig for a very few edge cases, but 2003 --> 2008 R2 was not. 2003 --> 2012 or 2003 --> 2012 R2 can be a pig for some edge cases, but in the overwhleming majority of cases it is not.

          NT --> 2000 (or later) and we could have a reasonable discussion about NT --> Linux being easier for up to 25% of workloads. 2000 --> anything later and I'm sorry, but moving to Linux is highly, highly unlikely to be easier. To the point that the number of instances in which Windows --> Linux is easier than Windows --> Windows fits within the margins of error for any testing methodology you care to name.

          Which, quite frankly, is perfectly rational if you know anything about the technologies involved and have actually had to administer them in the field. It is absolutely a safe assumption to make that Windows --> Windows will be easier than Windows --> Linux with a one month timeframe remaining on the clock, because the number of instances where Windows --> Linux is easier than Windows --> Windows is irrelevantly small to start with.

          If you can't accept that simple fact then you don't belong in IT. You should be out founding religions.

          1. Roo
            Pint

            Re: Sorry...

            "Which, quite frankly, is perfectly rational if you know anything about the technologies involved and have actually had to administer them in the field."

            You are coming across all "Trevor's Way or Highway", when in actual fact the world doesn't revolve around Windows, as you well know judging by your articles at El Reg. I'm quite happy for you to state you think there are no options, but I have seen cases where there is no option but to move off Windows. I would agree that Windows & Open Source have closed the gaps a lot over the last decade - but in my view that is making them *more* interchangeable not less.

            "It is absolutely a safe assumption to make that Windows --> Windows will be easier than Windows --> Linux with a one month timeframe remaining on the clock, because the number of instances where Windows --> Linux is easier than Windows --> Windows is irrelevantly small to start with."

            We can argue about the scale of the last category 'til the cows come home, but the point is that category does exist (albeit most of the low hanging fruit has long since gone), which is why I said it's a mistake to *assume*. There are quite a few businesses out there that couldn't exist without taking the Open Source route.

            It's not an Windows or Linux equation, Open Source has grown more through opening up new markets than cannibalizing Windows market share - obvious examples being bits of iOS & Android.

            "If you can't accept that simple fact then you don't belong in IT."

            I am sure that I don't "belong" in the form of "IT" that you are espousing at the minute, and I am quite happy not to "belong" to it.

            "You should be out founding religions."

            Nah, I'll leave that to Steve Ballmer, he's done a far better job than I ever could, and I could never make the line "Developers! Developers! Developers!" as memorable as Steve did.

            1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

              Re: Sorry...

              You are coming across all "Trevor's Way or Highway"

              I'm sorry that you have a problem with your brain where you perceive reality to be "Trevor's way". That's really weird.

              "when in actual fact the world doesn't revolve around Windows"

              I believe the earth rotates around a solid nickle-iron core doped heavily with radioactives that sunk during the late heavy bombardment.

              I'm quite happy for you to state you think there are no options, but I have seen cases where there is no option but to move off Windows

              No, what you want is for me to present marginal edge cases as being just as common as the overwhelming majority of cases, or of equal import/likelihood. That's bullshit.

              I refuse to be Fox News. Fox will do ridiculous things like present climate scientists side by side with a climate skeptic and pretend that their views are equally valid and equally supported by evidence. They manufacture controversy by completely disproportionately weighting discussion and doing it over and over and over and over and over.

              This sort of crap is known to work. It is part of the whole concept behind activities like affirmative action: make minorities disproportionately represented and they will seem like "the new normal", hopefully closing down one avenue for the spread of prejudice.

              I flatly refuse your demands to undertake affirmative action regarding open source and present it's relevance disproportionately to reality.

              We can argue about the scale of the last category 'til the cows come home, but the point is that category does exist (albeit most of the low hanging fruit has long since gone), which is why I said it's a mistake to *assume*.

              No, it is not a mistake to assume. It is a mistake to present extreme edge cases as though they were equal to the overwhelming majority in importance. They are not.

              There are quite a few businesses out there that couldn't exist without taking the Open Source route.

              I haven't seen a business in 15 years that functioned without at least some open source software. What's your point? That doesn't mean that open source is the rational choice target for migrating the overwhelming majority of Windows-based workloads, or even most, or even more than "an insignificant number of edge cases". Especially with a time frame of one month. And the timeframe target is absolutely vital to the discussion in both articles.

              It's not an Windows or Linux equation, Open Source has grown more through opening up new markets than cannibalizing Windows market share - obvious examples being bits of iOS & Android.

              Why are you preaching here? Do you think that I don't know this? Or that I haven't said this? None of this has relevance to server workloads that are running on Windows 2003 Server that need to be migrated within the next month.

              Don't proselytize irrelevant minutiae that has no bearing on the discussion to hand, it weakens your case...which was full enough of mindspiders as it is.

              I am sure that I don't "belong" in the form of "IT" that you are espousing at the minute, and I am quite happy not to "belong" to it.

              Thank $deity. I am espousing IT where practitioners make pragmatic judgements based on evident requirements, resources, time frames and return on investment. You clearly are having absolutely none of that. So do everyone a favour and stay the hell out of the industry before you destroy someone's company and with it all the jobs that company supports.

              Rejoin the conversation when you can separate the evangelical message of open source you wish to proselytize from the cold hard reality of keeping businesses running. Then we can have rational discussions about which technologies to implement when and where and in what timeframes.

              Cheers.

              1. Roo
                Windows

                Re: Sorry...

                "I flatly refuse your demands to undertake affirmative action regarding open source and present it's relevance disproportionately to reality."

                I see no such demands in my post, you are making that up - along with most of the rest of your reply.

                All I am trying to say is I think your position is too absolute, too black or white. By return you have reiterated your point that you think that's the only valid approach, hurled some insults and declared anyone to differ with your opinion to be incompetent.

                You aren't sounding like much fun to work with.

                1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

                  Re: Sorry...

                  I see no such demands in my post

                  Of course not. Fox News proclaims they are merely providing "balanced reporting", too. They aren't.

                  All I am trying to say is I think your position is too absolute, too black or white.

                  Because it is black and white. There is the overwhelming majority of use cases - > 99.9% - where everything I said in that article applies without question, and there is the extreme edge cases - < 0.1% - where it is advisable (or hell, possible!) to migrate workloads from a Windows environment to a Linux one in a month without issue.

                  If this is a grey topic it is so very slightly grey that even a remarkably precise, highly calibrated colourimiter would call it "white".

                  By return you have reiterated your point that you think that's the only valid approach

                  I have stated why I think it's the only valid approach for the overwhelming majority of cases and invited you - or anyone else - to provide concrete evidence to the contrary. Not for extreme edge cases, but for enough use cases to make a noticeable dent. Say, 10% of use cases. Bearing in mind the one month time frame.

                  hurled some insults and declared anyone to differ with your opinion to be incompetent

                  No. I called you incompetent. Because you differed with my opinion but couldn't back up your quite frankly religious sounding zealotry. You make a bunch of wild claims about how people should be able to move to Linux, but don't discuss how this will be accomplished in the time frame given, nor how to solve the very real issues that real world systems administrators will face.

                  And yes, I'll hurl insults over that. I have no time for religious wankers of any description.

                  You aren't sounding like much fun to work with.

                  I'm not. IT isn't about having fun. It's about getting a job done. A difficult, complex job.

                  I do the job and then I get paid. Go run your little world.

                  1. Roo
                    Windows

                    Re: Sorry...

                    "I see no such demands in my post

                    Of course not."

                    Right, so even you know it's not true and that isn't my position.

                    I didn't even want to engage in a pissing contest, it's not worth it. All I was hoping for was that folks would spend 5 minutes having a look at plan B because it may work out well for them. I don't think that counts as zealotry and I don't really think it's worth having a flamewar over either because it's common sense.

                    "your quite frankly religious sounding zealotry"

                    That is your own zealotry you are hearing, because you are referring to the stuff that you made up.

                    "And yes, I'll hurl insults over that. I have no time for religious wankers of any description."

                    It is you who is behaving like a "religious wanker" (insults, misrepresentation, pretending you know what other people think, asserting you know best with zero evidence to back it up, intolerance), and as a rule dogmatic loudmouths don't tolerate competition, so that comes as no surprise.

                    "You aren't sounding like much fun to work with.

                    I'm not."

                    ... because being around someone who misrepresents folks and then flames them on the basis of that misrepresentation isn't fun, it's just plain old bullying and bullshit.

                    1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

                      Re: Sorry...

                      Right, so even you know it's not true and that isn't my position.

                      No, I think you're capable of compartmentalized thinking. You seem perfectly capable of believing one thing but rabidly espousing another. Typical of religious types, actually.

                      All I was hoping for was that folks would spend 5 minutes having a look at plan B because it may work out well for them. I don't think that counts as zealotry and I don't really think it's worth having a flamewar over either because it's common sense.

                      Which you failed to make a case for, especially given the timeframes involved, all while freaking out because extreme edge case scenarios weren't given equal billing to realistic solutions for the overwhelming majority.

                      It is you who is behaving like a "religious wanker" (insults, misrepresentation, pretending you know what other people think, asserting you know best with zero evidence to back it up, intolerance), and as a rule dogmatic loudmouths don't tolerate competition, so that comes as no surprise.

                      I love competition. It keeps us all on our toes. If and when any shoes up, I'll gladly engage with it. I've proven that by cheerfully having comment thread discussions that have gone on for dozens of comments about different ways to solve problems. Where the commenters involved are looking to actually debate (as opposed to proselytize) I genuinely enjoy such discussions. They're the reason I read El Reg.

                      As for "knowing what you think", I haven't a clue what's going on in your mind. I do know what you are saying in your comments. And what you are saying in your comments is completely disconnected from what you claim to be thinking, so either you are absolutely awful at expressing yourself or you are engaging in some pretty perverse compartmentalized thinking.

                      ... because being around someone who misrepresents folks and then flames them on the basis of that misrepresentation isn't fun, it's just plain old bullying and bullshit.

                      I haven't misrepresented what you are saying at all. In fact, I'm decreasingly sure that you're even sure what you are saying. You want people to think about Linux as an alternative, that's fine. Nobody here will give you shit for that. Everyone in this entire comment thread agrees that Linux is a viable alternative that should be considered when and where possible.

                      But you don't end there. You have gone off into crazy freak-out land about the fact that the article didn't present Linux as a viable enough alternative which is completely false: I gave Linux far more column inches than it is due, given the insignificant number of workloads that can be reliably migrated in teh one month timeframe under discussion in the article.

                      You seem to believe that I - and others - are somehow bashing Linux, saying Linux shouldn't be considered and otherwise pissing in your religion-flavoured cheerios when absolutely fucking nobody here is doing that. The discussion we're having is about when and where it's viable, in what timeframes and for what workloads.

                      You're acting as though we killed your dog because we aren't championing Linux as the first, last, and only solution regardless of the viability, practicability or you'll-get-fucking-sued-for-taking-those-risks involved. Which is nuts. Wonko. Loony Tunes.

                      Your whole approach to commenting here has been off. You have basically just walked up and taken a dump on my lawn, claiming you did so because you're just standing up for the beleaguered natural fertilizer industry, whom I neglected to adequately endorse in my article about how to winterize your perennials before the first frost. Completely disregarding the part where two paragraphs of the article were devoted to the fact that for some plants it's a good idea mix in some natural fertilizer for the overwinter process.

                      Telling you to stop shitting on my lawn isn't bullying. Chasing you off my lawn with a rider mower would be.

                      1. Roo
                        Windows

                        Re: Sorry...

                        "I haven't misrepresented what you are saying at all. In fact, I'm decreasingly sure that you're even sure what you are saying."

                        OK, try reading it for a second time:

                        "It is a mistake to *assume* that Windows->Windows upgrades are always less effort than migrating off Windows"

                        You think you know better, that's fine, I know better too, I'll agree to differ.

                        I also wrote:

                        "I wish he made more of that instead of dedicating yet more column inches to banging the "You must upgrade Windows or be Doomed Drum"."

                        In your article you picked up a post where someone dumps on you (unfairly in my view), then you set up a scenario where you have to migrate off a Win 2K3 box running binaries that won't run on anything but a new cut of Windows and then use that as a stick to beat Linux evangelists with. In my original comment I was simply expressing the wish that article had a broader outlook, I didn't mention Linux, I didn't mention Open Source and I don't think that expressing that view to a fellow commenter was "off" either. I guess we'll have to disagree on that too.

                        No hard feelings on my side. I hope that crapping on your own doorstep doesn't come back to bite you because I do actually look forward to reading your articles.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Sorry...

          you do know that Vista isn't a server OS don't you champ?

      2. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

        Re: Sorry...

        However, TP probably should have mentioned in the original article that his company is a Microsoft partner, that he profits through that partnership by obtaining free licenses, that he has "made a living from Microsoft" for "decades".

        I've also made a living off Linux for decades. And off of BSD. And Solaris/OpenSolaris. And OSX. And Android (which I don't really consider to be Linux).

        I have 8x to 12x as much *NIX deployed as Microsoft today (depending on how you count my clients). I think my company might also be a VMware partner, we've got some sort of affiliation with RedHat (but I can't remember what, exactly) and I've signed up for partner programs with ?????? other companies as well.

        Being a "Microsoft Partner" doesn't mean I "profit through that partnership". It's a bunch of bureaucratic piss I have to go through in order to get what I need to do done. Just like I have an account with a Canada-local distributor to buy parts when clients need them. I don't charge the clients more than the markup for shipping and time spent assembling things. That's zero profit. It's just doing what needs to be done.

        I make my money on retainers. Clients pay me per month. I give them best effort. That includes singing up to whatever ludicrous bullshit is required to buy things on behalf of my clients. if, sometimes, we can get a small break on licenses or something, great! If not, who cares? it determines what I install when I am setting up my own stuff and nothing more.

        Which companies I've signed partnership agreements with isn't relevant. It isn't relevant because I'm not your typical MSP or VAR. I don't make my living selling what I'm told to sell. I don't make my living climbing up the ranks of their partner programs to get that extra 3% discount. I make exactly 0% profit on every MS license sold. I make exactly 0% profit on every server sold. I make exactly 0% profit on everything I sell to every single one of my clients because there is absolutely no point in dumping thousands of man-hours every year into partner programs to claw back 3 or 4 measly points on something.

        Put simply: partnerships don't matter to me because I don't sell in volume, so I can't make any money off those partnerships. If you don't understand that, then you simply don't understand enough to be commenting on any of this.

        Now, for the record, I absolutely do list anything I feel might potentially be of interest in determining how beholden I am to vendors. You can find that information here. Which would have taken about 10 seconds of Googling.

        What's even funnier amidst your accusations of shilling and demands for "transparency" is that I more or less quit systems administration in January. I'm no longer a full time sysadmin. I maintain a stable of a handful of clients to ensure i keep my skills fresh, (there are only about 25 at current, and only two that are on monthly retainer,) but I make my money writing content now.

        I have no interest in seeing Microsoft succeed, or in seeing them fail. Win or lose it doesn't affect me in any way.

        Now quit trying to drown people in the name of rooting out witches and go outside and socialize with other human beings.

        1. Jim 59

          Re: Sorry...

          What's even funnier amidst your accusations of shilling and demands for "transparency" is that I more or less quit systems administration...

          Beg pardon Trevor but I did not accuse you of "shilling" or anything else. Perhaps you are confusing me with W.Anderson. I merely said that I thought declaring interests was common journalistic practice, and in my view your MS links ought to have been declared.

          As it happens I don't think your article (which I agree with) was coloured by your MS partnership, which seems pretty trivial, as you say. But I still think any links should generally be declared, even if they seem trivial.

          Now quit trying to drown people in the name of rooting out witches and go outside and socialize with other human beings

          Well, charming.

          1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

            Re: Sorry...

            You're right re: shilling, my apologies.

            I do however maintain that you are absolutely wrong re: "should declare MS partner" etc. It isn't remotely relevant, and hammering it really only serves to make you seem very much like one of the "OMG you're a shill" religious nutters.

    4. Nick Ryan Silver badge

      Re: Sorry...

      Pah! I just try to select the most appropriate tool given the requirements. Once I've managed to disentangle the tool from the requirements of course. Far too many folk out there are too stupid to know the difference and state their solutions in the same breath as their requirements.

      If the solution happens to be running Windows because it's easier for them to manage and easier to transition them to that's quite possibly the "correct" tool for the job even if there are slightly better alternatives. Similarly if Linux (or any another OS or platform) can do the job then I'll consider it in the same light as Windows and weigh up the costs vs the benefits and disadvantages - and generally all platforms will have some disadvantages for any given scheme. So whether the decision is to run a file server service on a NAS box (often Linux derived), deploy MS-SQL server because it's what clients and partners are expecting (even if integrating it into a Linux type environment is annoying), then this is what happens - there is no "one size fits all" solution and there is no need to be either. Only muppets attempt to deploy one solution or technology regardless of best fit.

      And if a pen and paper is a customer's optimal business process platform... then that's what should be considered.

  2. kryptylomese

    Heterogeneous environment and a pragmatic approach anyone?

    1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

      You mean like every environment I've ever built? Yup. +1 for that.

      1. Joe 48

        I still maintain a month isn't enough time to migrate from Windows, to Windows. Just as you pointed out, the issue is all the client politics, change processes, configuration management, and the endless pointless meetings people will no doubt request. That will eat up all the time and before you know it you've missed the boat. Regardless of how simple the technology elements are.

        For me I'd never do an upgrade, fresh os install, full end user testing of the application, and then a controlled migration to the new infrastructure.

        If working with a company that really is doing things right already, I'm yet to find one, the maybe it's doable in a month. All their processes would have to be slick, with extensive documentation of the application and top notch support staff on hand should it go pear shaped.

        I'm not disputing the fact a Linux migration would take a whole heap longer, as I agree it certainly would.

        1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

          "I still maintain a month isn't enough time to migrate from Windows"

          This depends entirely on whether or not you tell anyone outside of IT that you're upgrading. I just tend to migrate and test over night and nobody asks questions. Other nerds are informed in case they have to support, but for the most part they just don't care, or are happy that another Server 2003 box has been binned.

          There are advantages to not being bogged down by bureaucratic change management systems. :)

          1. Fehu
            Holmes

            There are advantages to not being bogged down by bureaucratic change management systems. :)

            Almost didn't vote you down because of the last part, but you seem to be moving the goal posts a bit. Oh, moving to new OS in a month! Bah, bah not possible. Move one server to a newer version of the same OS: Oh, I'll just let that run over night and no one will notice. If the scope of your server and applications is such that you can migrate it over night unattended, then hiring people with expertise to let management know what would be the best upgrade path is not "unacceptable". It would be the professional thing to do. Unless, of course, you were more worried about your revenue stream.

            1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

              Re: There are advantages to not being bogged down by bureaucratic change management systems. :)

              You live in a pretty black and white world, don't you?

              Sure, some of the stuff I upgrade is simple enough to do overnight. A great example is a Win32 financials application that installs on a server and runs on Pervasive SQL. Porting that thing to a new Windows OS is as simple as

              1) Install Pervasive SQL v.latest on Windows v.latest

              2) Install application

              3) Copy directory "backup batch" from live server and execute backup registration scripts

              4) Put file named "GETOUT.NOW" in financials app directory "data" (this will boot any sessinos from people who didn't close the client)

              5) Copy "data" to new server

              6) Share "data" directory

              7) Rename, readdress, reboot old VM

              8) Verify client connectivity to new VM

              9) Retire old VM

              10) Don't bother manually doing any of the above because we scripted that in order to make reports servers automatically get a copy of the data from nightly backups about ten years ago

              The above is a great example of a workload that migrates smoothly and seamlessly from one generation of Windows to the other. It doesn't cause fuss or muss and it doesn't migrate to *NIX worth a damn. It is also a very typical workload running on a Windows server.

              I have zero problem bringing in people with expertise to let management know what the best upgrade path is. I don't care; I get paid the same whether the workload runs on Windows or Linux. The clients really don't care overmuch, excepting as it affects what they have to pay for things.

              I have all sorts of problems with starting down the "consultant" bureaucratic fuckfest with a month left on the clock. Especially since I myself have enough experience to know what workloads are not going to go quietly into that good night and which ones might, with some coaxing.

              The "professional" thing to do is to examine the business case for moving workloads from one platform to another and to be continually reevaluating the ROI of all deployed solutions. It is not to push a given religion, OS, etc on your employer or client.

              It is absolutely unacceptable to attempt to use the eleventh hour of a refresh cycle to try to bring in massively disruptive changes. Doubly so if there exists the option to simply and smoothly move towards a supported solution with little or no disruption or downtime.

              If the *NIX solutions are so amazing then they will be just as capable of making the case for their existence once the crisis has passed. if you need a crisis to exist in order for your solution to be viable then your solution is shit.

          2. Joe 48

            @Trevor_Pott - If I upgraded a system without a prior change notice and it didn't work, I'd hope it was also the Print server, at least that way they couldn't print my P45 in the morning, as thats what would happen. I'm hoping the smilie face you added means you're being a little tongue in cheek :)

            1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

              "If I upgraded a system without a prior change notice and it didn't work, I'd hope it was also the Print server, at least that way they couldn't print my P45 in the morning, as thats what would happen. I'm hoping the smilie face you added means you're being a little tongue in cheek :)"

              If I upgraded a system without the proper change notice and it didn't work I'd roll back the VM/revert to the old VM. "Proper change notice" is a function of larger organizations. The larger the organization the more that matters, because the more people need to know.

              When there are only two IT folk then "change notice" can be an IM or e-mail alerting about the change. It depends on what the change is, severity of anticipated impact, ease of reversion, etc.

              Small organizations don't need to go through change assessment forms and so forth to determine what level of change notification is required. They also don't have to make change notification to more than the other nerds unless there's actually a good reason for someone else to know. It is a blessing.

              If an application is "owned" by someone outside IT then I typically let them know that something is going to change (or has changed), just in case something odd happens that I didn't anticipate. The focus is more on the ability to smoothly roll back, however, than it is on carefully planning every change.

              This is because the impact of most changes is small in small organizations. If we have to take a widget down for 15 minutes to revert it, the world doesn't end. I understand how that changes in enterprises and that's the reason for the smiley. I get away with things in smaller organizations that wouldn't fly in larger ones...but that doesn't mean that the things I'm doing are wrong for the situation. It means the risks and impacts are different and so where the time focus goes is different.

              Smiley! :)

              1. Roland6 Silver badge

                "If I upgraded a system without the proper change notice and it didn't work I'd roll back the VM/revert to the old VM. "Proper change notice" is a function of larger organizations. "

                Gosh your clients obviously have low expectations of IT and don't do much with it!

                I don't make changes without directly consulting the business (given they are paying my bill, it makes sense they understand the value I'm contributing). In small business'es the nerd's if there are any and the on-site IT support person have generally little understanding of the business. So asking the business, means that I don't shutdown the RDS server on the morning when they are using it to complete a major bid application before it's deadline... And given it's a small business asking the business usually only means making a couple of phone calls, obviously once you've gained agreement from the business you can inform the 'nerds' of when things will happen so that they can send out the formal notification emails etc.

                I'm not sure what you mean by "Proper change notice", I use what you may regard as "Proper change notice's" because they act as checklists to my thinking about the change. Yes not all fields are completed and several are cut-and-paste of 'standard' text and no I don't use a full Prince2 change forms/process. They also provide a record of my thinking that I can put before a client to explain why I'm approaching a change in a specific way, and so also provide yet another tangible example of how I am adding value compared to those who think IT is more important than the business that funds and uses it...

                As I've said elsewhere, one client gave the IT support person a formal warning for shutting down the RDS server at 11am without consulting the business...

                1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

                  In small business'es the nerd's if there are any and the on-site IT support person have generally little understanding of the business

                  You'd be spectacularly wrong about almost every single SMB and midmarket organization I've interacted with. The nerds are integral. They help set business strategy and due to the tight integration and automation have to have a seat at every major discussion that goes on, because they'll be the ones implementing it. Next?

                  So asking the business, means that I don't shutdown the RDS server on the morning when they are using it to complete a major bid application before it's deadline...

                  And now you're way out in left field making completely unwarranted, wild assumptions. I pretty specifically stated in one of my previous comments that I tend to do notice-free upgrades late a night. Think 3:00 am, so that it's after backups run. I know the businesses I work for, and I choose times to do patch runs, server outages etc so that the business doesn't even notice that something is occurring. And yes, I check IM to see if anyone's on, even if it's 3am.

                  Major outages need to be scheduled in advance. Taking the financials server down for an hour at 3am to hump it up a few Windows versions is not a major outage. And, I should point out, I'd probably have tested it by humping the reports server up a few days prior. Again, without feeling a need to let people know.

                  Why? Because I can do the move and do the testing all before it affects anyone or anything and have time to revert if it all goes sideways.

                  In fact, it's usually the scheduled stuff that goes horribly wrong, because it's complicated enough to need to schedule it and there's never quite enough time to get something that big done before people start coming in for the morning.

                  I'm not sure what you mean by "Proper change notice"

                  Well, actually you nailed it. Things like Prince2 change forms are a great example of "proper" change notice. Long, drawn out bureaucratic cover-your-ass and make-it-look-like-you're-important exercises. They have their uses, but they emphatically don't need to be used for every minor change. Especially now that we are entering a world of dynamic, self-healing datacenters; $deity help you if you ever start using software defined networking!

                  In 95% of cases there is zero point in attempting to explain why I am "approaching change in a specific way". The business side wouldn't understand it and - to be more blunt about it - they don't care. I am not going to fill out a Prince2 form to renew an SSL certificate or push out security patches. Not going to happen.

                  The other 5% of changes are the ones that actually affect end users and customers. Here documenting and justifying everything is critical.

                  Server upgrades can fall into either category. I am not issuing a change request if I start rotating nodes out of an ESXi cluster for patching, so long as the cluster supports N+2 node failures. That means I can patch and not affect the ability of the cluster to lose a node during production.

                  Similarly, in the case I documented in a previous comment wherein a Win32 application can be migrated smoothly and easily between Windows versions I see zero reason to let anyone other than the local nerd know. The end users aren't affected at all; they don't interact with the operating system at all. They interact with a Win32 client that if very binary about things. It either works (it can access the database and the file share with all relevant permissions) or it doesn't. I'll know that after a few seconds of testing.

                  Change management can add value, but it should not be done simply for it's own sake. Each organization needs to examine exactly what level of detail they feel is required to meet the business' appetite for risk versus its ability to conduct operations in a timely manner.

                  Just as you've seen contractors who disregard any notion of sane change management (taking down RDS at 11am would be a great example), I've worked with many a company whose change management processes were so smothering and opaque that they prevented forward motion of any kind.

                  Small businesses rarely have the resources to go full bureaucrat on change management. The increase in staff costs of going full bureaucrat on anything is mind boggling.

                  1. Roland6 Silver badge

                    Thanks for the clarifications, I think we just have different SME client experiences, hence when dealing with an IT person who thinks it's okay to do service outage stuff during office hours, I've found it best to talk to the business and then talk to them... Likewise when dealing with clients who have outsourced parts of their IT to a third-party, who (the third-party) will tend to do stuff when it is convenient to them...

                    Also to me "Taking the financials server down for an hour at 3am to hump it up a few Windows versions is not a major outage." would be a major outage with one of my client's, as their Financials is a full MRP system and hence is only supported on a restricted suite of platform software. But the main point which I think we agree on, is that you need to have some form of change management process which gives you a framework in which to make such decisions and communicate appropriately, even if at times the only business visible output is a line item on an invoice.

                    1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

                      Thanks for the clarifications, I think we just have different SME client experiences

                      Well, this is why in my original comment I said that I, personally, was reaping the benefits of getting away with bypassing some change management procedures and put a smiley on the end. Just because that setup works for me doesn't mean it works for everyone. I take the time to learn a lot about the business, and have the fortune of being supported by some really plugged in tech weenies on the local sites.

                      Also to me "Taking the financials server down for an hour at 3am to hump it up a few Windows versions is not a major outage." would be a major outage with one of my client's, as their Financials is a full MRP system and hence is only supported on a restricted suite of platform software.

                      Well, yes. Each application is different. Which is sort of my point in the whole conversation in both articles and both comment threads. It's also sort of endemic to the discussion about the ease with which a sysadmin can (or can't) bypass change management.

                      I know my workloads. Inside and out. I've worked with them for over a decade in most cases. So there are lots of them that I can get away with doing "unscheduled" maintenance if I keep that maintenance to the right outage window.

                      By the same token, there are a bunch where if it's down for more than a minute or two, I will be shot in the streets.

                      That's the key here though: the diversity of IT workloads. It's why there is no one response that fits. It's why there is no one set of procedures that efficiently encompasses all endeavors and why migrating to Linux in a month is absolutely impossible for the overwhelming majority of workloads. Hell, migrating from Windows to Windows in a month will be a stretch for many workloads.

                      Despite that, there are a significant number of workloads where simply humping it up a Windows version is no big deal. One of the measures of a sysadmin is to be able to know into which category their individual workloads will fall.

                      But the main point which I think we agree on, is that you need to have some form of change management process which gives you a framework in which to make such decisions and communicate appropriately, even if at times the only business visible output is a line item on an invoice.

                      I don't disagree in general, but I think that all change management processes need to be fairly flexible. As workload and maintenance types vary we need the ability to bypass the more bureaucratic and restrictive bits when and where it's sane.

                      Where I get my panties in a bunch about change management is where organizations go full bureaucrat.

                      This one time, while consulting (but not at band camp) I was summoned to solve a problem with an application on an end user device. The device was managed by an outsourcing company that was itself managed by another outsourcing company and five layers up with the consulate of a very large and powerful nation. The endpoints were ancient. The printers were ancient. Everything was ancient and everything was locked right the hell down.

                      I looked at what was asked, looked at the permissions that had been given my user account to accomplish them and realized that it was impossible. So I booted off of my USB key, loaded the registry hive on the endpoint, made the changed by hand and it worked. The consulate staff got on with their day.

                      I then spend 16 consecutive hours on the phone with different layers of support and management to get official permission to have my user account granted the rights to do what I'd already done so that it can be signed off on and properly accounted for.

                      I probably violated about a dozen treaties and maybe some laws in doing what I did. I also saved the day. That country's ambassador actually showed up in the consulate while I was busy playing ping-pong for authorization with support and ended up having to make emergency use of the computers to use the very application I had enabled.

                      I found out later that the result of that conversation was that the country in question extracted some people from a city that was hit by a tsunami and brought them here to Canada. The Ambassador was relaying the results of his negotiations for refugee status for these folks and his aides sent over all the info on where these people were to live.

                      The reason I had to get the application working was because the new rules said that certain types of official communication couldn't occur without the new communications software installed. The Ambassador (who normally isn't in our city, so it usually doesn't matter if that software works or not) would have been restricted to firing off information via some form of certified snail mail otherwise. That could have slowed the country in question from moving those people, and who knows what that would have meant for them?

                      It was that incident that made me appreciate the need for flexibility in change management processes. The more rigid and absolute they become the less the serve the needs of the organization implementing them.

                      Change management needs to be change managed. :)

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I take it WINE is not a migration option for most of the Win32 applications?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      NM, I'll answer my own question: not in any environment requiring some forms of certification.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Not when your business relies on them, without extensive testing. Just like trying to run big *nix applications on Windows using cygwin or the like makes little sense.

      If for any reason - including software prices - you wish to move to another OS, you should migrate to native applications. If the only reason is "MS is bad, but I still want to run Windows applications", it's just a risky path with no real benefits.

    3. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

      "I take it WINE is not a migration option for most of the Win32 applications?"

      Wine's developers and community have spent their time working almost exclusively on end-user workloads. Desktop Linux stuff. Very - very - few server workloads are certified to run in Wine.

      Also: how to you get stuff that's native to the Windows OS to "run in WINE"? Worse, there aren't like-for-like comparisons with the open source projects for all of them.

      Consider SMB 3.0 with all of Microsoft's security features as an example. Samba isn't there yet - they certainly haven't added all the security integration in - so there is no direct like-for-like port. No autoscanning content to see if credit cards are being stored, no network access control integration, no integration with network egress defenses, etc.

      You give up a fair amount of functionality if you move away from Microsoft's file system implementation. For my home network I might not care. My clients might have different needs on their own networks.

      Even if you could, somehow, pull out the relevant bits from Microsoft's OS and run them in WINE...is that legal? Who provides support? How do you patch it?

      A completely isolated server executable that could be run in WINE might be doable, but it's pretty rare these days. I've only found a handful that I could even get to function at all, and none that I'd consider viable to run in that state in perpetuity.

      Patching and upgrades being the bitch: what happens if I get hit by a bus? Who can maintain that?

      But most server executable aren't isolated. They rely on parts of Windows to work. (Many, for example, are increasingly taking advantage of the aforementioned security enhancements to Microsoft' file server stack.) Win32 applications get roots dug deep. The only way to change them over is usually to completely recode. In today's world that means making them into web applications. (Why recode for another OS just to get trapped there?)

  4. Jad

    As a Unix bod, working for a company that uses Unix as the backend ...

    1 month to transfer to Unix just won't cut it, and certain applications and protocols cannot be replaced by Linux counterparts.

    Our accounts department uses windows software (does anyone know an accounts department that uses non windows software? Seriously if we can find a good package to work with I'll suggest it to the board!) We replaced their desktop computers with "SunRays" using RDP to connect to a windows server (2008 R2) running the Windows software for the TAS system. We have ripped apart the TAS system so that it works on a Linux server with a PervasiveDB Linux installation ...

    anyway I'm not sure where I was going with this, but suffice it to say, we're a big unix/linux house and even then there are applications that we cannot get off of Windows, even with all the time available to us.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: As a Unix bod, working for a company that uses Unix as the backend ...

      I have to remain under cover but yes we use a Unix based accounts system at my shop and we have been for almost 25 years now. The front-end is a Windows desktop client but it has no biz logic code, simply a pretty frontend for users that talks to the backend processing engines which are all on Solaris and Oracle, even the invoice scanning and BACS transfer systems are unix based.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Joke

        Re: As a Unix bod, working for a company that uses Unix as the backend ...

        Bad you're also in the "bad software company user" category because you're using Oracle software! You should migrate ASAP to Linux and Postgres!

    2. Roland6 Silver badge

      Re: As a Unix bod, working for a company that uses Unix as the backend ...

      Re: Windows Accounting software.

      Yes, you've encountered one of the problems with RDS, everything runs on the server...

      In many small businesses keeping Accounts on standalone PC's running Sage or whatever, means you can change the fileserver without them loosing either the Accounting package or the usual integrations with MS Office...

      Interestingly, it is the lack of integrations with other desktop applications that a client is citing one of their reasons for not moving to a cloud-based Accounting solution. So it does look like this client will be running Windows in the Accounts department at least for a long-time.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    viabilty

    Now a responsible CIO, CTO whatever job title fits, would have seen this coming 5 years ago and made a plan to investigate options (though having had a look five years ago, porting active directory hot design wasn't reliable/ possible/ stable). Hopefully someone will be looking ahead the next time.

    1. Robert Sneddon

      Re: viabilty

      Not a problem. Just go to the board and tell them you need a few million quid to hire a team of upper-level coders and system analysts and put together a test setup to prepare the company for something that's going to happen in five years time. It will involve various parts of the company acting as guinea pigs, messing with their established IT setups as parts of it are rolled out and getting in the way of them doing their jobs. Large parts of it might not work anyway and need even more investment in new software, new systems and further training for users.

      I'd keep your CV up to date while you do this, but don't mention any of this on it. Say you left the company to explore new opportunities or some other bullshit instead.

  6. xj25vm

    Sure, of course

    "Server 2003 turns into a pumpkin"

    "Even moving from Server 2003 as a file server to a Linux-based file server can be an effort of months"

    "Server 2003 has been around for ages, and it will be targeted by an unholy slew of malware the instant support ends."

    Yes Trevor, we understand. Your take on the matter is completely balanced, professional and unbiased - and completely lacks FUD.

    Not to mention:

    "Decades of being a Microsoft partner and a systems administrator that makes a living from Microsoft have made me the human representation of "that guy on the internet" who yells at Microsoft all the time."

    Wait, what? Of course, that makes complete sense! That's what Microsoft partners do all the time - they are critical of Microsoft.

    "Few- to the point of it being rational to say "almost none" - Win32 have a *nix counterpart."

    Really? Do you care to qualify this broad sweeping and bluntly nonsensical statement?

    Yes Trevor - a very balanced and impartial article indeed </sarcasm>

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Sure, of course

      How large is the largest network you ever managed? How many servers (win and *nix), and what versions? How many users and applications? I'm sure most of those asserting you can migrate from OS A to OS B in a few days, never managed more than a few servers with some simplle, standard configurations, with a few standard apps and users - and never handled issues like special hardware support, fault tolerance, high availability, tiered storage, backups and so on... nor ever cared about security, really.

      And believe it or no, unlike most *nix worshipper, many MS users don't feel the need to justify their choice even against reason as it was a religion - if something deserve critics, they do, after all, it's just a technical choice, not a life one.

      1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

        Re: Sure, of course

        Not aimed at me, but all good questions. Let's answer.

        How large is the largest network you ever managed?

        25,000 (ish) nodes, (physical and virtual combined). Do BMCs count as nodes in and of themselves? They have to be updated...that would add another 5000.

        How many servers (win and *nix), and what versions?

        Complicated question. One...and many. One in that on my largest network everything was in fact driven by a single two-node lock-step cluster. This cluster handed out OSes over PXE to render nodes. The render nodes (5000ish in number) would pick up an operating system from the central cluster (from one of 4 different configs), boot from it and do work.

        I have CentOS 5, CentOS 6, Windows XP and Server 2012 R2 all running as images. The nodes can be booted individually or in varying sized groups into each OS, which will give access to different rendering software to perform different tasks.

        How many users and applications?

        Well, the "biggest" network only has 8 users and 15 applications. My most users ever was about 750. they had about 1200 applications. My largest applications ever was about 1500 on a network with 250 users.

        I'm sure most of those asserting you can migrate from OS A to OS B in a few days, never managed more than a few servers with some simplle, standard configurations, with a few standard apps and users - and never handled issues like special hardware support, fault tolerance, high availability, tiered storage, backups and so on... nor ever cared about security, really.

        Not really a question, but...I've had to do all of that. Except usually on small enough budgets that I don't get to just ring up EMC for storage. I have to design and implement it myself. I've even build my own switches using Linux with realtime kernels and had to maintain every part of the stack from switches and NFV to storage to hypervisors to printers and endpoints.

        And believe it or no, unlike most *nix worshipper, many MS users don't feel the need to justify their choice even against reason as it was a religion - if something deserve critics, they do, after all, it's just a technical choice, not a life one.

        I feel I have to justify every single choice I make because everything costs money. If you can't justify it, why are you doing it?

        Okay, so I've answered. Will the whingers please step up?

      2. xj25vm

        Re: Sure, of course

        "How large is the largest network you ever managed? How many servers (win and *nix), and what versions? How many users and applications? I'm sure most of those asserting you can migrate from OS A to OS B in a few days, never managed more than a few servers with some simplle, standard configurations, with a few standard apps and users - and never handled issues like special hardware support, fault tolerance, high availability, tiered storage, backups and so on... nor ever cared about security, really."

        Trying to get passed your condescending tone - you might think it strange, but you are actually reinforcing some of my points. That is exactly what I meant by "broad sweeping statements". Trevor often makes these all-or-nothing statements - which are true, for a specific network size, industry, situation etc. But are also inaccurate for other industries, network sizes, software applications etc. But he more often than not "forgets" to qualify his statements. Of course there are plenty of scenarios where even migrating a file server from Windows to Linux can be *nearly* impossible, but he either neglects to mention that it only applies to specific situations - or the general tone of the article implies this is the case for most scenarios. There will be plenty of people and companies for whom migrating from WS2003 to Linux (or something else, if you wish) is a perfectly feasible choice. But I don't see that given any real credence in the article. Hence it is rather hard to take seriously his assertions that he is unbiased when it comes to Microsoft stuff.

        The IT industry is not only made up of sysadmins managing thousands of nodes and working on the big cool stuff. The rest of us also read The Reg you know - so qualifying a bit more carefully your statements won't make you sound like you have your head permanently in the clouds (yes, you can take that both ways).

        1. sabroni Silver badge

          Re: Trying to get passed your condescending tone

          He's not giving you his condescending tone, get past it and move on.

          1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

            Re: Trying to get passed your condescending tone

            He's not giving you his condescending tone, get past it and move on.

            For one, there's be a lot more creative use of invectives, were I actually using my naughty voice. ;)

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Sure, of course

          No, it's exactly the other way round, migrating from a Windows server to a Linux one is easy only in some specific situations - usually the simplest ones.

          In most scenarios, it takes time, resources, efforts and training. Even most SMBs usually have some applications or setups you can't *easily* migrate in a little time.

          Having worked on many systems, including large ones, means a a lot of experience, on what it needs and what it takes to manage any scenarios you can encounter.

          Pott never said you can't migrate from Windows 20030 to Linux - he said you can't do it in a month, especially if you have not planned and validated it far before. Any migration is possible, if you have enough resources - just not every one makes sense from a ROI perspective.

          If you read Gulliver's Travels, Laputa Island "engineers" decided to build water mills atop mountains instead of at the foot of them, just to change how things were usually done for the sake of it.

          Avoid to make Linux looks like a mill atop a mountain - it really doesn't deserve it.

          1. Vic

            Re: Sure, of course

            migrating from a Windows server to a Linux one is easy only in some specific situations - usually the simplest ones.

            It's often easier than many people would have you think.

            But with less than a month to go before it's *got* to work? I won't be touching that project...

            Vic.

        3. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

          Re: Sure, of course

          There will be plenty of people and companies for whom migrating from WS2003 to Linux (or something else, if you wish) is a perfectly feasible choice. But I don't see that given any real credence in the article. Hence it is rather hard to take seriously his assertions that he is unbiased when it comes to Microsoft stuff.

          Not in a month, there's not. I gave exactly as much credence as is rational to the idea of moving to Linux in a month in both articles. There are absolutely some workloads that can be moved in that timeframe. I even discussed some candidates. But the overwhelming majority of workloads cannot be moved in a month.

          You just don't seem to be able to understand that. The very specific topic of both articles is the month remaining. The possibility of moving some workloads to Linux is discussed. The reality that most can't be moved in the timeframe given is also discussed.

          Given a longer timeframe - and enough money - anything can be moved to Linux. I don't anywhere attempt to say that's a bad thing, or an impossible thing. But I am not going to pretend like Linux is a viable option for most companies facing that ticking clock when it isn't.

          As I said in the article: do the right thing and move your Windows workloads over to a supported version of Windows. Then, once the immediate crisis is passed you can look at moving those workloads to Linux, where there is time (and hopefully resources) to do the job properly.

          And if you want to get into a pissing contest about who has worked on the smallest networks or those with the least resources, well...

          ...I'll fnording wreck you, punk. Cash strapped SMBs with are my sandbox.

          I've spent my professional career moving every workload I can get my hands on over to Linux, Solaris and BSD, when and where possible. I've moved everything from overloaded, overworked everything-on-one-box systems to entire render farms. I'm probably one of only a handful of people seriously doing Linux VDI.

          I have a setup in a northern Albertan village where 9 companies are running their IT infrastructure off a single Netgear WNDR3700V2 router with a RAID array attached to the USB port, because it's all they could collectively afford, but it runs external facing websites that customers around the world use to purchase from these companies as well internal order and process tracking systems. It handles backups, networking and everything else except the dumb end-user terminals, which are recycled Wyse clients that do nothing but run Chrome on Windows XP Embedded.

          I know about migrating to Linux. Big and small. And you know what? The overwhelming majority of workloads on Windows Server 2003 systems can not be reliably migrated to Linux with a month left on the clock. Period. There isn't room for debate on that.

          That you somehow need to take that very narrow statement - which is what both articles were about - and somehow expand that to encompass more is your problem. If you want to change the timeframe, then the discussion changes. Linux migrations become more feasible the wider you make the migration window, and the more money you make available to do the migration.

          I qualified my statements just fine in that article. Maybe you'd do well to actually read it.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Sure, of course

      From an Oz perspective, I just need to mention 2 apps that have no *nix alternative. MYOB and QuickBooks. That wraps up 90%+ of all small and medium businesses.

      True, they are both unbelievably shit applications, but they are totally pervasive. They both offer cloud alternatives, but these are even shittier than the installed versions.

      Without alternatives to these applications which are easy to migrate to, moving to *nix just isnt't going to happen anytime soon.

      As an aside I tried to migrate a file server to Samba many years ago. All my roaming profiles broke, so I moved it back. Sure, I probably could have fixed it but it wasn't worth investing the required amount of time to try when I could simply deploy a Windows file server that worked.

      1. Michael Habel

        Re: Sure, of course

        Isn't the joke here that SAMBA = Windows (Simple Share) File Server? Or at the least largely based on MicroSofts' own CIFS/SMB Code?!

      2. anothercynic Silver badge

        Re: Sure, of course

        And QuickBooks is the only reason I can't dump Windows yet, despite my desperate effort to do so.

        And there's even no migration path between QBWin and QBMac... Intuit effectively tells you to FO&D.

    3. jackandhishat

      Re: Sure, of course

      I think the point he's trying to make is that while equivalent-ish software exists for some things (IIS <--> Apache / nginx etc.) the applications on top that were built and designed to run on Windows systems will need research, porting and testing to work successfully and safely on a *nix platform. This is going to take time - a month just won't cut it.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Sure, of course

        Even moving from IIS to Apache could be very difficult - depending on what you used on Windows. PHP or Python application? Probably porting should be easy, unless some Windows specific extensions have been used. Asp.net application? Maybe it could run on Mono, but it's a big risk something may not work, especially if third parties libraries have been used. ISAPI dlls or CGIs? Those needs to be rewritten for Apache and Linux. Does they also rely on some other software? Is there a Linux counterpart?

        Moreover, IIS if far more integrated out of the box with the Window OS than Apache on Linux. Is your web application using Windows Authentication and AD for SSO? Replicationg it on Apache requires a bit complex setup. If they use a database, and it is SQL Server, you'd need to migrate it also, and review the whole application concurrency management, if you don't like nasty surprises.

        Also it's a very different environment, your administrators may need to learn a whole new one, and doing it while migrating critical apps it's the most dangerous thing you could do. And while I believe expanding the skillset is always good, not everybody has the will/time/skill to become a proficient syadmin in a very different OS in a short time.

    4. Little Mouse

      Re: Sure, of course

      @xj25vm: Your take on the matter is completely balanced, professional and unbiased - and completely lacks FUD

      Trevor makes and discusses the point that unnecesarily choosing to undergo a wholesale migration of Operating System and applications at the same time under unrealistic time constraints is Not A Good Thing.

      You are free to disagree of course, but there's no need for name-calling.

    5. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

      Re: Sure, of course

      "Wait, what? Of course, that makes complete sense! That's what Microsoft partners do all the time - they are critical of Microsoft."

      have you actually worked with Microsoft Partners? They basically bitch about Microsoft 24/7. Especially lately, since Microsoft drove down non-Azure margins and drove up SPLA pricing.

      But hey, don't let reality intrude on your religion.

  7. rtfazeberdee

    Moving to another version of Windows is not a one month job either

    unless of course you skimp on testing. I've worked in banks and building societies and microsoft upgrades there have taken multiple years as well. take the pain now and move any non-specific microsoft function to a NIX server and that will cut down your work on microsoft server upgrades in the future

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Moving to another version of Windows is not a one month job either

        Moving across different Linux version could be difficult as well, depending on your application. Windows is designed to be backward compatible as much as it can - because most applications are delivered as binaries, not source code - especially if developers followed properly the Windows programming guidelines, although it is true there's a lot of software that didn't. Some applications needs just to be installed on the new OS, other may require extensive modification, or to upgrade to a newer release, if available.

        In Linux too often "backward compatibility" means "recompile on the new one" - which implies source code availability. I understand that's the Linux philosophy, but it's not the one all companies accept - and mixing the software business with a political agenda is often a big roadblock in LInux adoption.

        1. kryptylomese

          Re: Moving to another version of Windows is not a one month job either

          Top 30 Companies that do use Linux (and they are not the small ones either....):-

          http://www.tecmint.com/big-companies-and-devices-running-on-gnulinux/

          And more companies:-

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_adopters

          1. ckm5

            Re: Moving to another version of Windows is not a one month job either

            I'm not sure what your point is - pretty much every organization on the planet uses Linux and has for at least 10 years (whether they know it or not is another story...). And for a long time (starting in the early 2000's) a lot of companies kept their Linux & open source usage 'quiet' as it was seen as a competitive advantage....

            That said, almost all organizations also use Windows - almost no company has completely banished Windows, even with the most valiant efforts. And that is a quixotic effort at best - I once looked at the ROI of moving Ford Europe desktops to Linux and the re-training costs alone would have tripled the cost of each desktop install vs MSFT licensing...

          2. kryptylomese

            Re: Moving to another version of Windows is not a one month job either

            What I am saying is that more and more companies have switched to Linux and now they are very much enjoying the benefits. It appears that Microsoft are very good at locking people in with their propitiatory systems, and for this reason, it is not always an easy task to switch, but you can escape them if you try (not sure why we need to impose an arbitrary time limit of 1 month though?)

            Companies do have the option of running systems side by side so in a lot of cases it doesn't have to be an all or nothing changeover....

            1. sabroni Silver badge

              Re: not sure why we need to impose an arbitrary time limit of 1 month though?

              The one month thing is fundamental to the discussion. It's imposed by MS ending support for 2003. If you don't understand that why are you commenting?

            2. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

              Re: Moving to another version of Windows is not a one month job either

              What I am saying is that more and more companies have switched to Linux and now they are very much enjoying the benefits.

              And? What has this got to do with the price of rice?

              It appears that Microsoft are very good at locking people in with their propitiatory systems

              Who here is debating that?

              and for this reason, it is not always an easy task to switch, but you can escape them if you try

              Who here is arguing against that?

              (not sure why we need to impose an arbitrary time limit of 1 month though?)

              Because Windows Server 2003 support ends in a month. This the time limit that is endemic to the very narrowly focused topic of two separate articles in which the extremes of the Linux zealots can't seem to put aside the evangelism long enough to comprehend.

              The articles were not about "don't migrate to Linux, ever". They were about "there's 1 month left on the clock, here are your realistic options".

              I'm all for moving to Linux where possible. With one month left, it's only possible for an infinitesimal fraction of workloads.

      2. ckm5

        Re: Moving to another version of Windows is not a one month job either

        Says someone who's never actually done this, obviously. I've been part of several Unix to Unix migrations, and it's non-trivial to say the least.

        And, as someone else pointed out, Linux to Linux migrations can be problematic, even within the same distro. All you need is a nice circular dependency to ruin your day, never mind changes like systemd.

        All this is manageable when you are dealing with small-ish installations (less than dozen servers), but anything larger than that becomes much, much more complicated, to the point where maintaining old systems is easier than upgrades....

    2. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

      Re: Moving to another version of Windows is not a one month job either

      Funny, I average about three hours to move applications from Windows --> Windows, with full testing sweeps.

      I average about 45 minutes to move OS-internal functions from Windows --> Windows with full testing sweeps.

      Having your testing automated really helps. What, you mean you haven't automated testing? How the metric monkey fuck do you hope with patches?

      Where migrations really cause problems is where there are client OS talking to server OS issues. (As opposed to client application talking to Win32 application running on a server). These can take months of testing to shake out the bugs.

      Now. My testing will give me a "go/no go" return. If the case is "no go" - as, for example, an ongoing issue I have with Internet Explorer 8+ and printing - then there may not actually be fixes. This is why I still have applications living on Server 2003/Windows XP, Windows 2000 and even Windows NT.

      Finding out why something doesn't work and then fixing it can take forever. But making sure that it does and will work should be very, very simple.

      So migration is simple...and incredibly hard. All at the same time. Welcome to IT.

  8. jackandhishat

    Good points, well made.

    If someone asked me to plan a cross-OS migration in 4 weeks I'd laugh, slap them on the back then exit the room very rapidly. It's a nightmare on far too many levels.

  9. Erewhon

    Agreed

    You are correct.

    Carry on....

  10. Tomato42
    Windows

    Not a shill?

    "In one month? Not going to happen."

    because you can totally migrate from 2003 to 2012R2 in a month. /s

    The whole point of criticism is that if you have a huge task at hand, no matter how you cut it, so maybe you should take a look at all the options, objectively.

    "Decades of being a Microsoft partner and a systems administrator that makes a living from Microsoft"

    oh, right, so you have a complete and full picture of what the "dark side of the force" (Unix) has to offer currently /s

    "For the record, my company is a Microsoft Partner - (...) we're pretty much participating in order to get the 10 people's worth of Microsoft Action Pack Subscription (MAPS) licenses."

    ever thought that this is not the case for the vast majority of companies out there? And that they would have to re-purchase all the Server licences, all the CALs, and so on?

    "Anyone who seriously counsels companies with less than a month left to try moving from Windows to *nix needs to be prevented from working in IT"

    anyone who has painted themselves into such a corner should be prevented from working in IT, no matter the platform

    Now, since your arm is stuck in raw sewage up to your shoulder (be it yours or somebody else doing), you will spend the next few months cleaning it up, no matter if you pick the Penguin or the Redmond.

    You should evaluate your options, not blindly go same route you were going.

    sorry, my mistake for looking for objectivity in a press article

    1. sabroni Silver badge

      Re: anyone who has painted themselves into such a corner should be prevented from working in IT

      Irrelevant straw man. Trevor isn't recommending you wait until your platform only has a month to go, he's saying that when someone who is already in that situation comes to you and says "What should I do" the answer isn't "Switch to a different platform".

    2. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

      Re: Not a shill?

      "because you can totally migrate from 2003 to 2012R2 in a month"

      Absolutely. I can do it in 45 minutes and complete testing. For applications that make the migration smoothly. (About 85% of applications in my experience.) For applications that don't, it can take anywhere from hours to years to solve the roadblocks.

      ...have you ever actually done migrations?

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: Not a shill?

        "For applications that don't, it can take anywhere from hours to years to solve the roadblocks."

        And that doesn't even include company politics. Sequent box running the entire logistics business going out of support at year end. Se well in advance IT planned to migrate to Sun over the Christmas/New Year break when the business was closed for holidays. Told definitely not. Eventually it transpired that the owners had arranged for the books to be gone over to value the business for it to be sold.

  11. Neil Alexander

    "because you can totally migrate from 2003 to 2012R2 in a month"

    You stand a better chance of achieving a Windows upgrade in a month compared to trying to migrate your solutions to an entirely different operating system, even if the upgrade does require some work. The road ahead is not necessarily free of pot holes, but at least there's a road.

    1. Roland6 Silver badge

      Re: "because you can totally migrate from 2003 to 2012R2 in a month"

      The fundamental issue is determining just what exactly you are migrating, as much is possible in a month, depending upon the constraints and the skills of the people undertaking the task...

      For example a vanilla SBS server migration to either 2012 or Zentyal is do-able within a month, excluding lead times for price and contractual negotiation, hardware and software sourcing etc. which could easily take it over that. However, this does presume you have done the migration before and hence effectively have a vanilla configuration on the shelf that only needs minor localisation. But you only need to add in an Accounting package and/or other business application and these timescales can easily become extended.

      Personally, I like to give my clients a clear idea of what can be achieved within the month and what will be left to later (*), because what is most important is to get client to start the project - either immediately or in a few months time (with an immediate commitment to 'harden' their existing servers in the interim) and for them to be confident that you are in full control and managing the situation.

      (*) Obviously you do want to be sure that you have covered everything, as it can be very embarrassing and expensive if part way through a Windows->Linux migration you discover the gotcha that means you have to revert to Windows...

  12. Alistair
    Coat

    Yeesh.

    Just try, in any large organization, to get the app owners to play inside the sandbox of upgrades.

    -> RHEL4 still around because the development folks for a whole raft of applications "Cant get it to work" on RHEL5 or RHEL6 - what is it? apache proxy servers and weblogic.

    (and for the record they *were* given sandboxed playgrounds with RHEL6 -- with 99% of the updating done - the WL app code apparently needs about a years worth of work before they can move it)

    -> win2k3 32 bit - many many installations around - app teams own licenses for app code that will not *permit* them to move to another OS, or the app support folks just do not have the expertise to do the job.

    environment is about 24k systems from 1U 2CPU boxes up and out to 128CPU Itanium systems and a couple of Z boxes (I believe we've just spun up a new box)

    One month to move from one OS version to another just is NOT happening, never mind from one OS to a different OS.

    In my department, we've got three left to move - one will be shut down and turned off - there's been a 7 month long effort to move to a new application set to cover that one. One will be forklifted over to 2k10 with a new version of the application code - this has been almost a 2 year effort since we had to start by uplifting the back end AIX based application, the database behind the application *and* all the data structures in 7 related databases on other platforms. The last one - we've moved 80% of the components to linux hosts (IIS to apache, msql to PostGreSql, and FTP (gag) to sftp) the rest is being migrated from an in house "document share" to SharePoint. The SharePoint migration is delayed for political reasons at this moment (Outsourcing by the way, sucks rocks in Sooooooooo many ways when it comes to changing course).

    Yes, Microsoft is not always the correct solution, but then again neither is *nix always the correct solution - and in reality - linux is wonderful, its cheap and its far more common in business now, but the number of users for whom it is *easy* to move to linux is *small* relative portion of the population of end users.

    I'm very much a linux shill - where its possible to get things on linux I will do so. However - it's not always the right thing to do, and it's not always possible.

    the right tool for the job boys and girls, always the right tool for the job at hand.

  13. phuzz Silver badge
    Megaphone

    It's always fun watching elReg getting pilloried for being Microsoft shills in the comments for one article, and then being derided as being penguin humping freetards in the next.

    Personally I work with both Windows and Linux systems, each has it's place.

  14. Arctic fox
    Headmaster

    Thank you Trevor for injecting some reality into the debate.

    The only thing I have to ask is, what type of company is it that is still on 2003 without having already developed a path out of this situation? Regardless of whether it is an upgrade within Windows or a move to Nix.

    1. Roland6 Silver badge

      Re: Thank you Trevor for injecting some reality into the debate.

      >what type of company is it that is still on 2003 without having already developed a path out of this situation?

      In my experience there are a lot of SME's where the server just works and so they have had little need to call out the services of IT experts and hence have little real idea that it is going off support. Additionally, even if it is going off support they have had updates turned off since whenever (because who in their right mind auto updates a critical server when there is no on-site IT?) and so perceive it going off support as being of little consequence.

      Additionally, as we've seen since 2008, many companies are more cash aware and hence spending £20+K on upgrading/migrating a (working) server is not seen as a high priority investment.

      At the other extreme, I know clients who have thousands of servers running line-of-business applications that will get updated at sometime, just not now.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Joke

        Re: Thank you Trevor for injecting some reality into the debate.

        "they have had updates turned off"

        So there's a good chance one of those who already p0wned the server will upgrade it just to keep others off...

    2. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

      Re: Thank you Trevor for injecting some reality into the debate.

      *shrug* I still have 12 Server 2003 --> 2008 Migrations to do this week. No big. Company has the 2008 licences siting around, and from experience, I'm 100% positive I can do each server in abou t 45 minutes.

      Build parallel VM, install apps, migrate settings, change name on old VM to $name_old, change name on new VM to $name. Reboot, let DNS sort things out over night and Bob's your uncle.

      Lots of Windows --> Windows migrations are just that easy.

      All the Windows --> Linux stuff is done for this round. I think I've topped 250 servers this year.

      I've done maaaaaybe 100 2003 --> 2012 R2 and another 20 2003 --> 2008. Over the past 5 years most 2003 upgrades have gone to CentOS for me, but most of that has been web servers or NFV.

      Only a handful on Win32 apps ever made it to Linux. Win32 apps will persist for decades, I think, dragging Windows along, zombie-like for ages.

      That's going to be a real pain when MS decides to go Midori. :/

  15. TeeCee Gold badge
    Facepalm

    What? Again?

    The truth of the matter is that like-for-like applications do not exist in almost every case.

    Hear, hear. Reminds me of the recent HP / Oracle debacle. The number of utter 'tards who trotted out "You can just migrate to ${open_source_database}, what's the problem?", was quite scary. The problem with that "solution" is, of course, Oracle Financials.....

    In the real world, it's the applications that are important. Which O/S, database and such are used is immaterial, save in that they must support the applications the business requires.

  16. jzl

    Agreed

    I've spent my entire (reasonably long) technology career in the financial sector and have yet to see an application being ported to *nix due to an expired Windows support lifecycle. The costs of porting or re-writing most enterprise applications are enormous and aren't undertaken lightly.

    When an application reaches its natural end-of-life and is no longer fit for purpose its replacement might well be built on *nix (but then again, it might not).

    But porting an application to a new architecture without a business justification? It may happen, but I haven't seen it. In every case, the solution has been to shift the application onto a more recent Windows platform.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Another approach

    Given that virus writers and other undesirables always target the latest release of Windows to make up for having bad BO and still living with their parents, we should be encouraging people to migrate to older versions of Windows - the versions no-one wants to touch.

    I'll be recommending that my firm 'upgrades' everything to Windows Me asap. What it lacks in functionality, stability and support, it surely makes up for in undesirability and low hardware requirements.

    If I'm still allowed access to a keyboard and the internet, I'll let you know how my suggestion was received.

  18. John Crisp

    For small businesses... Freeagent (I have no $$$ connection whatsoever) is possibly worth a look. We swapped from Line 50 and not looked back. Worked well with our accountants reporting software.

    Other thing that is still largely under the radar is full on Samba 4 (not the cutdown version in RHEL 7). Have a look at the sernet packages.

    No it won't enable you to replace 2003 with *nix but interesting nonetheless....

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYXWQ0pYpZM

    Just saying.... so please don't frag me :-)

    1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

      Sure. Samba 4 is good. Zentyal is good. Webmin is very good. Zarafa is also good for them as still run their own email. All stuff I use regularly. They do take a lot of learning though, and some - like Zarafa - are still very rough around the edges.

      Still don't think you're going from a 2003 SBS to a Zentyal/Zarafa /w Samba4 & Webmin setup in a month unless you are amazing at migrations. And then...who maintains it? The guy who is a wizard at migrations and is probably out there making muchos money migrating everyone? Or the former Windows admins who have no idea what's going on?

    2. jzl

      + 1 million for FreeAgent if you're a small business. It's an astonishingly good product.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like