Network services giant AT&T is evaluating different operating systems, including Linux and Mac OS X, as alternatives to Windows for internal use.
The company's chief information officer, Hossein Eslambolchi, has set up a team in AT&T's research labs to assess the appropriateness of desktop operating systems for the company, AT&T spokesman Michael Dickman said Thursday. The company currently uses Windows on its desktop PCs, which number in the tens of thousands.
The engineers are testing and measuring how Windows, Linux and Mac OS X stack up on security, reliability and total cost of ownership, Dickman said. The CIO is also the company's chief technology officer and is responsible for AT&T's research and development.
AT&T expects to make a decision on the merits of the desktop operating systems by the end of next year or early 2006.
Most likely, AT&T will stick with Windows, because Microsoft is addressing many of problems associated with its desktop software, including security flaws that leave it particularly vulnerable to viruses, Dickman said. But increasingly, corporate customers have more choices for desktop software, he noted.
"There's competition; there's choice now," Dickman said. "Any CIO would not be doing due diligence if they are not looking at their options now."
AT&T is not actively seeking to replace Windows, Dickman said. But the company's decision to thoroughly evaluate Mac OS X and Linux, along with Windows, for widespread corporate use underscores the improvements in Windows alternatives.
Linux, in particular, has become a more viable option for a desktop operating system, according to analysts. Vendors such as Novell and Sun Microsystems are actively trying to build open-source desktop software businesses catering to corporations.
Use of Linux on desktops is minimal in business right now, according to analysts, but there is growing interest in it. IBM earlier this year launched its own internal project to evaluate Linux for desktop computers. Also, a number of governmental organisations are pursuing open-source options to Microsoft dominance in desktop software.
Researchers at The Yankee Group last month published a report predicting that small businesses will drive adoption of Linux on desktops. In a survey, they found that 4 percent to 10 percent of small companies expect to have Linux PCs one year from now.
Talkback
Nobody bothers to write viruses for Linux or Mac because they have relatively no market share. If Mac or Linux ever achieve siginificant market share, the viruses will come. It will be interesting to see what people say about the security of these alternative OSs then. One thing I know is that it would be easier to: create html code; write software; deploy and implement product; if there were a standard platform. Windows fits this need.
Apple has a 2-5% market share, depending on who you ask. Therefore, statistically, they should also have 2-5% of the viruses, which was true of MacOS9 and earlier versions of Apples operating system. It was an insecure design, much like Windows is insecure design today..
Since Apple to a Unix OS (OSX) they have basically the same marketshare, but no, that is ZERO known viruses have been found that affect OSX. This is because it is inherently more secure than windows.
Could one be written? On a poorly administered system (i.e. everyone has permission to do anything) I suppose it would be possible, but there would undoubtedly be issues in even getting a system to run normally anyway - were it so ill-administered.
Uninformed people like to assert the misinformation that if Apple's market share were to grow, viruses would start popping out of the woodwork. That is simply not true. The design of Unix systems, OSX, and Linux systems negates the possibility of windows like viruses running rampant through their networks.
There are more linux web servers than MS web servers on the web still there are less viruses for linux.
The problem with Windows is its history beeing a single user
system. NT and later are a different story but programmed in
the same programming "culture".
Unix was a multiuser system from the start, and that difference can still be seen.
Besides business is business and Windows is THE business.
Most "faults" in Windows are still faund by outside people and companys while MS is consentrating on the "business".
Windows sucks the life out of the average consumer connected to the Internet. I have owned 7 Macintosh computers since 1997 and I have yet to see a virus or Spy ware.
I recently purchased a Dell Dimension 8300 (for work) and it was virus ridden and unusable within 10 minutes after it was connected to the Internet. It took ten hours to get the computer up and running again.
It’s not just the market share that drives these issues. Mac OS X was built from the ground up to be more secure than any windows platform currently on the market. Applications cannot install themselves in the background; they need your permission first. David Pogue from the New York Times has several articles that discuss these issues further.
I have had three friends recently purchase Macs because they were tired of the viruses and spy ware. They are very happy with their purchases and don’t miss the aggravation that is now inherent to living in a Windows world.
Get your life back. Get a Mac.
My understanding is that what AT&T is going to do is to recognize if those desktop OSes have their future or not, rather than if they are robust against virus attack now. I wonder how Longhorn will appear in AT&T's crystal ball?
But Unix has been around for longer than windows and much of the source code is not even a secret yet there still aren't many viruses/worms written for that environment. I think the programmers of windows need to learn a thing or two about defensive programming from ground up. It probably is time for a complete re-write of the windows os.
I agree with Viktor. MS need to scrap all the current code and start again just like all us regular users have to do when virus' destroy our PCs.
I'm with Mitch, nobody writes viruses for Linux/Mac because its just not worth their time. Virus/Worm writers are after the biggest bang, and targeting 2-5% of home users isn't worth it, when you can target 90-95%. As for most Webservers running linux, yeah and your point is? webservers are installed and run by professionals who (usually) know what they are doing and are able to configure a secure system. Virus/Worms are targeted at home users, and most home users are running Windows, hence most viruses are for windows.
Virus/Worm writers write exploits for Windows because it is so easy to exploit. Your average home computing Windows user doesn't have a clue. If the icon they click on doesn't work, they are lost. My computer is broken... If your average Joe user, were to switch out Outlook and IE for Mozilla or Firefox and Eudora, the majority of their security problems would vanish. Unfortunately average Joe, doesn't have a clue on how to install software, let alone how to set the clock on their VCR. You think average Joe uses IE cause it's better, no, it's cause it's what came with the OS. It's the only thing they know! Get over it, the design of Windoze is inherently flawed, and until M$ fesses up and changes it things are not going to get better. In the meanwhile Linux and OSX are going to keep getting better and better and easier and easier to use. Unless M$ fixes things, eventually the only users left on Windoze are going to be average Joe clueless user.
Mac OSX is by an order of magnitude the most secure mainstream OS to date. I could sneeze on Windows and give it a virus, while at the same time I have been using Mac OSX for 4 years now and not once have I contracted a single virus or worm. (Not to mention the fact that I openly invite claimed "Hackers" to 'hack' into my computer whenever I may run into one online. I even give them my ip. I have yet to have any problems.) Once again, this is not due to market share. On the contraire many of my closest friends could spit out a windows virus in minutes. However after years of tinkering they have yet to find a vulnerability side an id3 tag possibility. (which was inherently harmless for the most part, and was fixed by Apple in a security update the following week anyway.)
It it's security that AT&T is looking for, they will make the logical choice.
But if it's price on the other hand, Linux will probably be their choice. The problem there being, most linux users are script-kiddies at heart. (Because they have to be, for the most part) Though of Windows and Linux, at least it's the lesser of the two evils.
- Xidius
Actually I believe most webservers run Linux because they are the computers in an organisation that are most visible to the outside world. They are specifically employed for their resistance to hacks and viruses.
Most research shows that while market share of Linux web servers and IIS on Windows is about 60% and 30% respectively, IIS enjoys about 70% of the hacks.
So if web server administrators are so clever at locking down systems, why do Windows servers get hacked most of the time?
Personally I think Microsoft's dominance of the hackee market is worrying. Maybe the competition commission should look into the number of vulnerabilities bundled with windows. They're clearly using their market dominance to get vulnerabilities into people's homes and lock out the competition.