A New Business Plan for Free Software
 by jeff covey, in Editorials - Sat, Jan 22nd 2000 23:59 UTC

The PC with a fast Internet connection and a static IP is becoming a common sight in homes, but techno-ignorant customers don't understand the risks involved in owning one. I believe that by combining this with the fact that most people don't want to be responsible for maintaining their systems, a whole new workplace could be created for people with UNIX knowledge. Today, I'll explain why I think we should unblur the distinction between users and admins, and suggest a new way to make money with Free Software.

Users vs. Admins

Before the PC, there were two clear roles that people played in relation to the computers in their workplace: some were users and some were admins. When the PC industry sold the world on "a computer on every desktop", they played up the idea that you would no longer be reliant on your admin. If you needed some software, you could just install it yourself without waiting for anyone else to get to it. You could control your own destiny.

What they neglected to say was that you can't have the freedom and power of the admin's job without its responsibility. It soon became apparent that the real power you now had was the ability to change your system settings, render your machine inoperable, and suffer the glare of your admin when he stopped by your cubicle after you'd called him for help. Now you could experience his BOFH sarcasm in person instead of through email. Whether this could be counted as progress is debatable.

In spite of this, the PC caught on and invaded the home as well as the workplace. (This was a boon to the admins, since they could charge more for driving to your home to berate you.) The home users' needs were modest and there was no network involved, so the security concerns were not so great. With time, home users came to think that part-time computer hobbyists with just enough knowledge to get by could do everything necessary to maintain a system. The distinction between users and admins became blurred in their minds and was replaced with a different terminology: "users" and "power users", the difference being that users could change their desktop wallpaper and power users could install a scanner. There was a short window of time when this was even a tolerable situation, between the time PCs came into wide use and the time they started being connected to the Internet.

Now that that time is over, the need for the professional admin is just as strong as ever (though most home users haven't yet realized it), and so is the need for a securable system. As has been pointed out in innumerable other places, GNU/Linux is the option that has some hope of being secure on the net because its openness allows for peer review and fast patching which find security holes quickly and close them even more quickly.^[1]

Non-geeks will say, "I can't use Linux because I don't know anything about it", but what they really mean is not that they can't use it but that they can't admin it. The blurring of the roles has made it hard for them to realize that Linux is actually quite easy to use, though it requires considerable knowledge and continuing education to properly admin.

How many of these people actually know how to maintain the systems they're using now? The vast majority instead buy a service contract with Gateway or rely on their brother-in-law or the kid next door to help them when they get into a jam. It's as bogus an argument as the "Linux is hard to install" complaint that comes from people who bought Windows preinstalled. They're able to claim that Linux machines require administration and Windows machines don't only because they get other people to do their administration for them, then conveniently forget about it.

Given my beliefs that:

1. Machines need to be administrated, but most home users do not want to do their own administration.
2. Machines that are connected to the net should be properly secured, and most home users don't have the ability or interest to keep up-to-date on security issues.
3. Professional administration for home users is simply not going to happen with systems that cannot be remotely administered; the cost would be outrageous if the admin had to make a house call every time there was a problem.

, I propose that non-geek home users who wish to use the Internet should be using a securable system such as Linux, and I'd like to offer this business plan to any and all who want it:

Give away the software; sell the administration.

Here's what I long ago thought was an obvious question and a need I expected to be filled by now: Everyone is selling support; why isn't anyone selling administration?

Support to the generally clueful is already a solid industry; the "no support" argument has been massacred to hell and back, and no one can raise it with a straight face anymore in a world with companies like Linuxcare. But there's a need beyond support which has to be met as well. There are many people who don't want support -- they want someone to do everything for them.

Though this is almost unimaginable to someone like me who enjoys playing with computers, I can understand it if I think of my relationship with things with which I don't enjoy tinkering, such as cars. I want my car to run, but I don't have time to learn about carburetors. Most people want to use their computers but don't have time to learn to write shell scripts. Even more importantly, as was brought out in the comments to Jon Lasser's editorial on security, they don't have the time or inclination to read bugtraq and apply patches.

Given this unmet need, I offer the following business model:

1. Sell customers a machine with Linux preinstalled and completely configured (accounts for all the users, etc.). Only turn on services other than sshd if they are needed.
2. Arrange Internet access for them. Something with a static IP is vastly preferred, but if it must be a dynamic dialup account, there are PPP dialers like kppp and X-ISP which will display their current IP address so they can give it to you when you need it.
3. Send their sysadmin to introduce him/herself, install the machine in their home, connect it to the Internet, test it, and spend an afternoon teaching them the basics of how to use it. Leave them a customized manual with important information like how to properly shut down the machine.
4. Charge them for an administration service contract. In exchange for a periodic fee, they get their own personal sysadmin who will:
   1. Monitor daily log summaries and watch for security or performance issues (often finding and fixing a problem before the customer even knows its there).
   2. Stay on top of security forums like bugtraq and ssh to their machine to apply patches or upgrades when necessary, and inform them of the change and why it was necessary. (No more work from the admin's perspective than fixing her assigned machines and sending a form letter.)
   3. Connect to their machine upon request and attempt to fix any problems they have.
   4. Connect and install any new software they decide they need, configure it, and give them instructions on how to use it.
   5. Upgrade installed software on a regular basis. (For the admin, this can be as simple as "apt-get dist-upgrade".)

I can actually confirm that this works because I did it in a test case with a local hardware vendor and a couple who had never touched a computer before. I gave them the machine and basic instructions and told them how to contact me. If there was a problem, they emailed or called me about it, and I logged on and fixed it. If they thought of something new they wanted to do, I installed the software for it overnight, and when they woke up in the morning, they found instructions on how to use it on their Netscape start page, complete with screenshots and arrows pointing to what they needed to do.

There is at least one immediately obvious problem with this from the customer's perspective: "I don't want anyone looking around my hard drive."

It's certainly a reasonable fear, but let's look at the alternative:

In my hometown of Baltimore, MD, USA, cable modems and DSL are becoming commonplace. Non-geeks who take advantage of these services let the installation man connect their Windows machines, then surf and play oblivious to the facts that:

1. They have a static IP address and a 24/7 connection to the Internet.
2. They are now the sysadmins of a small, but very significant to them, part of the net.

To get an idea of how good a job they're doing as admins, fire up samba and take a look around the @home network. The number of Windows machines that have file and printer sharing turned on is staggering, and their owners have no idea that their credit card numbers, private letters, and pornography collections are open and available for anyone to browse.

So the options are these:

1. Certainty that one person you know and who is being paid to be a professional has access to your hard drive and is responsible for keeping everyone else out.
2. Near certainty that any number of people you don't know and who owe you nothing have access or can get it by sending you an email with a trojanized binary.

If you really have such secret information that you can't stand the chance that someone might see it, keep it on a floppy or a zip disk, and unplug the ethernet cable before you stick the disk in. Of course, there's the slight chance that your admin will have so little to do and be so little concerned about the possibility of losing his job and going to jail that he'll write a script to copy anything inserted on removable media into a special location for himself. But if you've thought of that, you're sufficiently paranoid that you're admining your own box anyway.

You have to make a sacrifice somewhere. Either you sacrifice your time to learn to admin your box yourself and keep on top of the latest security issues, or you trust someone else to do it for you. The couple in the test case knew and trusted me and their trust was not misplaced. In a more formal arrangement, a business offering admin services to the home would probably have something in the contract promising that any admins found to be betraying their customers' trust would be fired and handed over to criminal prosecution, and procedures would be in place to monitor the admins. There would be a list of circumstances under which it would be permissible for the admin to connect to the machine without being requested to do so by the customer (security risks being chief among them), and no connection would ever be made without immediately informing the customer that it had been done and explaining why.

A clause might also be added to make it clear that the warranty on the system is voided if a day's log summary shows that the customer logged in as root and played God. :)

Footnotes:

[1]

Before the flames begin: Yes, you may replace GNU/Linux with your favorite BSD here, but:

1. I only know Linux, so it's all I can recommend from personal experience.
2. The anecdotal evidence of my friends is that *BSD makes a better server and Linux a better client machine.

Jeff Covey received his degree in classical guitar performance but spent so much time with his computer that he fell in with a bad crowd and ended up working for Andover.net. He currently works on freshmeat and runs a computer lab for the kids in his neighborhood in his spare time.
http://pobox.com/~jeff.covey
jeff.covey@freshmeat.net

T-Shirts and Fame!

We're eager to find people interested in writing editorials on software-related topics. We're flexible on length, style, and topic, so long as you know what you're talking about and back up your opinions with facts. Anyone who writes an editorial gets a freshmeat t-shirt from ThinkGeek in addition to 15 minutes of fame. If you think you'd like to try your hand at it, let jeff.covey@freshmeat.net know what you'd like to write about.

[Comments are disabled]

Referenced categories Topic :: System :: Systems Administration

 Comments

[»] Remote Admin, Static Internet connection and users like me
by alfranco302 - Feb 4th 2000 19:40:16

A little background first: I am just becoming interested in Linux at a level to actually do something about it. (I like M$ as much as I like AT&T or Bank of America--all money hungry corporations.) I don't know alot about computers, but I'm intelligent and interested, so I'll get there. I got my first computer in 1986--a Commodore 64--but neglected my own interest from 1991 to 1996. My involvement with computers since that time has been as an end-user. Although I am familiar with M$ installations, etc., I am by no means educated about computers on the level that all of you seem to be. I will soon be installing a network on some 486s I bought cheap from a company. I was going to just use Windows, which is already on the computers, but after reading some of the comments here, I'll also look into Linux as an option. As another project, I'm also going to buy a new computer, and install Linux (dual-boot, most likely), this spring. I'm doing both projects for my own edification. Since I'm learning, I've been on the Internet looking up all I can find about Linux, when I ran across this editorial. So I think I can add to this conversation from another perspective. Comment: It seems to me that most of the ideas in the editorial and the comments could be rolled into one. Maybe it is time for some of you who have the know-how, and the love for Linux, to get together and start a Linux ISP that is also a computer reseller, and a remote admin service provider. All at once. A lot of people that I know, even those who barely know how to turn on a computer, would rather not support a company like M$. But the alternative, for the general public, is to learn all about computers and join your ranks. If these people had the option to go to a computer reseller that focused solely on Linux, they would do so--IF their needs were met. That reseller would have to supply the computer with Linux pre-installed and ready to go. With a word processor, web browser, spreadsheet, e-mail package, games, etc.. This company could publicize some selling points, some of which M$ doesn't currently offer: * a much more stable system (we have one running at work, and it hasn't crashed yet. Our Windows based computers crash daily.) * Remote Administration COVERED UNDER THE COST OF THE COMPUTER * Internet access ALSO FINANCED WITH THE COMPUTER In short, I don't think most people I know would pay $75/mo just for admin. They'll just keep really private stuff on other media, or not worry about it. Most people would choose the latter. But, if when they bought a computer, they had a choice to finance the price of the computer, Internet access and remote admin, I think they (including me) would pay a price that would be acceptable to all. I don't know what that price point would be, but I think this is the answer. Bundle the following: * the computer itself * a firewall? * Internet access * Remote Admin * Am I missing something else? All in one monthly price. Because it would be done through a "computer reseller", the price would also be less for the customer. (Costs are generally spread across the company, and the workers are all paid salaries.) The only problem is: what to call this new entity? It's not a computer reseller. Maybe "Computer Services Center"? AF

[reply] [top]

[»] A cheap gateway/firewall could provide security for you and client
by Paul - Jan 26th 2000 03:03:18

Disclaimer: I am new to Linux but not to computers and computer science. Although I have an engineering degree and 40 years experience with computers of all shapes and sizes, at times it seems like no more than a year's experiance--40 times! So much too learn, so little time! So I have a few more opinions (prejudices) I carry as an extra burden than most.

I have followed interesting discussions on setting up cheap or free (386,486) Linux boxes on a private (192.168.x or other) net. Experimenting on my own time, I had much more trouble configuring older hardware than I anticipated.

Armed with this experience and, having a few years experience working for an ISP as a unix admin supporting thousands of customers running Macs and Windows I want to provide this service. But...There are all areas where my judgement tells me, be careful, you have a reputation to make, or lose...

A few things hold me back.

1. Training burden. Having become complacent with years of 'easy to use and consistent user interface' Mac and PC software I consistently find things more complex to set up and explain to a person new to Linux than I expect. These years of easy configuration have contributed to what I call a 'command line disability'. It is really an attitude that things maybe should be simpler than they are. You can't run a flexible, configurable and simple system unless you learn at least one way to do it from top to bottom without having to ponder each move. Desktop systems have made a market by making it possible to do most things without memorizing them and at least being able to search through similar menu items when you forget. Linux Desktops do this too, but not as consistently. It has been said that if you know how to use a Mac, you know how to use 80% of any Mac program. If you know how to use info you can find out about any Linux program too but I get distracted because of so many options. So I expect others with less experience and less commitment may have trouble finding a solution to a given problem. They might be intimidated and give up because it is too complex. I need a way to protect and educate these people while they are getting used to Linux or I will not be worth the money to them.

2. Expertise. To me it is essential to be comfortable with the command line if I expect to provide useful customer service. To me it is unreasonable to expect a customer to be comfortable with it. Configuring a Linux system for me at my present level of expertise is time consuming, humbling, worthwhile yet dollarwise cheap learning experience. However, the customer will not want to pay me for the learning experience nor suffer the lost time in exploring all options. One of the most appealing features of Linux to me is the idea that giving away Linux information is the best way to learn it. Once I learn it, it seems that I should be able to sell it in good conscience because the information will be reliable and applicable to my customer's needs. I think the market still demands a lot of information to set up and maintain secure, reliable internet service. The fact that the information is freely available and that the hardware is cheap doesn't mean it is easy. It just makes it feasible...for some of you.

3. Choice. You all know that in comparison to desktop machines which generally have few ways or one to do it, in *nix there is more than one way to do it. And since there are so many rainbows to chase, unless I severely limit my options, I end being different without being usefully different. I am learning to be careful with the options I select. I expect that the potential customers I will have will have a lesser tolerance than I for complexity. To provide a valuable service, it will be necessary to know the options I provide backwards and forwards.

On the positive side, several things propel me forward.

1. Really Cheap hardware. The cost of obtaining a Linux box capable of supporting a small nework should be a small percentage of the cost to the customer. I recently got an excellent Dell Pentium 100 off ebay for less than the cost of shipping it! I expect that it will be reasonable to be able to give credit for 'qualified trade-ins' that customers currently own that can provide reliable service with little more than a network card and modem upgrade. I just have to make sure I know how to make the hardware work with Linux and that it is solid. This should be great customer flexibility and value.

2. Marketing and Control. I can locate my hardware at the customer site and provide the connection service for a monthly fee. I recently worked for an ISP that provided a dialup router that cost $800 free if they signed for 3 months of $350/month ISDN24x7 dual channel service. This took a lot of the risk out for the customer because the ISP provided the ISDN connection at the customer site. The customer was not able to make any changes to the router, not even a password. The customer connection was continuously monitored 24x7 to make sure it passed traffic. This protected the ISP from unnecessary maintenance problems. And there were none. In comparison to dialup customers, these customers were almost maintenance free. For this business class of microbusiness customers there were different expectations from ordinary dialup. They ran their own small networks and did not want a lot of options.

3. Secure Remote Administration. Telnet (ssh) provides a secure, practical, flexible way to maintain a network via the internet or, for more security conscious folks, dial-in. Since I have control over the gateway/firewall at the customer site, I can provide good security at minimal cost.

4. Internet backups. The cost of internet storage should make it very practical to back up the most critcal files for small networks.

5. Very inexpensive support. The very nature of open source is such that the risk of not being able to solve a problem is vanishingly small if you stay with what you know. But I do not always have to be the person who solves the problem. Many online services provide me with support on subjects where I might have screwed up something I missed. All I really need to do is to be able to clearly state the problem. Then it is simply a matter of time before someone is able to point me to a solution at very little expense. This will end up saving my customer when I fall short. (Will those who have never fallen short please step this way? We have a cross for you to bear!) My experiences getting support with commercial providers has been expensive and generally not as capable. This is excellent assurance for my customer that I will not fail him. I am literally supported by a cast of thousands!

6. Minimal travel expense. I figure it costs me about $1/per mile distance I have to travel to a customer site. If I can set it up so that maintenance conversations are either through a local call or via the internet, I am saving the customer and myself money, time and inconvenience.

7. More timely and effective support during business hours. My experience supporting customers for an ISP tells me that remote support is superior in many ways to onsite support as long as both the customer and the support person can see what is happening. The ability to work cooperatively with a business customer is a tremendous business asset for both me and the customer. It is ideal for training.

8. Opportunity for value-adds to their network. Adding network resources can result in savings that you can share with the customer. More capability for the same money.

9. Internet in a box. A few years ago, CDs were marketed as Internet in a Box. They allowed you to set up a PPP connection with varying degrees of success. Now you really can get all you need to set up an internet in a CD. It is more a matter of deciding which part of the internet you want to be.

10. Multiplatform capability. Samba and netatalk provide cross platform capability for Windows and Mac

So I agree wholeheartedly that there is a business opportunity for Linux Admins. I will be ready someday soon!

[reply] [top]

[»] Possible, but time intensive
by Glenn - Jan 24th 2000 15:27:42

This concept is being done. I think I read in one of the national newspapers in Canada (National Post or Globe and Mail) that a couple of young guys are doing something like this already. Basically, they're leasing computers pre-installed with Windows and MS Office apps, complete with support and Internet acess for approx. $150/mo. Seems to be fairly popular to date. Although, this is for businesses, not for home users. The one interesting thing about their setup is that all of the pre-installed programs are on a partition that's read-only, and all user data is stored on a different read/write partition, thus greatly decreasing the possiblility of users screwing the systems up. And, of course, profit margins could be higher when using Linux, as you can just buy blank boxes and install whatever you want without license fees.

Not a bad concept for businesses. Might work for home users. The one problem I see is that system administration can be time intensive. Some users, especially home users, may not be willing to pay what you're worth, especially in a per hour situation. Remote admin protocols (telnet, ssh, vnc, x) would be ideal, but as the author mentioned, using them without a static IP is a pain. And, the more boxes you have to admin, the more people you're going to have to hire. I just can't see getting around that.

[reply] [top]

[»] Regarding privacy concerns...
by Warren E. Downs - Jan 24th 2000 01:01:45

Setup cfs to provide a secure portion of the customer's filesystem, to which only they have the password. Make them aware of how to save files in that area, and configure the system so they run a small program to authenticate when they want to save files there.

Much like the zip/floppy suggestion, this can also be subverted by the admin running a daemon to copy files from the secure area while it's active, but it does allow them to have local secure storage.

Make sure to let them know that if they forget their password, their files are toast ;-)

[reply] [top]

[»] A new Business: Free Software
by Simon Dray - Jan 23rd 2000 18:31:28

I see that Giving the software and OS for free and dispensing tech support and consulting for a fee as being a very good way for a company to prosper in the tech industry.
But, I have a suspicion that this will not be in the interest of the customer in the long-run. Companies who develop the software will deliberately keep their product complicated just enough so that the inexperienced, which is most people, will need them to provide their support. What we will get is an OS that is less popular with the masses than the Microsoft's OSs. And that would be a shame.

[reply] [top]

[»] Privacy at home
by josh drvsh - Jan 23rd 2000 01:58:31

How about something like a cable box your isp would sell you, basically a simple server with a firewall both the customer could configure and the ISP could update?

[reply] [top]

[»] Personally...
by Chris Wiegand - Jan 22nd 2000 20:40:06

I would prefer a program that helped me to CONTINOUSLY secure my box. I know that Bastille Linux helps you to secure your box, but from the description, I tihk it only does it when you install RedHat. It'd be nice to have a program like Norton Utilites for Linux that would continue to make sure my box secure and safe. It'd be nice to have a REAL enterprice reporting and backup system.

[reply] [top]

[»] Even Better: Pseudo-Network Computer
by Mike Warren - Jan 22nd 2000 18:28:31

Your general idea is similar to what companies have been promising with network computers (i.e. give the client a black-box which "just works" for them).

Perhaps the best of both worlds could be realized: instead of being a "computer salesman", you sell high-speed internet access (i.e. cable or DSL) combined with a computer and support. Then, user machines have a little tiny harddrive which can contain a boot and swap partition and little else; everything resides at your service center with drives mounted remotely.

This would simplify things greatly; the customer gets a few different options for a machine (i.e. more money for more RAM/better video card) and the administration/updating would be much easier. Each different client-machine would mount things from a different server, so that you can provide Pentium-optimized binaries, etc.

The user's data would all reside on their own harddrive, though, so that they wouldn't be quite so concerned about losing the data. Given a few more user apps for linux (notably an improved GNUCash and Mozilla), I think an idea like this could definitely fly.

[reply] [top]

[»] Re: This is already available!
by Andy Longton - Jan 22nd 2000 14:19:28

Tmbg said:I work for a small shop called The Linux General Store, and we already have this sort of support program in place, although we tend to cater to small businesses rather than the home user.

What's the URL for the service? I took a look at the main page, and I couldn't see a description of this service.

[reply] [top]

[»] Security for the Paranoid...
by Andy Longton - Jan 22nd 2000 12:47:52

If you're able to poke around someone's computer, you're able look at what they are doing and do anything to thier data including copy or destroy it. Should they trust that you're not going to casually mention to thier spouse the porn they've downloaded -- or that you're not going to use thier machine to distribute anything ilegal? Should they trust you? If business is good, should new customers trust your employees? Should you trust them?

The paranoid know this. (If you're interested in security, you're a bit more paranoid then those who don't care.) The truely paranoid in a panic already won't go for this type of service since they can't implicitly trust you or anyone. I have no idea how to gain this trust, and I'm not sure that I'd want to have someone as a client who thinks like this.

Those who are concerned, but not unhealthily paranoid, are some of the most likely clients.

People who want the Internet but have few other demands would be idea clients except for the cost factor. With them, you sell them a package -- either service or an entire machine -- and can be fairly confident in your security claims.

I listend to an infomercial on an Internet computer that targeted this market. Basically, it was a thin client with a propriatary interface -- a glorified calculator with a laptop screen. It was dedicated to the reseller's ISP, of course, and didn't specifically support security, but it was the type of machine that would appeal to this group because of it's low-cost and low-fuss.

Yet, it all comes down to do they -- should they -- trust you? Knowing what I do, I'd not immediately want to trust someone just because I pay them.

The rule "Trust but verify" should be built in to any security management service...though I admit I don't have any hard ideas on how actually be confident about this. No, I take it back...

On a technical level, ssh could be configured not to accept any connections except from a specific IP _with_ the proper encrypted key. LIDS and other tools could be placed on the machine, and a log of all network transactions on both machines could be made.

On a social level, we could borrow from the old marketing technique of seeding the customer base with some bogus accounts that are specifically set up for monitoring who does what to what accounts ... and then let both customers and employees know that these accounts exist. Security through obscurity, for sure, though I'd like to hear more reliable ways to cover this aspect of security.

I'm sure this is only the begining of ethical questions on this subject.

[reply] [top]

[»] I'm doing this for my Granny
by Thomas Rynne - Jan 22nd 2000 12:46:19

In this case linux is perfect. All she wants is access to the web and email. I don't know if she'll use it much so before she spends money I'm giving her an old 486. With win95 this machine would be very slow but its fine under linux. Also, I can set it up so there's only three options:
shutdown, web and email. Windows has a load of things she doesn't need. She'll have a dynamic IP address but with dyndns.com I can map this to a static domain name. I'm not sure how yet, but I'll make it so the machine infoms my machine when she goes online. I'll be interested to see how much of my time it takes up. I spend alot of time on my parents win98 machine.

[reply] [top]

[»] Re: sounds promising, but...
by jeff covey - Jan 22nd 2000 12:14:54

Let's use this scenario: you get a home client to go with Linux. You go ahead and perform the installation, and get them to agree to some kind of service contract. A couple of weeks into your relationship with them, you get voice mail: "Hello...I was just at a friend's house and she was showing me a really cool program called M$ Outlook that I can really find helpful in planning my everyday appointments, as well as to manage my email. And she also showed me how she can archive her appointments and send them to me to include in my Outlook! Let's do it!"

1. You've already made it clear to them both in speech and in writing in the contract that you're supporting Linux, not Windows, and that they can use any Windows software they want on their system but you're not responsible for it, just as if they open the case and install a SCSI card, you're not responsible for any problems that causes.
2. If they need a calendar program, you point them to calendar.yahoo.com and point out to them that, unlike their friends more limited Windows program,
   1. They can use this calendar from their friend's Windows computer as well as their own Linux computer, not to mention from any other computer in the world that's connected to the Internet.
   2. calendar.yahoo.com is far less likely to crash and destroy all their records, and even if it does, yahoo! keeps backups and they can export the calendar and back it up themselves for extra safety.
   3. calendar.yahoo.com can import and export their friend's Outlook files just fine.
   (In other words, in most cases you can point out a superior solution to whatever a Windows user shows your clients.)

Reinforce this with the facts that their machine is more secure than their friend's and doesn't have features like Blue Screens of Death and viruses, and your clients won't have much to complain about. In fact, there's a good chance you'll get more clients when their friends say, "Don't you get tired of your computer crashing all the time?" and they reply, "Crashing? What do you mean? I've heard of a computer doing that, but I've never seen it."

--
vs lbh pna ernq guvf, lbh'er n trrx.

[reply] [top]

[»] If it weren't for the DAU...
by Torsten Neuer - Jan 22nd 2000 12:01:45

... it would be for the money that this plan fails. Users can be trained to realize the necessity of proper sysadmin of their systems, but they won't like to pay for it unless - you bundle it with something else.

I would go for the homes themselves instead of the computers in them and sell the Internet connectivity via a medium-sized server in the basement. This server would sit between two firewalls, one of them connected to the Internet and the other hiding the end-users' machines from each other. Every appartment could then have a static (private) IP with no cross-over routing to other appartments unless requested by the users. The users can "administer" their machines as they did before (install their favourity viruses, trojans etc) but still have a (basically) secure connection to the net. The servers of this house will also provide them with e-mail and webspace and the users will have a rather good base level of security.

Of course, they still live on a risk with their self-"administered" boxes, but you can't sell them support for that, too -- it is just much too expensive for the users to pay for the mistakes they make.

[reply] [top]

[»] 'What kind of scam are you running here?'
by jeff covey - Jan 22nd 2000 11:50:40

In answer to the question about what to do when people say, "Why can't I run that game my sister bought at CompUSA?":

Simply make it clear what you're selling and what you are not selling. You're selling a Linux system and agreeing to maintain it. If the clients also want Windows, give them a dual-boot machine and make it clear in the contract that you will not help them with Windows, nor will you be responsible for anything that happens to them while they're running Windows. Also remind them that you cannot help them while they're booted into Windows, so when they're done playing games, they need to reboot the machine and leave it running Linux if they wish to take advantage of the service plan they purchased.

--
vs lbh pna ernq guvf, lbh'er n trrx.

[reply] [top]

[»] Re: Couple of thoughts... (Linux vs. Non-Linux machines)
by Andy Longton - Jan 22nd 2000 11:39:01

Ken said:Second, how do you address the users' percieved disparity with others in their community/family who also have computers, yet have a completely different set of software at their disposal? In particular, games. I would think that a sysadmin, faced with the question "Why can't I buy any of the games/applications/widgets on the shelves of CompUSA and use with my system?! My sister/cousin/friends just got this cool new game, and I want to play too. What kind of scam are you running here?" would find it a very difficult (if not impossible) one to answer to the user's satisfaction.

I gave my sister a pre-packaged computer, complete with apps and a couple games...and she loves it. She simply refers to it as "my computer" and has never mentioned it as a Windows or a Linux computer.

Was I surprised? You betcha. I expected some complaints, so to head them off I installed vmware Just In Case she started to need Windows. Guess what? She hasn't asked me about Windows or installing Windows programs at all. No need to upgrade vmware to an end-user licence, as she doesn't use it.

Now, I couldn't have done that for my father. He -- till reciently -- would give me advice on how wonderful Microsoft is and why wasn't I studying Microsoft stuff?

To cover this, we'd have to consider some level of support for whatever OS someone wanted to use. A hardware solution that runs open source code (and if it's worth it and trustable) even commercial code to act as a filter would have to be considered. See my earlier comments on this in another message.

[reply] [top]

[»] Re: Couple of thoughts... (Liability)
by Andy Longton - Jan 22nd 2000 11:38:39

Ken said:Third, in a word: Liability. When making yourself responsible for the maintenence of someone's system, it goes both ways. Not only are you responsible for making sure that things work correctly, but your are also responsible for when things screw up (and they always do) and the user ends up loosing data, or getting attacked, or... whatever. How do you limit your liability while also retaining the crediblity that is so essential to this kind of business?

I agree that this is a concern, and it's one that does have to be addressed. Service companies are often open to this kind of litigation, so time would have to be spent looking into the laws covering electricians, plumbers, and other contractors.

At a minimum, I'd offer a specific set of limits to the service and then exceed those limits as a practical measure. If the system were Linux-based, that would yeild a higher level of confidence -- and thus borader limits. The bottom line on this is that you want to offer confidence to the customer, but not the illogical belief in magic or that this is somehow invicible.

That said, I'd be initially picky about who I'd support. The contract -- as any contractor knows -- doesn't mean anything if you're dealing with irrational combative people. (You also have to consider that you are one of those irrational combative people. If you don't, that's a problem too.)

[reply] [top]

[»] sounds promising, but...
by mferraro - Jan 22nd 2000 11:37:51

I am an NT/Linux network admin (www.feromax.com), and I like the idea of selling Linux administrative services to home users, but how do you convince these novice home users to go with Linux?

Let's use this scenario: you get a home client to go with Linux. You go ahead and perform the installation, and get them to agree to some kind of service contract. A couple of weeks into your relationship with them, you get voice mail: "Hello...I was just at a friend's house and she was showing me a really cool program called M$ Outlook that I can really find helpful in planning my everyday appointments, as well as to manage my email. And she also showed me how she can archive her appointments and send them to me to include in my Outlook! Let's do it!"

Hmmm...how do you break the news to the client? I may not have even chosen the best example here. At this point in the Linux Revolution, I don't think that all home users will best be served by Linux instead of M$ OS. Their needs are all to often driven by what they hear about and see from other systems which are often are M$ based. Even if you manage to find a product like maybe Star Office to replace M$ Office, it's not the same. And you can spend hours arguing that with a client, but some clients are insistent that if they're paying your salary you had better give them what they want.

I do think, however, that your model can be applied to small businesses that employ linux systems not as workstations, but as servers.

[reply] [top]

[»] Cost
by jeff covey - Jan 22nd 2000 11:35:57

I'm no business person, so I'm just throwing out the idea and leaving it to others to do the cost analysis and determine the feasibility. However, here are two ways of dealing with the cost:

Customers pay outrageous amounts of money

The simplest option is to just charge what it costs and realize that there are people who will pay it.

When I was nearing the end of my time as a consultant, I started charging what I thought were ridiculous hourly rates, partly in the hope that people would decide they didn't need me and I'd get to stay at home more. Instead, they took the news without batting an eye, and signed the check with a smile. They still call me up from time-to-time to make sure I'm not doing that kind of work anymore.

For the professional yuppie-on-the-go crowd, time does indeed equal money. Any time they spend watching their machine GPF and waiting for you to drive to their house to fix it so they can print their report for work is money down the drain, and they'll be more than happy to instead pay a monthly service fee for a machine that doesn't crash and is invisibly maintained for them.

Admins work for less than outrageous amounts of money

The other option is just to hire sysadmins who don't expect unreasonable salaries. Salaries are high now because there's a lack of geeks to meet the demand, but this will change. Countries that can't afford MS and countries that simply don't want MS are switching to Linux big time. Look at India, look at China. Imagine the day when a few hundred million Chinese Linux sysadmins show up at the employment office. Closer to home for Americans, take a look South. Remember which operating system was picked for deployment in the schools there? It won't be long before the first generation of Mexican kids raised on Linux comes of age and starts looking for jobs both at home and in the U.S. They won't all be superstars like Miguel De Icaza, but they won't want to work in McDonald's either, and they'll be willing to work for reasonable wages that are less than what their American counterparts have come to expect.

--
vs lbh pna ernq guvf, lbh'er n trrx.

[reply] [top]

[»] This is already available!
by tmbg - Jan 22nd 2000 11:10:02

I work for a small shop called The Linux General Store, and we already have this sort of support program in place, although we tend to cater to small businesses rather than the home user. We also have a retail store and offer comprehensive linux training. Check us out at http://www.linuxgeneralstore.com/ or feel free to email me at ian@linuxgeneral.net

[reply] [top]

[»] Re: Couple of thoughts... (Open Source comments)
by Andy Longton - Jan 22nd 2000 11:08:19

Ken said:First [snip!]...So, if I was willing to take on such a business, I would find that I didn't have to duplicate the effort in putting together an "optimal" configuration for the user, or the necessary tools to gather and analyse the logs, etc. - they would already be there. Of course, as I made additions/changes, I would be responsible for sharing those as well. Is that the case here?

If it's code changes, then yes. If it's a configuration file change, no. Having said that, if the configuration changes could easily be shared it would be in your best interest to share them. I'm not sure if it would be benificial to share these tweaks _specifically_ with others doing this kind of work -- yet I can't see how it would hurt.

[reply] [top]

[»] would work in an apple environment
by Axel - Jan 22nd 2000 09:34:58

The problem is that every user uses different hardware combinations. This will put a lot of administrative overhead on the network administrator. For nice solution (using MS) for small businesses, check out http://www.centerbeam.com They come in and replace all existing computers with theirs. They provide 24/7 remote network administration.

[reply] [top]

[»] Couple of thoughts...
by ken - Jan 22nd 2000 09:26:34

On the surface, this sounds like a really good idea. It may be below the surface as well, so don't misunderstand....

Anyway, I've thought about this kind of thing as well, although implementation is something I have yet to do, but I have a couple of thoughts/questions about how such a business plan is implemented.

First, it would only seem right that by building a business like this on free (speech) software, that the tools used to run it would also be free. Or in other words, open sourced. So, if I was willing to take on such a business, I would find that I didn't have to duplicate the effort in putting together an "optimal" configuration for the user, or the necessary tools to gather and analyse the logs, etc. - they would already be there. Of course, as I made additions/changes, I would be responsible for sharing those as well. Is that the case here?

Second, how do you address the users' percieved disparity with others in their community/family who also have computers, yet have a completely different set of software at their disposal? In particular, games. I would think that a sysadmin, faced with the question "Why can't I buy any of the games/applications/widgets on the shelves of CompUSA and use with my system?! My sister/cousin/friends just got this cool new game, and I want to play too. What kind of scam are you running here?" would find it a very difficult (if not impossible) one to answer to the user's satisfaction.

Third, in a word: Liability. When making yourself responsible for the maintenence of someone's system, it goes both ways. Not only are you responsible for making sure that things work correctly, but your are also responsible for when things screw up (and they always do) and the user ends up loosing data, or getting attacked, or... whatever. How do you limit your liability while also retaining the crediblity that is so essential to this kind of business?

Those are the first three that come to mind. There are others that kind of spin off of these three, like the true usability of the current state of Linux GUI's, the true costs of education, etc.

Hrm... maybe I should have written my own editorial...

ken

[reply] [top]

[»] Yes, but No.
by Mike Schutz - Jan 22nd 2000 09:15:58

Your idea has significant promise overall, but I think it lacks practicality. I will just hit one point: Cost of Administration

I administer several Linux boxes as an amateur. My full-time job is administering Solaris in an enterprise environment. The entire environment consists of over 350 servers, and I am immediately responsible for monitoring about 50 while being the primary admin on about 10. I stay plenty busy.

Let's say you put 1 full-time admin to every 50 servers. That would cost each computer owner $75/mo!!!!! (Assuming the SA was only making $45k.) Personally, I'd rather buy the software.

If you think 50 servers isn't a lot--imagine the amount of time you will spend on the phone with 50 people who want to try something new once every other week, who want to ask for your opinion on hardware and software solutions, and who want to be the first ones to have their logs checked every morning.

But... I like the idea in an idealistic sense. :)

[reply] [top]

[»] I do this now...
by Andy Longton - Jan 22nd 2000 09:03:51

...but for free. I'm the system admin for my little sister. I configured her system specifically to be resistant to cracker attacks, and so that I can perform maintenance when she runs into problems or has questions. Now, I not only perform security audits and upgrades, I also spend quite a bit of time maintaining her system.

As a business, the magic price points of $9.99 and $19.99 would make this a hard thing to do without having some kind of method to just how security would be handled.

One way to do it would be at an ISP's site with a special filter/proxy on the firewall that would handle the big issues. For example, all mail would be filtered using tools like Procmail for Email Security (name?). If the ISP didn't handle it already, the email blacklists would be added.

Another way to handle this would be to have a cheap box -- for example an old 486 with two network cards -- on the client's side as the firewall. It would be connected 24/7, and have a specific configuration on it. If something needed updating, all client firewalls would be updated. This would give a good environment to see what kind of crack attempts were actually being made on your client's systems -- even if they aren't using thier own machines.

Note that I've found from my little sister that you can't be certian when or if the client's machine will be turned on -- so having an independant system to perform most services will be an asset. Using the client's main machine, though, can be a real pain. I've had times where I'm in the middle of an upgrade and my little sister simply turns the power off (yep, I disabled shutdown and it didn't stop her!).

Once suspect ports are blocked, and email filtered, and the firewall decided on, the hard part comes along; handling the client software. You'd need the user to register the software they use with you or have some program scan the system to see what they have and to get upgrades to them on a timely basis. There are a variety of ways to get this information. If it's a Linux box, it will be easier to adminster, but much lower volume.

I'm in the Northern D.C./MD Suburbs area, so if you or anyone in the area wants to talk more feel free to contact me. I think this is possible.

[reply] [top]

[»] Good idea, you 're not the first
by Homme R. Bitter - Jan 22nd 2000 09:01:16

I have seen multiple companies offering such deals to small businesses and well-to-do homeusers.
Things being as they are now, a good admin can charge anywhere in between US $30 and US $100 per hour for administrating *NIX boxen.
Home users generally don't have that budget and there is plenty of companies that do.
This puts homeusers in the position where they either have to pay more for the *NIX guy then the kid next door.
Because you don't pay a licence fee the *NIX solution would
be roughly as expensive as the M$ solution, but most people
don't see it that way.
If they don't have more then 1 computer at home, most of them want something they can get all their apps and games for, linux is getting there fast, but right now, there is more homeuser software for M$ machines.
I think it will be a good year before linux and the market are going to be doing linux as primary OS on the home desktop.

[reply] [top]