I wanted to wrap up the general thread of the last three posts I wrote regarding Linux in the law office, as from some of the comments posted, I believe some of the points I had made were unclear. The two most important things everyone must understand are: 1) I support Linux and am rooting for its success in the future. It has the potential of providing a huge return on investment due to the overall cost of implementation, and many of the applications written for Linux are just as good as their Windows counterparts, while being written in more efficient, less bloated, code; an 2) I am writing from the perspective of the solo and small law office and what technology is available today that will help us. I am a solo who formerly worked in small firms. I have never worked for a large firm, and so I am writing about what I know. Please take my posts in that context. That said, let me comment on how I see Linux entering the law firm market.
Larger law firms, say those with 50+ attorneys along with support staff, face a proportional cost of implementation for technology that may well make Linux a more viable option. Let’s start with just the servers. One of the comments to a previous post suggested a server-side solution to running Windows in the Linux environment, so this might be something that large firms would look at. In the Windows world, Server 2003 currently sells for $950 at PC Connection, as of this writing, and includes licenses for five users (workstations or other devices) that access that server. After that, you can buy Client Access Licenses (CALs) for roughly $35 each, whether in 5-packs or 20-packs. Now, beyond the cost of the server hardware, even if just for the 50 users, that is $2,525 plus any other server software you may want, along with the cost of the consultant to install and configure it. Many large firms have over 100 lawyers plus support staff. Assuming all users on one server, and 500 employees in a large firm, that is $18,275, assuming they all access the same server. More servers would mean even more money, because each machine would carry an initial price of $950 for the first 5 workstations or devices.
Even with different pricing from different vendors, or volume discounts, you can see where an open source software solution would make sense for large firms (even if just for the servers. The savings in software costs would offset the consulting fees, and future upgrades would be cheaper as well, which would make Linux a good initial investment. The server market would thus get Linux’s foot in the legal industry’s door, so to speak, and may well result in a migration to the desktop. Products like OpenOffice, Firefox and Thunderbird could provide much of the basic software needs. As to the “must-have” applications that lawyers require, these larger firms could drive the market for the open source development of Linux equivalents (or the testing of these programs with Wine or Cross Over). Although the switch to Linux would mean retraining, this cost is often incurred when upgrading in Windows products, but here would be an investment in the future with a cheaper upgrade path.
Once the larger firms create the market, the demand for Linux apps, and the use of Linux in general, this will filter down to the smaller firms and make it more straightforward for them to implement. Hopefully, that day will be soon, as competition is good, and it can only benefit the end user.
July 19, 2007 at 9:53 pm
I wonder just how many IT heads of large law firms will be willing to bring Linux into the desktop mix? What I’m getting at is larger firms are more likely to be run by another Windows ludite who’s more willing to trust Microsofts “Get The Facts” campaign then venture into Linux-land to save the company a few million. They’re more likely to believe the Linux move can be a job threatening move.
I hope I’m wrong but experience has shown that large orgs are more drone-like than smaller more nimble ones. My guess is that it’ll be another 5-10 years before those high school kids currently messing with Linux get into places where they are willing to move Linux and OSS up the corporate IT chain. Five years ago, I thought we’d be there now but SCO did much to scare off many large orgs and cross platform development has been mostly targeting the server. Now, Microsoft’s patent threats have the same effect of making Microsoft a safe bet. As far as the apps go, we do have AJAX to help bring more apps from the server to ANY client but slow MS .NET growth might hurt here too. And not everyone is willing to put the effort into moving their apps to browser/server computing, with or without AJAX. Microsoft shops tend to stay Microsoft shops. After all, nobody gets fired for choosing Microsoft.
it’s a slow road, but I’ll agree that there is progress.
July 19, 2007 at 10:13 pm
I think an instructive parallel may be found in the medical field. There are some Free Software/Open Source applications for small medical offices. I think this is true in part because there are enough doctor/programmers who personally are interested enough to do the development. Are there any lawyer/programmers out there? The only one I’m aware of is Eben Moglen. See (http://www.linuxmednews.com/) and (http://www.emrupdate.com/) to get an idea what I mean.
July 19, 2007 at 11:18 pm
But the point of switching to Linux (at least for me) was to free my data. I don’t want my documents and all my clients’ data to be stuck in Microsoft formats that will go obsolete and unreadable in 5 years.
We need open source alternatives to the commercial software packages. That is the only way that a transition is likely to occur.
When you have an open source program, it generally doesn’t matter whether you run Windows or Linux. The larger projects can be run on either platform. Firefox, Openoffice.org, Thunderbird, and just recently GnuCash are all cross-platform and can be run on both Windows and Linux. Web based solutions like SQL-Ledger are also naturally cross-platform.
No large law firm is going to transition to Linux for the sake of Linux. If you start with cross-platform applications or web-based solutions, then the transition to Linux will be painless by the time the people in charge realize that it’s a good idea. Trying to force everyone in a large organization to switch at the same time is a losing proposition that will meet with MUCH resistance.
July 20, 2007 at 3:35 am
When you have an open source program, it generally doesn’t matter whether you run Windows or Linux.
There are a number of projects that has this goal in mind, if you must use windows you can start the transfer with OSS applications and when Linux or BSD becomes feasible you will already be familiar and trained on many of the apps and tools that comes with these operating systems. Here is just a couple of links to OSSwin projects.. I’m sure there are many more similar projects to the ones listed below so you may want to Google for “open source applications for windows”
http://www.theopencd.org/
http://opensourcewindows.org/
http://www.opensourcelist.org/oss/
http://osswin.sourceforge.net/
July 20, 2007 at 2:30 pm
The issues raised with regard to the Linux desktop in the small law firm are valid and I agree with the author’s conclusions about the desktop — for today.
But I think the Linux server in the small law firm is being dismissed too quickly. There is nothing particularly unique about file and print services needed in a legal practice compared to other industries and professions and GNU/Linux+Samba+Cups is ready for the small firm…all that is missing is the awareness.
The $950 U.S. with five client licenses cited by the author for Windows Server 2003 is only the tip of the iceberg.
A small operation with enough IT familiarity to properly deploy file and print services using Windows Server without hiring outside help is equally well positioned to deploy those same basic services with GNU/Linux. What is missing here are not the “must have” applications that hamper desktop GNU/Linux adoption in the small law firm, but rather, the awareness that the GNU/Linux server is ready and awaiting your call — at no cost for IP — via CentOS, Debian, Fedora, Mandriva, OpenSuSE, Slackware, Ubuntu and others.
Raising that awareness, and helping the profession sort through these distributions to select the most suitable for immediate deployment by non IT professionals (as well as some tips for migrating data for those already using Windows or NT server), is something Mr. Richardson could do that would not only provide fodder for further articles — he would be performing a valuable service to the legal profession and GNU/Linux.
It isn’t just about saving the $950.00 + $35.00 for additional client licenses, although that is an incentive…as is getting off the expensive upgrade treadmill and exploiting GNU/Linux performance to reduce hardware requirements for further cost savings over time.
As much as anything, it is about first bringing GNU/Linux to a new user base in a role where it truly shines without causing any inconvenience or difficulty…not like Wine, or Crossover Office (or even VMWare server with Windows as a guest) on the desktop…or Open Office on either Windows or GNU/Linux, where mostly trivial incompatibilities with MSOffice exist, but which all add up to create the perception that GNU/Linux (and FOSS in general) is somehow sub-standard because of Microsoft’s strategy of creating compatibility problems).
But if introduced first on the small office file and print server, GNU/Linux can quickly demonstrate that it is the premium OS, and the cost saving and reliability champion. With distributions such as Ubuntu now available, there is no greater impediment to the small firm deploying GNU/Linux in this server role without outside help than there is to Windows or NT server.
Following that initial deployment, other services can follow…perhaps something as simple as a small web server or a more sophisticated firewall/router than the $50.00 appliance from Office Depot the small practice has been relying on.
Seeing and using GNU/Linux where it can clearly demonstrate its superiority as an OS is a step toward understanding that its “defficiencies” on the desktop is solely a matter of available applications and not the underlying OS or desktop environment.
And that understanding is key to generating interest in the development of the desktop applications needed to facilitate adoption of the GNU/Linux desktop — not only in the small law office — but across all economic and social sectors.
July 20, 2007 at 2:51 pm
I agree with a lot of what has already been said in the comments. I’ve written a response on my blog here: http://www.linuxlawoffice.com/2007/07/how-linux-has-entered-legal-market.html
July 20, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Colin: Excellent points. Servers do not need the “must-have” apps, as we are dealing with file and print sharing, and so Linux may be able to get into smaller law firms in that way. However, the small firms I have worked in have either used one of the machines on a peer-to-peer network as a server or, at least in one instance, a domain server running Novell Netware (this was several years ago). In the latter instance, the server was configured and maintained by a consultant.
You also point out that there may be server distros that can install and configure easily without a consultant that would allow for a domain server at lower hardware costs. I do have Ubuntu’s server version, and once I have a machine to run it on, I will test it and certainly post. In the meantime, does anyone else have a comment on the ease-of-use of Ubuntu Server Linux?
July 20, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Linux has already begun to infiltrate the small, not large law office. Are there medium sized to large offices using Linux? Yes, I profiled one on my blog. However, Linux has already started a grassroots infiltration through the small / solo law office.
There are several fundamental flaws in this article.
1. That there are “must have” applications for the law office. Most of this can be handled by basic OSS applications like OpenOffice and Evolution and web-based applications. There is no need for Linux programmers, when there is a web based alternative. If those don’t help, the whip out the VMware and emulators. There’s a solution in one of those options.
2. That large law firms will adopt an alternative operating system easier than the small law office. The small / solo law office has a flattened decision making model. No committees here, just an entrepreneur or two fed up with Microsoft. Easy!
3. That large law firms are more cost aware than small ones. The small ones may be on a shoe-string budget. Large firms are not. If a small firm has to pay $100 and up on software, when there is a free alternative, they’ll adopt it much quicker.
4. That small firms are less tech savvy than larger ones. This seems to be an underlying premise. It’s simply not true. Small firms don’t have an IT department. If it gets done, it’s the attorneys that do it. They’re not going to set and watch “BIGLAW” to figure out how to run their computers.
I can think of four different blogs that have to do with Linux in the small law practice (one of those is mine). Linux did not start out big. It grew from the grassroots. That is how it IS (not will) infiltrating the legal community.
Zale
July 21, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Steven Richardson Says:
You also point out that there may be server distros that can install and configure easily without a consultant that would allow for a domain server at lower hardware costs.
hope this help.
http://www.howtoforge.com/fileserver_with_sme_server7.1
July 23, 2007 at 4:17 am
Zale: Thank you for your comment. However, what you point out as “fundamental flaws” in my post are really just fundamental differences of opinion.
1. OpenOffice and Evolution can certainly get you far, but not necessarily far enough. Many applications that have come out for Windows like case management (Time Matters, Abacus, Amicus Law, and the like) are programs that attorneys (including myself) have come to depend on heavily. They need an equivalent in the Linux world. Legal research, I would agree, is web based and can be done from Firefox, but not all of an attorney’s software needs are necessarily met by web based apps. As to VMWare, emulators, and Wine, they only remove the incentive for vendors to write Linux versions of their software (why do that, Cross Over does it for us). From my research and discussions on this, I have found that there is a difference of opinion on whether these programs help or hurt the spread of Linux in the market. In addition, the Cross Over compatibility database does not show one legal application as tested for working with the product. That challenges my belief that VMware like that is a solution.
2. No, not so easy. I think you are oversimplifying this. No matter how fed up I, as a solo, get with Microsoft, I do not have the time to make Linux work for me; I would rather spend that time practicing law. The same goes for the small firms I know. Instead, I buy a machine from Dell and proven case management, time management, money management software that I know will work with a lot less time and effort on my part. Yes, we have less beurocracy; but we also have less time to bring along Linux to do it instead. There may be a grassroots infiltration from what you have seen (I guess it depends upon your definition of small law firm, which is the perspective from which I write), but that does not mean that the entrance of Linux into the legal profession will sweep UPWARDS rather than DOWNWARDS.
3. First of all, I never said that larger firms are more cost-aware; I said “Larger law firms . . . face a proportional cost of implementation for technology.” When one attorney upgrades his software for $100, it is $100. When 50-100 do it in a larger firm, it is $5-$10,000. Yes, big firms constitute a larger ship to turn around, while smaller firms are more nimble, but the larger firm has a greater economic incentive. Second of all, you state that “the small ones may be on a shoe-string budget. Large firms are not. If a small firm has to pay $100 and up on software, when there is a free alternative, they’ll adopt it much quicker.” I am a solo lawyer with no secretary on a shoestring budget, and I can assure you that is not the case! I bill at $150 per hour; if it takes me more than 40 minutes to implement your “free alternative” that I could have had for $100, I have lost money; even more if I hire a consultant. My cost for software in the Windows world is much smaller for me, so I go with what I know will work; I don’t have the time (and time = money for an attorney) to look for the “free alternative.”
4. I never said that “small firms are less tech savvy than larger ones.” That was also not the “underlying premise” of my post. The attorneys are not as likely to bring about Linux in the market when they do not have IT departments or the time to do it themselves. Other than that, I am not all that clear on the point you are making here.
You mention four blogs, including yours, that you imply disagree with me. Okay, so they do. That does not mean they are right in their opinion and I am “fundamentally flawed” in mine. Just because Linux started out at a grassroots level does not mean that it will spread that way in the legal world.
I invite your comments here, whether you agree with me or not; however, I would just ask that you couch those comments as disagreements and not dogma.
July 23, 2007 at 4:19 am
RE: Thanks for the link! I will check it out.
July 23, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Steven Richardson Says:
No matter how fed up I, as a solo, get with Microsoft, I do not have the time to make Linux work for me; I would rather spend that time practicing law.”
I think you hit the nail on the head, “spend that time practicing law”, make the money and hire a professional.
The general public goes to work so they can hire lawyers because they don’t have the time to practice law.
hence: They are called IT professionals
July 23, 2007 at 4:39 pm
RE: Exactly. I suppose it is an issue of whether the firm looking to adopt Linux regularly uses an IT guy, so that that becomes an economic “sunk cost” that would be the same across the board no matter what software they use. However, that still leaves the issue of what would run on these Linux machines: Windows apps in VMware or an emulator (which I am concerned would create a disincentive for app publishers to write native Linux versions) or native Linux programs, which may not be all there yet. Yes, an IT guy is best. But is there enough there for him/her to implement for the solo/small firm to get the job done beyond OpenOffice, Firefox, and Evolution? That is why I think that the larger firms are going to drive development in Linux on the desktop for small law firms. As to the server end, I hear tell that Ubuntu is looking into releasing a small business server version in the next 12 months. If that is easy to implement, that may bring Linux into the small law office sooner.
July 24, 2007 at 2:34 pm
One thing I wanted to add (with another long winded post — sorry) is that “server editions” of GNU/Linux, while certainly capable of meeting a small firm’s needs, are perhaps a bit “over kill.”
I noticed a link above to SME server, and in years past I tried SME server, or rather, its original version, before Mitel got their hands on it. At that time it was known as “ESmith Server.” It was great. But it was also little known and that can play into worries about the future of the product you’re about to dump into a server your business will rely on.
Yes, I know, I know…but we’re discussing GNU/Linux adoption by small law practices that haven’t gotten their “feet wet” with GNU/Linux, and when coming from a Windows world, an obscure distribution downloaded from the Internet sounds “risky.”
Right now, Ubuntu has the buzz, and you can even buy laptops from Dell with Ubuntu preloaded. Availability from a major PC vendor brings a certain credibility to Ubuntu lacking with a product like SME Server.
And Ubuntu is bringing a server version to market.
BUT…and I think this is important for new GNU/Linux users to understand, server distributions tend to address needs far in excess of SOHO server requirements. An office staffed by two lawyers, a receptionist/book keeper, and maybe a couple of para-legals, doesn’t represent the same networking problems as an office with 150 people, and it is the needs of that office of 150 people that Ubuntu seeks to address with a server version of their distribution.
Plain ol’ desktop Ubuntu, just like almost every other freely downloadable desktop GNU/Linux distribution, is perfectly capable of meeting the requirements for file and print serving in the small office. Despite being targeted at the desktop, Ubuntu’s underpinning is still a general purpose operating system and the arbitrary separation of server OS and desktop OS that Microsoft enforces does not apply to mainstream GNU/Linux.
I believe that is one of the key benefits of GNU/Linux that cannot be emphasized too much to people considering migration from Windows to GNU/Linux.
I found a very thorough tutorial for using Ubuntu as a Samba file and print server for Windows clients at “HowtoForge.”
Here is a link.
A disclaimer: The tutorial uses their “Breezy Badger” release (although it should work with the current release as well).
Second disclaimer: I haven’t tried this with Ubuntu, because I use Slackware for all file and print serving (including Samba), but Slackware doesn’t target the same audience as Ubuntu.
Rather than waiting to see if an Ubuntu server version is easy to install and configure as a Windows domain controller, I think a more fruitful course of action might be to test and report results using this tutorial…and then, if changes are needed, tweek the tutorial to conform with the current desktop Ubuntu release. Post it here. Post it everywhere.
Because that’s another difference between Windows and GNU/Linux…rather than depending upon vendors to release something essentially preconfigured…the user just needs access to simple tutorials so that he or she can configure the product in hand to do the job.
I believe that anyone who can survive Windows peer-to-peer networking or a NetWare LAN, can easily follow a tutorial such as the one I linked. What the prospective user needs now is for you to get the word out so that the knowledge base expands.
July 24, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Colin: Great thoughts; thanks for contributing. You make a good point that the desktop version of Linux can make a good peer-to-peer server in a small office setting, just like Windows can and does (assuming you do not want to run a web or e-mail server). It remains to be seen whether Ubuntu’s small business server will do the trick and avoid the perhaps more involved installation and configuration of their regular server version.
July 25, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Steven, not simply to nitpick (nor to beat a dead horse), but the point I’m making is that an Ubuntu “desktop” release installed on a machine that acts as a file and print server in the small office isn’t a form of “peer-to-peer” networking.
So why do I hammer on that?
Because peer-to-peer networking as it evolved in Windows is an often unreliable, “second rate” approach to the problem.
And because the distinction between “desktop” and “server” editions of the GNU/Linux OS is mostly a marketing approach…it really has no bearing on the suitability of the distribution for either role.
An Ubuntu Samba based file and print server is networking in one of the true server-centric models.
Samba is Samba whether it is running on a GNU/Linux distribution marketed as a “desktop” release or one designated by marketers as for the “server.”
Server editions typically have additional tools installed that address the security and administrative needs of larger, even huge, organizations with professional IT staff…needs that don’t often apply in the smaller and more trustworthy environment of the very small office.
One of the ironies is that server oriented distributions are actually often more difficult for the non IT professional to setup and administer in a small office of fewer than ten users, because there are so many tools intended to foil corporate espionage, malicious cracking by insiders, and even to protect state secrets.
The small office Samba file and print server built from something like Ubuntu “Feisty Fawn,” is every bit the “real deal,” as the latest release of RHEL, or Ubuntu’s upcoming server edition…and is likely better suited as a server OS in that setting than one of the enterprise oriented server editions.
Ten years ago, these arbitrary distinctions were not generally attempted by GNU/Linux distributions, and I think in some ways, that helped the new and/or prospective user better understand the potential of the OS, even before they figured out how to deploy it.
Remember, “small business,” as defined by the SBA here in the States, can include operations with up to 100 employees. That’s the environment envisioned by companies putting together “small business server” editions of GNU/Linux.
And I think we’re talking about small law practices with anywhere from 2 to 10 people including the law partners. Not the same environment, and not the same needs.
Based on my own experience (not in a law practice, but in a similarly sized {15 employees/desktop users} operation), I think server needs are usually better, and more easily, met with a general purpose or desktop oriented distribution than with the server oriented releases (which I have also used to a more limited degree).
Sorry to keep harping on this, but one of the effects of internet based communuity support and knowledge sharing is that the owner/operator of a “Mom & Pop” appliance repair shop may be rubbing shoulders with an admininstrator working in the defense industry. That’s not a bad thing, but it can cause the blender repairman to conclude that his needs are comparable to those of Lockheed.
Anyhow, I’ll shut up now.
July 25, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Colin: Harp away! Your comments are quite informative, and I am glad you have pointed out these distinctions. Readers take note: Ubuntu desktop (or any other Linux desktop distribution) may well be worth a look for a simple file and print server in your small office. Although Ubuntu has a smooth and easy installation process, you may still need a computer geek to tweak your network to access the Linux box.
February 27, 2009 at 7:15 pm
[...] | Tags: linux, netbooks, ubuntu | I have posted several times before about how I see Linux entering the law office market, whether through big firms or through the back office (i.e. the servers). However, it has become [...]