[ILUG] Linux is more expensive than Windows

[John Madden]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On (06/04/04 11:32), adam beecher didst pronounce:
> According to the report, 90 percent of 300 large enterprises with 10,000 or
> more end-users indicated that a significant or total switch from Windows to
> Linux would be too expensive, extremely complex and would not provide any
> tangible gains.
> 
The tangible gains provided by switching to Linux will not be evident to
companies who don't try it (or at least do a trial run on, eg. one
dept.). However, where 10,000 end-users are concerned, the change would
be quite significant. In enterprises like this that depend heavily on
Windows, the integretation between the end-user system and the servers
(eg. Outlook + Exchange) is lost if a switch to Linux is made. I know
there are projects out there to help, and ways of making it work, but if
you're going to switch, it should be done properly -- ie. move away from
the M$ lock-in in your business completely and implement other
solutions.

The second thing is it'd likely require a completely new IT department
to deal with Linux. The IT departments in these types of companies
generally tend to know and stick with M$ solutions and are nearly afraid
of trying anything else. This means that, even for a trial run, extra
staff would be needed to support it.

However, if all these (and other) problems are overcome, then I think
the benefits of Linux over Windows would quickly shine through -- in
usability, security and, of course, financial gain. But large companies
that depend on M$ spend more time (and money) "researching" the problem
and coming up with excuses as to why it's not feasible to change than
actually trying it out. 

To be honest, I think trying to persuade these types of companies of the
benefits of Linux on their servers / desktops is a waste of time.
Everything comes down to money, and they're not willing to try it when
it means spending too much money initially.

- -- 
Chat ya later,

John.
- --
BOFH excuse #1: clock speed
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQFAcpmgQBw+ZtKOvTIRAoEqAJ46ei5ixgPh1i/kVqOliFbOzhmGBACdGldT
/CF6BKdSIhzb5HFRp+90jUI=
=cFbi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----