|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|
Re: [PLUG] OT: Linux Business Forum
|
I agree to some extent. Once a license is bought and paid for - there
isn't much savings in switching. However, if a business needs to add
network capacity of some kind, then linux can be a pretty big savings.
($server cost + $windows license + $CAL's for X clients + $setup and
config = several $K). So I expect to be maintaining windows networks as
they transition to linux. Also - many of my clients aren't using much more
than Office and browser. These users are easy pickings for a linux desktop
- would think. However, I haven't deployed a linux desktop into production
yet. There is interest in a Linux server for windows clients. Actually,
it's more like interest in a "cheaper, more stable server than Windows
with familiar Windows clients."
I know the business opportunity is there. But I also know that it will
take the effort of the Linux community also.
> On Wednesday, October 16, 2002, at 01:26 PM, Paul wrote:
>>> I definitely think that you're on to something. Many small companies
>>> could really benefit from the cost savings of Linux, but would
>>> definitely want support and training. Offering them the support in
>>> migration and especially after could just be the push they need.
>
> For most small companies, the "cost savings" of switching to Linux
> simply do not exist. Any savings really are tied strictly to the
> difference in licensing costs.
>
> In anything but a server situation, end-user re-training (and continued
> training of new hires) is an ongoing cost, as is training in the use of
> the Linux versions of applications.
>
> For "stand-alone" severs, Linux requires a different skill set than is
> required to support the desktop which means a different Sys Admin for
> the Server than for the desktops. But since the Linux/desktop interface
> is foreign to the skill set of a desktop administrator, it means that
> the cost of the Linux SysAdmin skyrockets.
>
> These are exactly the same reason that for years Apple has had trouble
> converting people from the PC to the Mac... it's not simply a "cost
> savings" issue. And in the case of Microsoft vs Linux, the fact is that
> both run on exactly the same hardware, so that there is zero "OS
> premium" as their is with Apple.
>
> Cost savings associated with on-going operational reliability may be an
> entirely different story, but it is going to be a very case by case
> determination.
>
> T.T.F.N.
> William H. Magill
> magill@mcgillsociety.org
> magill@acm.org
> magill@mac.com
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Philadelphia Linux Users Group --
> http://www.phillylinux.org Announcements -
> http://lists.netisland.net/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce General
> Discussion -- http://lists.netisland.net/mailman/listinfo/plug
_________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.netisland.net/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion -- http://lists.netisland.net/mailman/listinfo/plug
|
|