Re: [PLUG] OT: Linux Business Forum

[Fred K Ollinger <follinge@sas.upenn.edu>]

> 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.

Costs should go up when making a switch from anything to anything else.
This is well established. However, when upgrading commercial sw, which
happens on a yearly basis in the places where I looked at, there's also a
huge cost associated with it.

As for licensing, most machines that I've installed linux on all ready
came with commercial software so that savings doesn't exist.

> 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.

How so? As a linux sysadmin, I don't see my Cost Skyrocketing. I really
wish we had the same experience.

> 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

Actually, I have seen many successful conversions from mac to PC. Many of
us forget that 1995 PC had reached parity as far as "easy to use" went.
However, most places, IMHO, were using Dos over MacOS. So in the 80's
"easy to use" meaning "graphics similar to mac" was not a major reason for
why people chose their software. Now that linux has matured, all I hear
about is "easy to use". So things have really changed in 1995.

I feel is that is because IBM then MS have been the trend setters in most
manager's minds. I could be wrong here.

> both run on exactly the same hardware, so that there is zero "OS
> premium" as their is with Apple.

Which mostly comes preinstalled w/ those licenses anyway.

> 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.

I agree. In fact, I'd prefer that all these things be discussed in a
case-by-case determination. I have seen countless arugments where people
arugued for a generality, and yet things went the other way in every
concievable example. In most cases, the people hung on to the generality
w/o finding much to support it.

So I'm probably wrong in all my generalities above, but they are based on
my (limited) experience.

Fred

_________________________________________________________________________
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