OSNews

Yet in your previous post you suggested switching to a different type of OS entirely. I'd think that would be much more risky than a new version of the current OS.

Look, most of us here love Linux and open source; this is OSNews, not MicrosoftNews. But, there is a time and a place for everything and for some companies it's just not a good fit with anything but Windows. The same could be said about a graphic design firm that has been on Mac OS for years; they too would do best to stick with what they already have.

Don't get me wrong, I'd jump for joy if they switched to Linux where I work. The few Windows-only apps (jail/court management and GIS) and the IT cronies notwithstanding, it would save us hundreds of thousands of dollars every year just in software licensing. Everything else we do would be covered; in fact, Firefox would be a better fit than IE for my particular job as it is inherently more secure, as well as being officially supported by the Georgia Technology Authority. Indeed, the vast majority of the work done around the county is either web based or clerical, so open source software would be just fine.

Most organizations could use that money to develop their own Linux versions of the few proprietary Windows-only apps, and save money from thereafter.

Having full control over the software would have many other benefits as well, as they could tweak it in-house to better suit their needs and workflow. There would also be no "legacy apps" anymore - just hire a freelance coder to port it to a new QT or GTK version or fix compiling with newer GCC versions.

IMHO, this would make more sense than continuously buying new licenses, which is like throwing money away. Hell, with those "hundreds of thousands of dollars" they could hire their own full time developer(s).

PS. I understand this might not be feasible, if the software projects are big enough.

Edited 2009-05-05 16:14 UTC