Linked by David Adams on Sun 11th Jul 2010 19:43 UTC
Microsoft U.K. government staff suggested replacing Microsoft Corp. operating systems on computers with free alternatives in response to a call for ideas for Prime Minister David Cameron's cost-cutting drive.
Thread beginning with comment 433164
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Until they need support
by kaiwai on Sun 11th Jul 2010 21:20 UTC in reply to "Until they need support"
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

What they're going to save on installing a free OS, is what they're going to spend on an army of uber-geeks to support the desktops once a problem arises. I don't mean to sound like I'm against Linux as a Desktop OS, but many enterprise customers want to pay for support contracts, and the thought of free equates to "cheap quality" and "you're on your own" when it comes to support.

Yes, flamebait I know, and I'm sorry for that.


You do realise that there are these amazing organisations like Red Hat and Novell who offer enterprise support and consultation? yes, amazing and these upstarts have been around for quite some time!

Excuse my sarcasm but nothing irritates the crap out of me more than people who make the logic fail that you did - and the price for large enterprise customers is very low when compared to what Microsoft provides. Cost isn't the only consideration though, the lack of vendor lock in also adds savings that cannot be calculated via the usual accounting methods - as the old adage goes, accountants can tell you the cost of something but not the value.

Reply Parent Score: 12

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


Excuse my sarcasm but nothing irritates the crap out of me more than people who make the logic fail that you did - and the price for large enterprise customers is very low when compared to what Microsoft provides.


On-site Linux support costs more and that is a factor that needs to be taken into account.


Cost isn't the only consideration though, the lack of vendor lock in also adds savings that cannot be calculated via the usual accounting methods - as the old adage goes, accountants can tell you the cost of something but not the value.


Switching to Linux doesn't come with a lock-in? What about dependence on Oracle for OpenOffice? There is also a lock-in to a smaller business software library.

I think a case can be made for installing OO on XP boxes instead of upgrading an older version of Office but completely switching to Linux is likely to incur costs rather than savings.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Until they need support
by kaiwai on Mon 12th Jul 2010 02:06 in reply to "RE[2]: Until they need support"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

On-site Linux support costs more and that is a factor that needs to be taken into account.


Based on what evidence? you throw that out there and provide nothing to back it up nor do you even take into account one can use Zenworks for large deployments thus just as simple as managing a network of Windows servers and desktops.

Switching to Linux doesn't come with a lock-in? What about dependence on Oracle for OpenOffice? There is also a lock-in to a smaller business software library.

I think a case can be made for installing OO on XP boxes instead of upgrading an older version of Office but completely switching to Linux is likely to incur costs rather than savings.


So stick with Windows XP and find yourself high and dry in a few years after support stops - excuse me but that sounds like the most stupid f-cking idea I've ever come across. While you're on the train of thought why don't you deploy Windows 2000 for sh-ts and giigles!

As for your first paragraph, how are you dependent on Oracle? OpenOffice.org is an open source project that has Red Hat, Novell, Oracle and numerous individual contributors; there is nothing stopping the government, as they do for other projects, to setup a dedicated group of half a dozen programmers to address problems with OpenOffice.org for the whole public service. There is no 'vendor lock in' and as for 'smaller business software library' - you do know we're talking about enterprise customers not Bobby Jane's Toast Shop and her desire to have 100s of pointless widgets and applications. Are there few vendors? sure, but they're the vendors that actually count - who cares if there are 100 vendors on offer if only 10 of them are actually worth considering.

Edited 2010-07-12 02:08 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Do you have sources for your claim that on-site linux support is more expensive than on-site support for any other solution?

There is no dependency on Oracle for OpenOffice. Also ODF-documents are not tied to OpenOffice. If Oracle screws up, one can switch to another ODF-compliant office suite.

There will be initial costs when switching to GNU/Linux or *BSD but these are small compared with the cost savings acquired following the transition. There is also initial costs when switching to Windows from GNU/Linux or *BSD, but no cost savings to get afterwards.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Until they need support
by Phloptical on Tue 13th Jul 2010 23:55 in reply to "RE: Until they need support"
Phloptical Member since:
2006-10-10

You seem to think that the enterprise, as a whole, actually gives a rats arse about vendor lock in. Most of them actually WANT vendor lock in. In fact, lots of companies pay good money to make sure they are, in fact "locked in". For example, how many times have you heard people talk about "We're a VM Ware Shop" "We're a CISCO shop" "We're a Lotus/Domino shop" "We're an SAP Shop"? "We're a Solidworks shop" What do you think that is? Lock In.

My "fail logic"? lol Really? Give me a break. If you've ever worked in a corporate IT environment, you'd know that ideology has no place in it because those who sign paychecks and sit on Mahogany Row, #1 don't care, #2 think IT is a waste of resources, anyway (until something goes down) and #3 just want to read emails, surf the web, look at powerpoint presentations, and excel spreadsheets. They could care less that their IT directors are sticking it to the man, keeping it real, and giving a propietary software company the finger just for the sake of doing so. We have to daily remind our top brass why they can't run Outlook and have to deal with Lotus Notes everyday. Now we'd have to add, "What's this Ubuntu, why can't I have Windows on my laptop?" My entire department would be fired the same day if I give the chief-muckity-muck friggin Red Hat on his laptop, and expect him to use it.

A small global company like mine couldn't deal with the transition to Open Office. And believe me, if there's anyone in my organization who wants it to happen more, it's me. I would love to spend my time planning for a global transition to Open Office for the next 5 months, but the fallout would never end.

Anyway, the road to the Linux OS has to begin at home, and not in the workplace. Then you'll get your adoption.

Reply Parent Score: 2