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 433183
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Until they need support
by nt_jerkface on Mon 12th Jul 2010 01:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Until they need support"
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

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


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.


Linux admins cost more on average, kind of thought that was common sense. You can go look up IT salaries if this is news to you.


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.


Security updates go to 2014.

But no I don't think any business or government should stick with XP. I just think it is a better cost-saving measure than switching to Linux.


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.


Well OpenOffice is incomplete in functionality compared to MS Office and it is not some community project when it comes to development. That vast majority of the commits have been from Sun employees:
http://people.gnome.org/~michael/blog/ooo-commit-stats-2008.html

Without Sun (and now Oracle) developers the codebase would stagnate and die.

I follow OpenOffice more than most open source advocates here so please be aware of this before getting abrasive.

Anyways your suggestion is laughable that a company or government switch to open office and then hire a team of programmers to fill in that missing functionality as part of a greater effort to save money. The wasted money on meetings alone planning such an endeavor would likely pay for MS Office.


There is no 'vendor lock in' and as for 'smaller business software library'


There are fewer business applications available for Linux, are you going to deny this?

I'll give you some common examples:
Quickbooks
Peachtree Accounting
Postal Service / Shipping software
Payroll software
MS Exchange
Banking software
Publishing software

I didn't even bring up the issue of hardware. Multi-function printers have long been an issue with Linux.

Reply Parent Score: -1

MamiyaOtaru Member since:
2005-11-11

well, one could look at Munich. http://www.osor.eu/studies/declaration-of-independence-the-limux-pr...

The total cost for the proprietary solution were calculated to be 35 million Euro, against 37 million Euro for GNU/Linux (both including all costs beyond the solution itself, such as personnel and training costs, over five years). While the proprietary solution was deemed to be slightly more cost-effective over the full period, the strategic advantage of being free to take its own IT decisions led the city council to decide in favour of the migration to GNU/Linux.

So that's nice and all, but it's more expensive (though long term that may change). There are other benefits of course, but considering that the UK is talking about this as a cost saving measure the higher projected costs for Munich's migration (which have risen, here the figures as of four years ago: http://news.cnet.com/Munich-fires-up-Linux-at-last/2100-7344_3-6119... ) should be taken into account.

One can obviously quibble with figures and talk about how it would be cheaper if X and Y or whatever, but the case of Munich shows it is not a clear-cut case of open source = savings, and since savings is the driving motivation behind this latest proposal, one has to look at it with a critical eye.

And one can't ignore retraining costs. Users are idiots. The slightest thing different means retraining. Lost productivity in the meanwhile (and training costs) are likely to compare with the cost of a few Windows licenses. Obviously I don't have figures for this (just experience with users), but that's why I linked the Munich stuff.

In short you can talk about other perceived benefits and that's great but I don't think you can smugly assert that money will be saved and talk down at anyone who disagrees (or isn't as sure about it as you are)

Reply Parent Score: 4

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

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

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


Linux admins charge more than MCSEs.


There is no dependency on Oracle for OpenOffice.

You are dependent on Oracle when it comes to the development of OpenOffice. There are numerous conversion issues that Oracle hasn't addressed, but let's pretend that such problems don't exist in favor of open source ideology.


Also ODF-documents are not tied to OpenOffice. If Oracle screws up, one can switch to another ODF-compliant office suite.


Like what? Koffice? It isn't close in functionality. And please don't list a bunch of OO forks like GO-OO where they basically make a few tweaks to the latest version.


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.


That's an article of faith.

Reply Parent Score: 3