Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 3rd Aug 2012 00:41 UTC, submitted by henderson101
Thread beginning with comment 529512
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Besides just being neat...
by TechGeek on Fri 3rd Aug 2012 20:35
in reply to "RE[2]: Besides just being neat..."
Actually, you are now wrong. Linux used to be about low cost. For years that was the number one reason given regarding adoption in the enterprise. For the last couple years, the number one reason is now to prevent vendor lock in.
2011 was also the first year Gartner saw Linux servers outselling Windows. They always had to guess a bit with Linux as many people bought servers and put Linux on after the fact. Now, more Linux servers are being sold with Linux pre-installed than Windows servers.
RE[4]: Besides just being neat...
by moondevil on Sat 4th Aug 2012 11:56
in reply to "RE[3]: Besides just being neat..."
Actually, you are now wrong. Linux used to be about low cost. For years that was the number one reason given regarding adoption in the enterprise. For the last couple years, the number one reason is now to prevent vendor lock in.
No I am not.
I work for a big consulting company that usually works with Fortune 500 customers, where the goals of each project are outsourcing plans and ways to lower development costs.
Assuming the customer is ok with the available licenses, open source is usually chosen to lower project costs, not because of quality nor to contribute anything back.





Member since:
2005-07-08
What working in the enterprise world taught me, is that for most big companies, open source == cost zero.
No one really cares about what is open source all about, except a way to lower project costs, without giving anything back.