Free software advocates focus on the ability to share, develop, and improve software as a community effort. But how do these freedoms affect the business community? David Chisnall takes a look.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-11-13
I particularly like how you keep saying TCO but complely ignore and remove my list of issues you need to consider in order to make a reasonably accurate estimation of what it actually is.
I was the one talking about actual numbers, like purchase prices for Office upgrades, IT costs to install same, costs associated with training, etc. Those numbers didn't support your world view, so you ignored them.
Spouting assertions and buzz words while ignoring hard to counter arguments is easier than actually making a good argument yourself isn't it?
You would know.
Asserting that the most expensive way of training employees is the only possible choice will not make it so.
The most expensive way to train employees is to use a professional teacher with a proven curriculum? Again, you can't get over the initial cost idea. Sure, you can have some in-house IT guy with no teaching skills or proven curriculum try to wing-it, but that's going to cost you a lot more in the long-run. (Hint: The average secretary knows more about using Word than does the IT guy who installed it on her system. She knows shortcut keystrokes, formatting tricks, and settings that the IT guy knows nothing of. Professional instructors have application expertise that IT guys do not.)
You keep making personal attack.[sic]
Give it a rest. You've made your share: "You know I actually took you seriously until I read this. Silly me."
Considering free alternatives as viable does not make me into any of the caricatures that you paint me as.
You don't recommend "considering" it. You've been in full-on sell mode since replying. You don't want to discuss actual TCO, deleting any reference to actual costs. You want to spout FUD about Microsoft, passing off security issues with IE as if IE is the only choice of browser one has with Windows.
It doesn't matter how many times you assert that Linux should simply be disregarded as an alternative for larger setups. It still wont make it true.
I've never asserted that. It's the diversity of needs and users that drives most decisions.
It's you who views this as religion. To me, it's a business decision: Will a switch to Linux improve a company's bottom line? In a minority of cases, it will. In others, switching just network servers to Linux will be most cost-effective. And in others, sticking with Windows is the most cost-effective. That's why I'm not married to a particular OS. I've installed Windows systems, Solaris systems, and Linux systems depending on the needs of the customer. Somehow, all of your customers seem to need Linux. I find that to be odd.
Member since:"I particularly like how you keep saying TCO but completely ignore and remove my list of issues you need to consider in order to make a reasonably accurate estimation of what it actually is.
I was the one talking about actual numbers, like purchase prices for Office upgrades, IT costs to install same, costs associated with training, etc. Those numbers didn't support your world view, so you ignored them. "
You:
Mention two numbers: 1. An upgrade cost that is "maybe" correct. Then a cost for installing that no basis what so ever is provided for. Then you claim that amount of money is not enough to get any training done, and imply that this proves your point.
(Here's a hint for you. I'm _not_ in the United States. You cannot assume that things cost the same where I am. The cost of that upgrade compared to training is _far_ higher in most parts of the world. For example: If your estimation of the cost for installing[50$ for 15 minutes] is not ridiculously off, then IT personnel here is between 6 and 10 times cheaper!)
I: Make a short list of issues to consider and calculate based on. Claim that you take the actual situation, coupled with a more comprehensive list and you actually do the math.
"It's you who views this as religion. To me, it's a business decision:"
That's rich. I keep repeating in different words that you should do the actual math while you keep asserting truths and making personal attacks. Every other sentence ridiculing, implying something or other. Who is the fanatic again?
"Will a switch to Linux improve a company's bottom line? In a minority of cases, it will. In others, switching just network servers to Linux will be most cost-effective. And in others, sticking with Windows is the most cost-effective. That's why I'm not married to a particular OS. I've installed Windows systems, Solaris systems, and Linux systems depending on the needs of the customer."
I'm not at all sure about that minority of cases, especially outside the USA. Except for that, I agree. In fact, this is what I've been saying all along. Try disengaging a few of your preconceptions about me and reading this thread again.
"Somehow, all of your customers seem to need Linux. I find that to be odd."
Here's a challenge for you:
Show me a quote where I say this. Of course you can't, so I'll make it more fair. Find a quote where i imply it. Good luck.
Member since:
You keep on pointing out the cases where moving is not a good idea repeating your blanket assertions in a louder voice while ignoring my arguments.
I particularly like how you keep saying TCO but complely ignore and remove my list of issues you need to consider in order to make a reasonably accurate estimation of what it actually is. Spouting assertions and buzz words while ignoring hard to counter arguments
is easier than actually making a good argument yourself isn't it? Asserting that the most expensive way of training employees is the only possible choice will not make it so.
Let's just clobber the apponents arguments by claiming they don't understand while telling people what an authoritive source of information you yourself are instead.
You keep making personal attack. I'm incompenent.
I'm a fanatic. I'm "Johnny Appleseed of Linux consultants, going from business to business extolling the virtues of Linux and F/OSS."
How abuot discussing the actual points instead of poisoning the well?
A serious consultant actually considers the facts of the real situation and come up with the most cost affective setup for their clients.
Considering free alternatives as viable does not make me into any of the caricatures that you paint me as.
It doesn't matter how many times you assert that Linux should simply be disregarded as an alternative for larger setups. It still wont make it true.
I remain sincerely unimpressed.