Allow me to summarize the whole point of all my posts on this matter:
While it may well be initially less expensive to install a Linux-based computer than a Windows-based computer, there are hidden costs associated with that Linux system which many adherents tend to gloss over (if they ever mention them at all). Those hidden costs need to be evaluated BEFORE the computer is installed. In a Windows-centric enterprise where there is insufficient Linux-knowledgeable resource, it makes little economic sense to do that. The same holds true in a Linux-centric enterprise; it makes little economic sense to start installing Windows-based computers if there is insufficient internal resource to properly manage them (or the willingness to acquire the necessary resources).
Agreed.
However, I'll add the following: a Windows-centric organization such as you describe that is interested in reducing its long-term TCO _will_ benefit from investing the time and resources necessary to migrate some or all of its IT operations to Linux (or simply away from MS in some cases).
We are following this sequence, for example:
(1) Move all network servers (dhcp/dns/ftp/http...), file/print service, and firewalls to Linux. Down to three boxes (one firewall, one network services, one file/print services and intranet) from earlier seven, down to one admin from two. Projected TCO reduction in two-year period: $55,000. Additional costs likely: none (the one admin is Linux-capable, obviously).
(2) Move all 25 users from MS Office to Sun StarOffice 6.1 when it becomes available. Functionality loss expected: none. License cost savings over two years: almost $11,000. Additional costs expected: around $2,000 in reduced productivity as users go through the learning curve and are taught (or fumble through) how to do their jobs.
(3) After #1 and #2 are complete, begin a pilot deployment of Linux on the desktop for a small group (say, the sales department). We estimate that this will not save us any money at all (indeed, as you say, it will cost money), but we will invest in acquiring the Linux knowledge and resources required to then roll out Linux to all users. When we do roll out to all users, we expect to save significant sums on OS purchase and maintenance, security-related incidents, and many other areas.
If you know Windows, then of course it's more expensive to start learning Linux and vice versa. But I believe that if you knew nothing at all, then it would be cheaper to start on Linux right from the start; and I also believe that if you are willing to invest in the learning curve and don't expect something for nothing, then you will also find it cheaper to migrate (slowly) from Windows to Linux.
Cheers,
P.S. Tom, you make good arguments although I disagree. But kindly trim your posts, would you? Quoting entire other messages and multiple sigs clogs everyone's bandwidth (and "everyone" is several thousand people here).
-- Rodolfo J. Paiz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
