I'm responding off-list because I've been doing a lot of blathering on-list lately, and the OP was asking an unrelated question about NetBooks, and I don't want to pull the thread away any further -- but I'm also appreciative of your response, and enjoy the conversation -- so here goes :)
The articles included are all from 2005, and much has changed since then. Additionally, the article from the Register reports on the quocirca report, so they are effectively the same story.
Change management is certainly an issue -- getting users comfortable on one version of software is difficult, let alone transitioning them to a new/different/"improved" version. In that sense, the shift from Office 2003 to Office 2007, or the shift from XP to Vista, provides a nice potential point of transition.
This article -- http://www.michaelhorowitz.com/Linux.vs.Windows.html -- gives a decent overview/comparison between Windows and Linux. One small excerpt:
----Begin Quote-----
"In October 2002, ComputerWorld magazine quoted the chief technology architect at Merrill Lynch & Co. in New York as saying that "the cost of running Linux is typically a tenth of the cost of Unix and Microsoft alternatives." The head technician at oil company Amerada Hess manages 400 Linux servers by himself. He was quoted as saying "It takes fewer people to manage the Linux machines than Windows machines." Microsoft commissioned a study that (no surprise) found it cheaper to maintain Windows than Linux. However, one of the authors of the study accused Microsoft of stacking the deck by selecting scenarios that are more expensive to maintain on Linux.
I don't know if there will ever be an objective measure of the ongoing care and feeding costs for Linux vs. Windows."
----End Quote-----
And that last line essentially nails it -- there is a lot of rhetoric and emotion on both sides of the equation, and the "cost" will invariably be tied up in existing talent and institutional history and etc, etc. Good numbers on this are hard to come by, and that's why I often prefer to look at success stories/case studies, as they are grounded in specific contexts.
But I am also always looking for more empirical measures -- I don't spend nearly enough time in that world, so I'm always eager to talk with folks who are more versed in that than me.
Anyways --
Cheers,
Bill
--- On Tue, 2/17/09, TJ Rainsford <tjrainsford@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: TJ Rainsford <tjrainsford@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Back to Netbooks
> To: ISED-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Date: Tuesday, February 17, 2009, 3:19 PM
> I am sure some more searching would produce data on both
> sides but here are
> a few general discussions on the Windows/Linux debate I was
> able to dig up
> quickly.
> http://www.iaps.com/Linux-Windows-TCO-Survey-2005.04.html
> http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2005/04/07/linux_windows_quocirca/
> http://www.quocirca.com/report_linuxdesktop.htm
>
> From the channelregister site, consider this:
>
> "These customers said they're scared to move
> because of what they see as a
> lack of compatible open source software, user resistance to
> change, high
> training costs, high costs of porting bespoke applications
> and a dependence
> on Microsoft's Active Directory. Microsoft is the
> obvious standard on the
> desktop. This makes *any* obstacle a reason to cancel an
> open source move."
>
> User resistance to change costs money as does the training
> costs for
> introducing a new operating system and software
> environment. That is NOT to
> say that this is insurmountable or not justifiable, it is
> simply a cost that
> needs to be recognized when considering a move to a new
> platform.
>
> In my professional experience, I have worked with companies
> who have
> actually considered a move to a open source (particular
> non-profit
> organizations). But when they began looking at what it
> would take to train
> staff, update their internal IT staff skill-set and deal
> with
> interoperability problems, all of them quickly decided that
> the short term
> cost savings would be more than eaten up with mid and long
> term costs.
>
> I should add, however, that this is changing. With the
> advent of Open
> Office 3.0, which is proving to be very stable and
> certainly competitive
> with Office, along with the training impact of Office 2007,
> some companies
> are actually seeing this as a time to change because they
> will need to eat
> the training costs regardless.
>
> My point is simply this: the decision has to be made on
> both the short and
> long term costs. If you have the staff to support the
> environment as well
> as the training capability to bring folks up to speed, then
> there can be a
> compelling argument for open source.
>
> TJ
>
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Bill Fitzgerald
> <dwfitzgerald@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> > Do you have any numbers/studies that indicate that
> using Windows XP offers
> > a cost savings over using Linux?
> >
> > If so, I'd love to see them.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> > --- On Tue, 2/17/09, TJ Rainsford
> <tjrainsford@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > From: TJ Rainsford <tjrainsford@gmail.com>
> > > Subject: Re: Back to Netbooks
> > > To: ISED-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> > > Date: Tuesday, February 17, 2009, 11:19 AM
> > > There is something to be said for the Linux route
> but it
> > > does not
> > > necessarily save you money unless you have the
> technical
> > > expertise to
> > > support it. While it may reduce the initial
> costs, it may
> > > cost you more in
> > > operational costs over the long term unless you
> have the
> > > internal capacity
> > > to support the environment.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [ For info on ISED-L see http://www.gds.org/ISED-L ]
> > Submissions to ISED-L are released under a creative
> commons, attribution,
> > non-commercial, share-alike license.
> > RSS Feed,
> http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?RSS&L=ISED-L
> >
>
>
>
> --
> TJ Rainsford
> E: tjrainsford@gmail.com
>
> [ For info on ISED-L see http://www.gds.org/ISED-L ]
> Submissions to ISED-L are released under a creative
> commons, attribution, non-commercial, share-alike license.
> RSS Feed,
> http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?RSS&L=ISED-L
[ For info on ISED-L see http://www.gds.org/ISED-L ]
Submissions to ISED-L are released under a creative commons, attribution, non-commercial, share-alike license.
RSS Feed, http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?RSS&L=ISED-L
