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
