Why Linux will win and Micro$oft will lose

[Matt Alexander]

On Sat, 10 Nov 2001, George Toft wrote:

> Short version: Converting to Linux costs much, much more.  An
> example is presented for a "hypothetical" local company converting
> their desktop to Linux.  Result is that it will cost over
> $900K - just to avoid a $150K license.


I agree that trying to switch a medium or large company COMPLETELY over to
Linux in one big move would be rather painful.  Small companies could make
the switch much easier.  However, George seems to be suggesting that
companies are stuck with Windows forever just because the switch might be
more costly.  I know of many companies that would like to get out from
under Microsoft's licensing thumb, so I would recommend to them that they
spend some time/money bringing their IT help desk support staff up to
speed on Linux (this is what I'm doing now at my company) and then slowly
deploy Linux in areas at first where it's the least disruptive to business
needs.   For example, everyone in our call center needs occasional Web
access, email access, and a telnet client to access the billing software
on our Unix servers.  So for them, it'll be a relatively easy switch if we
take it slowly.  For some of the other departments, such as HR or
Marketing, we may never be able to switch them over to Linux entirely
simply because of the Windows-specific apps they use and the complexity of
their needs.  This is perfectly acceptible to me.  We can run a mixed
environment and just not upgrade the Windows boxes.  I predict that other
companies with an interest in using Linux on the desktop will have to run
a mixed environment for a long time as well with the long-term goal being
to migrate as much over to Linux as possible.
~M