On Saturday 10 November 2001 16:18, you wrote:
> Joining the battle . . .
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> Long Version:
> There in only one reason Linux will not monopolize the desktop,
>
> and you said it:
> > The all American Dollar rules. What becomes
> > a standard is determined by economics
>
> Big companies spend big bucks.  Big bucks demand support
> contracts so the Board of Directors and every manager all
> the way down the food chain can point the finger at someone
> else when XYZ app breaks.  Let's take a big financial
> organization here in the valley that has a blue box for a
> logo.  Do you think they are going down to Fry's to buy
> bargain boxes to put Linux on?  The decision makers are
> taken out to lunch/dinner/golfing by the IBM Sales Team.
> (Did I mention the CEO of one company is on the Board of
> Directors for the other?)  That way, if there is a problem
> with the computers, IBM is on site in a flash with a replacement.
> And it runs Windows NT, so all the users can use Visio, Word,
> Excel, and Lotus Notes.
>
> So now you might say, let's migrate them to StarOffice and
> some Linux Notes Client (which, by the way doesn't exist, but
> you can kludge it under WINE).  Big companies (big money) are
> so entrenched with the Windows technology on the desktop, they
> will never switch.  The migration simply costs too much for
> the benefit gained.
>
> Let us convert 3000 users from Windows to Linux.  We save 3000
> licenses.  But they come with the computer - part of that per
> computer licensing plan from Microsoft.  Sure, we can buy
> boxes with Linux preloaded from IBM, but MS gets their royalty,
> and the box costs the same.

So lemme see if I have this right.  After dumping good money on the computers 
and software that doesnt work, no one is going to try to just install Linux 
on the old boxes?  Linux doesnt need the latest and greatest cpu and all the 
attendant hardware just to load and run superbly.
>
> For argument's sake, let's say IBM discounts the price by the
> Windows License (assume to be $50).  We just saved $150,000.
> Now train 3000 users (assumed employee base for local blue box
> financial company) for 1 hour on how to use it.  We just spent
> $36,000 and have nothing to show for it.  Consider lost
> productivity as the users get used to the new look and feel.
> Assume 50% less productivity for one week and we just lost
> another $720,000.  Add to that the users copying their files
> from the old computer and personalizing the desktop, and you
> lose another half day, for another $144K.

Training the employess to use KDE is NOT going to take an hour - not even 10 
minutes.  Sit them down and let them go.  They can - and will - be as 
productive as they were on their Windows box.  As for personalizing, is that 
what a big company is going to do?  Of course not - they want standardization 
so that they can minimize tech support and maintenance.  We dont want to 
mention the size and cost of the support staff between each product, do we. 
>
> So, how is it that Linux saves us money?  We just spent $900K
> to avoid paying $150K in licensing.
>
> The only way Linux will save money on the desktop is in small
> companies, or very early in the IT adoption process.  We have
> to avoid the labor-intensive migration costs.
>
> An alternative plan would be to cut labor costs 84%, then it
> will be cost effective, putting out $12/hour worker at $2/hr,
> which is not legal in that industry.
>
> George
>
I agree that the almighty dollar is king.  Unfortunately when that dollar 
becomes scarce, even big companies seek cost effective solutions to their 
problems.  Locking themselves to a continual hardware AND software upgrade 
cycle will cause them to think twice.  No, maybe they wont switch 100% or 
even 50% this time, but they will look.  Next time, their choice will be more 
obvious.