Linux in business

On Jan 21, 2004, at 9:00 AM, Craig White wrote:

> On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 20:18, Chris Gehlker wrote:
>> On Jan 20, 2004, at 3:40 PM, Joe Toon wrote:
>>
>>> People could case less about operating systems. the fact that not a
>>> lot of "suits" showed up is not terribly surprising. For many people,
>>> that probably sounds about as fascinating as having a tooth extracted
>>> or attending a meeting on new GAAP accounting regulations or similar.
>>>
>>> What business people respond to is costs. Plain and simple. If they
>>> can do something to increase profits, then they are all for it. If
>>> you
>>> truly want to get business people excited about deploying Linux, then
>>> you have to show them that others have done it and have been very
>>> successful at increasing the bottom line.
>>
>> Here's what worked for me with some small businesses and non-profit
>> orgs.
>>
>> 1) Find a business with 3-5 users and an aging box running Win 2000
>> server
>> 2) Let MS pre-sell them on the need to upgrade to Win 2003 server
>> 3) Show them the savings they can achieve by moving to Linux/Samba on
>> their existing hardware
>>
>> Note: I think of this as client service. It's incidental that it
>> introduces them to Linux.
> ---
> the fact of the matter is that Windows 2000 server runs well enough,
> uptimes are quite good and are easier for a non-tech to maintain (i.e.
> -
> setup domain user accounts, back up, etc.)

Well this was a total brain fart on my part. It's Windows NT4 server
that is approaching end of life and that is what MS is pushing
customers to replace with Win 2003 server.
>
> The issues are not necessarily cost or ease of use but is about lock up
> / tie up / and subjecting a business, your business, to the corporate
> whims of Microsoft. They require licenses for everything you do, and
> obtain the right to inspect your software, your premises and your
> computers by virtue of simply installing the software. You don't own
> the
> software, merely get a license to use it, which is non-transferable,
> meaning you have to continually repurchase the right to use it. More
> than anything else, Linux represents an element of control over their
> computers that they will never get from Microsoft. The money factor is
> a
> red herring that most businesses will only view as peanuts.

This has not been my experience at all. The issue is cost first, ease
of use as distant second. The other issues you mention are simply not a
factor. The small businesses that I deal with simply don't believe that
MS will ever inspect their businesses.

Honestly Craig, half the small business people I deal with have no
real concept of what an operating system is. They have been through a
few upgrades of the applications, often specialized databases, that are
the real reasons that they have a computer in their business. When the
upgrading the application required upgrading the OS, they went to
someplace like CompUSA who told them, they needed a new computer. They
can't be blamed for having the impression that Windows is built in to
the computer. They probably think that office is built in as well since
it's bundled.