Hi, Michael.
Michael Havens wrote:
> This means that for practically nothing you can have
> an operating [system] that is superior to Microsoft's
> operating system with similar application programs.
I respect the effort, but I think the message needs to
take on the facts of the case a little more directly.
The problem is that there is a tremendous commitment
to existing *applications*. "Similar application
programs" means "close but no cigar". If you don't
respect an application that is doing the job, and
recognize the need for continuity and compatibility,
you can't talk effectively about the whole business
case.
Microsoft is where it is because they have made it
pretty easy to put an application in place that
non-computer types can work with easily, or even
in some cases *enhance* easily. An organization can
get itself pretty deeply committed to this stuff,
and there is a serious money cost to dig them out.
I work for a company that has a very serious
commitment to Unix, and growing use of Linux, but
the office I'm in is deeply and genuinely entangled
in Excel and Access "ad hoc" applications that
make or save the company a lot of money. It's
painful to watch, but not at all easy to turn around,
because "doggone it, people like it!".
That doesn't mean you don't have a case. It's just
to say that the case needs some development.
Vic
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)