> > We don't need no stinkin' pity!
> > I'm going to pity the poor saps who chose MicroShaft technology in
> > first place. After the last two rounds of expensive upgrades, W2K is
> > going to cost them plenty. This from ZDNet today (disregard that ZD
> > famous for M$ bashing, Giga seems to favor M$):
> > "Giga [Information Group] found that installing or upgrading to
> > 2000
> > Professional will cost approximately $970 to $1,640 per desktop
> > Installing or upgrading to Windows 2000 Server -- once the product
> > been
> > stabilized -- will cost approximately $107 per client, for a typical
> > network
> > of 5,000 users. For an enterprise with 5,000 users, the total
> > cost of
> > upgrading to Windows 2000 Professional and Server would be
> > approximately
> > $1,077 to $1,747 per user even if an organization replaces all of
> > desktop
> > hardware."
> > You do the arithmetic. Then ask yourself who really pays for it all.
> > the companies - they just calculate this as one of the costs of
> > business and pass it along to the consumer.
> > This will certainly make the free upgrade to Linux look awfully
> > attractive, especially since little or no hardware upgrade will be
> > necessary.
> What makes you think the upgrade will be any cheaper ?
> Taking into account staff retraining, software costs, hardware costs
> The licensing cost is a tiny proportion of that estimate, so the money
> simply because Linux is "free" will be next to nothing.
> Additionally, the support costs will probably be higher.
Currently, at our work, we have a ton of workstations. The majority of
the cost for upgrading them comes from software. We already pay someone
full-time to monitor our network (WindowsNT), so we would pay no extra
to have that person either replaced or retrained to handle a Linux
system instead. The fact that we use the market standard and most
user-friendly interface does not take away from the fact that we have to
hire someone to supervise us ANYWAY.
Our work is sessional (kinda like seasonal), so much of the off-time
could be used to make the transition as smooth as possible. Hardware
costs are hardware costs -- they don't alter too much, and what we do
use could easily be supported under a common Linux distro.
We also do some programming on the side (we specialize in publishing),
but our major costs for Windows software limits us in our decisions to
keeping with VBA (ugh!), or spending a small fortune for a few licenses
of VB. If we had Linux, we'd have access to a bunch of free compilers,
Tcl/Tk for the user-friendly quick-fix stuff and gcc for the more
high-performance stuff. Would we have to relearn a few things? Sure.
But, since only one of us has computer science training we're learning
new things ANYWAY.
Just a real world example that shows your counterargument to be full of
bunk. Windows sucks. It limits the extent to which we can grow.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.