Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Higher TCO is Better for the Enterprise

__/ [Aragorn] on Sunday 16 October 2005 18:56 \__

> On Sunday 16 October 2005 19:43, Roy Schestowitz stood up and spoke the
> following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.advocacy...:/
>> So we all know that *nix environments are far more stable than many
>> alternatives (I dare wintrolls to argue against it) and we also know
>> about further advantages due to the diverse amount of software, which
>> can be installed without monetary constraints. That given, in
>> *unix-oriented deployments:
>>    * There is less need for code to be written  and
>>      customised in the enterprise. Everything is in
>>      fm.net or sf.net already.
>>    * There is less of a need  for IT staff  to ever
>>      get involved in operation. Servers just  don't
>>      require  critical  maintenance  (updates)  and
>>      remain up for months, if not years (reboots).
>> So, Linux sucks, right? It makes people redundant as it simply has the
>> ability to cope on its own without outside intervention. I know many
>> organisations that need to demonstrate 'competence' by proving that
>> they throw some money (budget) at something, as well as provide their
>> employees with chores, or else they would become redundant and bitter.
>> Corollary: Windows makes everyone happy [sarcasm]. Budgets get burned
>> and people do not get bored. I sure know I get bored when the
>> portmaster stays up for over 100 days. That's why I'm here all the
>> time chatting...
> Nice post! ;-)

I'm glad you liked it.

> Yes, we could add that Windows makes people happy because Windows is
> based upon greed and aimed towards users with lower intelligence, and
> people are greedy and unwilling to think. ;-)

Allow me to add some context. I work in an academic  environment but  I
am also involved in the IT services. I can't foresee a situation  where
the head of IT  turns  away  money, saying to the Vice Chancellor:  "We 
are very grateful for your budgetary allocations, but we do not need  2
million pounds to retain our network  infrastructure (made up example).
Moreover, we would like to clarify that most of our existing staff will
have merely no duties as the computers these days are highly endurable,
in contrary to a past state-of-affairs."

Windows leaves people in the same morbid state that  they  have  gotten 
accustomed to and quite complacement with. Any  infiltration  of  Linux
into the machine room and cluster would mean that the IT manager  will,
in due time, have to post more letters sacking redundant staff.   Money 
would surely be saved due to the lower cost of  machines (I  bought  my 
last Linux box for GBP 140+tax),  software, and  staff  running  around
saying to the people "well, the E-mail you composed was lost  when  the 
computer crashed, so let's try to re-surrect it". It doesn't work. Lin-
ux has simply outperformed humanity and breaks a certain equilibrium in
a world that was supposedly (IT bubble) going to be filled with comput-
er geeks and IT professionals. They are barely needed, so let's just f-
ace that fact and re-adapt. If you need proof, see earlier thread titl-
ed "killing me softly", which I think is an excellent phrase/song title
to express what is happening in our industry due to Linux and OSS.

It is a blessing, not a curse. Let's just learn to accept it.


Roy S. Schestowitz      |    Roughly 2% of your keyboard is O/S-specific
http://Schestowitz.com  |    SuSE Linux    |     PGP-Key: 74572E8E
  7:00pm  up 52 days  7:14,  5 users,  load average: 0.19, 0.31, 0.32
      http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index