Op Mon, 17 Jul 2006 23:01:42 -0700, schreef NoNamer:
>
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> What Drives Business to Open Source? Cost Savings
>>
>> From the CIO Magazine Round table...
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | "When it comes to servers, the way forward is Linux, that is very clear.
>> | Today, 80 percent of our servers are running on Linux. Cost is the main
>> | factor..."
>> |
>> | [...]
>> |
>> | "This is why we are moving away from certain proprietary systems, simply to
>> | drive the cost down. It is not so much the cost (upfront discounts) but the
>> | total cost of ownership over three years. Hidden costs pop up everywhere."
>> `----
>>
>> http://linuxbiz.linuxworldnet.com/what-drives-business-to-open-source-cost-savings/
>
> There is no denying that Linux has a much lower *initial* cost - if it
> runs the applications you need - or supports your preferred development
> platform.
>
> Windows has more application support,
If you mean that more applications are built for the Windows platform:
indeed.
But if you mean application updates and the likes, then Windows is way
behind, with no comprehensive means for updating applications from
different parties. Also, the Windows "system" for managing installed
applications is b0rk3d by design. Installing and/or removing of
applications on a more or less regular basis makes the Registry bloat,
often leaves vast amounts of crud behind, and in the end makes the whole
of Windows slow and unreliable, forcing a reinstall of *everything*.
And, of course, the networking/CLI/scripting options for efficient
centralized remote software administration lie somewhere between utterly
pathetic and nonexistent.
> more development platform support,
Well, that one rings true, at least. But this is only because from the
onset, Microsoft recognized the fact that pampering developers, not
customers, is crucial to their business. Once developers create
Windows-only applications, the customers have no choice but to use Windows.
> better integration of its components,
That same integration has by no small amount contributed to the security
nightmare we're all facing today. With dozens of different "execute"
mechanisms built into Windows, its major applications, and even data file
types, people can't trust their computer any more to do what they want.
> and a vastly superior support structure for corporations.
First: Support options from big Linux distributors are often superior to
what Microsoft offers. This is only natural, as support services are their
main source of income. They *must* get it right, or else they're quickly
out of business.
Second: Who needs a huge support structure for stuff that doesn't break
so easily? I'm reminded of what happened to the American TV manufacturing
industry in the early second half of the previous century: RCA boasted a
vast support network, with technicians showing up at your doorstep within
half a day in case of TV trouble. But this was costly, and the TV sets
were priced accordingly. Sony, OTOH, offered TV's that were both cheaper
and more reliable, but no service network whatsoever - and they
subsequently got hold of a huge chunk of the market.
> Not sure I'd trust Linux to run my business...
Linux doesn't run my business either. I do. And I chose Linux for exactly
that reason: it's *my* business, it's *my* IT infrastructure, and *I* want
to be fully in charge.
Windows users, on the other hand, are increasingly unsure who exactly is
in control of their essential means of doing business: they don't own the
software, they can't freely decide what to do with it, and they're heavily
dependent on the whims of both a monopolistic, bullying supplier and a
vast army of malware makers for continued operation - a situation which is
getting more uncertain by the day.
So please don't come up with "trust" as a reason for using Windows.
As has been proven on countless occasions over the past decades, you
cannot trust either Microsoft or its products.
Richard Rasker
--
Linetec Translation and Technology Services
http://www.linetec.nl/
|
|
