In article <3039218.7O1HWJXssS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> Think about why they announce the migration in the first place, instead
>> of just quietly doing it. All the reasons to announce it would apply
>> again when it is complete.
>
>
> No, we totally disagree on that. I believe you are not even convincing
> yourself here. You don't need to win every argument. Just accept that a
> press release like "Lower Saxony Converts Last Box to Linux" would be
> uninteresting to the general public and, in most cases, utterly
> unnecessary. The media would rather discuss a *new* migration plan, of
> another company/region. Media has *priorities*.
There are two reasons companies talk about these things. One is to try to
get publicity. This leads to press releases for all kinds of things, many
of which are not picked up. Nevertheless, the companies issue the press
releases. It is extremely unlikely that a company would not issue a press
release for a successful migration, even if no one seems interested.
Second, for a public company, if they announce their plans to migrate, then
there is likely a fiduciary duty to also announce the results. Amazon, for
example, did do this. Their successful migration from Unix to Linux was
reported in their SEC filings, and then widely reported in the press. Here,
for example: <http://news.com.com/2100-1001-275155.html?legacy=cnet>
One of the Linux magazines or websites should follow up on all the migration
announcements, and find out how they are going. That would be very
informative.
--
--Tim Smith
|
|
