-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
____/ GPS on Tuesday 19 May 2009 21:18 : \____
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>> How to Talk to Your CIO/CTO About Using Linux and Open Source Inside Your
>> Company
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | So does that make this a prime time to be suggesting new or expanded
>> | uses of Linux and open source software to your CIO or CTO to update and
>> | improve your company’s IT systems?
>> |
>> | Actually, that’s not a bad idea, according to several industry analysts
>> | and experts who talked with Linux.com to offer their hints and tips on
>> | how to broach the subject and make an effective business case for wider
>> | Linux use even as the economy remains difficult.
>> |
>> | [...]
>> |
>> | Analyst Donald A. DePalma, president of Common Sense Advisory Inc. in
>> | Lowell, MA, said today’s tough economic environment gives you another
>> | key point in talking up open source to your executives.
>> |
>> | “In this market, its amazing how things are being turned on their
>> | heads,” DePalma said. For years, one corporate argument against open
>> | source has been about the uncertainty of support. But today, as even
>> | proprietary vendors are being pressured, there are no longer built-in
>> | guarantees of long-term support for the applications and hardware you
>> | are using today, he said.
>> `----
>>
>> http://www.linux.com/news/enterprise/biz-enterprise/10672-how-to-talk-to-
> your-ciocto-about-using-linux-and-open-source-i
>
> I think this may be a bad idea in general, and especially at the moment.
> Most companies are trying to make ends meet right now. To radically change
> the architecture from Windows or another proprietary system (say an embedded
> RTOS), to a Linux-based solution is not a good decision with anything of
> sufficient value. This has happened before with some companies, and the
> companies often notice the following patterns:
>
> 1. they lose customers
> 2. quality degrades
> 3. new bugs appear
> 4. deadlines slip
>
> Why do I believe this happens?
>
> 1. moving between systems (even POSIX-based) usually results in some
> configuration, build, or runtime problems. Linux is not fully POSIX
> compliant, but it is mostly POSIX compatible.
> 2. changing the system architecture from a Windows API to a Linux API is
> often a very involved task. It's not a 1:1 translation.
> 3. developers need to be retrained, and thus costs grow.
> 4. good unix/linux developers are not generally as plentiful as with other
> commercial systems.
> 5. users need to be retrained, if the frontend changes.
>
> There are other factors, but I think I've made my point. The industry votes
> with their feet.
That's a common (and seemingly -- in isolation -- reasonable) argument which
comes from one side of this debate, but Red hat begs to differ and it delivers
the number to support the claim that, at least on the server, this depression
may actually be hastening migrations. Sun made similar claims.
- --
~~ Best of wishes
An aristocrat's sexual escapades equate to Technocrat's hot RSS feed
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
00:20:01 up 76 days, 9:38, 2 users, load average: 1.22, 1.36, 1.41
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkoTTi4ACgkQU4xAY3RXLo73IwCfdcODQCmlqo/tMwTOja1pYifK
cGQAmwcUmlsAB28wVt/eU7w299jiBnq+
=ZpcO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
