To switch a company over is so expensive its not even funny. Not to mention downtime alogn with many other aspects.

lets say for the sake of argument 90% of the computers have Windows on it. Linux has like 5% and Mac has 5%. Now figure on this Apply that ratio to a company population. All those people alreayd know how to use Windows. Also more then likely almost all of them have used and are well versed in MS Office. Now suppose you decide to make a corpoarte switch to linux. The extended cost may be cheaper (Though in actuallity cost in the IT department are not overly high I know shocking but Operations cost can be cut mant other ways)

First off you have the downtime in actually switching ALL PC's to Linux. That is a lot of time and money lost. Second you now need to retrain many employees probably all of them. More lost time and money. Now As for the Programs. Openoffice is good but I don't know realisticlly MS Office is a lot better IMO and more powerful in the corporate enviroment. Plus a lot of people used it and don't need to learn it. Open Office while similar to Office still is different is soem aspects and people would need to relearn it a bit. Also a lot of companies use very customized software like SAP and many other highly custom apps. Already written for windows and already paid the high costs of having it written and implemented. Other things like AutoCAD do not have a linux version and thats a damper on there too. Also for a company enviroment the OS wouldn't be free and you would pay the extra costs of the licenses just so you can have tech support who knows about linux until you retrain the ones you have.

in the end its not cost effective. Many companies would probably losose too much money to make its justified. Some people can find the switch easier but realistically not too many. Also Windows is relatively stable in the office enviroment most programs are used system wide and not too many people are allowed any program they wnat on there so less liekly to crash. Plus in an office enviroment if someone really wanted onto the network it wouldn't matter what OS you are running so its not a matter of security. As such the mainframes are usually running a form of UNIX so yeah....

I think everything has it's place. For the casual windows user that just has to open up or write a word document occasionally then I thing Open Office is the way to go. Looking at Newegg's price for M$ Office it's about $200. I'm not saying every workstation I'm saying half. You know the half that the only time they do anything with a word document is when someone sends them something or the most they do to a document is change the font and bold a few things. Take the $ you save from installing office and tell people they could either have M$ office or OO and a T-Shirt that says "I ditched the office" and I bet half would take the T-shirt.

The company I work for is converting to Open Office. Most people that work here can figure things out for themselves and I think the conversion has been pretty smooth. People aren't going to know OpenOffice immediately but it's not that hard to learn. I think 90% of the company will be able to open or write a document without any help and the other 10% are morons that should be fired.

Well where I work our site alone has 8000 persons and other sites have more or a little less. But in the end we end up with a lot of people corporate wide. And to switch that many over is too expensive. Also remember after a certain point the licenseing scheme for Office is just a flat fee for the company we call them Unlimited licenses. So it would really be useless to try and switch. I mean you still have 4000 thousand PC's at one site alone that needs to switch and the other half stay the same the cost is euqal. Actually probably more now because now you have yet another program tech Support needs to worry about.

its just not feasible in my eyes. Plus I still don't think open office is as robust as MS Office.

only 3 programs???

does that include windows background tasks??

Because if it does, Windows will never get round to running any user started programs!


About switching to Linux, it would be very costly and inefficient to a company currently using mainly Windows. Retraining the staff would probably cost the most. Open office would probably not do for most businesses, but there are other, more powerful publishing applications. Unfortunately, the console isnt such a good place for linux newbies!

What would be feasible is to slowly introduce linux. For example, IBM has made it optional to put Linux on your workstation in the UK and many of their server based and testing pcs use linux. This begins to get the staff using linux without having to retrain them. I think this is a better solution than a whole overhaul of the system!

I think you have the wrong link Graeme43. That company produces software that modularizes
windows. With it you can completly eradicate IE and other windows services. Quite nice if
you are forced to live in the windows world. I think this is a futile effort by MS to reduce
piracy.

Go ask "Ernie Ball" how much it ACTUALLY costs to switch a whole company over to Linux in less than 6 months. """I know I saved $80,000 right away by going to open source, and each time something like XP comes along, I save even more money because I don't have to buy new equipment to run the software."""
<< http://news.com.com/2008-1082_3-5065859.html >>

Besides, any money it costs to switch to Linux is a one-time payment. Windows licenses are forever. And, just wait until MS starts rolling out annual maintenance fees... Either pay us every year for software you already "own", or pay more next time you buy Windows.

You don't shut every computer off at once and not turn them on again until they have Linux running. You migrate to Linux, just like you would to a newer version of Windows. Heck, just like you will to XP SP2, if you're smart. Convert a couple desks over. If it works, do a couple more. And a couple more. And pretty soon, the company is converted. Sure, everybody could lose a couple days of work while their computer is being switched over. Wait until they go on vacation, and they don't lose any.

Is a modern KDE set-up so much different than a Windows desktop that nobody will be able to handle it without hours of retraining? Login -- there's a tough one. Click the "e-mail" icon on the desktop and send/receive e-mail. Click the "internet" icon on the desktop and start surfing. Click the "writer" icon and open OpenOffice.org's Word equivalent. Same for "spreadsheet", and "presentation". Sure, there might be a bit new to figure out in the latter couple, but unless you have complete idiots working for you, I would think most people would be able to handle the change without having an aneurism.

"Realistically", a helluva lot more companies could switch without any problems. Sure, Linux isn't the answer for every company. Neither is it impossible if there isn't an exact replacement readily available... Ernie Ball had a few proprietary programs they had to re-implement, but they did.

Have you worked in an office IT department? People seem to think it's their God-given right to be able to install anything they want on "their" computers. They don't seem to equate the computer with company property. Would they put a sunroof in their company car? No. Would they install some "nifty" program they downloaded off the internet that comes with a dozen different malware programs? You bet your @$$ they would. Would they loan their company car to their 14-year-old? Maybe, but hopefully not likely. Would they loan their company laptop to that same 14-year-old so he could leave it at the food court at the local mall? Twice!

I helped a nursing home become HIPA complient, and you should have seen all the crap people had running on company computers... Mostly screen-savers and programs that check something on the web every couple seconds, and games. Even temps who will only be there a couple days think they have the right to do whatever they want with the computer.

So then will they be running pirated versions of XP Lite?

Kent

Most likely. Or they'll just carry on using the full version - what would give them the incentive to switch?

He's right. We did a conversion for 500 users (Win 3.1 a few years ago now) by first building the pcs. Then, when the users went off for a half day training we installed the new pcs. It went seamlessly and there were no problems. The users love it because all the knowledge is still fresh when they return and there are no surprises. Plus, the users will likely never need to see the command line - evrything will be in the gui and if you put their programs on the desktop also (the more common ones, that is) they will get used to it quickly.

Yes - I absolutely agree with this. The number of times I have heard "Why won't my computer work after my son/daughter/wife/husband/etc installed this program from the internet". You can only mention the company use policy to low levellers - directors just want it fixed. Installing Linux will cut down on this because of incompatibility, security and not having install rights.

its amazing what a great arguement this started

w00t^

(i have no productive input really, fun to read though )

I didn't mean it so much as turn off every PC and install it the same exact time but unless you plan on working weekend groups of people will not be working.

I work at AstraZeneca and thats how i have been basing a lot of my comments off of. Since we specialize in the R&D of drugs Linux is not viable I guess from a pureley office use only standpoint maybe its viable but its still not to the point where companies would be willing to switch. Remember a lot of companies have a special focus. Like ours is R&D so all those programs that are used for R&D run on our windows machines. Architectural firms probably use AutoCAD and I really don't know anything better then AutoCAD. Engineering companies may use things like Pro Engineer etc.

i have nothing against linux at all but someone asked why more companies don't make the switch and I gave what I thought were legitmate reasons.
1) Custom or Specialized Windows Software
2) People's Reluctance to switch to somethign different. People hate change like that ask how many people enjoy when the IT department switches to a newer version of software. Its very rare that people don't complain.
3) It can become expensive.
4) It does take time. Do you think its easy to turn over a couple thousand PC's to a new OS? Why do you think a lot of companies are still using only Win2k and not XP? The reason is not because of security although probably partly the reason but more so it can become a big pain in the butt.

500 is one thing but multiply that number by 16. And the people who have trouble grow as the number goes up. So what could be a few dozen people who are "complete idiots" in a smaller company can end up to be like a 100 and its not because they are idiots but because its something new. And given that Office is a common enviroment that they have been using for years switching to OpenOffice is a major thing. IMO anyways

I see I never did touch the original question...It's partially about controlling the computer builder. Nobody will be buying a boxed version of XP Starter. It's to be pre-installed by the builder. Even here in the states, MS tries to control what OSes a shop installs on computers by controlling the price of Windows... If you install only versions of Windows, you get a better price. If you install competing OSes, then you get a higher price.

By creating a cheaper version of Windows, they will get it installed on new systems rather than the shop installing Linux or selling OS-less computers. That way, MS not only makes a couple bucks, but then it is up to the consumer to remove XP Starter and install Linux or a pirated full XP. Some people won't bother. Some shops won't support anything than what they install.

I will personally say that I did not consider the small problems, but overall linux in the workplace would be a good thing for companies.

[q]
Why would somebody pay for a cut down Windoze XP that's got reduced functionality when you can get a fully functioning Linux for nothing?
[/q]

Yes, this is about what comes pre-installed on computers bought under a Thai government sponsored project to provide affordable computers to the public.

Last year the response from Thais was huge and so I think MS realised that they were facing a situation this year of 10's of thousands of new computer users having Linux as their first computer experience and understandably they freaked.

That said, IMHO it will backfire, because with XP Pro copies openly on sale for less than 4US$ the ever savvy Thais are simply "upgrading" to Pro on the way home from collecting their computers .

It is a pity for Linux though because now there are two completely Thai language distros available, one based on Slack 9, another on RH9, and a Thai port of Open Office also. So less knowledgable users are being forced to use a crippled version of an inferior operating system and still having to pay for it when they could have a full blown OS in their native language for free.

links:
www.opentle.org
www.buraphalinux.org

mark

Sorry, what I should have mentioned is that that was just one office. Over a 3 month period our team of 10 carried out 3000 installations of pcs and servers around London and the South East of England - there was no weekend working involved.

The way we did it was to first build everything back in the office, ship the kit to the office one day, return the next day and install while the office got their one morning or afternoon of training.

There was no inconvenience to the office - all their phones were diverted to a nearby office while they were out, then they returned the favour when the next office was out.

It is doable, it just requires coordination and planning.