Hi,
I'm currently doing research for a company about the possibility to change from Windows 2000 to Linux.

Apart from the costs involved with this migration, there is also the part of convincing the big chief that Linux is in fact the better solution.

So, basically my general question is 'what makes Linux so special that a company would abandon Windows?'

Some related issues:
If Linux is so much better, why aren't more companies switching?
Why would Dell abandon the support for Linux and go in close partnership with Microsoft?
If Linux is so 'treatening' for Microsoft, then why is Microsoft concentrating on getting ready to go into close combat with Unix instead (could Longhorn be a breakthrough)?

Linux is a relative new OS, especially compared to the ancient Unix. So isn't it a bit too soon for a company to risk changing to a system that is still in it's 'early' development?

If someone can answer part of these issues that would be already great

Of course, this could easily result in a debate comparable with the tiresome 'Unix vs Windows'-one. But if someone has some hard facts (bosses like numbers and graphics, you see ), please post some links

Thanks

"If Linux is so much better, why aren't more companies switching?"

They are

"Why would Dell abandon the support for Linux and go in close partnership with Microsoft?"

Money

"If Linux is so 'treatening' for Microsoft, then why is Microsoft concentrating on getting ready to go into close combat with Unix instead (could Longhorn be a breakthrough)?"

It's dependent on the area of the market it is looking at, linux is generally perceived to be a mid level server / desktop threat, with the bigger boys of AIX, HPUX maintaining the bigger high end threat. but many of their tactics are aimed against all unixes, including Linux

i'd very much suggest you either search this site, or use google to find better answers, just make sure you don't use too biased a source. there are so many comparisons out there, it be a shame to just trot out all the uninformed reasons here yet again.

The fact is that for a company the siwtch to linux is more expensive at the beginning but in the long term it pays off. The Deutsche post made its transition to Linux and this is what happened to them:


TRANSITION:

1.) Free operating system
1.a) Buying support from free operating system developers

2.) Some of their hardware was supported in Linux
2.a) Most of their hardware was not supported by Linux (printers, Win modems)

3.) Errors occured, troubles rised
3.a) Buying support again from experienced linux freaks

BIG COSTS in transition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOW:

1.) Own experienced Linux freaks.
2.) New hardware that is supported in Linux
3.) Errors are fixed easily

COST efficiency is up and running (free os, own freaks, stability)

So you see that transition to Linux is not just that easy (I'm not talking in numbers, so I don't scare you off linux (but their costs were very big, but then again they are one of the biggest posts in the world))

If you decide to switch to Linux, first see what equipment you have and see that Linux supports it, otherwise you will have to buy new stuff. See where you will get support for Linux and how much that will cost you. OS is free and that counts for something. But keep in mind that Linux is still on a more experienced user level.

>So, basically my general question is 'what makes Linux so special that a company would abandon Windows?'

The special thing about Linux is thats not owned by one company. There is no
per seat price to pay, no need to keep track of licences for applications.

Besides, it has matured to be quite easy to handle with regards to setup and
installation of programs.

As file or mail server, there is no longer a reason to pay MS for such functionality as
you can get it costless from the net and it does offer the same level of functionality and performance.

For desktop, only those who doesnt require special applications can make use of linux.
You can use Open office to get something close to MS office.
Most of our users are quite happy with it.
A linux office setup works as well as a MS based one, and its much, much cheaper.

It took some time to get all things working together, but after that it as good as the old nt4 server
in any regards.

Hi,
thanks for the (fast!!) replies

i've looked around for info about the deutsche post, and found some interesting information about governments choosing linux over windows.

i know there are more than a few companies switching, but are we talking about small-midsize or the major ones (with at least a couple of thousand employees)? And, which ones? And why?

Money (cost-profit) could certainly be an issue. however, as mentioned by marghorp, linux is not as cheap as it looks. sure, it might be a license free OS, but let's face it, support is not as tight as with Windows.

are there perhaps any figures or numbers available from companies that use Linux now, that prove it's financially better in the long run? And not only financially, but also in performance.
There's a bunch of benchmark test and they all contradict each other, so it might be a better way to just look at the results of companies that know it from experience.

it's these kinds of facts that i need. companies are almost always chicken when it comes to new things, so they value references pretty high, as long as it contains facts, not something like 'its stable and costs less'

Thanks!

You can have a look at the suse references here: http://www.suse.de/en/company/custom...ences/all.html

I am sure redhat has someting similar.There is also a lot of info on the ibm website.But it all depends what the customer wants to do with it and what the current IT people there want.If any kind of change gets sabotaged by middle management it might not be worth the headache.

There are a lot of cost comparisons but those will essentially prove anything you want to depending on who made them.