Windows NT is now coming to an end. So now Linux seems to be the obvious choice for these companies to switch over rather than paying the large expensive lisencing fees >.<

Any products u guys have in mind to server migrate to Linux?

there are free distro and commercial distros with support. choose what is the best 4 u. a server is usually easy to setup anyway...be it on win or unix/linux

there is a product called solvit at resolvo. Seems workable? what if we are talking about large coperations and the liscensing fees to upgrade form Nt to windows 2003 is huge

At my opinion, Windoze makes perfect workstations (far better than linux) but you have to be quite crazy to just think to run a server on it.
Windoze got very bad user separation (users can mess with some system files, "system" is higher than administrator), they ate more ressource (who need a darn GUI for a file server anyways? ), got less than adequate server hardware support (ooooops on the hdd died? sorry, BSOD up your face), plus there is some silly services/feature I dont wish to see in my server (no, silly wizard, I dont wish to associate my msn to my administrator login... wait what's that messenger thing that pop-uped me an ad?).
I'm sold to Unix server since a long time, sadly, most companies just like the "point and click" easy way and are ready to pay big money for this... I'll do as my boss says, but I don't think paying 30 000$ to get pantsy looking wizard is a deal

Moving over from Windows NT to Linux is not exactly an inexpensive proposition. I'm an instructor at the local college here where I live, and I constantly have to remind my students that the cost of the OS is not the only thing an organization has to take into consideration when deciding what to do with an aging infrastructure.

The key that Windows provides to those who are faced with the recently ended support for NT 4.0 from Microsoft is legacy system compatibility and current staff skill sets. You can't do a direct switch-over to Linux if you've been working in an all-Microsoft environment. There are other factors involved.

1) Does your current staff's skill levels allow you to move over to a Linux operation?

1A) If not, what costs will be involved in getting your staff to such a level? Does an organization have the time to let OJT take effect? There's going to be a lot of downtime because your staff is ill-equipped to install and manage a Linux environment. This is going to cost money, as well. It might be more cost effective to send them to training, but it's still a cost that could be in the thousands of dollars - which may offset any savings an organization would take by switching to Linux

1B) Another alternative is to simply hire new staff members who have the skills required. This is going to cost money, as well. Mainly because you don't want to simply fire those who are not up to speed on Linux. So now you have more staff than you may need. Morale issues will most likely come up, causing further problems.

2) What about all of your current systems that are running in your Windows environment? Suppose you have an Exchange server running. That's certainly not going to run on a Linux platform. So now you've got to deal with the time and costs of porting your data over to the new system. Again, this alone could negate any cost advantages you would have gained by switching to Linux. Other software concerns abound, as well. If you have proprietary systems running, you'll need to port them over to Linux. Depending on how they were developed, this may not be an easy task. Not to mention the data for those systems, as well.

I find it amusing that people seem to think that organizations will save money by moving over to Linux. I've been in the IT industry for 12 years, working in various levels of administration and support during that time. I've learned a lot about what it takes to implement a network organization. Cost is always a factor in every aspect of what you do - it will always be one of the first questions asked by upper management.

Moving an organization from one environment to another simply because you don't like the first one isn't a good business decision, either. You hate Microsoft. That's fine. But don't make that the sole reason you move out of a Microsoft-based environment.

Pity you don't lecture in economics. You seem to be missing the point here, that it is not only the OS that adds cost to any change of software architecture. Whle I agree with you vis-a-vis training costs etc. You seem to have forgotten all of the hidden costs associated with an upgrade of Window$. Let me throw a few things in the pot,
For example: Micro$oft Office= $$$$$ for every machine, Open Office = FREE. Anti Virus software on Window$ = SSSS, usually for every machine, On Linux = FREE, Client licence 5 User on Window$ =$$$$$, Client licence 1,000,000 user on Linux = FREE. These are just a few examples. Do you get the picture. So, if you extrapolate all of your arguments up to the sort of sizes where savings become effective then those savings by changing to Linux are HUGE, couple that to the now very mature GUI based Linux distros, and the question of whether to move becomes more a question of when.
Just my 2c worth

Since when do you run Microsoft Office on a server - which is what we're talking about here, isn't it? And why would you need to upgrade your version of Office just because you switch Windows OS platforms? Windows has never required you to upgrade your back-end or front-end software products when you do an upgrade to the OS. So the costs of upgrading your front-end office suite is nill, here.

As for the Client Access Licences, Microsoft does not require you to buy new ones if you already own CALs for your current Windows product. And all Windows workstations products come with the appropriate licenses

You mention the costs of upgrading standard office productivity software, which is fine because there is a readily available and highly compatible and stable Linux-based product that can take its place easily enough. But companies don't have just office-productivity software tow orry about. There's also your accounting packages that need to be ported over. For small companies, who can get away with off-the-shelf products made by Peachtree, Intuit, etc., there is probably a decent Linux variant that can easily be ported to. But your big companies have big investments in very complex products that use backends such as Oracle or SQL Server for tracking data. There's going to be a huge investment in porting the data over from those systems to a Linux-based equivalent, not to mention the training necessary to get your staff up to speed on the new stuff.

To say nothing for any other kind of specialized software that the company may use - whether customized or not.

I never said that there wasn't any costs in upgrading a Windows environment to the latest versions. But to say that there aren't any costs associated with moving from Windows to Linux environment is going to save you a lot of money, in my opinion, is false. In my experience, I believe the costs are probably equal.

I agree that Linux has come a long way in the last few years - especially on the desk top. And I will never say that Linux isn't a viable option for business and home users. I think Linux is a great operating system. But I don't agree that the TCO for Linux is less than Microsoft, in the long run. And I most certainly don't agree that switching to Linux for the sole purpose that you don't like Microsoft is a good business decision.

Its true that there are many concerns like u mentioned SchadeBoy. Some of the concerns u have highligted are valid. however there are cooperations that switch over to a Linux system successfully and without much fuss. One example would be the national Library Board of singapore.

http://www.resolvo.com/world/resourc..._Study-NLB.pdf

it also seems Asian countries are slowly catching up especially countries like Singapore, malaysia government are adopting a more pro-linux environment. is it true that Windows never require you to switch the frontend OS when you upgrade the back ends? At least the liscencing fees of Windows 2003 for every server will be daunting, no to mentioned the OS lisence fees and maybe additional CALs. If we are talking about a file and print server, a Linux is as equally efficient as windows workstations.

Some of the benefits Linux brings to a business is

1. Greater cost-effectiveness and ROI
- No lisence fees

2. Increased security and reliability
- immune to Windows-based viruses and security viruses
-Synchroniization of accounts across sites done through SSL encrypted connections

3. High scalability and manageability

There are existing products that simplifies the migration process for server migration and There is a new product version of MoveOver that can perform migration for multiple Pcs and multiple profiles at one time which will greatly assist the migration process and cost.

But u did bring up a concern for all IT managers that want to switch over to a Linux based systems

1. IT managers know that Linux is reliable and of low cost, however as managers they are trained to look at a long term cost not a short term one.
2. There might be hidden cost such as employing Linux Technicians which may cost more.
3. Given that the companies that offer service support for Linux (like the RedHat) are still losing money, they are not sure that all their requests for maintenance and upgrades will be met with timely responses.
4. Software applications compatability issues

But i believe now that IBM, Intel, HP, Sun are advocaters of Linux and there are more Linux services companies rising up, i believe its a matter of time before Linux will be a contender for the server market.