Part II: Corp. Desktop Linux - The Hard Truth

comforteagle writes "I've published Part II of W. McDonald Buck's essay on Linux TCO. In it he looks at the scenario of a company having already moved to Linux in the server room and also to open source software on Windows desktops, but "...now wants to know, how much extra can be saved by the final step of changing the operating system itself? And, what are the other costs, risks and benefits of doing that. To keep the scenario simple, we're assuming too that this will be done at a time when the desktop equipment is also being replaced. The news is good, but not as good as we like to believe." Part I was discussed previously on Slashdot."

Comments

Kind of an old issue.

[fm6]

The TCO issue is kind of worn out by now. For years now, Linux advocates (and before them, the advocates of network computing) have tried to convince IT decision makers that they needed to get their TCO down by moving away from Windows. I've always thought the argument was a pretty good one, but it's never been convincing to the decision makers, who just haven't been willing to make the necessary paradigm shift.

Microsoft's current inability to handle security issues is much more persuasive. Linux advocates should focus on that, instead of beating a dead horse.

Re:Kind of an old issue.

[Noksagt]

Microsoft's current inability to handle security issues is much more persuasive. Linux advocates should focus on that.

Only if they want to continue to be several steps behind. Most still consider the security to be "good enough." Indeed, the "good enough" argument makes it very difficult to win most arguments on the technical merits of Linux over MS. MS is also making very public moves to improve the security of Windows. You really do have to attack their model & try to force a paradigm shift, rather than to highlight some issues that will eventually be resolved.

Re:Kind of an old issue.

[fm6]

I don't really think focusing on security is going to do it either. Microsoft is making daily improvements in that department.

No, they're making more noise about security. As far as I can see, they're actually losing ground, even though they're throwing more and more resources at the probem.

Go thin.

[QuietRiot]

One way to aproach this situation is to put a large multi-user box in each individual department or workgroup. Keep the windows desktops there, add X-servers, and run some apps centrally.

If the question is licensing, a net-booted corporate (Linux/FreeBSD/NetBSD) desktop wouldn't be too difficult. Run locally what the machine can handle, make sure the network is super fast, and run the apps requiring performance on the workgroup server.

This would reduce the need to upgrade lots of hardware (which will surely be obsolete again soon) and minimize downtime in the process. If need be, some legacy apps could survive under Wine locally or, again, at the workgroup server. Keep storage centralized to facilitate backups across the entire organization (OpenAFS?).

It's an old way of doing things but overlooked far too often. You've obviously got to run the numbers but, surely, "a few good men" handling things on the server (they would handle the app server AND the centralized, consistent-across-the-organization, netboot image(s)) would be much less expensive than the workload on an IT staff required by an office full of people and their problems on Windows machines.

Maybe not *THE* solution, but certainly worth a look for many.

Leaving Windows is probably not a huge TCO savings

[LWATCDR]

Right now you are not likely to save a huge amount of money dropping Windows. The big savings will come from dropping Office for OpenOffice, dropping Outlook for Thunderbird and IE for Firefox. Once you are not tied to Windows only apps then you are free to move to an other OS easily. Be it Linux or Mac.
It is a matter of freedom.

The real question one should be asking is

[xenocide2]

How much and in what ways can a switch improve employee productivity? The author makes a valid point that the 100k saved is minimal in transitioning the OS, but anyone seriously looking to promote Linux from within must be prepared with a host of reasons that translate into a more productive employee. Saving money on IT operations is one thing, but one can be quick to lose sight of the function of computers in the workplace-- make smarter decisions faster.

I get the suspicion that part IV will be the article that discusses this.

Re:The real question one should be asking is

[Vengeful weenie]

I'll give you one very good benefit. The ability to keep users from installing malware, trojans and spyware. Keeping the users out of the system areas is more than enough reason, and will save tons of maintenance time.

One important point is missed here.

[shaitand]

The author talks about the OS transition being "risky". In what way?

The servers and desktop OS are changes that the user is not much concerned with. It is changing the applications which impacts the users. Once you have changed the application set to one that is not windows dependent I have trouble believing that changing the underlying OS would have much impact at all. Basically being able to get rid of the OS fees is an inherient benefit to getting rid of OS dependent applications. After that the workstation OS can be changed at will without significant retraining of users.

Like the servers, the users do not interact with the OS directly, only with the application icons on their desktop.