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

Honest question

[Gob Blesh It]

I didn't start looking into this recently. But is it really impossible to: (1) encode MP3s and AACs, (2) render text using TrueType kerning tables, or (3) take advantage of subpixel rendering, on Linux desktops, without breaking patent laws? With all the hype surrounding Linux on the desktop, I have trouble believing these common activities could be illegal, but nor have I seen anything indicating otherwise. What's the deal?

(And please, no Stallmanesque rants about how intellectual property should be abolished. I don't have the patience for these ill-conceived prescriptive arguments.)

Pixelate

[QuietRiot]

It did seem offtopic at first... but...

Out of the 3 you mentioned, subpixel rendering is actually the one I was thinking could prove most useful in a corporate environment. It *does* help, and with the number of LCDs making their way onto desktops today, this feature would benefit free systems (free system users) in a big way.

Whether or not the boss will take your eyestrain into consideration when choosing a business platform is another question altogether.... :)

Re:Kind of an old issue.

[kbielefe]

I think you hit the nail on the head about TCO. Any switch is going to be painful and expensive in the short term, making TCO comparison only useful in the long term. The problem is TCO is extremely difficult to predict in the long term, especially for a highly customizable environment like Linux.

I also think that most people that use Linux didn't originally switch because of cost. For myself, I put Linux on a spare laptop when I was doing contract cgi programming and wanted to be able to work offline. It was many years of off-and-on experimenting with various distros and purposely buying hardware that would be Linux compatible before I permanently erased my Windows partitions, and a couple of years after that before it really saved me any money. I suspect most Linux advocates have similar stories.

I don't really think focusing on security is going to do it either. Microsoft is making daily improvements in that department. I believe that focusing on reducing the switching cost will have the most benefit. When the short term cost is low, it is easier to see the long term cost reduction.

What does that mean? Advocate choosing OS and vendor neutral solutions when your company is making a change anyway. Advocate creating documents in open formats and do it yourself. Help make free software easier to install and configure. Help make Linux easier for the Windows administrator or CTO to install at home and "take for a spin."