Consider what happened to the market for TCP/IP networking software when Microsoft entered. In 1994, there were probably a dozen or more companies publishing and selling TCP/IP stacks and applications to run over those stacks: FTP Software, Beam & Whiteside, NetManage and others.
Then, Microsoft cobbled together their own TCP/IP support in Windows for Workgroups 3.11, and made it almost usable in Windows 95. By 1997, the industry segment had effectively disappeared along with all those little networking companies.
Netscape, like many other vendors in the server market, was crushed by Microsoft's superior sales effort; just like IBM customers could safely buy what they needed from IBM ("no one ever got fired for choosing IBM"), corporate buyers can always safely choose a Microsoft "solution".
However, everything changes and now you can't buy an IBM PC anymore. Eventually, corporations will get hip to the fact that Microsoft-sponsored TCO "studies" are a load of crap and do their own due diligence before committing their company's future on feeding Microsoft's cash cushion.
Check out Microsoft's Get the Facts" white paper library and actually read them to see what so-called "independent" researchers have been saying about Linux v Windows.
You'll be amazed if you go beyond the headlines that Microsoft and the researchers tag onto the papers. There are some seriously Linux-positive data in some of those reports, such as the ones from the Yankee Group about TCO here and here (links are to PDFs).
The text of those reports says things like "few companies are planning to migrate from Windows to Linux", yet the pie charts show numbers like 11% of companies say "We plan a total migration from Windows servers to Linux" and only 33% said "No changes are planned for our Windows servers".
You can also see statistics such as:
5% plan a "total migration" from Windows to Linux on the desktop
15% plan to add Linux desktops but not replace Windows desktops
21% (!!!) plan to "migrate a portion of our Windows systems to Linux". That's a LOT.
The headline that Microsoft puts in its white paper library pages for these reports exclaim "Few Plan to Migrate Windows to Linux" and "Switching from Windows to Linux 'Prohibitively Expensive, Extremely Complex, Provides no Tangible Business Gains'".
Then there are the papers that claim Linux costs more to deploy and support. What the MS headlines fail to point out is that the researchers basically say things like, "Linux may cost more now, but the prices will become competitive with Windows support soon". See the Forrester report here for more details about that.
The bottom line is that you can pull stuff out of context, twist it and spin it until just about anything can be made to sound as if it supports your argument. The "researchers" make it that much easier when they "interpret" data that is neutral or favors Linux to make it sound as if it favors Windows.
Yes, city-dwellers can sell their over-priced home in a great place like New York, Boston, SF, etc. for enough to buy a palace in Nebraska, Georgia, or Wisconsin. But what you can't get in those rural areas:
world-class physicians, hospitals, and other healthcare providers
a varied selection of cultural institutions like libraries, universities, movie theatres, museums, ballet, venues for classical and popular music, dance, etc etc
endless choices of retail outlets for any kind of shopping, including any kind of specialty shopping (but not Walmart)
diverse communities where anyone can find their niche and feel comfortable, even if they are not part of the majority groups that dominate rural areas
no need to drive hundreds of miles every week to go about your normal business
Frankly, I'd rather live in a modest little overpriced house near Boston than a mansion in Kansas. Thank you very much.
Ignore the first four words of the above comment; does that make it more relevant? Microsoft pays lobbyists big buck$ to convince politicians that commercial software means jobs and revenue and growth and apple pie and all things good and American, while free software means communism and no jobs and no revenue and other evil, un-American stuff.
It doesn't matter what's true and what's FUD. You can't avoid dealing with politics and politicians and lobbyists if you want to make changes in the way governments work, and that includes using free software.
Slashdot Mirror
Consider what happened to the market for TCP/IP networking software when Microsoft entered. In 1994, there were probably a dozen or more companies publishing and selling TCP/IP stacks and applications to run over those stacks: FTP Software, Beam & Whiteside, NetManage and others.
Then, Microsoft cobbled together their own TCP/IP support in Windows for Workgroups 3.11, and made it almost usable in Windows 95. By 1997, the industry segment had effectively disappeared along with all those little networking companies.
Netscape, like many other vendors in the server market, was crushed by Microsoft's superior sales effort; just like IBM customers could safely buy what they needed from IBM ("no one ever got fired for choosing IBM"), corporate buyers can always safely choose a Microsoft "solution".
However, everything changes and now you can't buy an IBM PC anymore. Eventually, corporations will get hip to the fact that Microsoft-sponsored TCO "studies" are a load of crap and do their own due diligence before committing their company's future on feeding Microsoft's cash cushion.
Check out Microsoft's Get the Facts" white paper library and actually read them to see what so-called "independent" researchers have been saying about Linux v Windows.
You'll be amazed if you go beyond the headlines that Microsoft and the researchers tag onto the papers. There are some seriously Linux-positive data in some of those reports, such as the ones from the Yankee Group about TCO here and here (links are to PDFs).
The text of those reports says things like "few companies are planning to migrate from Windows to Linux", yet the pie charts show numbers like 11% of companies say "We plan a total migration from Windows servers to Linux" and only 33% said "No changes are planned for our Windows servers".
You can also see statistics such as:
The headline that Microsoft puts in its white paper library pages for these reports exclaim "Few Plan to Migrate Windows to Linux" and "Switching from Windows to Linux 'Prohibitively Expensive, Extremely Complex, Provides no Tangible Business Gains'".
Then there are the papers that claim Linux costs more to deploy and support. What the MS headlines fail to point out is that the researchers basically say things like, "Linux may cost more now, but the prices will become competitive with Windows support soon". See the Forrester report here for more details about that.
The bottom line is that you can pull stuff out of context, twist it and spin it until just about anything can be made to sound as if it supports your argument. The "researchers" make it that much easier when they "interpret" data that is neutral or favors Linux to make it sound as if it favors Windows.
Yes, city-dwellers can sell their over-priced home in a great place like New York, Boston, SF, etc. for enough to buy a palace in Nebraska, Georgia, or Wisconsin. But what you can't get in those rural areas:
Frankly, I'd rather live in a modest little overpriced house near Boston than a mansion in Kansas. Thank you very much.
Ignore the first four words of the above comment; does that make it more relevant? Microsoft pays lobbyists big buck$ to convince politicians that commercial software means jobs and revenue and growth and apple pie and all things good and American, while free software means communism and no jobs and no revenue and other evil, un-American stuff.
It doesn't matter what's true and what's FUD. You can't avoid dealing with politics and politicians and lobbyists if you want to make changes in the way governments work, and that includes using free software.