I think you are right. The skill of being able to convey a compex problem in an eas to understand way is not looked upon as a skill that is worth but nought.
Our business is providing that forthe customer.
We are doing OK just taking OSS and MARKETING directly as if it was a "real" propriatary piece of software! QA,glossy brochures, and the like.
I spent 10 years in product design and know nothing about programming. l
It all seems to make sense. Linux support is more expensive than Microsoft support so your total cost of ownership will be higher.
This report makes sense if you use the same support model for your Linux systems as you would for your Microsoft systems.
The impication is that you need to directly replace your Windows support staff with Linux staff.
This is simply not the case
Linux is designed to be administered and built over the internet. Quiet large companies need no onsite Linux expert.
A simple phone call and most poblems can be fixed remotly. This significantly changes the model.
As for the "easy to use management tools" built in to the Windows 2000 Operating system. They are inflexible and often require you to "reboot" the system after changes are made.
This does not sound like a problem untill you add up four or five server resets and work out how much downtime this adds up to.
If you are using Linux the "server reboot" happens infrequently and then only if really big changes are made to the system.
IDC mention file serving and print serving as a place where TCO is higher.
On a standard Linux distribution I would probably agree. Setting up windows file sharng can be tedious and time consuming.
But why would you choose a standrd distribution for this task.
The Mitel SME 5 and Clarkconnect [to name but two] specilaise in this area. The setup of Windows file shares and virtual disk drives is absurdly easy. It needs no special IT training. [No not even a Windows expert] Printers are supported and appear on your network as though through a Windows server.
For the sake of argument lets chuck a couple of Mac OS9 $ OSX systems for your graphics people and a legacy Solaris server running Oracle in to the mix.
On the two distributions I mantioned both of these will connect and see the same file shares as the Windows workstaions
No you won't need a MAC or Solaris expert. Never mind a Windows expert!
So where is the argument now?
You have no on site Linux staff . You have someone on-site who can deal with day to day administrative tasks [ no IT knowledge required ]and a Windows person who comes in to fix up the Windows Workstaions when they break.
Upgrades are done incrementally for a couple of years and then you have to pay the Linux experts to come and spend the afternoon upgrading the system.
How is you TCO looking?
Slashdot Mirror
I think you are right. The skill of being able to convey a compex problem in an eas to understand way is not looked upon as a skill that is worth but nought. Our business is providing that forthe customer. We are doing OK just taking OSS and MARKETING directly as if it was a "real" propriatary piece of software! QA,glossy brochures, and the like. I spent 10 years in product design and know nothing about programming. l
It all seems to make sense. Linux support is more expensive than Microsoft support so your total cost of ownership will be higher. This report makes sense if you use the same support model for your Linux systems as you would for your Microsoft systems. The impication is that you need to directly replace your Windows support staff with Linux staff. This is simply not the case Linux is designed to be administered and built over the internet. Quiet large companies need no onsite Linux expert. A simple phone call and most poblems can be fixed remotly. This significantly changes the model. As for the "easy to use management tools" built in to the Windows 2000 Operating system. They are inflexible and often require you to "reboot" the system after changes are made. This does not sound like a problem untill you add up four or five server resets and work out how much downtime this adds up to. If you are using Linux the "server reboot" happens infrequently and then only if really big changes are made to the system. IDC mention file serving and print serving as a place where TCO is higher. On a standard Linux distribution I would probably agree. Setting up windows file sharng can be tedious and time consuming. But why would you choose a standrd distribution for this task. The Mitel SME 5 and Clarkconnect [to name but two] specilaise in this area. The setup of Windows file shares and virtual disk drives is absurdly easy. It needs no special IT training. [No not even a Windows expert] Printers are supported and appear on your network as though through a Windows server. For the sake of argument lets chuck a couple of Mac OS9 $ OSX systems for your graphics people and a legacy Solaris server running Oracle in to the mix. On the two distributions I mantioned both of these will connect and see the same file shares as the Windows workstaions No you won't need a MAC or Solaris expert. Never mind a Windows expert! So where is the argument now? You have no on site Linux staff . You have someone on-site who can deal with day to day administrative tasks [ no IT knowledge required ]and a Windows person who comes in to fix up the Windows Workstaions when they break. Upgrades are done incrementally for a couple of years and then you have to pay the Linux experts to come and spend the afternoon upgrading the system. How is you TCO looking?