* James Mohr (suse_mailing_list@jimmo.com) [030610 23:02]: ->> ->It's usually decided on a "what is everybody else running" or "what did ->> ->that guy say that I played golf with last Saturday" ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This is what I was commenting on. ->> Yep. I've seen this first hand. I was part of a migration team several ->> years ago that took Anheuser-Busch from a working Lotus email system ->> that worked very well and had a group of 22 ->> admins+techsupport+management. This occurred when "management" above the ->> "email group" decided that the company MUST have Exchange and Outlook. ->> The migration took 14 months because none of the email group had the ->> slightest clue how to do any of this..let alone setup that big of an ->> Exchange server farm and convert all those clients. Had they stuck with ->> their current setup they could have upgraded cheaper and had it done in ->> 30% of the time. -> ->The thing is, we are already running Outlook and Exchange, we have already ->invested the money. So what I hear you and many others saying is that ->regardless of how much it costs the company, we should just switch to Linux. ->It doesn't matter that we are already working at least 10 hours a days, as ->well as often on weekends to meet deadlines and the fact we have laid off ->about 5% of our employees already, we should invest the time and money to ->convert the system to Linux. So we have to work even longer hours to meet our ->deadlines, just so we can install Linux workstations. Sorry, despite my ->fondness for Linux, your arguments are illogical. You missed what I was commenting on so the above statements are meaningless. My story above was about how upper management "outside" the email group made the change for no good reason at all because the Lotus Solution that was in place would have been easier to upgrade. Maybe a another reading of what I wrote and what I left quoted in the message for my response would be a very large clue. :) -> ->> It's never the geeks or their direct managers in most large to medium ->> size companies that make the decisions and it's CERTAINLY not for ->> economic reasons 9-10 times. It's a case " oh boy that CEO's company is ->> using *blah* so I MUST use *blah* or we won't be competitive..." -> ->Hmmm. Let's see if I understand your equation You didn't understand the entire point of the posting...so the equation isn't an issue. ->competitive <> economics. In 1998 it was about competitive edge today it's about getting that edge via an economically sound solution. Which maybe just sticking with what you have and gradually migrating or migrating when/if you ever need to. ->Hmmm. If you are not completive, you don't get the contracts and don't get the ->money from the customers and then you go out of business. That's not ->economic, right? Hmmmmm. Sorry, I guess there is a misunderstanding somewhere ->about what economics is. If you are talking about **home** economics and ->baking cakes, then I would agree with you. However, I was talking about the ->economics of staying in business. Completely misunderstanding. I'm quite aware of competitive business. I work for a telecom and we've been in the dog house for sometime as far as Wall St and most of the perceptions of the people in the U.S. business market are concerned ... but ya know what..maybe we should start baking since I seem to know a bit about it. *grin* ->> These ->> days it's becoming partly economic since quite a few companies just ->> can't afford Microsoft wares and the headaches they bring with them. ->> But it takes some early adopters to get the other PHB's at the country ->> club to sit up and take notice an say " I must have that..." -> ->Yes, and we cannot afford to migrate. Again, economics. In my last company, ->Microsoft had pretty good arguments why their licensing "saved" money (pre ->L6). Yes, if you upgraded Windows and every MS applications every single ->time a new version was available, it would be cheaper. Completely untrue. If you spent money every time they wanted you to upgrade when you had software that worked well for you and your support staff knew how to make it work for you then upgrading every time would be tossing money out into the garbage can. ->cheaper = less money = economics Yes, Linux and Open Office are cheaper in the long run after the migration to the software is complete. The problem is that we have quite a few people in the IT industry that know nothing but what they work with ..it's true on both sides of the fence. I see it day in and day out with the people I work with. The Unix guys don't give a crap about Microsoft and the Microsoft guys don't give a crap about UNIX..they stay within their comfort zone of what they know and like. I happen to be an anomaly and know both so the economics of my career is that I'm expensive. ;) -Or am I missing something? Granted the "savings" meant spending more money on ->the upgrades (we had so many employees that we were continually upgrading ->systems). However, the decision to go with that licensing was based on a ->perceived belief that money would be saved. You missed the point of what I was commenting on .. and I'm sure that your company did what it perceived as the right thing based on it's fixed skillet of the people working there. ->So, why is that not economics? I guess the economics of it would be that it's cheaper and safer to keep people within their comfort zone. The management can be comforted that they have a perceived company to take to court if something goes wrong. The IT staff stays within their comfort zone because they know what they have to do and know how many hours they have to work and Microsoft is kept in their comfort zone because they've locked in the business. My original comments were just about how upper management of many corps. make decisions that have no input from the technical staff and that the use of a lot of software comes down to marketing to people who know nothing..along with the mentality of " Jack (non descript CEO name) has a BMW, so I must have a BMW or I'm not with it. " And this way of thinking is not only silly ..it's extremely economically unsound. Welp. I'm off to bake some muffins. ;) -- Ben Rosenberg ---===---===---===--- mailto:ben@whack.org The IQ and the life expectancy of the average American recently passed each other going in the opposite direction.