On Wednesday 11 June 2003 08:37, Anders Johansson wrote:
On Wed, 2003-06-11 at 09:54, James Mohr wrote:
Or am I missing something?
Yes, the long term view. More money over the next 10 day period can mean considerably less money over the next 10 year period.
Very, very important and significant word there "can". Yes, it **can** mean less money in the long run. You seem to be assuming that it is always the case the spending the extra time/money now for Linux will save money.
Granted the "savings" meant spending more money on the upgrades
Words fail me
(we had so many employees that we were continually upgrading systems). However, the decision to go with that licensing was based on a preceived belief that money would be saved.
So, why is that not economics?
Again words fail me. You were spending MORE money on the PERCEIVED BELIEF that you were spending less, and you ask why that is not economics???
Because in the real world, budgets are typically defined on much, much, much shorter time frames than 10 years. If you are a public company or are owned by someone who is not directly in the company, then you are probably expected to turn a profit **every** year. You have a hard time convincing non-IT people to invest $200,000 in time and money to save $20,000. You will have a very hard time convincing them that Linux will "save" money. Regards, jimmo -- --------------------------------------- "Be more concerned with your character than with your reputation. Your character is what you really are while your reputation is merely what others think you are." -- John Wooden --------------------------------------- Be sure to visit the Linux Tutorial: http://www.linux-tutorial.info --------------------------------------- NOTE: All messages sent to me in response to my posts to newsgroups, mailing lists or forums are subject to reposting.