On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 03:35:27 at 03:35:27AM +0200, Anders Johansson (andjoh@rydsbo.net) wrote:
It would cost more time to convert everyone's workstation to Linux than we spend on Microsoft licenses. It is **not** economically sound to switch.
I'd like to see the math behind that assertion.
I asked officially in my office why we shouldn't switch. The official answer, math included, was: Cost of one (Windows + Office) license = less than cost of (x manhours of IT time to reinstall everything on one PC) + (y manhours of training to the new platform, estimated to 3/5 working days) (x + y) above *is* at least four times bigger than one license, almost everywhere in the western world. I do see, as you will too, several flaws in the calculation above. I also partly agree with what you say below, but you wanted *their* math, I gave it.
And please don't let the analysis end the day after the conversion. I know it isn't fashionable these days, but sound economic analysis should be longer term than "what will the stock price be next tuesday"
"Sound economic analysis", as you define it, belongs to politics (in the idealistic sense of "acting for a better society", not of jumping of any party's wagon). It doesn't, by definition, belongs to the way business is made in the current western world. Ciao, Marco Fioretti -- Marco Fioretti m.fioretti, at the server inwind.it Red Hat for low memory http://www.rule-project.org/en/ Real Programmers don't play tennis, or any other sport that requires you to change clothes. Mountain climbing is OK, and real programmers wear their climbing boots to work in case a mountain should suddenly spring up in the middle of the machine room.