On Wednesday 11 June 2003 08:38, Ben Rosenberg wrote: <snip>
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. :)
I stand corrected.
->> 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.
That's part of what I am getting at. Particulary when our customers *demand* that our products work on Windows, we need to make sure they do. <snip>
->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.
I disagree. If you upgraded Windows every time a new release came out, it would be cheaper than buying a brand new license every time. That how it works.
->cheaper = less money = economics
Be careful of the other meaning of "cheap". With a lot of OpenSource that meaning applies, unfortunately.
Yes, Linux and Open Office are cheaper in the long run after the migration to the software is complete.
Ben, that is an **extremely** important issue: after. During the migration you have costs in terms of both money and most importantly in many time.
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. ;)
I have to ride the fence. In our situation (as well as for many companies) making a conversion (dare I say "upgrade"?) to Linux does not make business sense.
-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.
Granted.
->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.
Granted. But if it is along the lines of "I must provide my proposal in MS-Word format because that's what the customer wants and what the competion does", then is is economically sound. If I create a presentation that looks amaturish because of some "cheap" software when trying to negotiate a $10 Million contract, **that** is "extremely economically unsound". At that point whether the software licenses cost $20,000 or nothing is really a moot point.
Welp. I'm off to bake some muffins. ;)
Save some for me! 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.