[PLUG] How to explain benefits of Linux for corporate droids?

[Russell Evans]

<opinion>
I don't have an answer for this, but it got me to thinking about why I would
choose Linux over Microsoft products if I was building a company. 

The thing I think about when thinking about companies is that they are mostly
able only to travel in one direction. You don't see many companies that have
changed direction survive. It seems that once a company has committed to a
path, there isn't a way to turn back. The only way to change directions is to
stop. If the company doesn't have the resources to get the business moving
again, or has other paths (the company is really multiple companies) in motion
to cover for the stop, then the company dies.

The other thing I think I know about business, is that profitability is about
doing the same thing time and time again in an efficient manner. Thing being
deliver the product or service. Companies that are successful manage to do this
with more than one thing. Companies that can only do this with one thing
survive until the climate changes. I don't think they can really be considered
successful because it is probably only a matter of time before they fail.  

In order to survive the company as to be able to deliver multiple products or
services no matter what the environment is like. As I can't know what tomorrow
will be like, I have to assume that tomorrow will be worse than today and plan
for it. From the two things, I think I know about business, (I make no claim
that these are true), I would want to know that in five maybe ten years, I will
be able to use the same tools then as now, as this may be my only choice. I
base some of opinion this on Y2K. All that money was spent because the
companies with old tools still needed them to work on 1-1-00 and didn't know if
they would. Why they didn't have any other choice is irrelevant

Looking at Microsoft for the last five years, is there any tool that that MS
was making then, that has support now? How about being able to buy a five year
old product?

What is the past five - ten years like? Are those enterprise systems built with
SQL 2.0 still able to do their job or has everything have to have been updated
to SQL2000? Did that call for change the client  / database code? What would
have happened if those times were bad and the company couldn't have upgraded?
What if you couldn't afford to rebuild your enterprise code but you need more
capacity? Say you needed to put up another SQL 3.0 server, how would you if you
can't by it anymore. (I have no clue if you going from one version of MS SQL to
another requires code changes, but I would know if I was in charge of making
those types of decisions). Is MS a dead end if you can't keep paying? Is there
a company that hasn't had to entrench? It seems, from my ignorance, that the
choosing MS products could cost the company dollars, when pennies are precious,
and that would seem unwise choice.

If I gave Linux tools the same test, I think the answer would put me more at
ease than MS. Most of the tools I have seen are posted with all the old
releases. Even now we have gcc 3, GTK 2 and KDE 3 coexisting with their older
siblings. Not to mention being able to boot a generation change in kernels,
Let's see, possibility of a MS 3.1 app working in WIN2000, possibility of a 10
year old app running on my Linux box, I think the answer is in the past.

Way up at the top of this I said a company has to have multiple products or
services to succeed and that profitability is in the efficiency of delivering
those services. So if were talking backend technology the more products you can
support with less backend the more profitable you will be. So I start a
business and I have my first product. the company builds tools to support that
new product and reach the point were it can provide that product the same way,
every time. Now it need it's second product to survive a change that undermines
the first. The chances are that there is some time between the first and second
product, and there are probably new tools available. With MS it seems new and
old can't coexist. Can I run SQL6 and SQL2000 on the same box? The company is
building a new product infrastructure, it  learned from it's last deployment,
and it needs the new features in order maximize the efficiency of the second
product. The MS solution seems like it would need a new physical infrastructure
as part of the new infrastructure. It seems that a Linux solution would
leverage the existing physical infrastructure. This could help keep the cash
flow in balance as the companies expenses are going to go up during this
expansion.

So company now has the base needed to survive. The company has two product
deployments under it's belt, It wants to implement all it's has learned and a
new infrastructure to handle the increasing business. With the MS solution the
company has already spent the second budget allotment for infrastructure so it
doesn't have that option or is required to spend again. With the Linux solution
the company saved, drew interest, and can now spend even more on growth. The
company improves the efficiency of the first product using the new tools and
the acquired knowledge. The new infrastructure provides for the growth of the
current products and  the company now has a platform for a third product. This
seems more efficient as you only spend what is needed, and are in control of
the pace of your technology. The dependency of more boxes for more products
seems to be replaced in Linux by more with less.

More with less is something I haven't heard said in a while but with the new
economy, I'm sure it will come back in fashion.

</opinion>

Thank you
Russell


On Fri, 02 Aug 2002 08:05:19 -0700, Alex Daniloff said:

>  What arguments other than cost and license fees can be made to
>  convince
>  executives to give Linux a try.