Recently, the Linux Foundation has apparently been pointing out that the struggling US economy may cause businesses that are looking to cut cost to switch to Linux. I completely agree, but there is potentially even more to it than just the struggling economy.
From the perspective of a business executive faced with having to cut cost somewhere, what would you cut? Almost anything that the customer sees directly is out from the start, so that leaves very little. One thing it does leave, though, is the IT budget.
Now, from an IT department’s perspective, think about what you would do with this reduced budget. Not only do you have to be careful not to spend too much on standard day-to-day costs, but there is a good chance that you were considering an upgrade soon. Why? Because the release of Vista may have had a lot of companies waiting to upgrade. Then, when Vista was not well received, many businesses probably just kept on waiting. Now, the IT department is faced with two options: forget about the upgrade and wait even longer or use Linux.
While neither the financial crisis nor the bad reception of Vista are in any way good, they do create an opportunity for Linux to take a step forward in business.
Related posts:
I’d love to believe that Linux doesn’t cost more in IT support costs than Windows, but it just isn’t true. It has nothing to do with the actual software, and everything to do with the giant mass of human capital that Microsoft has in having a mass-market product. There are way more M$ IT, so they become a dime a dozen. It’s all about supply and demand – if you only have 10 Linux support guys within 100 miles, then their cost is going to be significantly higher than the 10,000 M$ support guys.
I remain pondering the issue of /migration/ *cost*.
I fear that IT managers might feel that an unknown system to them (Linux) might cost more in terms of support in the longer term. Unfounded, but heck, we have gone to war in the past over totally unfounded info. . . . .