[plug] alternative business strategy?

[Quintin Lette]

>
> Sorry; I don't buy the reeducation costs. IME, it's equivalent to
> going to a later version of software.

and lets say where not going to a later version?
>
> The biggest IT costs (after licences) are in support. That's where
> the major spending occurs; moreso with Windows-based systems that
> need to keep working than with more robust environments.

I don't buy that...most of the Windows based server systems I manage
(100+ Production Servers) on a day to day basis are robust and stable.
BSODs are generally a thing of the past and properly managed Service
Packs don't cause that many problems. I have the same number of issues
with Linux / Solaris servers, and patches break things there too.

> Have you considered for example the cost of the ATO issuing new
> certificates? Every business has spent between 2 and 8 hours trying
> to get the damned ECI working as it was before the upgrade. That
> tens to hundreds of millions of dollars worth of IT support.
>
yes agreed, ECI sucks... how long would it take you to get it to work
on Linux???
(by the way how is this related?)

> Every time M$ lets a SurprisePack escape, something stops working
> and it takes millions of hours in aggregate time to fix the problem.
>
see above, its your own fault if you apply a Service Pack without
testing first. (It happens on Linux too)

> That sort o
> Of course they need tools to do the job. The name of the game is
> howver one of continuous improvement to make everybody more effective
> in what they are doing. And in the big picture of IT, that means
> that people need to be continuously trained and encouraged to learn
> so that they can better understand the purpose of what they are
> doing. That results in greater creativity, innovation and
> efficiency.

well go out and create those tools then, just don't expect to be paid
in advance while someone waits for tools they could already have by
using what they are already using. If you can get someone willing to
participate in that agreement by all means, just don't be all high and
mighty about it.

>
> If you want to avoid training costs, and keep doing things like you
> have in the past, then even for the NFPs, that'll result in them
> being out-paced by "competitors".
>
its not just training costs, there are loss of productivity costs too
(which still exist with a platform upgrade too but by a much lesser
extent since all of the apps they use are still there!)

> That's only because Publisher files are fairly common.
>
That was my point! thats why they cause a problem!
 >
> Don't guess. Governments are all looking very seriously at OSS as a
> means of preventing them being tied into proprietary formats.
>

doesn't mean they will give you money for it:)

> Grants take *years* to obtain. See if your stamp-collecting club can
> get a grant.
>

not true! 3-6 months is usually acheivable for some government IT
grants if you have the right type of business and know what your
looking for. As for a stamp-collecting club thats another matter
entirely.

>
> It's not easy. Another view of the IT picture is that the move to
> OSS is future-proofing. It not only means that you don't have to pay
> for the licence fees this time around; but that you never again
> have to pay for the licences/upgrades.
>

as long as it can do what you need now, and can be modified to do what
you'll need in the future I totally agree, like I said before I am by
no means pro MS, I've just seen too many times companies have been
burned by OSS roleouts and spent MORE money reverting to MS because IT
WORKS. I work for a service company and get paid the same no matter
what I'm supporting so I don't particularly care, although I would
prefer to do more Linux / OSS software I doesn't really faze me.

> The other advantage with OSS is one of competitive support. Patches
> to OOo can be made by anybody. Ignore that official patches are
> free of charge; and look at the typical time to fix the problem; or
> even to add desirable features.
>

The Publisher issue has been an issue for years and its still not there.

> >I actually feel that its much more achievable for regular businesses
> >since the licensing cost easily exceeds $2000 per seat for the full
> >suite of Microsoft products, but in either case, it is only really
> >feasible if they are about to take on a major upgrade anyway, hence
> >already requiring retraining of staff members. Remembering also that
>
> You appear to assume that even adequate training of staff takes
> place. It'd be a novel concept for almost every business that I've
> seen.  Training is limited to pressing the blue button to dispense a
> banana.
>

self training is still training, cost is loss of productivity. An
engineer going around showing someone around the new system is still
training, then you have cost of support and loss of productivity. Just
because it doesn't happen in a structured matter doens't mean it
doesn't count. But yeah I guess I deal with larger businesses because
semi structured training is often part of any major upgrade I'm
involved in. (its extremely rare I'm at businesses with less than 20
users, and mostly its over 100)

> There's always time for massive cockups, but never time to train.
>

you need to be more persuasive then!

> >any organisation using Exchange will have a hard time moving as there
> >is no real OSS equivilent, and Exchange connectors for Evolution suck
> >(try using public folders) if you want to just move away from office
> >first.
>
> Exchange is evil. I can give you a million reasons why it is so.
> The greatest evil is that it tries to do everything.
>

give up on the high and mighty!!!! it does what its designed to do
well, yes its insecure and buggy as hell, but it is still a very good
collaboration tool, and moving a business that uses it effectively
(there are a lot!) is very difficult

> It's very pretty. But it's not, from the Outlook perspective,
> intuitive for people to use if efficiently because it is trying to
> hide the underlying complexity. It obfuscates its purpose and
> thereby causes confusion. Hence few people use it for little more
> than a corporate address book and mail server.
>

again, smaller clients? or ineffective installation and training?
selling an IT solution isn't all about the hardware and the software,
part of the deal / your services should be getting them using it
effectively.

> Those that beat their forehead against the CRT hard enough, and try
> to utilise everything that Exchange should be able to do are
> frustrated by the lack of others being able to collaborate because
> it's a very steep learning curve with no sign posts or guard rails
> to stop the bind-folded novice from plunging into despair.
>
> A combination of simple tools is a far better business choice if you
> want people to be able to learn to use them with minimal training.

again your assuming a fresh start / micro business, if they are
already using it you will have trouble moving them. I have been
involved in large scale migrations from Exchange (and the users
usually end up unhappy) I've also been involved with migrations to
Exchange because they couldn't get what they wanted out of anything
else.