5 ms·

This seems semi-reasonable over 29000 systems. The reality is enterprise support for linux systems is the one variable i don't really see discussed here. This

by Cuuugi 9y ago

This seems semi-reasonable over 29000 systems. The reality is enterprise support for linux systems is the one variable i don't really see discussed here. This is Microsoft's bread and butter for a reason. Organizations prefer an easy upfront cost rather than complex, support intensive solutions.

rkangel 9y ago
I'm not sure the level of support needed for Windows systems is much different to that of Linux. There will be an associated cost in both cases.
- mijoharas 9y ago
  Also, I'd argue that IT support for linux is much easier to provide (and therefore, _should_ be cheaper, I can't say whether it is or not).
  - oblio 9y ago
    It depends on the type of support. I'd expect a place such as the city hall to be somewhat low tech, regarding user sophistication levels. And in such an environment most of the support requests are the "where did the button go?" type. A switch to Linux has a good chance to increase these types of requests, at least in the near term.
    - rbanffy 9y ago
      Users should not be fiddling with the parts of the environment that change between Windows and Linux. Users should not be sticking USB sticks, setting up printers and so on. They should run the programs they are supposed to run in order to work.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
        Maybe they have to touch those things in order to make their workflow optimal, or even work in the first place. One of my big issues with the Linux Desktop community is this attitude that they understand your workflow better than you do. You ask how to do something and you get variations of "don't do that".
        rbanffy 9y ago
        I wouldn't assume whoever designed the specific desktop implementation and the software these people run is completely naïve about their workflows. > You ask how to do something and you get variations of "don't do that". I usually add "do [something appropriate] instead, which will solve the problem and not introduce a [horrific IT risk]".
        AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
        Except that, again, you're making assumptions. You're assuming you know why they are trying to do what they're asking about, that they haven't rejected the 'more appropriate' solutions for reasons that are quite possibly outside their control. I have been in this situation a fair amount and it is like pulling teeth to get some people to answer a simple question.
  - coliveira 9y ago
    I think that the main problem when it comes to Linux support is that people who really understand Linux/UNIX have an easier time finding better paying positions. Lower paid IT workers tend to hang around the MS ecosystem. This shows up in the cost of maintenance for Linux solutions.
    - cjalmeida 9y ago
      I think so. Hiring half decent Linux support staff would be a nightmare. Window support staff are cheap and abundant. Not to mention the off the shelf outsourcing providers. IT in most large organizations already happens in India. Love Linux and use it as my main desktop. Supporting corporate wide? Big no.
      - camus2 9y ago
        AFAIK Accenture engineers were handling linux administration of Munich municipality so recruiting admins was not the issue.
        e12e 9y ago
        It's funny, I read: "AFAIK Accenture engineers were handling linux administration of Munich municipality" as confirmation that hiring half-competent team of Linux admins is difficult. But I confess to being biased to the corners of Accenture that I've been previously exposed to...
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    - user5994461 9y ago
      Linux is a lot harder to maintain and it's usually for servers (read: important), companies pays for the experience. Any dude who can administer Linux should rebrand himself to devops and double his rate. Windows is easier to maintain and more intuitive. There is always a dude who can make it work with a bit of point and click. People who can administer both will eventually end up on a Linux jobs because they pay more and they don't risk being the monkey who maintains the printer.
- Cuuugi 9y ago
  Fair, it depends on the use case(s). Because of the ubiquity of Microsoft, most of the applications i require are Windows based. I imagine this is true for a lot of businesses as well. Nothing against, Linux for the desktop but enterprise wide is a big difference.

by Cuuugi 9y ago

rkangel 9y ago

I'm not sure the level of support needed for Windows systems is much different to that of Linux. There will be an associated cost in both cases.

mijoharas 9y ago
Also, I'd argue that IT support for linux is much easier to provide (and therefore, _should_ be cheaper, I can't say whether it is or not).
- oblio 9y ago
  It depends on the type of support. I'd expect a place such as the city hall to be somewhat low tech, regarding user sophistication levels. And in such an environment most of the support requests are the "where did the button go?" type. A switch to Linux has a good chance to increase these types of requests, at least in the near term.
  - rbanffy 9y ago
    Users should not be fiddling with the parts of the environment that change between Windows and Linux. Users should not be sticking USB sticks, setting up printers and so on. They should run the programs they are supposed to run in order to work.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
      Maybe they have to touch those things in order to make their workflow optimal, or even work in the first place. One of my big issues with the Linux Desktop community is this attitude that they understand your workflow better than you do. You ask how to do something and you get variations of "don't do that".
      - rbanffy 9y ago
        I wouldn't assume whoever designed the specific desktop implementation and the software these people run is completely naïve about their workflows. > You ask how to do something and you get variations of "don't do that". I usually add "do [something appropriate] instead, which will solve the problem and not introduce a [horrific IT risk]".
        AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
        Except that, again, you're making assumptions. You're assuming you know why they are trying to do what they're asking about, that they haven't rejected the 'more appropriate' solutions for reasons that are quite possibly outside their control. I have been in this situation a fair amount and it is like pulling teeth to get some people to answer a simple question.
- coliveira 9y ago
  I think that the main problem when it comes to Linux support is that people who really understand Linux/UNIX have an easier time finding better paying positions. Lower paid IT workers tend to hang around the MS ecosystem. This shows up in the cost of maintenance for Linux solutions.
  - cjalmeida 9y ago
    I think so. Hiring half decent Linux support staff would be a nightmare. Window support staff are cheap and abundant. Not to mention the off the shelf outsourcing providers. IT in most large organizations already happens in India. Love Linux and use it as my main desktop. Supporting corporate wide? Big no.
    - camus2 9y ago
      AFAIK Accenture engineers were handling linux administration of Munich municipality so recruiting admins was not the issue.
      - e12e 9y ago
        It's funny, I read: "AFAIK Accenture engineers were handling linux administration of Munich municipality" as confirmation that hiring half-competent team of Linux admins is difficult. But I confess to being biased to the corners of Accenture that I've been previously exposed to...
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
  - user5994461 9y ago
    Linux is a lot harder to maintain and it's usually for servers (read: important), companies pays for the experience. Any dude who can administer Linux should rebrand himself to devops and double his rate. Windows is easier to maintain and more intuitive. There is always a dude who can make it work with a bit of point and click. People who can administer both will eventually end up on a Linux jobs because they pay more and they don't risk being the monkey who maintains the printer.
Cuuugi 9y ago
Fair, it depends on the use case(s). Because of the ubiquity of Microsoft, most of the applications i require are Windows based. I imagine this is true for a lot of businesses as well. Nothing against, Linux for the desktop but enterprise wide is a big difference.