[kwlug disc.] "people don't respect what they don't pay for"

[Randy Metcalfe]

On 20/09/2007, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday at mindspring.com> wrote:

> well, that last suggestion isn't really an option. :-)  i just thought
> it was worth considering that those of us who are steeped in the
> history of open source know all the arguments for it right down to our
> bones, and can rattle them off without even thinking.
>
> but in cases like the above, there really may be times that those
> arguments simply won't have any value.  if someone's corporate IT
> environment involves lots of Windows and IIS and SQLServer and VSS,
> and it's in their budget, and it works for them, how can you argue
> against it?  maybe you just can't.  if someone's happy with what
> they've got, there simply *is* no counter-argument.
>

In this situation, a corporate IT decision-maker needs to look at more
than just the software. They also need to see what the skill set is of
their staff (as well as other criteria). If they are all Windows
Certified Engineers with no Linux experience, then a migration to
Linux creates a change cost that may not be justifiable. That's why
the argument for IT decision-makers is usually that they should go
with the best available IT solution at each decision-point in their IT
infrastructure, regardless of whether it is proprietary or FOSS. FOSS
will begin to seep into their set-up if they do this because at some
points, it will be the clear winner. They will eventually reach a
happy equilibrium, a mixed proprietary and FOSS software set that
matches their staff skill set. It's always easier to go from that
starting point to the next one down the line, increasing the FOSS
complement, because the change cost from this point is less that it
was when the entire stack was proprietary.

But these are strategies and not really arguments as you requested.

Cheers,

Randy

-- 
Randy Metcalfe