A common scenario
Let's look at a common scenario playing out in many companies. Suppose you're an IT manager at a small company that's a subsidiary of a much larger company. Your office has 150 computers, of which 100 are used by a few shifts of customer-service personnel. These workers only use Microsoft Internet Explorer as an interface to an in-house program on the server that your department developed. The other 50 computers are used by office workers who primarily run Microsoft Office 97. Five of these computers also have a Microsoft Windows-based accounting program installed. Almost all of the computers were purchased with Microsoft Windows 95 pre-installed, but they've all been upgraded over time to Microsoft Windows 98 using five licensed copies that came with five newer computers that were purchased a while back. At this point, the users are fairly content with the software, and they politely ignore comments you make occasionally about the merits of open-source software.
A new development
Now let's suppose your CIO receives a certified letter from Microsoft requesting that he conduct a self-audit of the office's software licenses and stating that the company must purchase any missing licenses within 30 days. The letter also says that if he is unwilling to perform a self-audit, Microsoft's legal department is ready to petition the local court to allow it to do the audit and possibly follow up with a lawsuit for any copyright law violations. Your CIO has already called his boss and he was told to comply. He was also told that license purchases will come out of his office's budget. Your CIO is upset and asks you to make a quick assessment of what it will cost to get in compliance.
You count the five Microsoft Windows 98 licenses and the one Microsoft Office 97 license. You check with one of your favourite software vendors, and you find out that you can get away with upgrading to Microsoft Windows XP (the Win98 licenses are the same price), but you'll have to buy the full standard version of Microsoft Office XP since you don't want to pay an on-going licensing fee. With rough prices in hand, you're able to whip together a calculation to give to the CIO (see Figure A).
Figure A
|
||||||||||||||||
After staring at these numbers and realising that his bonus is lost, he says that he had no idea that it would be so much. A brief, pointless discussion ensues as to how it got to be so much, before he asks if there is any way around it. For the first time in the five years that you've been working there, your CIO is open to discussing open source. You pitch Evolution, OpenOffice, and Linux. You compare them to their Microsoft counterparts and explain the cost. You bring him over to your PC, which has these programs installed on it, and let him try them out. He's impressed and comments that they seem easy to use.







Talkback
Nice story... you forgot to calculate the cost of converting 200 PC's from Windows to Linux. Let's say you spent 1 day whipping up an unattended install disc, then let's say it takes about 3 hours per PC (some will take less, some will take more), so that's 200*3hrs, or 600 hours. Let's say you can do two PC's at once, so cut it to 300hrs. That seems low.... let's say 350 hours to convert all the PC's, including prep time, contingencies, answering all the questions, etc... At $100/hr, that's roughly $35000 to convert everything. Still cheaper than going legit with MS, but there's less margin for error when you factor in the real costs of going open source. I think you should be doing it gradually, not all at once - that's too risky. What if something goes wrong, and the company's information system needs to be shutdown for a whole day ?
600 hours? You got to be kidding?
I've done 20 simultaneous installaton at one go.
That that only because I've got only one server and a switch.
Automated network installation like kick start is a breeze to configure, Modify the kickstart config file. boot via PXE. viola your installing RH.
Whilst the cost of installing Open Source on the PC's has not been included. What has also not been taken into account which, negates the argument about installing Open Source cost, is the fact that as the PC's are running Windows 98 and Office 98 and the scenario is to upgrade to Windows XP & Office XP is
a) the cost of installing both these products
b) the probable need to buy new PC's or hardware to run Windows XP & Office XP
So the cost factor of changing to Open Source is potentially even more beneficial, although some of the Linux distributions now assume Gbytes space available!
How many hours needed to upgrade to Windows XP ???