Assessing the real cost
Business people usually won't seriously consider software that's free. If it's free, they figure it's not worth anything. What does get their attention is being able to save over $45,000 while getting the software they need. There's a subtle difference here that's important to understand when extolling the virtues of open source: saying that open-source software is free causes uninformed executives to make comparisons with Microsoft software based on price, which they view as a measure of quality. Saying that the company will save money on software licences by switching to open-source software, which will still allow the employees to get their work done, keeps the focus on the cost difference. When hundreds of dollars of savings are multiplied over hundreds of computers, the desire to save significant amounts of money will overwhelm the tendency to favour Microsoft.
Deployment scenario
Having the go-ahead to deploy open source software on everyone's computers, you and your staff convert all of the workstations to Linux except the five in the accounting department that need Microsoft Windows. You assign the five Microsoft Windows 98 licences to them with the proviso that when you have time, you'll work out how to get the accounting program to run under the Windows emulator, Wine.
Some of the users complain, but their manager deals with them. The shift workers adapt without problems because the Web browser, Galeon, works fine and because your staff didn't use any Microsoft dll's when they were developing the in-house software. The office workers weren't happy at first, but they adjusted within about a month to Linux, thanks to the Gnome desktop. As for Evolution and OpenOffice, most users took to them almost immediately, with only a couple of people having problems using some advanced features for the first time.
This scenario may seem a bit far-fetched, until you consider the players' motivations. The user just wants to get his work done. And the CIO in this scenario is delighted with the change because you saved his bonus and because the corporate office praised him for such creative thinking. So a business's acceptance of open source really isn't that far-fetched.
Moral of the story
For those of us who understand the value of open-source, community-supported software, applications like Evolution and OpenOffice are definitely cheaper than the Microsoft alternatives. Also, for non-technical business managers who are faced with the cumulative high cost of Microsoft software licences, there is a huge advantage to switching to open-source software. Because of these factors, you can finally begin to argue in favour of open-source software as a viable business choice in terms that business decision makers can understand. Just watch for opportunities and seize them.
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 ???