Migrating to Linux is far more expensive than expected

re: Migrating to Linux is far more expensive than expected

Jason Mauss — Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:53:00 GMT

Something tells me this could go either way. Correct me if I'm wrong but they were already on Windows, right?

If Munich had been on Linux then staying on Linux probably would've been cheaper than migrating to Windows. The real cost hit they're taking (my guess) is in re-training everyone. It's a bigger cost than most places anticipate.

re: Migrating to Linux is far more expensive than expected

Mike Kozlowski — Thu, 19 Feb 2004 00:35:00 GMT

I suspect you could replace that headline with "Implementing organization-wide deployment of software is far more expensive than expected" without any loss of accuracy. I can't think of a single large-scale rollout of any softare I've seen that's come in at or near cost projections.

"Implementing organization-wide deployment of software is far more expensive than expected"

Biff — Tue, 20 Apr 2004 01:44:00 GMT

"Implementing organization-wide deployment of software is far more expensive than expected" -- yes. It will be true for "Longhorn" as well, just as it has been true for all previous New Microsoft Stuff. Change costs.

Of course, we won't see "Rollout of Microsoft System X far more expensive than expected" on blogs.msdn.com ...

At work, we've got NT4 and Win2k servers, w/o AD; Exchange 5.5.; Win2k + Office 2k.

With XP and Office 2003, AD, Exchange whatever, etc., on new Dells, it's *all new stuff*, with new GUI, new management tools, new apps, migration of data, etc. It'll mean lots of work and money, and retraining users. "Longhorn" will be more radical.

This is all true if we switch to Macs, as well. If we're getting all new stuff, what's the real advantage of getting MSFT stuff rather than other stuff? That's it's MSFT stuff isn't really a feature.

"New stuff expensive; employees don't like change." -- there's your headline.

re: Migrating to Linux is far more expensive than expected

jdzions — Tue, 20 Apr 2004 10:08:00 GMT

Actually, Biff, many current studies show that upgrading to new versions of Windows continues to be substantially less expensive than migrating to any other platform. Even Longhorn.

re: Migrating to Linux is far more expensive than expected

Biff — Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:23:00 GMT

Which studies? Sponsored by who?

re: Migrating to Linux is far more expensive than expected

jdzions — Tue, 20 Apr 2004 17:22:00 GMT

Latest two I recall weren't sponsored by anyone. Many research firms are growing weary of defending themselves against charges of bias because someone pays the freight for a study, so they're doing more unsponsored research. (They'll probably do less of it, because research is expensive, but that's life.)

I'll try to find the study reference I'm thinking of.

re: Migrating to Linux is far more expensive than expected

Jason Zions — Tue, 20 Apr 2004 19:43:00 GMT

Try this unsponsored Yankee Group report: http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-5185069.html?tag=nefd_top

There are others.

re: Migrating to Linux is far more expensive than expected

Alex — Tue, 20 Apr 2004 22:29:00 GMT

From the article:

"At companies with 5,000 or fewer users, Linux can save more money than other systems, including Unix and Microsoft's Windows software, said the Boston-based company."

And this:

"Clearly, many people who have Linux like it a lot, but if you propose a wholesale swap to most large companies, you're looking at a significant up-front cost, and many executives are asking why they should do it," said Yankee analyst Laura DiDio, who authored the report.

... which is true of any migration. It was true of even DOS -> Windows, Win9x -> WinNT, WinNT -> Win2k/XP

What did Microsoft say -- their biggest competitor is their own installed base?

re: Migrating to Linux is far more expensive than expected

Jason Zions — Sat, 22 May 2004 00:43:00 GMT

I would certainly disagree with Alex's final comment (about the "wholesale swap" costs being large even for WinNT->Win2K/XP; in fact, the quoted article and Yankee Group report support the statement that WinNT->Win2K is cheaper.

DOS -> Windows? It was a very different world back then. Costs of upgrading Win9x to an NT-based system are still less than a swap to a non-Windows system; if you look at the kinds of costs discussed in the article and in the Yankee Group report, you can see that some of them just don't apply in the 9x upgrade case.