--=-rXFVAkP/3Clbw0cQaL8I
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, 2004-01-21 at 09:00, Craig White wrote:
> ---
> the fact of the matter is that Windows 2000 server runs well enough,
> uptimes are quite good and are easier for a non-tech to maintain (i.e. -
> setup domain user accounts, back up, etc.)
>=20
> The issues are not necessarily cost or ease of use but is about lock up
> / tie up / and subjecting a business, your business, to the corporate
> whims of Microsoft. They require licenses for everything you do, and
> obtain the right to inspect your software, your premises and your
> computers by virtue of simply installing the software. You don't own the
> software, merely get a license to use it, which is non-transferable,
> meaning you have to continually repurchase the right to use it. More
> than anything else, Linux represents an element of control over their
> computers that they will never get from Microsoft. The money factor is a
> red herring that most businesses will only view as peanuts.

Okay Im scared.  Im starting to agree with Craig. ;) (j/k)

Cost to the smallest of fish is a very real thing.  You can sway a very
small business on cost as its very real to their bottom line.

Bump up to the medium enterprise and they can swallow the price much
quicker.  Usually in this market I find "competitive advantage" to be
the primary mover.  If you can show them that they can use the
"Freedoms" to their advantage.  That is show them how to use the source
to their advantage to gain edge on the competition, they usually are
willing to move even at an increased cost.  They also tend to much more
concerned about privacy and 'control' of their destiny.  This group
hates lock-in more than anyone.

Jump all the way to the large enterprise and it becomes a combination of
all things.  I am seeing at the largest level, they want control of
their destiny very badly, but have a hard time "accepting things out of
the norm".  GNU/Linux is still not quite the "norm", but its getting
close enough to touch.  They can swallow licensing and pricing, because
all their peers do.  HOWEVER, things like the MS Enterprise Agreement
sounded great on day one, but now that they have signed the deal with
the devil and are living under the terms and will soon face "re-up" fees
in 2 years.  They are not "loving" *recurring* fees.  It is one thing to
pay for Office 95.  Then enterprise agreement to 2000, but 2 years later
to pay the piper again for NO NEW FEATURES you plan to use, starts to
get old when the tune is several million dollars.

--=20
Derek Neighbors
GNU Enterprise
http://www.gnuenterprise.org
derek@gnue.org

Was I helpful?  Let others know:
 http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=3Ddneighbo

--=-rXFVAkP/3Clbw0cQaL8I
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBADrozHb99+vQX/88RAuNsAJ9yhtpbGZc5RxmEpRzUkQKbGa7swQCggAbN
Uv3ukC2qhboZFO8eoRiAMPQ=
=GPuP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-rXFVAkP/3Clbw0cQaL8I--