Re: support for a small US college going GNU?
"David Kaufman" <[email protected]> Mon, 18 Jul 2005 21:19:27 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.misc.free-software-business |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <002b01c58bff$eb7127b0$010aa8c0@cylon> |
Hi Joe, Joe Corneli wrote: > I've been corresponding a little with the new CIO of my "alma mater" > (New College of Florida, a small public "liberal arts" school in > Sarasota) about switching the college over to GNU/Linux [...] the CIO, > Erich Matola, points out that switching architectures would require > funding. Presumably this is true; Of course. Not switching requires funding, too. Funds are used to periodically upgrade staff PC's in different departments at different times, adding memory, more storage, or completely new machines, as the older ones become too old to be useful. Funds are expended to upgrade those same PC's to more recent versions of Windows, as this user needs some new feature or that one needs some new program that is not avilable on the older version of Windows. Ask the CIO to ask the CFO for a report of past expenses, per year, for PC hardware upgrades and new copies of whichever Windows Upgrade was new that year. Then explain to them that Linux upgrades are free and, since Linux tolerates older hardware far longer than Windows does, all those O/S upgrades won't necessitate corresponding *hardware* upgrades to battle the "my PC got slow" reports that come in after the XP upgrades go out. Total the money they will save in one year *not* having to buy on Windows licenses and, say a (conservative) third of the PC workstation upgrade expenses that year together, and see if that isn't enough to cover the consultants needed to implement the switchover, train users *and* maintain servers with some change left over. Figure out if the break-even point is one year or two years, before the savings really start to kick in. If you find that the Windows license expenses are (curiously) far too small to account for all the windows machines in use (because they don't "track those closely enough") or because they "just use the O/S's that come with the new PC's" and then "share" a few upgrade CD's among them all later on as needed, offer to walk around with him and take a quick count of the number of Windows machines *running* XP or Server 2003 as compared to the number of machines that were purchased *with* those latest versions of Windows, plus the number of retail Windows upgrades they actually bought, and you can quickly see out how much it would cost for them to "get into compliance" with their current use of Windows licenses, were they to need to do so in a hurry, as per the audit agreements they've agreed to, by merely tearing open Windows shrinkwrap. Be sure to point out that most, if not all, corporate IT departments and small businesses also find that they have easily, even unintentionally fallen out of compliance because it is nearly impossible to track, and MS licenses seldom enforced. But ask them, why run an O/S that has such a high legal risk attached to it? One that has only *seemed* affordable because all the staff you hire (and in fact the industry in general, and some whole nations) think nothing at all of pirating it on a regular and systematic basis? Not mentioning any names, at most of the school and corporate IT departments I've seen... that getting-into-compliance number is a truly scary one, especially to their lawyers. Lawyers, by the way, who will be fully on board with funding the switch sooner rather than later, once made aware of the risks that are being taken. Perhaps not so much just a few years ago, but nowadays I'd think the cost of switching to any operating system that is free as in BSA.org, would be CFO and Legal no-brainer, even if not already a CIO priority. -dave