Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.misc:5084 comp.os.linux.misc:34060 comp.os.os2.advocacy:76106 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msunews!uwm.edu!news.alpha.net!news.mathworks.com!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!EU.net!sun4nl!wtrlnd!maxine.wlink.nl!autpels.maxine.wlink.nl!not-for-mail From: ruurd@autpels.maxine.wlink.nl (Ruurd Pels) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.os2.advocacy Subject: Re: Linux thoroughly insulted by Infoworld! Message-ID: <3g573n$8np@bar.autpels.nl> Date: 25 Jan 1995 10:53:59 +0100 References: <950116203411@lambada> <3g0mnn$ccp@nkosi.well.com> <3g267v$1e3@blackice.winternet.com> <3g34fr$jri@nkosi.well.com> Organization: none Lines: 58 NNTP-Posting-Host: bar.autpels.nl In article <3g34fr$jri@nkosi.well.com>, Henry Hwong <henryh@well.sf.ca.us> wrote: >: Certainly. Would it cost less to develop? Certainly. Can you justify >: $1000 to buy a SCO license for that platform? Only with great dificulty. >: It seems to me that Linux is a perfect solution. That Linux isn't a >: very good solution for other problems doesn't strike me as very relevent. > >Yes, I can cost-justify purchasing a UNIX (though, I wouldn't personally >choose SCO, so you're making it hard for me to defend my position :-)). Maybe you can, but you're not everybody... >I think the biggest point that I'm trying to make (and apparently not >making clear) is that there are other costs associated with going to a >Linux (or *BSD). Sure, inital costs are cheap -- free FTP, cheap CD-ROMs. > >Sure, I can try to convince my clients to look at Linux. It's free! >However, now I have to look at how much time it would take to maintain or >setup. For a consultant, time is big bucks. Many times, it is cheaper >for me to recommend a whole solution (Sun, HP, IBM) that comes in a package >with everything installed instead of me spending the time to put together >a 486 or Pentium system running Linux. > >Then we have to do technology transfer to the client. It's easy to find >classes for Solaris, AIX, SCO, or HPUX. Linux classes? Uh. Hmm. Well, I >could spend the time ($$) to teach you everything about Linux. RTFM just >doesn't cut it with clients. And I can't tell clients to just fire all >their mainframe people and just hire people who recently graduated from >college, either. I don't want to be rude, but basically you're telling them what they want to hear, right? >That's why consultants like me pick the packages. I have to find the best >solution for my clients. Long term, that $1000 I tell my client to spend >on SCO is cheaper than going with Linux. The hidden people costs are >what kill you. Here you're touching on the trouble spot. The hidden people cost. Which is certainly the thing your clients don't want to hear about. Why not be honest and tell your customers about it? Wether a client has a bunch of boxes running whatever UNIX variant or Linux, they all will end up having to hire or train people for the maintenance of such systems eventually. Oh, certainly, everything runs just right out of the box. (I doubt that. I would like to give into consideration the time needed to set things up for networ- king such a plug-and-play UNIX for example). But the tendency is that computer systems don't stay that way and need human intervention now and then to keep healthy. Availability of classes to learn a person how to work with a system not available? There are enough alternatives to classes, provided your clients are willing to pick someone in their workforce who is eager to do the job and give him the means and time to venture into the land of UNIX. -- Grtz, RFP ;-) |o| Ruurd Pels, Kamgras 187, 8935 EJ Leeuwarden, The Netherlands |o| |o| EU.net!sun4nl!wtrlnd!maxine!autpels!ruurd |o|