Yet we are in 2003!

Sometimes I have to chuckle at our mind set in IT. We (I am as a guilty as anyone) get so wrapped up in our area of expertise that we fail to see the world the way that most people do.

Most CEO, many CIO, and quite a few IT managers are not focused on the technology, but on either the business or how their own performance is perceived. When it comes to Windows or open systems, the issue is that Windows kinda works more or less and it is what most people do versus open systems have no references. We can argue or even violently agree that open systems are proven and are better, but it is the perception of the decision makers that reigns supreme.

We shouldn't feel this is just an IT issue, though. Ben Franklin was ignored regarding the benefits of electrocution to meat tenderising, and the use of fertlilizers. Electric and steam engines lost out to gasoline internal combustion. Diesel and bio-diesel vehicles are still not embraced. The link between hogs and influenza was first noted around 1916, and then rediscovered in the 1970 era. Is your house still made out of wood? The benefits of alternative building materials have been known for centuries, but try to find a new development using better techniques.

The popular choice in any industry is rarely the most logical. Keep fighting the good fight, keep pushing the best solutions, and know that the world will probably ignore you so be happy.

I nkow I have often pushed for a comany to change from the Windows market to Open Source. The biggest complaint I get is that all these people have Win boxes at home and know how to resolve simple problems themselves. This allows a company to spend less time training and more time working. I know that some people will call me for support if they can't see the little cube in the system try for Webshots. They usually don't even know what the cuve is but if it is missing they think their PC isbroken.
In the past I ran a large call centre with a Unix based predictive dialer but Win 3.11 on all workstations. I agree that the differences are becoming smaller and you can even get Linux to look just like Windows (Lindows) but if it isn't EXACTLY the same, people complain.
Time & money, nobody wishes to invest either anymore it seems.

It took over 15 years from the development of personal computers for corporations to move from mainframe based data processing to networked PCs.
That move did not begin until the prominent mainframe supplier (IBM) offered a personal computer!

Itwill take even longer to move to a different operating system.

So long as the majority of business applications are written for Windows, the average business manager will be hard presses to make a case to a corporate VP that switching to Linux will be a worthwhile move.

Apple tried to flood the educational market in the belief that the computer students were trained on would become the computer of choice in business after they graduated.

You see how well that worked out.

The IBM PC architecture along with the Windows operating system has become a 'de-facto' standard for business.

Until a new system has more power along with FULL application support, it will not make major in-roads in the business world.

At this point, a parallel would be for Microsoft to offer it's own version of Linux.
Then, the corporate world would begin to take notice and start installing Linux systems.

Chas

Who's business is it?

Say what you like about Microsoft's "monopoly". Linux, although significantly less costly, has gotten very little traction in the market. Why?

----
My first OS was Microsoft's Windows. Do not hide behind your perception of my views in regard to Microsoft?s products. Speak for yourself and all shall listen. I have wrote that all need to re-assess their IT policies and strategies with a dynamic flexibility that must be present.

Microsoft can hold its own, are youtrying? Linux, like all other OSes have its drawbacks. We were caught up in not looking at long-term strategies. If a change follows then it can only happen on a long-term basis.
----

The actual cost of implementation of OS/NOS includes massive support and training costs. Quite simply, the costs of training support personnel and users to use another system make even a nearly free system a bad choice.

----
Once again, these are achievable on a timely schedule whilst much needed individual and business ethics and culture are on the change.
----

Andrew Reets

What I demonstrate to all of you is not for my case only. Maybe, you should not read with such a light mind.

My words weight, so I can only ask that you measure up.

Let us discuss the 'root' issues, and I can present and defend my ethics and culture. It is not always black or white.

I offer my text, remain objective and with a critical eye, exmaine your environment. It is of your concern.

TSP

I agree with your entire post Road Dog.

Why does it seem so fashionable these days for people to try so hard to make it sound "easy" -- just switch to Linux--your whole organization. Let its a turnkey solution. It is heaps and bounds more complexthan that. The irony of adopting new technology is that the LEAST important focus/hurdle is the actual technology. Its training, its support, its fighting political battles (as childish as they may be), its sacrificing a period of shoddy production while the staff gets accustomed to new technology, etc.

Then when everything is done -- THEN the focus is on the technology itself and only THEN will you notice any gains/benefits from the technology -- if any at all.

As for the list of people mentioned --- the original post said the power of words moved mountains, guess the poster did read that many people died and much blood was spilled to move those "mountains" (which I don't even fully agree that all those listed actually accomplished anything positive).

Words alone mean NOTHING. That's true in politics, true at work, true in personal relationships. Words are just noises that travel through the air. ;)

You ask-

Why did governments not subsidised for the education of its CHILDREN. Rather that allowing the educational system to free marketed. Now, look at the state of your educational system.

I suspect you are directing this at the US, and I would like to clarify a few points that may challenge your perception. Our public education institutes are subsidized here in the US. At issue for Americans is whether that should remain a local tax base issue, a regional tax base issue, a state tax base issue, or a national tax base issue. The issue has to do with control, which tends to move with the tax base.

The differences in education can be significant between public schools, private schools, and home schools even within a single local community. Each of these is its own education system, so any reference to the state of a system needs to define which system. All of these can be generalized as a single system, but such a generalization will miss key elements in each.

I am not aware of a particular education system elsewhere in the world that can be pointed to as the absolute best practice model for everywhere. There are significant differences in objectives and requirements among the various cultures and nationalities. To assess any education system without understanding and reference to the social context it exists implies a level of arrogance or bigotry.

As a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people it is not up to our government to decide how socialized we become. It is up to us. From time to time our elected leaders forget where the power lies, and we have to remind them. On occasion, a particular leader or party will seem to have changed this, but so far they have all received a clarification during subsequent elections.

Don't forget that running an "open-systems" house will prove to have a lot of cost and overhead absorbed by the companies thant use them... Overhead - in the sense that the programmers aren't going to just know how to write everything, it'll take a lot of time to get a certain new system up and running. It will also cost a lot of money to train people to adapt to their open environment when turnover becomes an issue...

First, when Apple started placing PCs in the classroom, they were considered a luxury not the necessary learning tool that they are today.

It is VERY hard to increase the amount of funding for education in the US.
Teachers are perceived as overpaid, and school budgets are considered bloated.

The 'best' way to get the public to support increased school funding is to make cuts to the athletic department.

As to IT pushing the change to alternate OS's, at least for most US firms, the VPs control the funding.
In order to make such a change, the IT department would need to show an investment payback of 1 year or less.

If a VP perceives ANY risk, the project will not proceed.

Chas

When you're dealing with legacy systems, the Windows vs Linux controversy is but a small part of the overall picture.

The big picture more often deals with the concept of "It it works, don't fix it."

Lots of CEOs, CIOs and IT managers are reluctant to embrace change with regards to legacy systems because it costs major money and resources to make those changes. Unless you are against the wall and have to change, you need to show a major ROI to be able to justify a change in a legacy system that works.

Of course, the definition of 'working' is somewhat flexible. If the flaws in a legacy system are minor in comparision to a conversion to a better system, people will stay with the legacy system. But if those flaws reach the point where they are major problems, then people may support a conversion from the legacy system.

Notice that I use the word 'may'. The users of the legacy system have to support the conversion too. If the IT side of things manages to keep the problems under control from the end user's view, then the legacy system still 'works'.

It can be an interesting situation overall.