Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: MS Goes After Schools Evaluating Linux

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Michael S Czeiszperger <czei AT webperformanceinc.com>
  • To: "InterNetWorkers" <internetworkers AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: MS Goes After Schools Evaluating Linux
  • Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 16:03:30 -0400


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tuesday 23 April 2002 03:17 pm, you wrote:
> 1. Training: All our employees are able to (minimally) use Windows. Our
> entire support staff is Windows knowledgeable and (mostly) Linux
> ignorant. Reality: our training budget is pathetic, way below private
> industry averages. We can't afford to train our IT staff, much less the
> rest of the employees, even minimally enough for them to be productive
> quickly. [...]

The cost assessment here is comparing paying MS licenses v.s. the
alternatives. Given that the MS licensing costs for the larger school
districts is in the millions of dollars, you can pay for Linux training, and
still save a lot of money.

> 2. Time/Staffing: We are way understaffed in the IT department. Managing
> such a massive changeover would be possible only on an incremental
> basis - which would spread the ROI out over many years, effectively
> reducing it (money we save 10 years from now is worth much less than
> money we save today).
>
Instead of paying MS licensing fees, you can pay for consulting help to
implement the change quickly. Alternatively, just about every Linux user's
group in the country would jump at the chance to help a school district
switch to Linux.

> 3. Vendor contracts: We have contracts with hardware vendors to provide
> us computers at (supposedly) good prices. Those contracts would have to
> be renegotiated to remove the M$ tax. Not impossible, but a hurdle due
> to the time and effort involved. This would have to be done upfront, to
> start bringing in savings immediately.
>
Good point. Its my understanding that many hardware vendors will already
supply hardware "stripped" without an OS. I purchased 9 Dell computers this
way 14 months ago, and saved $4,500. (v.s. the cost of paying for Windows
2000 server edition.)

> 4. It's not what we use at home/work: Parents are likely to resist such
> an effort on the grounds that they use M$ everywhere else and they want
> their kids to use it at school. There are three reasons for this: first,
> the mistaken belief that using the corporate standard in school will
> make their kids more employable, and second, they want their kids to be
> able to use the home computer for homework, etc, with a minimum of
> bother, and third, it removes them from their comfort zone with the
> technology their kids use at school.
>
You have a good point. These types of changes will take time. I expect the
easy targets will be looked at first, such as replacing the back end where no
one cares what OS is running. On the client side, the first target would be
machines that are only used for browsing and text editing.

The actual parent reaction will be interesting to see, especially if they are
faced with a choice between reducing class size, reducing taxes, or paying
for MS licenses.

> 5. Lack of software: A lot of educational software runs only on
> Windows/Macintosh.

I look at this transition as a process that will take years, just as it took
years for MS to take market share in the educational space away from Apple.
In places where emulators won't work, there is software that will allow
windows apps to be run remotely from Linux computers.

> 6. Regulations: Lots of procurement regulations at the state and local
> levels would have to be rewritten to allow Open Source OSes and
> applications into the ballgame. Again, not impossible, but
> time-consuming and open to serious disruption by a targeted lobbying
> campaign.
>
Don Rosenberg, or someone more familiar with licensing may be able to clarify
this, but I would be very surprised if any procurement regulations were even
affected by open source. The reason is 99.999% of commercial licenses are
designed to protect the software manufacturer, not the purchaser.

> 7. Politics: Public schools and government agencies operate in an
> inherently political environment, subject to the meddling/oversight of
> multiple elected bodies (in our case, 4 elected bodies: school board,
> county commissioners, state legislature, and Congress), as well other
> government agencies (NCDPI, US Dept. of Ed, NC ITS).
[... Good points deleted for brevity.]

I believe that faced with draconian MS licensing policies, government
institutions can now reduce immediate licensing fees, future software costs,
and all future hardware purchases. While there are significant hurdles to
this switch, I believe that governmental organizations will be hard pressed
to justify the massive cost difference. You are right in that it will take
more than well meaning Linux users to affect this change. I predict we will
see a number of groups come to together to affect this change:

1. Companies spring up that will specialize in Windows to Linux migration.
2. Grass roots open source advocacy groups.
3. The large IT vendors such as IBM are investing billions to port Linux to
their hardware, and will have a vested interest in selling this hardware and
software services to the government.

One of the reasons for this pressure, as I'm sure you're aware is local and
state governments are going through an unprecedented budget crises right now.
I sure wouldn't be the person who had to run for re-election and explain why
I had to fire teachers or increase class sizes by 10% just to pay Microsoft.

- --
Michael Czeiszperger
Web Performance Inc.
Raleigh, NC
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.8

iQA/AwUBPMW+FVgOl/a4Fw2AEQI13ACfXgiUuSfn8TUUtJ3hrpYFllOxVWkAoOfY
FREmPjepOeWsIi7d56TXzzFw
=ccOP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page