The Inquirer has an interesting article on the value (or cost of running Linux on the Desktop). There are two points relating to the article (Can Linux break through to the commercial office desktop?) that I would like to make:
1) Cost, cost, cost... People continue to talk about the small cost difference between running Linux vs. Windows. While there may be a similar cost associated with Windows and Linux for a large company, smaller companies (like the one I work at) are hit hard by the latest pricing scheme for Windows. On top of that, unless support packages are purchased for Windows (on top of the cost of the OS), support is non-existent. Please! Compare apples to apples (and with that, I did not necessarily mean Apple). Essentially, what Microsoft does is sell a car, that has a life-expectancy of 1 1/2 years and no service. The further expectation is that you upgrade software and hardware at intervals defined by them. The issue of Linux having no support is a tricky one, indeed. You overcome this issue by simply ponying up the bucks to pay for a good admin. (In an article I posted to some usenet group a long time ago, I mentioned that it is likely that any good *nix admin will also be a good admin of Windows - this is a gross generalization, but in my circle of friends, it definitely applies.) I think the long-term cost of Linux (or other flavors of *nix) are much lower than Windows, but have yet to see any conclusive studies that would indicate this either way.
2) Application support - i.e. applications that can read the current de-facto standards: This does and does not exist. With the newest versions of Open Office and StarOffice, I have found much better compatibility and navigation, but it still is not Office. But, does that really matter? I have found that 98% of the formatting options available in Office are not used by anyone except presentation nuts. In fact, the more someone needs specialized formatting, it seems the more that one will rely on programs like Acrobat and not Word. So, do we really need ultimate compatibility? My answer, no. What we absolutely need is ease of use... this is something yet to be attained by any system. Just ask my Dad why he hated the switch-over from Win98 to WinXP on our office internet computer... (As I fall asleep at night, all I can hear is, "why the heck do they always have to change things?")
So, Linux on the desktop? You betcha' - just as small businesses make the economy turn, they will also make the switch to Linux as Microsoft keeps stabbing them in the back with new pricing schemes.
This thought brought to you by: Can Linux break through to the commercial office desktop?
Oh, and by the way, if I didn't own (and like) my Mac PowerBook, I'd already be there...
