On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 10:21 +0000, Dave Howorth wrote: > Hans van der Merwe wrote: > > Thx, but the practical problem is this... we have two competent Windows > > centric IT people... one IT manager who overdosed on the MS-Coolaid.... > > we have an AD, 70 XPs (full house, Office etc), MS-Portal, MS-Exchange, > > MS-SQL, BackupExec, MS-IIS, FullSiteLicense(TM). To move just one of > > these over to something else will require another Linux IT person (we > > cant afford), IT manager wont let IT staff go on Linux course because we > > don't have Linux servers (catch-22). > > > > I'll admit, this is actually an valid issue. > > > > Now I want persuade management (who knows nothing about IT and assumes > > its always expensive) that we can move over some of these services to > > cheaper alternatives. > > How are you actually going to make cost savings in this situation? If > you can show that replacing some component will save the business > substantial money, FUD will evaporate. If you can't, there's no hope :(
Yes but something like - "But, TCO is much lower with current Widows arch than Linux, see these reports" (classic FUD) is difficult to counter - I need company expenditure reports and such to be able to make a point - and TCO is difficult to compare. My actual problem is that the IT manager is not an idiot - he is just a die hard capitalist - with some really good business points. The MS momentum is really hard to argue against, but I would like to at least try. E-Mail disclaimer: http://www.sunspace.co.za/emaildisclaimer.htm -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
