On Tue, 11 Oct 2011, James Laurence wrote:
If a broadcasting outfit is running perfectly happily and efficiently and trouble-free on a Windows platform, and is able to be maintained by capable staff who have only an elementary knowledge of Windows, then why change to Linux?
Don't. If it works and everybody's happy, end of story.I have a client running [name of Windows-based automation system deleted]; they have a lot of problems with it. The servers require frequent reboots; strange, inexplicable glitches occasionally surface, causing a variety of embarrassments on the air. And the system is so complicated that no one can make any configuration changes without calling the factory. But most of the time it works, and they are making money with it. Will I advise them to change to another system? I will not. They are used to this one with all its faults, and their AM is a news-talk station with a bewildering array of programs and features from various networks, most of them satellite-delivered and many of the features pre-recorded. Re-inventing that in the context of a different system would cost a lot of man-hours, and the expense just isn't justifiable.
But if I were building that station from scratch, whould I use [name of Windows-based automation system deleted]? No way. They've spent close to $100,000 on it, money that could have been spent more profitably elsewhere. I'd use Rivendell.
I also consider that you have overstated the Windows deficiencies and understated the drawbacks associated with implementing a Linux-based solution. I am familiar with both platforms and simply can't buy your proposition that Windows "takes just as much technical competence as running Linux does, if not more". Just not true in the numerous cases I have witnessed.
In my experience, Windows-based radio automation systems (whis is, after all, what we are talking about) require no less technical competence than Rivendell.
Windows remains the preferred platform for a vast majority of non-IT users around the globe, because (a) you don't have to have an IT-proficient expert to run it, and (b) managers and non-IT personnel can manage Windows without too much difficulty. And, if the outfit's happy with that, why change? Change for change's sake makes no sense to me.
Windows is the preferred platform more or less by default, much as English is the international language of business. That does not concern me; I am in business to create solutions for my clients, and if non-Windows solutions are less expensive to build than Windows-based solutions, at least as reliable, and require less ongoing attention (alas for me, who could use the extra income), why go with Windows?
Rob
_______________________________________________ Rivendell-dev mailing list Rivendell-dev@lists.rivendellaudio.org http://lists.rivendellaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/rivendell-dev
