> If the ratio users they can support is 1:100 for Linux (which I suspect > is true) and 1:30 for Microsoft (again this is my experience). The cost > benefit is:
My experience is that I have 50 user, 3 server clients that have no fulltime support at all. In fact if we do a good job setting them up, they only need occasional remote support along with some regular maintenance for hardware things etc. In fact - for the scenarios I am thinking of the ratios would be mostly similar - sorry to burst your bubble on this. A well setup windows site with competent admin should probably have about the same with a well setup linux site. Sure it will almost definitely cost more to get to that state, but the TCO running costs should be similar. Keep also in mind that Linux based network are not immune to be set up badly. I think your convincing TCO arguments are going to come from licenses - the real killer with MS licensing these days are the new subscriptions. The whole MS licensing issue is very complex - there are full time sales people that all they do is MS licensing. The complexity is another problem with MS - believe me, understanding it all (if you can) doesn't work in your favour. As much as it hurts me to say it I think you might have an uphill battle convincing on the TCO point. Expandability, decent licensing, smarter support are big bonuses for the argument. Absence of propriety lockin is probably the major point I feel businesses should be attracted to. Hope that helps - feel free to contact me for more discussion. Thanks, Dave -- Solutions First http://www.solutionsfirst.com.au Ph: 9484 9433 Fax: 9484 0961 -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
