[Sussex] Noob

[Steve Dobson]

Angelo and the others

My own experience is somewhat similar.  As I now run a small consultancy
business that is pure Linux I will (and almost have) turned away
business that wants to use Windows - But then I have almost no (read
3 months part time) Windows development experience in 16 years, so I
really can't support them anyway.

The client I almost lost wanted to install software on his clients'
servers.  I convinced him that the better solution was to install our
own (cheap) Debian based server (less than £400).  It basicly came
down to control.  When I started to explain the testing needs for all
possible server platforms WinNT, Win2K, and Win2003 he saw the
advantages of putting in our own server.

As for supporting family and friends I now take a similar line - no 
support unless Linux.  It's a hard line sure, but then again why
should I sort out the problems of my business's competition for free?

The best reports I've seen have said that any Linux is not an alternate
to Windows for everyone, each user must make up their own minds.  It
appears that the cost of fighting viruses, spyware and malware is 
growing (no wonder it's Billy G's publicly reported top priority).
If a company (or home user) wants to spend money (and time) fighting
a problem that only exists on one platform that is their choice.
There are alternative.  I see my roll is just pointing out the 
advantages of Linux and leave the users to make up their own mind.

In the end the Market will determine what is right.  Companies that
make the correct choices will out perform companies that don't.
If Windows TCO is too expensive then the Market will find out,
the Companies that pick Linux or Apple's Mac or IBM's zSeries will
do better and others will follow their example.

Don't believe me?  Remember the .COM boom?  Not all start ups 
died in the .CRASH.  Those companies, like Amazon, that had good
business models underpinning their business survived.  The same
will be (is) true of IT infrastructure.

Steve