How Do Alternate Desktops Crack Medium to Large Business?
January 7th, 2008We have been hit with many blogs about the year of the desktop Linux, Apple beats Linux on the desktop, Linux beats Apple, Window’s wins desktop share, and on and on. It really wears you out to hear all of the opinions. Of course, numbers are used to tell the respective stories - but remember, “liars use numbers and numbers don’t lie!” The real question is, how does any alternate desktop displace Windows hold on medium to large business?
Windows Is Proven In This Environmet
Forget stability, viruses, etc. You can’t argue that Windows hasn’t proven itself in this environment. The “bread-and-butter” of Microsoft is their corporate presence and ability to sell services and solutions that satisfy the medium to large company needs. So, from that stand-point, Microsoft has succeeded. It also helps that so many 3rd party vendors have created point solutions that are symbiotic in nature to Windows. Most corporate entities are willing to pay a license fee, support fee, and install these solutions provided they have someone to call when things break.
The Average User - Doesn’t Really Count!
The average home user is an exception to any argument about Linux or Apple on a desktop. Let’s just leave this to say, home users will use whatever they are comfortable with, willing to pay for, or have purchased/torrent downloaded for their latest home PC. To even discuss home users O/S of choice is a waste of time. It is good to note the number of downloads, or potential individual purchases of alternate O/S’s, but that’s about it. The numbers will never be very precise.
Counting Desktops - Counts Can Only be Approx.
Even Windows can’t claim accurate counts. Maybe in the United States, they have a general feel for the total number of distributed seats, but outside of the U.S., all bets are off. Case in point, friends of mine from Russia and Ukraine use Windows and don’t even think about Linux. When they are asked about the costs associated with Windows, they just laugh at that one. Know why? Most individual users in those countries are using cracked copies and could care less about Microsoft and their lawyers! They have a cracked copy of anything Microsoft and anything 3rd party.
Corporate Desktops - Medium to Large Business - MLB
In the MLB world, the prevalent desktop is Windows. Plain and simple. My experience has been that a majority of those companies have no interest in Vista. But, what is holding up these companies from adopting alternate desktops? Is it because there is no need. Grant you, a medium to large advertising or marketing company may be using Apple software exclusively. Why? Apple is the best at what they do - graphical creativity.
There are pockets of Linux use in some of these MLB’s. They are the technology leaders, research and development arms, or technically savvy that have the ability to support their own desktop environments. They load Linux, and all of the applicable tools that allow them to co-exist with Windows desktops without issue. They are a very small number in the grand count of desktops in these environments.
The arguments are Linux can provide the same functionality as Windows. Yet, no one wants to prove the case. At least in the MLB’s, there is little interest in proving that a Linux desktop can provide the same functionality as the Windows desktop. What gives? Are MLB’s set in their ways? Too lazy to look at the alternative solutions? Is Windows expensive for these companies? What about the costs of all of the other software required for a Windows deployment?
Cost of Windows
The reality is, the cost of the O/S is not the argument to take. Most of these companies have large contracts with Microsoft to deploy unlimited copies of the O/S. The cost to deploy a single O/S in these environments is probably $35/desktop or less! Sorry individual user - you still get to pay retail! No favors from Microsoft! Guess what, many of the employees that have access to the distributions from their MLB takes it home and loads it on all of their home PC’s. Sorry Mr. MLB - you have little to no control over that form of “pirating.” Not even Microsoft has control over that.
Security and Costs
What about security? There are some arguments that are valid concerning the overwhelming need for virus scanners, email walls, etc. But, in a recent project I was involved with, Linux and Apple desktops are still more secure out of the box than any deployed Windows O/S. The number of open ports on a standard Windows desktop deployment is staggering. But it is still not an argument. Corporate Data and Information security groups have become complacent with the risks associated with a Windows O/S deployment. Licensing of virus scanners is similar to that of the O/S. The total cost added to a single deployed desktop is measured in very small dollars - maybe pocket change.
Again, MLB’s don’t mind purchasing licenses for protection.
Office Productivity Suites Remain Expensive
So, where do large corporations wake up and realize cost savings? It’s going to be with the office productivity software they use. Microsoft realized long ago that the butter holding all this bread together is their office productivity suites. These come at a premium. Even though a large corporation can get a discounted rate for these software solutions, it is still far more expensive than the O/S. Still in the range of around $200 per copy or more in bulk. It just depends on the corporate agreement with Microsoft and the actual productivity software licensed. This could include Word, Excel, Access, Project, FrontPage, etc.
So, this is where the open standards, open office productivity suites, and alternate solutions come in to play. Last year, when Microsoft wanted to have their Office Open XML standard ratified, it came under sharp attack from the Open Document standards groups. For good reason. The more that Microsoft standards are ratified, the less likely you will see alternative solutions if MLB’s in particular adopt these applications.
Learning Curve
Is cost the only factor in the office productivity suite? No! Unfortunately, with any alternate O/S, you have the learning curve. What does the basic user look like, and can they effectively be productive in a Linux or Apple environment? They can be, but are they willing? Change is difficult for most people. I mean a majority. In particular, when you change their comfort zone work environment, you are effectively making them inefficient for a short while. That time of inefficiency has to be taken into account. Let me give an example at a single application layer. I recently performed an upgrade for a small business. They went from a legacy version of an accounting package to the new nd improved version. After the relatively simple upgrade, the user community realized the interface was different. Oh my, you would have thought we just turned their world upside down. In this case, they had to upgrade to keep support. But the became very unproductive for about a week. The number of calls we took on the application alone was about 100% above normal support for this office.
All that to make this point. Don’t assume that a medium or large corporation isn’t interested in the use of Linux or Apple desktops. These companies have to take into account the amount of “pain” they will experience making that type of transition. It is an investment of sorts for them, and although it can be argues they will realize hard dollar savings, they will lose soft dollars in productivity. Plain and simple.
What do MLB’s Do?
If there is a desire to examine and transition to an alternate desktop like Linux, these companies have to create desktop O/S study groups. People that are responsible for creating that corporate desktop that will be common to the organization. This is the exact same thing these organizations did and do for Windows deployment. Many of these companies have large organizations that are dedicated to desktop deployment only! Depending on the size of the organization, and number of deployed desktops, you may see 1 full time equivalent to every 100 desktops!
There must be a deployment strategy, a common desktop, a common set of tools that will allow a mixed environment to stay productive and be able to share resources. Linux and Apple O/S can do this. Whether Windows plays nicely is another story. How the network is configured for those desktops can come into play. But these are all things that can be solved.
Can 2008 be the year of the Linux desktop - I don’t know. I don’t think it matters. Apple and Linux don’t have a large presence in these environments, but they are both successful in their own ways. So, does this argument really matter? I don’t think so. But I do think that an alternate desktop solution for medium to large companies is something that can happen if those companies are willing to make and embrace change.
