At 12:37 AM +0530 6/27/05, Trevor Warren wrote:
>--- sherlock(a)vsnl.com wrote:
>
>> In fact i have stopped talking price with customers
>> (i collect
>> the M$ tax u see) and focus on a zillion other
>> things which shreds
>> everything that billy baba and 2000xp chors can
>> throw.
>[snip]
>
> No worries JTD, as long as we have IIM babus running commercial
>organisations like those at redmond such reports are bound to
>surface.
Actually, it also has a sprinkling of IIT walas. Just a few, here and
there. No lack of ability. Just good old organisational dynamics at
work.
> Infact, the report did give me a lot to ponder. You know terence,
>managing networks with 500-1000 nodes with MS can be a real
>nightmare especially when patching the machines on a daily basis is
>more of a norm. MS has an architecture in place seamless across
>distributions to push these patches across the entire enterprise.
>How much of this works....you know better.
Don't ever confuse working 'better' with 'perception of
deliverables'. This is what kept IBM afloat in the years before MS
became a standard in the industry. It's what has kept Apple from
dominating the desktop.
Question is, just how 'big' is the market for networks of 1000+
nodes, and how big is it for much lesser numbers of nodes?
> With FLOSS in a network as big as the one consisting of 1000+
>nodes you will realise that management-patch scheduling-upgrades are
>the most significant part of the TCO. This in effect drives the need
>to acquire systems that the average "techie" can deal with.
I tend to think that if someone studies it honestly, the results will
show that applications that deliver business solutions across
networks are the key - one of which may well be the ability to deploy
patches remotely and securely, but let's not fool ourselves: such
apps are only appreciated by techies/sysads.
If you want to win hearts and minds, you have to deliver to the foot
soldiers, but whether you do that or not, the big bucks get
sanctioned by the big bosses.
The paradigm of centralised apps, from ye olde mainframe days, is
returning with web based applications becoming more powerful (in
terms of deliverables). The tech issues are moving from those managed
by maintenance techies to problems of security and speed. However,
this is not yet obvious to senior management, which fears the lack of
security, but does not understand yet how the issue of security
itself has morphed.
With many large organisations (and therefore, in good old copycat or
'safe' mode, most smaller ones too) still favouring MS platforms for
application serving, it will take more time for FLOSS to reach the
business sector.
What is painful and painfully obvious too, is the fact that too many
non-business sector organisations also favour the safety of numbers.
I suspect this is an opportunity that too many of our listmembers are
ignoring. But more on this separately.
--
Vickram