On 30 September 2013 18:20, Jeremy Visser <jeremy@visser.name> wrote:
On 30/09/13 17:51, Peter Nunn wrote:
The Burser, whom I do have some sympathy for, given the amount of crap he's been told, has made the decision that Linux is 'too risky', after consulting other bursers on some network of bursers (god knows) and being advised that "Linux is no good in an education environment, can't get staff, no-one uses it except a few 'out there risk takers'". Of course the M$ suppliers are pushing the same line.
He has a point.
You call up a random IT company — they are a Windows shop. The reality is that there are more Windows shops than Linux shops.
From his perspective, it’s about redundancy. He can throw out one lot of IT people, replace them with another lot, and they will still be able to support the system.
He can’t find a Linux shop just by walking up the street or finding the first IT company in the Yellow Pages.
Also worth noting that with Linux, you tend to get a huge variance in the way things are set up, depending on the sysadmins who created it. If you bring in a new Linux shop, they may well take quite a while to figure out how everything works, and then want to change it. Whereas with Windows, there's usually only one way to do it, and all competent admins will do it the same way and should be able to pick up where the last one finished. So, that's not a problem for Linux, as long as you do have a company who can manage your systems long-term - but I can see that lock-in effect being concerning for people. T