Business Justification For Implementing Linux

[kkubasik]

There are several key points to focus on.

• 1) Cost: Perhaps the most obvious is the per-liscense cost of linux verses that of competing proprietary vendors and products
  
  2) Adabtability: Because of its open nature you can have a say in development of features needed through bounties (or should your company be a technical company, on your own)
  
  3) Reliability: As mentioned before, Linux is well known for its stability and security. Generaly top priorities for most commercial vendors.
  
  4) System Resources: Linux is more sparing on older machines, and because of its modular and adaptive nature, it can be slimmed down and optimized, delaying costly hardware upgrades. Or, reviving old machines marked for removal. (On a realted note, one of the best examples of this is clustering and load sharing. Should a company replace desktops, and have 30 some old 900Mhz PII's sitting around, placing them in a cluster on a gigabit (or simply 10/100 full duplex) would provide an incredably powerful supercluster that could run server style task quite effectivly. Google is probably the most well known example of massive load sharing, and a shining example of its effectivness)
  

Theres plenty more, but I'm pressed for time.

[d38dm8nw81k1ng]

don't forget admin costs! the average linux admin demands a higher salary but he can service more computers, driving the overall cost down. if you show some independant studies to them showing that on average linux is cheaper than that can work in your favour.

[Slip]

The only time I would deploy a Windows server is for Windows specifics like AD or Exchange, or IIS/ASP pages. Straight Web Services I’d go with a Linux server simply for performance.

[jordower]

and with mod_aspdotnet for apache you dont even need IIS for .NET protocols and stuff
http://httpd.apache.org/cli/introduction

[LegionZero]

There is also manegeability, a well trained Linux user can fully manage a Linux OS and recover from almost any system error without the need to reset the computer, unlike windows which almost always seems to be the solution.

In short: Linux is fully manageable and a whole lot less volatile.

[winter]

and if you need a case study i sugest digging up any from the new zealand health authority, i think ibm managed their migration from windows 2k3 to linux.

[Xenon]

If you want some general promotional material, Novell is the perfect source.
http://www.novell.com/linux/windowst...publicservice/
http://register.novell.com/listings/?id=32

I also found this site with a collection of case studies:
http://www.li.org/success/

[a thing]

1. If something doesn't do exactly what you need, the IT department can hack it to make it do what you want.

2. If someone likes a program, he/she can take it home (and share with his/her family, if they have one).

3. Most distros will come with all you need.

4. And obviously economics.

[fingal]

You might wish to read a UK Government document called 'Open Source Software Trials in Government'. This tries to justify the adoption of open source (pity that the OGC then went on to sign a juicy contract with Billy Boy) Find this here.

The report takes a balanced view of adoption. After all, knowing the pitfalls is crucial so that you can avoid them.

Good luck

[adamdaughterson]

These are all great directions folks. This is why I use Linux/OSS primarily: Post a good question in a good forum and usually get solid answers promptly. On the flipside, it is also beneficial (at least for me) when I post a not-so-good question and someone suggest's research instead of handing out an answer. This forces me to grow some.

Thanks again all!

AD