While few will argue that a Linux workstation solution will save money initially, many people will argue that the long term financial impact of re-training personnel will quickly eat up those savings. There are merits to both sides of the argument, but the tipping point rests solely on how the workstation is to be used.
Over the years I have been involved in the development of many type of customized applications. Most recently, the bulk of these applications have been communication systems for military customers. Most NATO militaries will opt for a Windows-based solution because of the perceived training costs. The argument is that soldiers have enough to worry about without having to learn an entirely new operating system. I would agree with this train of thought except that the first thing we typically do when developing a system is to lock it down so tight that there's nothing on the screen but one big icon. Joe soldier's job is to double-click that big icon and launch the proprietary application that we've built for him.
The burning question is: how much more training does Joe soldier need to double-click the icon on the Linux box than he does on a Windows box? Double-clicking in Linux works just like double-clicking in Windows. The only training that Joe will need is in the custom application(s) that we've built for him. Training that would have to take place regardless of the underlying operating system.
Obviously I'm over simplifying the issue, but the gist is important. When evaluating a possible non-Windows solution for your company, take the time to do a task-based end-user analysis. What does the end user actually do and how much of that will change based on the selection of operating system? Only with a careful examination of the front line activities of employees can a true cost picture be developed.
Article by Jon Watson from http://www.jonwatson.ca
Comment Preview