This was an interesting session … the presenters addressed a lot of
issues. They indicated that it used to be about the costs and
availability of support for alternative desktops like GNU/Linux.
Now, they say, the real issue is the migration cost. It will be
interesting to see what they say are the biggest on-going costs …
One thing they mentioned was that you get saving through less
staffing. This was due to adopting a “Universal OS” …
committing to only running GNU/Linux. I’m surprised by this …
since it seems that IS&T in most organizations will always end up
running a wide range of systems … many different types of
operating systems also. I can get in very small businesses and
even medium businesses where there is some flexibility, however most
will have a variety for some time. Does this mean that if the
customer chooses to use Windows, Mac, UNIX, and UNIX-compatible
solutions there is not the ROI that they promise?
They made a very good point about legacy documentation compatibility
and support. They indicated that most organizations do not
require the ability to do “mass conversion” of stored documents, but
can implement a plan to do conversion on demand. They are
promoting .pdf as a good format to convert to … something that can
not be altered easily. I would think that most documents are for
archive purposes, and that newer solutions – like Wiki software –
provide a better solution for “living” documents. They also
pointed to a Microsoft URL
that shows a Microsoft XML document standard. They indicated that
you have to be careful of “advanced” features and their use … these
(I agree) are where the lock-in occurs. I was surprised they
didn’t mention the Oasis Open Office XML work on this …
There is an issue with Macros, and the use of VBA, in Office
files. They said there is no easy way to convert these, and that
they do tend to comprise a significant corporate investment.
Again, this is an area where there is significant (at times)
intellectual property and business logic that has to be
preserved. I would tend to agree that you want to extract this
from the Office environment anyhow … or look for ways to standardize
and make the code more portable.
As for Migration Approaches, they indicated to core strategies – “Rip
and Replace”, and “Go Forward Migration”. With their Go Forward
approach they talked about the issues with vendors and applications,
and suggested that a “dual boot” solution might be
In their case-study – OpenOffice.org – they showed graphs where they
believe they will see a 5-year Net Present Value, 84% Internal Rate of
Return, and a Payback Period of 30 months. I asked them about
what the biggest real contributor to this is, and they said the
Microsoft licenses. This seems to be a little light since
Microsoft can always drop prices …
They closed with a pitch on Ngage consulting services … I’m not sure if they included this in their case study costs …