Gartner's Michael Silver thinks enterprises must ensure there is sufficient ROI when considering Linux to replace Microsoft Windows on the desktop.
Enterprises considering Linux to replace Microsoft Windows on the desktop must ensure there is sufficient ROI. Migrations undertaken primarily to spite Microsoft will be costly decisions.
For companies that want to run Linux as their client OS, StarOffice and Ximian Evolution may be key components, but they certainly do not remove all the hurdles users will face in using Linux as an enterprise client.
Enterprises that truly want to use Linux face huge migration costs and projects to get all of their Windows applications running on Linux. While personal productivity and workgroup software are important, they are a very small part of what the typical enterprise would have to do.
Many enterprises find that the number of applications they need to support is roughly equal to 10 percent of their user base. So an enterprise with 2,500 users may well have 250 applications. Many (and in some cases, most) of these applications require Windows on the client to run. To run them on Linux, they would need to be rewritten or replaced, likely at a very high cost. Some of these applications may only require a browser to run, but this is not a safe haven, either. We still see many browser-based applications that are not browser-agnostic and require specific browsers (often Microsoft's Internet Explorer) to run.
Beyond that, StarOffice itself is not always a 100 percent replacement for Microsoft Office or a simple drop-in solution, and even Sun does not make that claim. Any enterprise that has a significant base of macros written for Microsoft Office or third party applications that tightly integrate with MS Office will likely face migration costs there as well.
Be it Windows, Linux, or Mac OS, most client PCs sold come with an operating system whether the enterprise wants one or not. And getting a name brand PC with Linux instead of Windows preloaded does not save that much when factored over the life of the PC. As hardware prices fall, the cost of the OS is becoming a higher percentage of the price of the PC, but in most cases it will still be cheaper for companies to stay with Windows, rather than pay to replace every Windows application.
Enterprises that want to avoid paying extra money to Microsoft for the client OS during the life of their PC should purchase new PCs with the latest version of Windows and stay on that version for the life of the PC, in an environment with a diverse, but managed group of Windows operating systems. With the typical 3-4 year life of a new PC, this strategy can help enterprises avoid writing checks to Microsoft for new versions of Windows.
It's not that Linux can't be a suitable desktop OS. In companies and geographies that have a smaller installed base of Windows applications, it makes sense to evaluate the option. Enterprises considering Linux should make sure their critical vendors are committed to developing Linux and browser-agnostic versions of key applications before planning its use.
Enterprises with a large installed base of Windows apps should ask themselves, "Is there sufficient value and return on investment to use Linux as a client OS?" In most cases, we believe other options can reduce costs and reliance on Microsoft without as much disruption.
What do you think would constitute a perfect Linux desktop? TalkBack or send e-mail to us.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
