tim bray commenting on windows

[Ben Scott]

On Jan 9, 2008 2:13 PM, Jerry Feldman <gaf at blu.org> wrote:
> IT in general does not like to support multiple platforms and multiple
> applications.

  It is as much a business decision as a technology decision.
Supporting multiple options of any kind requires that much more
training, documentation, testing, spare parts, licenses,
administrative burden, etc.  So there has to be a real significant
return-on-investment to justify supporting multiple options on a
long-term basis.  Otherwise, it just doesn't make sense.

  Supporting multiple platforms in the short-term, during a migration,
is a more complicated question.  The reoccurring costs of
multi-platform support can be eliminated or significantly reduced if
you keep the migration window small.  So it's a question of how you
manage the migration, and any legacy systems you need to keep around.

  The one-time costs of a migration (which themselves are often rather
large) are still there, of course.  But at least that's just a
question of time-to-ROI.  It's largely just a question of cash
reserves and sufficient forward-thinking.  Sometimes "external
factors" get involved, like vendor lock-in in another space.  (For
example, if you're in an industry that's

> Personally, I don't see Apple and Linux making any significant gains in
> the corporate office desktop space in the foreseeable future ...

  I'm still seeing increasing interest, although it remains a gradual
thing.  I suspect it may be a generational thing.  Recent tech
graduates have likely been at least exposed to Linux, have less
experience to tie them to established knowns, and may even be "used
to" the idea of FOSS.  Even as recently as ten years ago, that was
fairly rare.

  The next 5-10 years may be very interesting.  (Or not.  If I could
predict the future, I wouldn't have to work IT for a living... :-) )

-- Ben