“The days of “throwing money” at IT are clearly a thing of the past and CIOs will increasingly need a clear business case for any future investments they make”
So says IDC…
I’ve been saying the same thing for years. If you don’t need “Office” or that other OS, why pay for them? If those two items lower your productivity by inviting in malware and slowing down and require frequent re-re-reboots and slow booting, why pay for them? Every acquisition of IT should be required to prove that other OS and its applications are necessary before being approved. In 80% of cases there is little justification for throwing away that money. M$’s margins compared to other businesses that earn money the old fashioned way are proof of that. If that other OS were needed what did we do before it came along? Why did M$ have to spend $billions to suppress other software and businesses if M$’s product were necessary? Why, in a competitive market should any particular product from a particular company be necessary?
The fact is that the savings in licensing fees pretty well pays for the cost of migration and we should all get on with it. Where I have worked systems running GNU/Linux had dramatically lower costs of operation so you save several ways by using GNU/Linux: manpower, maintenance, licensing, energy, and waste.
That said, in the last year my organization acquired 52 PCs all of which came with that other OS. M$ got their “tax” without our intervention. We have not finished the task of migration completely since our budget supports paying for something we end up not using. It does not get more wasteful than that. Imagine buying fuel and burning in an incinerator instead of the furnace. Imagine buying a truck and letting it rust instead of being used. The waste is obvious and unacceptable.
In our case, a supplier sent us 40 PCs with a “freebie” licence from M$ and another sent us 12 new PCs without even enquiring if we wanted that other OS, a breakdown in communication.