XPost: comp.os.linux.advocacy   
   From: usenet@gallopinginsanity.com   
      
   amicus_curious stated in post   
   4d1f34c1$0$14781$ec3e2dad@unlimited.usenetmonster.com on 1/1/11 7:03 AM:   
      
   >   
   >   
   > "Snit"  wrote in message   
   > news:C94293D4.88671%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com...   
   >   
   >>   
   >> Hadron theorized that the difference was corporate support... though there   
   >> clearly has been corporate support for OO, so that is not the full answer.   
   >>   
   > Think about this:   
   >   
   > 1.  MS Office and Windows have dominated the corporate market for nearly 20   
   > years now.  Whether successful or not, that is what everyone is using.   
      
   Aha... looking below I see that you mean the companies being successful... I   
   first read this as the products.  Got it.   
      
   > 2.  If they are successful, companies are going to stay with what they have,   
   > I.e. what works for them.  They are not interested in making any significant   
   > change to their procedures.   
      
   Largely true but not always.  Many companies re-evaluate technology and   
   other aspects every few years and are willing to change.  In general, the   
   smaller the company the more likely they are to do this... though it is not   
   unheard of for larger companies.   
      
   > 3.  If they are not successful or else if they are having newly formed   
   > difficulties, then they may entertain some cost savings actions that go to   
   > changing their core procedures.  But these companies are in difficulties due   
   > to things outside their use of MS Office and Windows and the cost to   
   > efficiency due to wholesale changes such as moving to Linux and OO will do   
   > much more damage than the potential cost savings will help.  The wiser   
   > decision is to simply keep the existing XP and prior version of MSO and   
   > muddle ahead, trying to solve their real business problem.   
      
   If Linux / OO / OSS serves their needs as well then it makes sense to   
   migrate (or it might, there are costs involved with migrations).  Where   
   Linux serves well this has happened - servers, embedded devices and now   
   smart phones.   
      
   > The bottom line is that businesses are not  in business to save money, they   
   > are in business to make money.   
      
   A penny saved is a penny earned.  :)   
      
   > Once their focus becomes savings, they are generally doomed.   
      
   Not necessarily.  One of the things WalMart does well is to reduce costs and   
   streamline things as much as they can.  Few would say they are, overall, a   
   struggling company.   
      
   > Conversion of office systems to Linux and OO only appeal to cost savers.   
      
   For the most part, yes.  As Shuttleworth has talked about.   
      
   > That is why most of the focus is on governmental activities such as schools   
   or   
   > civil service administration.  Even then, the record is spotty.  Look at   
   > Munich et al.   
      
   Yes - I have seen "advocates" give lists of planned migrations - but how did   
   those go?  Did they happen?  Who knows.   
      
      
      
   --   
   [INSERT .SIG HERE]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)