Help Selling Linux to our ED and Staff

Hello All,

We are an NPO homeless service org that has a transitional housing community on campus. As it stands now, with the help of a consultant, I have set up the residents' network (just 9 computers) on linux (with linux proxy server)...but no staff are using linux on a regular basis.

I'd like to convert the whole campus to Linux (23 more computers) but I will have to convince my executive director and the staff that it will not screw up the work flow of the org. (If I get permission to do this I'd probably just do one computer at a time and wait a couple weeks then do another, etc.)

Here is my request: Where can I find convincing info to present to the ED and staff that shows:
-other large NPOs that have switched and their success stories
-evidence about how staff adjusts to new software or the success of the linux windows emulator if that's in use
-how much we'll save by going Linux (vs. staying with windows)
-why it will be more secure and less trouble to maintain.than windows

I know can push this thru if I can justify it.
Thanks very much for any help you can offer.

If you were a small/medium business or non-qualified for the TechSoup discounts on M$ products, I could help you build a case with cost as a big factor.  Unfortunately, I've never been able to do that effectively for a small NPO.  Your 23 computers are easily covered under the license restrictions MS puts in place (50 licenses per product).

I could help you build a case to keep MS on the desktop and not switch to Linux, but I don't think I could help you in your cause on the desktop here.  Maybe someone else can.  Best of luck!

I like Linux and have a machine here at home, but if a non-profit doesn't have the support staff with linux experience, and time or money for training, then I think it's still a very bad idea to try and change over an organization. The availabilty of WIndows support and users with experience still means that it will be easier to find support inside and outside of the organization, and any new staff or volunteers will not need as much training.

In some cases it can make great sense, if a user has modest needs and you make use of things like Gmail and Google Docs. Training can be pretty easy and not only will the user be able to move between Windows/Linux, but the off-site storage of files can make things more secure, if you think they are secure...! :-)

So I agree that Linux is much better for many reasons, there are still limitations that companies and organizations with limited resources need to be aware of.

Staff members that come in and promote new solutions need to also ask if they are no longer there, will the solutions still make sense.

I like Linux and for the back office it can be a wonderful tool to keep costs down.  But for the desktop, unless you can fully support the OS and apps, MS really has the upper hand here.  Go to your favorite book store and see the number of guides for running windows and office compared to the number of guides for open office and linux OS.

As some of the other posters have said, if you qualify for the Microsoft donations, you have the answer, but if you are faying full retail or even some of the charity pricing, then the open source solution can begin to make sense.

Dave

Thanks Dave, Chris and Christian for your thoughts. I don't want to even begin this if it will not be an all around benefit for the org.

We do have tech soup subscriptions that keep MS products very cheap. However we pay for server administered avg and that's very costly. I understand that you don't need antivirus or spyware tools if you run linux. Is this true?

Also: what about the cost in labor for maintaining a windows network vs a linux one?

It takes loads of time to:
-keep spybot up to date
-ms update each machine (even with autoupdates, each has limited accounts and an admin must log on to install)

...and I hear Linux can update desktop operating systems automatically (with a script) and is less trouble over all.

I'd like to know if I am getting the wrong idea about that.

Thanks much

Ahh yes, well we can help you with the other problems and help you be more efficient with managing Windows desktops.  You can buy [ Symantec Corporate AntiVirus (50 Users) ] here from TechSoup very cheaply - its lighter weight than the Norton desktop varieties.

MS Update could be done with [ Windows Server Update Services (WSUS, free download from Microsoft) ] - it would take you awhile to implement but then you're only dealing with machines that didn't install an update correctly from your central console, instead of visiting each PC directly.  I personally use a Windows Update scripting tool from Heise Security, but to get it to work on a network I had to jump through a lot of hoops and modify the script commands (which you may not want to do).

You might also want to consider [ Windows Steady State ], but I'm not sure how well this works with WSUS.  With Windows Steady State, you likely wouldn't have to worry about running Spybot. 

If Windows Steady State won't work for you, look into desktop imaging.  This will let you maintain an image of the basic setup of your computer(s) so that if someone does get infected with some malware, you can swiftly and easily restore it to a previous state, then just apply patches.  This assumes that all of your users' data is on a network drive.  If its not, take a look at folder redirection and/or Offline File Sync (for data folders like My Documents).  I personally don't bother with redirecting folders that effect the appearance of Windows.  I just want the PCs to work.  If you don't like the default theme, change it later but its not something I'm going to back up.

You don't have the wrong idea about Linux's capabilities, but its extremely DIY (do it yourself) and although there are a lot of free resources available to get it to work its not as simple as it sounds.  If you don't already know how, I'd recommend adjusting your current Windows network first and then maybe setting up a test environment somewhere so you can get -VERY- familiar with Linux prior to trying to move your agency over to it.

Thanks Chris. I'll look into the resources you cite and tackle the effeciency problems with our windows network before deciding to move to linux.

I appreciate the time you took to guide me.

To the OP:

We have right around 125 users, about 75% of whom are using Ubuntu Linux on desktops. We also use it on well over half our servers.

It was a bit of a struggle initially, but once people 'get out of their own way', it's really not all that different. Of course it helps if you have a Windows Terminal Server (or four) like we do, but we're relying on that only for a few required apps and websites that fuss about non-IE browsers.

One piece of knowledge I will share is that if your staff is all thumbs when it comes to using a computer, especially with very basic task like file management, throwing a non-Windows OS at them will magnify that by 10x. People who are generally pretty adept at using a computer will be fine in two months or less.

While I agree that the benefits of using Linux are greater for larger organizations, I would argue that it's worth it for smaller companies in some circumstances as well, especially if you want to explore using LTSP. (one server, several cheap thin clients.)

-n8

You can run IE in linux.

I agree with much of what has come up in this discussion, making a compelling case for small outfits to switch from MS to Linux is hard. MS offer big discounts and out here in Africa pirate copies are readily available, so any argument on cost grounds is hard to make. However, natrixgli has mentioned LTSP, something I have been looking into over the last few weeks. With LTSP in the frame three extra three factors come into play.

• The energy cost of running thin clients is a lot less, probably not a deal maker unless perhaps you have a training suite.
• The admin and support costs should be lower, just be careful or this can sound like the techies wanting an easy life.
• Thin clients should be cheaper although this may not be obvious in the short term

These are probably not enough to tip the balance in most cases but if your org is into providing training  they might help swing it.

Pete

obscurant:

You can run IE in linux.

The IE license is tied to Windows, so I think it would be unwise for a business to go this route.

I have 20 users on an LTSP network, and all of them require IE. So I have a VMWARE virtual machine running Windows Server 2003 that they use to access IE via Rdesktop with SeamlessRDP. 2GB of memory is adequate for this many users, and you can easily restrict IE to access ONLY the websites which require it, while all other browsing can be done with Firefox.

Citrix, VirtualBox, and VMWare all offer free virtualization options that will run Windows. Personally I prefer VMWare, though I haven't tried XenServer.

-n8

The IE license is tied to Windows, so I think it would be unwise for a business to go this route.

Wow...I know, the business will have to sort out its own licensing issues.

Do tell me more about your solution, that has an IE license not tied to windows...

.

I'm currently writing a white paper discussing the cost-benefits for NPO's to switch to Ubuntu Linux as their primary desktop platform. I would be interested in talking to individuals from NPO's that either have switched or are considering the switch to get some ideas of the challenges and concerns your groups have (or had). Please feel free to contact me via email if you would be interested in providing your feedback.

To the original poster of this thread: Many of the people who have replied to you have given very weighted advice in favor of proprietary commercial software. I am of the opinion that NPO's should not be victims to the money-making agendas of corporations. Even donated software comes at a very high price for most NPO's. Depending on what your users are doing, running a free alternative, like Ubuntu Linux, is not only a more affordable and truly viable option, but the philosophy behind the free software is compatible with the NPO business model.

Organizations like Cannonical (the company behind Ubuntu Linux) offer the option of desktop support contracts at a variety of levels to meet the needs of companies that might not have a dedicated IT person. Similar contracts offered by commercial software vendors are not specially priced for NPO's, or if they are, they just aren't affordable for most NPO's. Additionally commercial software requires purchasing new licenses and hardware in order to upgrade, and if the company grows, the costs of licensing and upgrading expands.

Linux, on the other hand, is scalable (no license cost for either server products or desktop) and the goal of Linux distributions is not to make money but to provide a service (similar to the NPO business model). It is reasonable to expect users that require advanced features of specific applications (like graphics software or certain productivity tools) to continue with a proprietary platform. However, it is worth considering if an entire organization needs to support the proprietary platform just because only a small number of users require it. A more cost-effective solution is to move the majority of the organization to Linux. Supporting one or two installations of proprietary commercial software is much cheaper than supporting 100, and the overall company workflow isn't degraded.

Technical consultants who advocate commercial solutions from a single corporation typically have invested in that corporate vendors solution and are primarily focused on making money, either for themselves or for that corporate vendor. These consultants perpetuate the misconception that a certain company represents the "Industry Standard" when that is far from the truth. Market saturation does not equal a standard, it just means they have invested in a complex marketing strategy to make more money for the company with little thought for what is actually best for the industry.

natrixgli:

The IE license is tied to Windows, so I think it would be unwise for a business to go this route.

If that is true then it would be illegal for Mac users to run IE. IE is licensed as its own standalone application (remember that big lawsuit against Microsoft regarding IE?)