Open source security OK, experts assure SMBs

I consider it a misconception that people are always associating Open Source solutions with small and medium sized business, or SMBs. There is no reason why large enterprises can't take advantage of Open Source solutions for security, among many other solutions. In fact, there are many large companies doing just that. Why is it that people assume that if you are a large enterprise you can obviously afford proprietary solutions so you should use them?

google, amazon, oracle, IBM, Novell... I say, if it's good enough for amazon.com, it's good enough for just about anybody.

I think you're missing the point a bit devhen. Large enterprises have been doing FOSS for a long time. It's the SMBs that are hard to convert, usually because there is limited IT staff and even less experience with FOSS.They stick with the tried 'n true. "Nobody ever got fired for buying $BIG_NAME!"

Quoting: They stick with the tried 'n true.

No, they are stuck with third-party consultants who have no interest in moving to a product that offers less (or no) markup margin, and which will simply run beautifully once configured initially. Linux is a wonderful thing, and it just hums along and doesn't need any TLC at $150/hr, unlike crap from MS. These consultants are like the petty criminals on the street hawking drugs supplied by their evil overlord bosses from Mt Doom...um, Mt. Redmond...um, just Redmond.

I have one client who specifically requested Linux, because they hate Microsoft so much. I work on their PCs some (Windows), but I never touch the server beyond doing a few updates. It never has any problems. Needless to say, they don't make us a lot of money.

I forwarded the "Windows Is Free" article to a friend of mine who works in a Microsoft-only business of some 300 employees at 4 different sites. Very much an information driven company, so computer reliability is paramount.

He said he thought a "transition" to Linux would cost the company $3M and take at least a year.

If it weren't for vendor-lock-in, such a "transition" would be needless. As applications were upgraded, as systems retire and are replaced, a policy of replacing with F/OSS would take care of the "transition" while reducing the cost of operations ongoing.

As Rijel notes, this may be much more attractive to a company with in-house technical support, since reducing costs is something they all share. It's perfectly reasonable that a contract vendor would want all the lock-in they could possibly foist on the customer.

But then, the real "price" of changing an established company is to identify and eliminate the vendor-lock-in elements first. Windows is capable of running commodity protocols, using open calendar and email programs instead of Exchange.

So the real question is, is the cost of breaking the Microsoft stranglehold even while still using Windows something that management is willing to spend, with the promise of never paying a Microsoft license fee again?