A case study: Video Ezy and Microsoft myths about open source lead to flawed network

David M Williams
Monday, 21 April 2008 09:39

Opinion and Analysis

There’s something subtle in the case study. Early on, Video Ezy began looking at open source solutions. The CIO steered the discussion, saying “When I outlined my previous experience with Linux, it made everyone think again about an open source platform.”

What is this previous experience? He explains later that he previously worked for Panthers Entertainment Group. During that time the group acquired a club who put in Linux file and print servers and believed they saved a lot of money but were paying about $1,000 a week for administration and support. The CIO claims he saved 150% in the first year by integrating the new acquisition with the Panthers central systems.

Firstly, the outcome of a savings makes sense (although a savings higher than 100% implies more than just $1,000 was being spent and so there were presumably other infrastructure costs not specified.) Certainly, and no matter whether your platform is Windows, Linux or anything else, you will achieve benefits and savings by having a consistent operating environment across all your sites. This aids in administration, it aids in support, it aids in remote access and much more.

However, it is my view the CIO is flawed on two points. He makes the assumption that it was Linux which was costly as opposed to just a different operating platform than the rest of the group. Let me present a different scenario which would have equally provided cost savings: imagine the new acquisition used Windows XP computers. They didn’t have a central domain but just used workgroups. They had one computer which they called their server but is just another Windows XP desktop. The administrator password on that machine was blank to help everyone in the office connect to all the file shares. They used ISP provided mailboxes for e-mail and had Outlook pulling mail via POP. The e-mail addresses were all using the ISP’s domain. The company has two remote offices that are set up the same way. Ideally they’d like to share files but their TAFE qualified Windows experienced technician didn’t know how to do it.

This scenario is not unreasonable or unlikely; I’ve been involved in integrating acquisitions which run in that exact manner. Rolling them into the group-wide platform yields huge cost savings and efficiency gains. The operating system itself is irrelevant; it is the standardisation which matters.

However, secondly, he makes the assumption that because that particular entity spent $1,000/week on Linux administration and support that this was necessary and that it was typical. Let me tell you about another company I integrated: this organisation had an IT support guy come in for troubleshooting and help two and half days a week. He invoiced $2,000/week for this. He also used their dial-up account for his own home Internet access and ran a private web site on one of the company’s servers. He hired another organisation to come in once a month for a server health check. This site was entirely Windows based. Yet, the level of support and service was not in proportion to the requirements. The second organisation providing the monthly check was definitely not required. In the end, the contractor was cut back to one day per week for a total of $720/week or $90/hour and there was no loss of service or support. Without further detail I’d be willing to wager the organisation was not necessarily spending their $1,000/week in the most optimal way.

So from the beginning the case study is flawed. In my view, the CIO steered Video Ezy away from open source because of a prior bad experience which had flawed conclusions. Despite the rhetoric from Microsoft, the case study does not involve pitting open source against Microsoft at all. There is no detail of any comparison, but rather a message of pre-conceived biases.

But even so, was the chosen platform ideal? Let’s read on.

CONTINUED