Re: Lots of companies run Linux including Google
"t costs you a higher TCO in most use cases to do less and is way more painful to use. Hardly a benefit."
". Stop spreading FUD. That's Microsoft's job."
Genuine TCO/ROI data is remarkably hard to get hold of because there is far too much emotion and too many vested interests involved.
While, in terms of raw OS licensing, costs are certainly lower. Costs for technical, architectural and support skills are not only at least comparable but may well be higher or indeed **may be unobtainable** - since enterprise quality skills in desktop Linux are pretty rare - of course they are, hardly anyone does that! Decent IT skills are hard enough to come by, specialist ones far more so. That might well leave you tight to a choice of a small number of specialist 3rd-party support organisations who, themselves, would likely struggle to grow in the face of a large corporate switch to Linux desktop.
Then you have to factor in end user skills and knowledge. Few, if any, enterprise users have knowledge and experience of Linux desktop. Even worse when you factor in the need to use non-standard software such as Open/Libre Office instead of MS Office.
Many enterprises (and certainly public sector) have to operate at minimal staffing levels at the best of times, trying to free up front-line staff in order to retrain them to an alternative OS and software would see you laughed out of the board room. And rightly so.
None of this is FUD, all of it is real. Based on experience over several decades. And yes, based on practical experience of trying to move away from Microsoft products in the past. Also based on writing business cases for past and current services.
Let us all do ourselves a favour and leave the emotion out of this argument. The decisions for change vs status quo aren't just based on TCO, nor even on ROI - but rather on all of the business and human factors as well.