[ Thanks to Con
Zymaris for this link. ]
“A few months ago I was asked by a major publication to take the
Windows side of a Linux vs. Windows debate. The arguments raised by
the writer on the Linux side revolved around fuzzy political,
almost religious, concepts like freedom of choice and the need to
be counted in the battle against the Microsoft monopoly. I found
this somewhat entertaining since she is a CIO and IT organizations
generally don’t give their users a lot of choice.“In my response, I systematically pointed out that the
justification was based on something that sounded more like a
religious belief than business benefit, and such a justification
was a short path to unemployment if it was the basis for a highly
critical project and the project failed. This would be true
regardless of what platform we were discussing.“The writer on the Linux side objected, not to the facts, but
because my article would have put her job at risk. Because of the
CIO’s job concerns, the debate never ran; this was unfortunate
because through debate we gain better understanding of the risks
involved in any decision. And we can satisfy the need to develop a
solid business case for a decision in case the competency of the
decision maker comes into question due to an unforeseen problem
later in the process…”