It's interesting that for years these types of debates continue. These types of debates are very similar to the Chevy versus Ford arguments. While I may not be a Ford fan, I do think the Linux versus Microsoft debate is driven by so may factors. In an age where technological advancements are increasingly starting from people's living-rooms, cost tends to be a huge factor. For an individual to setup a development environment in their home can become expensive. For a business that cares more about up-time and support, cost is just a part of doing business.

One of the topics that I always find myself a part of is the virtual vs physical conversation. In the same conversation there is also cloud vs on-site hosting. In my opinion supporters of virtual and cloud based solutions seem to only focus on cost. I think that there are so many factors that need to be considered with choosing the appropriate path for your organization. At the root of this debate seems to be cost vs security. Within the security realm is a separate separate cost vs risk. While I do not profess to have all the answers, I will try to give a few things to think about.

Recently I had a client that wanted to migrate from a Windows Server 2003 to Server 2008 R2. In most organizations I have worked with, they have the mentality of "if it aint broke, then don't fix it." It isn't sexy to upgrade existing applications in your network that already seem to be working fine. Most people would rather put that money into something that would make them money, or at least entertain them visually. What does it mean for a business that fails to work toward upgrading?


Follow Us

Copyright © 2007 - 2024. All Praise Media LLP. All Rights Reserved.