On 30 September 2013 17:51, Peter Nunn <[email protected]> wrote: > ** > > The Buresr, whom I do have some sympathy for, given the amount of crap > he's been told, has made the decision that Linux is 'too risky', after > consulting other bursers on some network of bursers (god knows) and being > advised that "Linux is no good in an education environment, can't get > staff, no-one uses it except a few 'out there risk takers'". Of course the > M$ suppliers are pushing the same line. >
What are the risks that matter to him? Make sure to address *his* top concerns, as opposed to say concerns that other people might have. Then maybe try to put these risks in perspective. e.g. (example only, answers need to be adopted for individual case) Risk: Linux will disappear tomorrow: What is the chance this will happen? Incredibly small because so many big companies use and support it. What is the damage? The server would continue to operate as before. You would eventually buy a new server (probably for cheaper then the original server) and copy the data across from the old server, and life on the planet would continue. How to minimize the damage? Backups, train staff know to do restores, train staff to do basic maintenance, etc. I think part of the problem is that some people subconsciously might think: Risk: Linux will disappear tomorrow: What is the chance this will happen? Very high, everyone knows only hackers use it. What is the damage? We would lose all data on the system or be held to ransom by some hacker. Everyone would blame me for choosing Linux, I might lose my job, etc. How to minimize the damage? Prey. Also that point "Everyone would blame me for choosing Linux" could be the *real* risk that concerns him. As opposed to the concerns he may willingly tell you.
_______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list [email protected] http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
