Thread

1. silverFork · 1790683767 · focus · HN ↗

   It is more like self imposed sanction against US made products. There are now tons of open source operating systems and applications that can replace Microsoft products, which are basically some old programs. The replacements cost vastly less for use and support.

   1. pipes · 1790685182 · focus · HN ↗

      Citation needed on the costs vastly less to support and use.

      1. anonzzzies · 1790688574 · focus · HN ↗

         I do not know in this case, but I led migration and cost benefits analysis beforehand of very large Windows 3.11 to 95 to 2000; at the time there was nothing else that was considered useful and there still pain and massive cost. Later on we had to consider Linux as alternative; it just wasn’t close ; the stability (yep), easy of use etc was just not feasible. Now that Linux is good and easy to configure to basically be exactly like Windows and now that most custom applications of large corporates are web based and specific ones can be ran via Citrix for a few people who need it, I am guessing it finally is cheaper now. And 90% of users won’t even notice the difference; I remember when I was planning my first 3.11 to 95 migration that people were by far most stressed about users unable to open applications as they remember not the name or the icon but 2nd row, 3rd down is Word. Start, 5 up, 1 right, 3 down is internet. Etc. So as long as that’s the same, you are fine. It’s how most our clients still work so we take care never to move functionalities; only add, no delete.

         1. jacquesm · 1790696245 · focus · HN ↗

            It always was cheaper. The thing that made it more expensive was that usually through one backdoor or another you were still paying microsoft.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.