COLUMN: Changing computer systems would be a waste

Recently, a letter to the editor titled “Consider Linux to ease crisis” was published here in The Statesman. Drawing from no sources, stating that the numbers were not accessible, though a few simple interviews and e-mails provided more than enough information to support or disprove the theory, the article lead readers to believe that the switching from Windows/Mac to Linux, all throughout campus, would lead to hundreds of thousands if not millions in savings. In order to set the record straight and support reality with fact, I would like to bring to light the greater costs, incompatibility issues, loss of time and disadvantages we would face, as a university, were we to perform such a change.
    Let us begin by taking a simple look at the some of the costs here on campus, in regard to licenses for operating systems. Eric Hawley, associate  vice president for Information Technology, provided me with the following numbers. In order to save one or two dollars per computer in licensing costs, USU would lose easily 10 to 100 times that much in extra personnel, training and ongoing productivity loss. To further drive the point home, Hawley gave the following example: “The real cost to USU for the Windows Vista Business operating system over the life of a typical Dell computer system is approximately $35. If converted to ongoing costs, this comes to $.073 per month, which for a very large lab of 100 computers is just about $876 per year. To complete the transition to Linux, additional labor costs of $55 per computer to migrate from Windows to Linux would be required along with an absolute minimum of $100 per computer to train and assist users, dealing with compatibility issues and questions. In a best case scenario, roughly $15,500 of additional staffing/training expense would be required to convert 100 computers to Linux, in order to save merely $876 in operating system licensing.” In agreement with the realization of higher costs, Steve Funk, manager of the IT Service Desk, explained, “The loss in productivity and cost to train and switch would be much higher than we pay for licenses.” As one last example, according to Shannon Thurston, computer support analyst at the IT Service Desk, in order to handle such a drastic change, “for the first year, the IT Service Desk would have to be at least three times as big as it is now.” The price to employ that many more people would undoubtedly be a significant blow to the university’s funds.
    Another major problem with switching to a Linux-based operating system, such as Ubuntu, would be the many incompatibilities with systems and programs already in use. According to Funk, “the university’s VPN, Footprints, server caliber software, asset management programs, and departmental software would no longer operate outside a Windows or Mac-based environment.” Unfortunately, as stated in the previous letter, there are no “alternative equivalents” for these systems and software. I have already mentioned some of the training that would be necessary when implementing Linux on campus, but these costs were merely for those who would be assisted and trained by the IT Department itself. The learning and training that would have to first take place within IT itself would already be many hours of lost time and productivity. Were such a change to take place within campus, it would need to be extended over a long period of time, more than likely lasting much longer than our country’s financial crisis, and not sparing a penny in return.
    Lastly, USU students would be placed at a disadvantage in many areas when presented with a Linux-only environment. Following his own personal research, Hawley stated that training students on a Linux-based system would only prepare them “to use an operating system that is in use in only 1.8 percent of corporate desktops worldwide in 2008.” In that light, becoming familiar with a Windows or Macintosh operating system would clearly be much more beneficial in just about any area of employment. About the only occupation where extensive knowledge of Linux would come in handy would be as a Network Administrator. As Funk mentioned, “What is more important? Giving students what they need to be productive in the future, or cutting costs?” Another huge disadvantage, mentioned by both Hawley and Thurston, in using Linux and free software such as Open Office is the requirement for government documents to be in a Microsoft-related format. For example, when trying to get a paper published, or get a grant awarded, very specific formatting is required which at the moment is not available with Linux and Open Office. Were we to use Linux, USU would also be faced with many problems when attempting to interact with other Universities and organizations based on Windows and Macintosh platforms. For this reason alone, no known university in the United States has operated strictly under a Linux-based operating system.
    As we can see, there are many reasons why choosing Linux over Windows and Mac at the moment would not be prudent. The costs would, in reality, be higher, incompatibility issues would present difficult problems, and the University itself would be at an overall disadvantage. It may seem like a wonderful way to cut costs until all factors have been considered. It would not be a simple swapping of operating systems. To quote Funk one last time, “To make such a rash decision would be irresponsible.” According to Thurston, perhaps the academic world will take such a step after the corporate world deems it worthwhile. All things considered, such an alteration in the way USU functions is purely not feasible. There may come a time in the future where such a step would be wise. Unfortunately that time is not now.

This column was written by Matt Hales, sophomore in graphic design.