I keep seeing these types of stories, with people screaming about how much "Cheaper" OSS is vs. Closed Source. But very few people look past the cost of the licensing.
I challenge you to replace a fully-working Microsoft environment with something OSS that provides full feature parity.
Removing Exchange/Outlook is always the sticking point. You can piss and moan about standards, and Outlook client issues all day long, but the fact remains that Outlook/Exchange "just works", scales incredibly well, and integrates with Active Directory, Sharepoint, Office, Lync, etc. And yeah - companies USE these things. Users don't give a fuck about standards, about freedom, about a 'cause'. They want to do their work and come home.
Active Directory group policies. Software deployment/installation. Roaming profiles. Automatic print driver installation. Recognizing and installing a plethora of "WTF" hardware for at least basic functionality (old peripherals, printers, etc.).
While I applaud the efforts of the OSS community and the desire to build enterprise software, Microsoft rules the desktop for a reason. People know it. It wasn't a huge change from 95 to 98 to 2K to XP to Win7. The basic paradigm was there. Start, Programs, whatever.
The application software and the "open standards" underneath simply do not matter to most organizations, because they and nearly every one of the agencies they interact with ALSO use Office formats, or PDF. They don't give a damn about Open Document formats. They don't care about sendmail standards. They don't care about RFCs. They care that they can do their job, to use the information they need, and then deliver it to their colleagues, bosses, etc.
Replacing Win7/WIn8 with Mint is great. Install OpenOffice/LibreOffice. Fine. Get your email client connected, and you can even use DavMail to connect to Exchange.
But you cannot force users to lose functionality in the name of a cause.
Want to dethrone MS? It's not the damn desktop OS - it's the ecosystem that allows modern business to use one common toolset, one user name, and have stuff "just work".
Hacking together Mint, sendmail/postfix, some webapp here, some kludgy mess here, a mashed up Kerberos/eDirectory ... that isn't going to get it done. What about when you go past about 50 users, and need to install new software for everyone? How about for 10,000 users? How about users that move from desk to desk, or office to office?
The costs of adminstration, upkeep, training, and the requisite specialist for the infrastructure quickly outweigh any upfront costs. Yes, Windows admins can be had cheap. A desktop admin is less spendy than a full server admin; that's fine. He can handle a large # of desktops via GPO, AD, and the tools provided.
Move out of the 90's, people. Microsoft desktops and servers aren't the BSOD shitboxes you remember. For the most part, Windows Server is stable. The desktop OS (Windows 7, I too have not totally embraced Win8) is rock solid, works well, and runs pretty much anything, with no hassle. Blaming hardware drivers, blaming users, blaming people for 'not wanting to care' - so what? Do you get worried about if your GM car uses a proprietary data bus? Do you care about the intimate details of your plumbing? No. You just want it to work.
Make F/OSS "just work" - make an easy migration path - and you'll have something.
Until then, it will continue to be purpose-driven (servers, appliances, etc.), and for those of us on the 'edges' of IT.
