Sure, let's do the math :

I only maintain a handful of desktops PCs, and 4 online servers facing the internet.

On those, replacing my Debian setup with a windows equivalent would cost me between 20 and 25 000 dollars _per machine_ in licensing fees, renewable every three years.

Also, Windows can't run fast enough on these machines (they're Atom based computers), so I would also have to pay for more expensive hardware.

I enjoy the full disclosure that open source provides, so I know exactly what's going on. Zero downtime in three years. _Very_ pleasant and efficient development environment (I started on Windows, so I can tell the difference).

Keep counting...

"open source software stacks take time to maintain"

To keep my Debian systems up-to-date, I simply need to type

apt-get update && apt-get install

If you're a slow typist (80wpm), that's about 8 seconds per machine. You may copy/paste and get down to 2 seconds.

You can also have your document display changes/edits made by the third party and validate those changes, or not.

"When was the last time they needed out-of-house Office editing"

It might happen, and Open/LibreOffice are no obstacle for plain documents (e.g. contracts).

I've shared/edited documents with my clients who use Windows, while I have a Debian desktop with OO; no problem in years. Actually even less than them on occasions, because that makes me less version dependent.

I never heard RMS talk about GNU/Minix; I did about GNU/Linux

"the prefix was added by people who simply got tired of waiting for Hurd"

Wrong : the prefix was added by Richard Stallman himself, who wanted people to remember that if Linus Torvalds did the kernel, GNU built the ecosystem it resides in.

I heard him in person saying this in a speech over 10 years ago.

Indeed, ovh.com has statistics on the systems installed on its dedicated servers :

Windows =~ 5 000

Linux =~ 60 000

Concurred : I spent the last seven years on Debian, all upgrades went without a hitch, all my software needs being covered many times over.

Also, I have been working full time for over 3 years with an eee pc, which is close to unusable under Windows, and quite pleasant with linux.

Considering the amount of actual work that gets done in these meetings (IMO absolutely *nothing* that could not be done over a simple exchange of mails) it's no wonder these people elected Microsoft products in the first place.

>training will happen, like it or not.

Sure, but one fundamental difference with open source software is that it does not foster the multiple layers of executives found in proprietary software.

And I believe these people actually spend most of their time inventing new rules to justify their presence, artificially inflating the need for change, and create a mess in the process, because proven reliable software then gets broken.

Comparing the evolution of MS's office suite and that of Open/Libre Office over the last few years is a good example of that process, I find.

>I suspect that most people will be able to do the same thing, especially if the IT guy is the one doing all the installation and then telling them "to do that, just click on this icon right here ..."

Yo, nice way to reduce maintenance cost : have an IT guy behind each clerk to show him where to click. Don't forget to train the IT guy first, because he probably won't know where to click either if you use anything past windows 7.

What a joke.

I work full time running Debian on an eee-pc that is now three years old.

All I've had to do is type this :
apt-get update && apt-get upgrade
in a console window once in a while to keep my system up-to-date.
I did the same on my previous laptop for the preceeding three years, the machine is still in use.

In the meantime, Windows' Office suite has become absolutely useless to me, due to the staggering amount of changes introduced for reasons I can't fathom.

I have no idea what potential interruption in business you talk about, it certainly is far less common in open source software than in proprietary software.

One thing is certain : I am not looking back.

"Sorry if my postings on this upset the anti-GMO crowd, but the facts are sometimes annoying."

Which is the reason why pro-GMO lobbyists so vehemently prevent any form of serious research on them, presenting only their own as valid.

Here is one example, among many others :
http://www.naturalnews.com/037665_gmo_scientists_organ_damage.html

The only information I gather from the linked article is that Seralini's word is largely approved by people who are against GMO's, and not by people who support them. Totally hollow.

"Finally, it is notable that Seralini's funding comes from Greenpeace, and organization not shy about distorting facts."

Sure, quite unlike Monsanto, ever so truthful... are you serious?

They most certainly do. Brain washing plays a very important part, and it involves paying for skewed studies, favorable articles in news media, and more.

If you meant what you wrote, do wake up, please.