I don't do Silicon Valley philosophy. I'm talking the efficient stuff that midsized organizations overstretched IT teams have been pulling off for years plus some tooling that comes with DISA's extra money. However, the lock-in effect...
"because I all but guarantee there is Microsoft-specific code running at all levels of this organization. Everyone has to be retrained, a lot of infrastructure has to be rebuilt. All of that will chew up your 1bn quickly."
...is a valid reason to default on using Microsoft. The difference is that moving what I can to alternatives means I can gradually move from lock-in to more flexible IT with open standards & multiple vendors to choose from. Organizations on Microsoft are often stuck, though. This much is undeniable. IBM, Oracle, and SAP the other huge offenders here.
It was every time I did it. Plus many of the individual tools are free and mature. No licensing fees. There's also the benefit of not having BSA looking into your firm.
The best benefits, though, are in flexibility and security rather than cost. I just have so much more available over long term to me with open formats, protocols, API's, and code. Plus, Microsoft has been saying "screw you" to its own customers in product development over past few years leveraging its lockin to keep them. Whereas, open stuff gives opportunity of switching vendors.
"because I all but guarantee there is Microsoft-specific code running at all levels of this organization. Everyone has to be retrained, a lot of infrastructure has to be rebuilt. All of that will chew up your 1bn quickly."
...is a valid reason to default on using Microsoft. The difference is that moving what I can to alternatives means I can gradually move from lock-in to more flexible IT with open standards & multiple vendors to choose from. Organizations on Microsoft are often stuck, though. This much is undeniable. IBM, Oracle, and SAP the other huge offenders here.