Re: its not rocket science chaps...
"That is why they have they own distro based on upstream systems (so they get the updates) but with choices and configurations limited to what is suitable for their users' needs."
Which may be what is putting a lot of Enterprises (large and small, commercial and public) off. They would need at least one person dedicated to this. Preferably more that one because if you have only one person on staff with intimate knowledge of all the customisations you have made to your OS (whichever OS it happens to be), you are leaving yourself in a very precarious position. Even if you insist they document it, you'd better make sure that documentation is checked, as it may be incomplete.
This is going to cost money, and most organisations are trying to cut IT budgets to the bone. In the long term, it may actually be cheaper to buy in a product, and the relevant expertise to use it. Microsoft have done a very good job (from their point of view) of ensuring all our schools, colleges and Universities are teaching Microsoft products, and they are also widely used in the business sector, so Microsoft system admins and technicians are far more plentiful (and therefore often cheaper) than Linux/Unix sysadmins and technicians.
There's also the fact that if you buy a product from a company (be it Microsoft or whoever) and it fails, the sale of goods act (amongst others) gives you a lot of legal protection, and also enables you to sue the manufacturer should you need to. Who do you sue if Linux (or any Open Source product) fails? You can buy support contracts, but the protection offered by the Law would only apply to the provision of that contract. The contract may require that they make reasonable efforts to fix the code if the code is the problem, but it will probably also include clauses limiting their liability in the event that the code at fault was written by someone outside the company.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
