The primary reason for moving off of PHP is that it doesn't have a content management system behind it, which we needed. Everything was customized, and every time we needed to change things, we had to modify the code. Windows and SharePoint gave us a strong content management platform to build on.

That was the major driver for me, and now we do not have to keep modifying the code whenever we want to do something. At the same time, it is easier on our end for users to manage their content, because we have a system behind it. The old web site was based on a little database here, a little database there, and we wrote everything in PHP. It was ad-hoc and quick development: "I need this—let me write some code to do this. I need that—let me write the code to do that."

Since we switched to Windows 2003 and SharePoint 2007, we utilized SharePoint build-in content management package, which reduces the amount of custom code that we have to write. . When we want to change the Web site, SharePoint 2007 makes it much easier.

I can start a project and build about 80 percent of the functionality I want right away. If I start adding multiple layers of functionality and features, then I have to consider all the scenarios I need, and the project gets far more complicated. If an existing package is available, I am typically better off buying it, because the company that developed it has already considered all of those scenarios.

If the software costs too much, I can still choose to build it. I just had a conversation with a colleague where I said, "We can build what you want, but you need to realize it will only satisfy 90 percent of our unique needs. For the other 10 percent, someone will have to manage it manually, because if we added the 10 percent of additional features into the equation, it will cost us a lot of money. It's smarter in this case to buy a product that covers 100% of our needs."

I have a philosophy: I do not choose technology for religious reasons. A lot of times, for some people in the technology world, it's "Linux/Unix versus Microsoft." I think some people are getting too religious about it. I choose the technology that is best for the things I want to do.

In terms of open source, the choices are not quite there in terms of having all the features and functionality that we needed for this project. The other thing that really worries me about open source is ongoing support. Who is going to support it? Is there a company behind the product? If something does break, who is going to go in and fix it?

Usually with open source, you hire your own developers to set it up. If something breaks, they will fix it themselves. Alternatively, they'll go to the Web to ask other people about it, or see if there is a patch for the problem. That's kind of a haphazard approach; I don't want to wonder who we would turn to, and I don't want to depend on someone I don't know and trust.

We are using some open source based technology to monitor our servers and some database applications.

A lot of open source is more of a package—a full solution already. For example, Sugar CRM is open source. But is Sugar CRM truly free? No. If you really want to run your business, you have to pay for support.

It always comes down to the scope of the project, and how big your implementation is, and there are many, many criteria you have to look into. Open source, packaged applications are used at small and medium sized companies more than large companies, because they are cheap solutions. Those companies don't have to worry about scalability or many of the other things a larger company would need to worry about, since it's a small-scale implementation.

A key thing I try to educate others on is that open source is not always free. People usually buy a support contract if they are running in production environment. If you don't you will not have any support with an open source vendor, what happens if something goes bad? Who do I turn to?

I want to turn to a recognized organization that can support me and an organization that makes a living supporting its customers. Open source has millions of developers, but if I am using open source and my production server goes down right now because of little bugs, we are stuck if we don't have dedicated support.

Yes, we can send an SOS message out on the Web and hope that somebody answers, and hope that somebody understands our environment and helps us. Am I going to count on that, or am I going to count on a company that has a support staff that can help us?

I am going to count on a company where the product is their bread and butter.

The Sharepoint interface was easy for the staff to use. It was very easy for me to train Linux and Unix employees on Windows. In my interviews, I ask, "Are you comfortable working in Windows?" because some candidates are so religious about it, they don't want to touch it.

If they know Linux/Unix well, they can quickly bridge their skills over to Windows.

Unfortunately, some people tend to make decisions on an ideological basis. If they are familiar with the technology, and they are passionate about it, they just stick with it regardless of whether or not the technology landscape has changed around them, and if the technology help to solve their business issues. Some individuals simply have distaste for a given technology, and hence they don't keep an open mind about it.

I tell people to focus on their business goals, and the challenges they have to overcome to meet those goals. The decision to go with Microsoft was not strictly a technology decision but also a ROI business decision. For me it was also important that it solve the real business needs that we have. With Microsoft we were able to achieve that.