__/ [eros.tintory@xxxxxxxxxxx] on Friday 02 September 2005 16:40 \__
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> __/ [eros.tintory@xxxxxxxxxxx] on Friday 02 September 2005 16:02 \__
>> > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> >> Many of you have probably seen this by now:
>> >> http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=170102340
>> >> In short, Linux if 40% cheaper than Windows in terms of total cost of
>> >> ownership, i.e. setup /and/ maintenance. This study comes from IBM and
>> >> it is surely something to wave at the boss' face when he/she considers
>> >> the deployment of a new system, whatever its nature may be.
>> >> Roy
>> > Wrong, most companies specially large ones are subject to IT audit such
>> > as SAS94 and others which are very skeptical about Linux.
>> I beg to differ. Many who use Linux know very well what they do. Just
>> because they are not subjected to the Microsoft shackles does not imply
>> that something illicit takes place. In fact, a Linux machine can expose
>> more than a Windows machine in my humble opinion.
>> > Companies
>> > don't use free moving-target hobyist Linux versions, they have to use
>> > enterprise distros, ant those are extremely expensive, and what's
>> > worse, after a year is over you have to purchase your Linux licenses
>> > all over agian, Linux TCO is skyhigh!
>> I suggest that you either look at these licences or read the article. You
>> have just made a laughable argument that Linux licences are more
>> expensive than Windows licences.
>> PS - Try to bottom-post please.
*LOL* Get the facts compaign?