__/ [ Michael B. Trausch ] on Saturday 29 April 2006 01:31 \__
> Roy Schestowitz wrote in <1384749.dqhsoMA6gC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on Fri April
> 28 2006 04:47:
>> __/ [ Michael B. Trausch ] on Friday 28 April 2006 01:08 \__
>>
>>>
>>> Ugh. That's horrible. "Independent" Windows vs. Linux data... What a
>>> crock...
>>
>> It has become common for words (AdWords) to be sold to a company where
>> these words ought to belong to its direct competition. There have been
>> lawsuits over this:
>>
> [snip the news articles]
>
> Interesting -- I've seen some of these before. It makes me wonder why the
> same thing isn't done with Linux. Not that I'm one for the suppression of
> advertising or anything, but it's quite obvious that the data is biased and
> that if someone is going to type "linux" into Google to look for
> information on it, if that's one of the first things they see, then it is
> very likely that they're going to be using a biased opinion on what TCO is.
>
> TCO issues with Microsoft vs. Linux are something of a black art to
> "really"
> figure out, anyway. I don't really see how TCO of Windows is going to be
> lower then Linux, when you have to pay for the upgrades and software in
> addition to paying for the support that you receive, especially when you
> consider that UNIX-like systems have been around for decades, and therefore
> shouldn't be that terribly hard for IT people to figure out, especially if
> they come from a background that includes a Computer Science degree. I
> could be wrong on what the majority of CS majors learn, but I would think
> that most of the curricula include UNIX-like systems in the courses that
> are offered. Hell, my girlfriend was an English major and was heavily
> exposed to Linux in school. She may not be a wizard at it, but she at
> least knows how to use a Linux system from a user standpoint.
>
> If you don't figure in the cost of licensing of the OS and applications, it
> would seem that the TCO would be roughly the same in both situations.
> However, I know for sure that I can set up a Linux server using MySQL or
> PostgreSQL for a lot less money then setting up a Windows box running an
> Oracle server, and I can support the free software more then I can the
> proprietary, and at (IMHO) a better value to the end-users of the system.
> To me, that would seem to indicate that TCO is lower.
>
> - Mike
I can think of at least 4 TCO studies (links on demand) which clearly
indicated that Linux is cheaper. The one from IBM, for example, claims Linux
to be 40% cheaper than Windows. I am yet to see a TCO study, other than that
which was funded by Microsoft, which actually claims GNU/Linux is more
expensive. Evidently, Microsoft invested many millions in disinformation
that blinds some senior managers.
By the way, diregard Erik's followup. He is a notorious FUDmeister who sees
and seizes an opportunity in your relative uncertainty. Search the C.O.L.A.
archive to find a handful of threads on this topic.
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Free 3-D Reversi: http://othellomaster.com
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
5:20am up 1 day 12:25, 13 users, load average: 0.78, 1.02, 1.03
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
|
|
