begin risky.vbs
<g72l7fpmevd6.dlg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 15:58:18 +0100, Roy Culley wrote:
>
>> begin risky.vbs
>> <159gyje6dxhnw.dlg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>> On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 07:48:01 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>>> So, Microsoft does not deny that its products are far more
>>>> expensive to acquire. Then, it argues that running costs are
>>>> indistinguishable. Not at all what experience suggests, e.g.:
>>>
>>> Huh? Are your reading comprehension skills that bad?
>>>
>>> The above text says that license and support contract costs play a
>>> very small part in TCO, and do not differentiate the overall TCO of
>>> Microsoft, Red Hat, or SUSE's offerings. Where do you get this as
>>> an admission tha Linux TCO is lower?
>>>
>>> You can read anything into any statement, can't you?
>>
>> For what its worth sunshine my real world experiences of TCO show
>> Windows to be far more costly than any *nix. Its not just the
>> incredible admin costs but the downtime costs of Windows. Reboots
>> alone cost money Erik. Duff patches and exploits cost far more of
>> course.
>
> Any mission critical system that doesn't have redundancy, or applies
> patches without first testing them deserves what they get, regardless of
> what OS they are using.
You don't live in the real world do you Erik? Not all businesses can
afford redundancy let alone the likes of campus clustering. How many
MS patches have failed to fix exploits or introduced other ones or
broken systems Erik?
For many it is too risky to install MS's patches when their business
is at stake. Its not just the number of Windows exploits but the
damage they cause. Even inocent looking things like spam are screwing
up the Internet. Almost all caused by exploited Windows systems.
> If rebooting one of your dependant servers causes downtime, then i'd
> suggest firing your IT staff.
Why is there a need to reboot Erik. With SunOS, HP-UX , Linux, reboots
are very rarely required after patching. What is wrong with Windows that
it needs so many reboots?
> Regardless, the document that Roy links to does not say what he
> claims it does. He's lying.
Not having read it I can't say. Your reading comprehension has been
shown to be seriously lacking over the years so excuse me if I don't
take your word for it.
--
I've asked time and time again for people to prove that I primarily spout
FUD. - Funkenbusch (COLA's comedian), Sat, 2 Dec 2006
|
|
