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. If rebooting one of your dependant servers causes
downtime, then i'd suggest firing your IT staff.
Regardless, the document that Roy links to does not say what he claims it
does. He's lying.
|
|
