__/ [Beauregard Jackson Burnside] on Friday 06 January 2006 17:45 \__
> .. none of all the linux distros are free, or are they? Be honest.
> Even if they are 'free', servicing isn't. That costs a bundle!
> How are businesses supposed to survive when all they can do is continue to
> make a loss because of the cost liability of linux.
> I can't go on like this. It must stop soon. I received an *email at
> lunchtime today which assured me linux would not be entertained for certain
> business sectors. There is an active backtracking about to take place.
> [*] Content cannot be publisched.
Like any business solution, there are certain unknowns and unpredictable
mishaps do come about. This applies to any platform, whether it is commer-
cial or not, whether its licence are expensive or not. The expertise which
is needed to fix problems varies in terms of cost too. That, my friend, is
why companies conduct careful studies. They seek to discover what a wiser
choice would be, which may determine the different between business sur-
vival and doom. Our impartial friend IBM was among those who studied total
cost of ownership and here are some recent results:
"Linux is 40% less expensive* than a comparable x86-based Windows server
and 54% less than a comparable Sparc-based Solaris server."
[*] It means "less expensive to run in the long term", not at purchase
If you seek shelter in this belief (or more precisely fallacy) that Linux
is expensive or hard to maintain, I suggest you explore these studies in
depth. They indicate that Linux is not only better0suited for the job, but
it also saves a great deal of money, which can translate into more employ-
ees, more customers and higher wages. It also makes the company less de-
pendent upon another.
Roy S. Schestowitz | Prevalence does not imply ideali$M
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
5:50pm up 27 days 1:01, 12 users, load average: 0.13, 0.09, 0.08
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms