Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: [News] Sister OS to Linux, OS-X Has Better TCO than Microsoft Windows

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Linonut
<linonut@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
 wrote
on Wed, 5 Mar 2008 09:53:54 -0500
<5uyzj.114546$K27.29691@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> * [H]omer peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> [Linux]
>> 1.  Installing   Red Hat     5.1  £0.00
>> 2.  Upgrading to Red Hat     6.0  £0.00
>> 3.  Upgrading to Red Hat     6.1  £0.00
>> 4.  Upgrading to Red Hat     6.2  £0.00
>> 5.  Upgrading to Red Hat     7.0  £0.00
>> 6.  Upgrading to Red Hat     7.1  £0.00
>> 7.  Upgrading to Red Hat     7.2  £0.00
>> 8.  Upgrading to Red Hat     7.3  £0.00
>> 9.  Upgrading to Fedora Core 1    £0.00
>> 10. Upgrading to Fedora Core 2    £0.00
>> 11. Upgrading to Fedora Core 3    £0.00
>> 12. Upgrading to Fedora Core 4    £0.00
>> 13. Upgrading to Fedora Core 5    £0.00
>> 14. Upgrading to Fedora Core 6    £0.00
>> 15. Upgrading to Fedora      7    £0.00
>> 16. Upgrading to Fedora      8    £0.00
>> 17. Anti-virus (none)             £0.00
>> 18. Anti-spyware (none)           £0.00
>> 19. System repair software (none) £0.00
>> 20. Firewall (iptables: Free)     £0.00
>> Ten-year Total                    £0.00
>> Freedom                           Priceless
>
> You left out your time.  Linux is free only if your time is free.
>
> You see, Microsoft would have you count as money the time you spent
> installing Linux, when you could instead have been jacking off.
>

Indeed.  And since every installation takes an hour, the 16
installations above would cost $3200 total (at $200/hour)
-- which would have been more than enough for a nice copy
of Microsoft Office, plus a number of lattes at the local
coffee shop.

Even if one assumes half that amount, $1600 could still buy
a nice retail copy of Microsoft Office.

Of course turnabout is fair play, if harder to measure;
how does one measure Windows' frustrations and malware
intrusion issues?  Best I can do is use

http://www.computereconomics.com/article.cfm?id=1090

which suggests that his malware costs would be on the
order of $20 in 2005, if one assumes 700M computer units
installed worldwide, which is probably an underestimate.

Admittedly, the possibility exists that malware costs are
absorbed in other costs; the simplest way of dealing with
a massive infection is to buy a new unit, for example.
Nor does this URL take into consideration initial acquisition
costs for detection/disinfection software.

Absent those, $6.67 per user per year isn't all that bad --
but how do I know I'm computing it properly?

-- 
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
  - allegedly said by Bill Gates, 1981, but somebody had to make this up!

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index