Users Reject MS Independent Study Claims 170
PenguinCandidate writes "End users from various corners of the Web have whole-heartedly rejected Microsoft's claims that an independent TCO comparison between Linux and Windows would be something akin to the second coming. Said one senior Linux architect: 'With Linux and open source, it is possible to arrive in a position where the organization has increased control over its situation [and reduced] its long-term costs. That's a highly desirable outcome and I doubt we'll ever see a Microsoft-funded study which will come to that conclusion.'"
imagine that (Score:2, Insightful)
How about some REAL news
Re:imagine that (Score:2, Funny)
Re:imagine that (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously... (Score:5, Informative)
There is nothing new here. The article says that MS studies is bullshit, and that Linux-vendors funded might be bullshit too... This [theregister.co.uk] is the only thing close to a neutral study I've seen about Linux and Windows, and that is about security, not TCO. TCO is not easy to measure.
There's also the excellent report on Total Cost of 0wnership [bsdnexus.com], which concludes that it's less work to 0wn a windows-based computer. Mac scores good on the scale of 0wnership.
Re:Seriously... (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:Seriously... (Score:4, Interesting)
Back to the more important topic, switching from MS to a completely Open Source platform normally requires changing the whole software stack. In such cases you can't do a line by line comparison between the two different implementations. Handling of layered defenses and hardening measures vary too much between environments. Any valuable asessment has to view the system as a whole, including it's environment.
I've seen good and bad implementations on both sets of platforms. I admit that I like the freedom of Open Source and the ready access to code makes evaluation easier. It is my personal preference but I don't see it as a panacea of security and I'm sick of both sides slinging mud at each other.
Re:Seriously... (Score:5, Informative)
I didn't think that was the GPs point at all. I took the point as
I think we can agree that it's possible to discuss generalities here. Few would quibble if I saidI don't think you can support that implicit assertion that only comparisons of specific systems are valid : feel free to argue the case to the contrary.
switching from MS to a completely Open Source platform normally requires changing the whole software stack. In such cases you can't do a line by line comparison between the two different implementations.
mmm... and if you have a context where it is necessary to compare two specific systems, a line by line comparison is arguably essential. But, given that we can legitimately discuss general relative security, it seems unwise to insist on a discussion only of specific systems.
Linux allows the user to have a far greater degree of confidence for a relatively small expenditure of effort. For example: It is possible to understand your firewall's operation and to validate that there are no vendor supplied backdoors and that there are no port knocking exploits other that those you may choose to define yourself. That is not so easy under Windows. Another example: on windows, it is difficult to avoid internet explorer. Even if you use (say) firefox, the filer windows still use IE dlls and sooner or later one of the IE security holes will make itself manifest. This is far easier to avoid on Linux.
I admit that I like the freedom of Open Source and the ready access to code makes evaluation easier. It is my personal preference but I don't see it as a panacea of security and I'm sick of both sides slinging mud at each other.
Obviously there are no panaceas in the security world, and I'd agree that mud slinging is a waste of everyone's time. But we can, and should, have civilised discussions of the relative merits of both systems - security included. And since security is one are where Linux historically does much bette than Windows, it seems a little unfair to say "come on chaps! let's keep restrict security discussion to specific installations".
Re:Seriously... (Score:2)
Whilst your sentiment has merit, your example is atrocious. Verifying that there weren't any "vendor supplied backdoors" in an arbitrary Lin
Re:Seriously... (Score:2)
That's true to an extent. However, you're overlooking one of the fundamental strengths of the Open Source Model - the "many eyes" principle.
I don't need to understand all of that to ha
Re:Seriously... (Score:3, Interesting)
However Ken describes a theoretical possibility. As a real world scenario I can't give it much credence; It's all a bit too Mulder and Scully for my taste. Besisdes, if there were such a back
Re:Seriously... (Score:2)
Actually, now that I think about it, it's easier than that: all you really need is the smallest "quick-and-dirty" C compiler you can find, so that there's less to check in the binary. Then you can just use it to compile the GCC source code, and go from there.
To do the equivalent with
Re:Seriously... (Score:3, Interesting)
ARE YOU KIDDING? That piece of Slashdot karma-whoring claptrap was universally panned as being rife with terribly amateur errors and omissions, and the only people who took it seriously were the people who felt it vindicated their position. Petreley is an absolute laughing stock moron whose only readership is a couple of die-hard Linux zealots.
tc0 (Score:3, Funny)
W1nd0wz h45 4 L0\/\/3R 7073L C057 0f 0\/\/N3R5H1P than Linux. See, it's a security thing
TCO is important (Score:5, Insightful)
However, the entire concept of having a bloody vendor doing a TCO study and presenting you with the results is absurd -- it's the vendor presenting you with *another* set of up-front costs. Who is to say that they don't have *more* hidden costs? Unless they are providing you with a guarantee that you will not have to pay a single cent above the TCO that they are claiming, that they will pay every cent in your related costs above claimed TCO, a vendor-supplied TCO is simply meaningless.
The concept of TCO is important. The idea of slapping an absolute value for TCO on product packaging is quite silly.
I think that there's one pretty simple argument in favor of Linux. Any time a vendor provides any possibility of lock-in, be it user familiarity with their software, format incompatibility with thier software, whatever, there is a cost to migrate. At some point, if they are doing a good job of running their business, they will wind up extracting from you $COST_OF_MIGRATION - 1. That's an ideal case, but that's the way it is. Look at software packages from people like IBM, Novell, and so forth. They *will* get more expensive, have expensive things to interface their software and so forth, and the further on in the lifecycle the software is (the more entrenched their remaining customers are and the harder it is to move away from the product) the more expensive the prices. IBM makes a tremendous amount of money from simply providing compatibility with their old systems -- IBM's systems are *not* cheap. Look at SCO if you want to see an even more towards-the-end-of-the-life example.
Now, Microsoft has a great deal of lock-in potential. They provide the primary application suite, have a number of closed formats and protocols, the operating system, and the server-side apps to interface with the application suite. Now, if you go with Microsoft, you are gambling that either (a) someone will come along and reduce cost of migration to a nominal amount (not that likely, especially when it is in Microsoft's interests not to allow this), or (b) that Microsoft will screw up extracting money from their locked-in customers at some point in the future (which seems unlikely, because Microsoft has done a pretty decent and aggressive job of being a business thus far).
Now, I expect Red Hat to do the same damn thing at Microsoft at some point in the future, someday. The point is that it's not very hard to transition from Red Hat to something else if necessary, be it as simple as to White Box Linux or even more extreme (SuSE, Debian, etc). At least in the current state of things, it is extremely difficult for a Linux vendor to achieve any significant degree of lock-in. Start worrying if a vendor starts shipping non-open-source GUI apps (build user familiarity with them, making it harder to switch away), servers (closed protocols, leveraging incompatibility), or so forth. Aside from TrollTech, though, I've seen few attempts to "get a lock" on the Linux distro world, and it looks like there will be a multi-vendor environment for a long time to come. Seems like a pretty attractive option.
Re:Seriously... (Score:2)
Either they are funded by the side that looks good ( Go figure ) or someone is paying someone 3rd party off to talk good about them.
The only good 'study' is one you do yourself, if you do it honestly and dont lie to yourself about the good and bad traits of ALL sides.
Not about TCO (Score:2)
Re:Not about TCO (Score:2)
Indeed, and this is the aspect of free/open software that is getting attention in a lot of circles. In much of the world, you can make a convincing argument by simply asking "Do you want your data under the control of a giant American corporation?" This tends to get a lot of nervous looks, because so many people understand exactly what you're talking about.
I half-suspect that the whole Open Source movement is an
Re:Seriously... (Score:2)
You're quoting *El Reg* as a "neutral" source ?
O_o
Who cares? (Score:1)
LOL News from the 1860's (Score:4, Insightful)
Abraham Lincoln, (attributed)
16th president of US (1809 - 1865)
Re:LOL News from the 1860's (Score:1)
Re:LOL News from the 1860's (Score:2)
Bzzzt, no. But thanks for playing.
As GP said, this one is attributed to Abe, not Mark Twain. You could look it up, of course.
But what is TCO anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd say having control of your software, giving you better control over the data that is produced and a fighting chance against malware, as opposed to being enslaved to a software manufacturer, benevolent as it might appear to be, is a big part of the decision too. The problem can't be presented simply as a pure immediate or mid-term savings proposition. Possible loss of data, loss of services, and loss of business due to them are a big part of the equation, but of course it's not as easy to sell as "look, this costs less".
MOD PARENT UP (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:But what is TCO anyway? (Score:2)
What if 5 years from now Microsoft pulls another one of its format-change trick and my company can't read the documents it produced 5 years ago reliably?
Why? Does the software you were using 5 years ago suddenly stop working when Microsoft bring out new versions? Why would you be unable to read 5 year old documents reliably with the same software you used back then?
Now, the requirement to BUY the new versions will add to the TCO, but I still see no reason why you would suddenly lose access to your o
Re:But what is TCO anyway? (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately there were several security vulnerabilities discovered in late 2000 including macro execution vulnerabilities for Word, Powerpoint, and Excel. MS was not providing patches for these issues on anything below Office 2K and their only response was to disable macros in all of the applications or upgrade. Neither was on option for them because they had apps that needed macros and the software budget couldn't cover the upgrade cost at that time.
During the pen-test we determined that these guys had a pretty good DMZ setup and very limited Internet presence. We still wanted the keys to the kingdom so we just ended up harvesting email addresses and firing macro exploits with callback trojans. In the end we owned the whole network and they looked really bad. And all of this occurred because they chose not to follow their vendor's forced upgrade path.
Re:But what is TCO anyway? (Score:2)
Re:But what is TCO anyway? (Score:2)
They could also decide no longer to allow you to activate your software.....
Honestly, this is a hidden risk that nobody really discusses because to do so would be to actively question the goodwill of Microsoft (which, incidently, is still stuck providing paid support for Windows 98, though curren
Re:But what is TCO anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)
In my experience Linux-based businesses pay me more as a consultant (at the same hourly rate) than Windows-based businesses. However, this is often because they are getting a *higher* return on investment by being able to have solutions that do exactly what they want. I close reading of the IDC study on the Microsoft site may indicate that others are having similar experiences.
I.e. that you pay a consultant not because you can't make it work adequately in-house, but rather that you would like the product to do X, Y, and Z (which may not be available on Windows) and are willing to pay more for those features because you get a net benefit as a business.
For example, if you cannot adequately impliment a Linux-based file and print server inhouse, you are not going to pay a consultant to tweak the system for you. You will simply go back to Windows (Windows file and print sharing isn't that expensive). If you can, but you realize that it would be cool if (insert idea here) then you might pay a consultant to make that dream a reality.
What I am trying to say is that essentially all of the evidence I am seeing is that those customers who can and do move to Linux are spending more in part because they are investing in an infrastructure that they can use to build their business in very unique ways. As a result, they may be paying a bit more than they would with Windows, but it is not that they are getting a lesser deal. Instead, they are paying more because they are getting a *better* deal.
Re:But what is TCO anyway? (Score:2)
Re:But what is TCO anyway? (Score:2)
Re:But what is TCO anyway? (Score:2)
this one aspect will become more and more relevant to users of software in the coming years and decades.
Lies, Damn lies, and statistics (Score:3, Insightful)
This will never be resolved (Score:4, Insightful)
That's all that matters.
Re:This will never be resolved (Score:2, Funny)
Re:This will never be resolved (Score:2)
Re:This will never be resolved (Score:2)
[sacrilege]
Similarly, many users here use Windows daily, with a very low TCO, and derive huge satisfaction as well.
[/sacrilege]
You know who you are.
Proofread, please! (Score:1, Insightful)
End users from various corners of the Web have whole-heartedly rejected Microsoft's claims that an independent TCO comparison between Linux and Windows would be something akin to the second coming.
What is that sentence supposed to mean? Microsoft doesn't think an independent TCO comparison is likely? And that end-users think it is?
I can't believe anybody actually read that sentence between the fingers hitting the keyboard and it appearing on the front page of Slashdot.
Re:Proofread, please! (Score:1)
Gaming the cost of migration (Score:5, Interesting)
The reason there's a high cost of migration off Microsoft systems is because Microsoft intentionally planned it that way. The "embrace and extend" strategy and many similar practices have been found in law to be designed for the purpose of making migration expensive.
If I were running a fair and objective TCO comparison, I would seek to measure the cost of migration both on and off each platform. Ideally, this would track costs not just once, but over several cycles. Since computing infrastructure is constantly evolving, a realistic TCO analysis has to deal with this scenario.
Re:Gaming the cost of migration (Score:2)
Well, duh. It's going to be cheaper in the short run to stick with what you've already got. And it's insanely expensive to migrate *from* microsoft. Derp.
The problem is, this is a real world scenario. While it might be cheaper over 10 years to migrate to linux, in terms of software cost, support cost, and
When will they learn... (Score:2, Insightful)
Security (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Security (Score:2)
Incidentally, if and when the clueless, run as root because it's easier, download and install anything from anywhere masses move to Linux, so will the malware and virus writers, and said clueless masses will continue to screw their systems over with them.
Right now Linux (and OS X for that matter) isn't hit for two reasons:
1) It's a nic
Re:Security (Score:2)
The "linux has no viruses because it's too small a target" has been debunked time and again by apache, simultaneously being the most popular web server at ~61% of the market last I heard, and the least exploited (at least relative to IIS). If Apache is so popular, why isn't it attacked more than IIS?
IIS? (Score:2)
And besides, servers are likely to be set up with the main user not running as administrator. It's tough to get traction on those systems. Better to attack loosely administered user systems, regardless of OS.
Re:IIS? (Score:2)
"Sure it's perhaps the most popular web server for major sites. But the number of non web-servers on the internet vastly outnumbers the number of webservers."
Your explanation, while factually correct, exhibits some rather, uh, convenient reasoning. Have we already forgotten Code Red and Nimda which wreaked havoc on the Internet by affecting only IIS? Those were all web servers.
"And besides, servers are likely to be set up with the main user not running as administrator. It's tough to get traction on tho
it isn't Microsoft. (Score:2)
Honestly, having the main user non-priviledged just doesn't make sense for most people. Try using Mac OS X a while with the box popping up and asking for your root password all the time. That's not good either, and as soon as worm writers decide to take advantage of it, we'll see that it's a false sense of security.
Your principles are great, when there is an administrator-in house. Then only that person gets the privileges. And plenty of companies run their Windows systems the
Not entirely accurate (Score:5, Interesting)
With that said, I noticed in my logs today that somebody was making a concerted effort to kill my home server and 5 other servers that a company that I help with owns. In a 5 hour period, there were no less than 20,000 attempts, mostly aimed at root via sshd (which was shut down ages ago). Most of the systems( there were 20) that were coming at these boxes were Windows, but 3 of them appear to be macs. I thought that was interesting.
This will never be resolved, and here's why (Score:3, Insightful)
Name one independent observer that could conduct a TCO study that everyone on both sides would trust, regardless of the outcome.
Re:This will never be resolved, and here's why (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This will never be resolved, and here's why (Score:2)
However, the Amish might also take into account previously unthought of aspects of TCO, like workers wasting more time on games, or the cost of exorcising daemons from the computers.
My experience with Linux TCO. (Score:2, Insightful)
I would assume the story would be somewhat different, however, for someone with more specific (i.e., vendor-locked) needs than file, web, DB, or mail servers. Maybe some more experienced techs out there could chime in on that.
How this compares to Windows seems hard to quantify. A "properly config
Re:My experience with Linux TCO. (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a point for the Linux side. If your needs are locked into vendor-specific crap, then your needs are not a Windows server to run said crap. Your needs are to free yourself of the vendor-specific crap.
This is true because if we're talking about total cost of ownership, not total cost of purchase, vendor-specific crap increases TCO and risk becau
Re:My experience with Linux TCO. (Score:2)
If you're willing to pay for high-end server software and support, it probably doesn't matter whether you're paying that couple of k$ to Microsoft or to Novell/RedHat -- with the exception that with Novell/RedHat, most of the source is available, and you probably wouldn't be terribly locked in.
Intangible costs (Score:5, Interesting)
For instance, one customer had SQL server go offline, taking down one of their primary applications, after the last round of security patches. I tell them to test the patches, but they don't want to spend the money. Go figure. Instead they pay me money to come in a fix what stops working. Every time there's a security patch update, I know I'm going to be busy.
For the Linux/MySQL installs I have to keep a book of SOP's next to the server because it's so seldom that anything goes wrong. If I don't make notes how to do stuff, I have to learn all over again the next time.
So, yeah, if you don't make notes then OSS does take more time because you forget what you did last year when X happened. And that information probably won't be on a tech support site somewhere.
With MSFT it seems like you're dorking with your servers all the time. I work on Windows and Linux servers and my opinion is that the Linux servers are more reliable and cost less to operate. That's hard to quantify but every time I see a MSFT TCO study I keep wondering how they get the numbers to come out in their favor.
I'm still weary. (Score:2, Interesting)
Skilled Windows admin (IE: certs, trained, 5 years experience, related degree) can be had for under $40k a year.
Coughing up a one time $3k license for a server is a drop in the bucket when compared to $10k salary, taxes, and benis to be paid yearly.
-Rick
Re:I'm still weary. (Score:3, Insightful)
The typical unix admin can handle many times the number of machines as a Windows admin.
So if you only need one Unix admin for every 10 Windows admins, then you've saved yourself $90,000 per year.
Re:I'm still weary. (Score:2)
while read machine
do
ssh $machine apt-get install program
done
Re:I'm still weary. (Score:5, Insightful)
I've dug through kernel code and stack traces of buggy applications, conferred with developers, worked with Sun engineers to fix failing hardware, and generally dug very deep into the OS to find and fix problems. Only, I do this before the problems become problems, so that my userbase never sees my efforts.
It's kind of sad, really. They only know I exist when things go wrong, which is pretty rare.
Moreover, I am capable of, and have done, management of hundreds of servers at once. This is without any fancy clustering, expensive support contracts, or any other assistance. Just me, all by my lonesome. Sometimes things got hairy, of course, but overall, the systems I administrated just kept running, even through patches and upgrades galore.
Any problems that cropped up, other than hardware failures, I could fix remotely, saving me an hour-long trip into the office. What was great was when there was another admin, we had time for all sorts of things. The backup system got improved, a whole new security model got put in-place, vacations were took, a new monitoring system got installed...it was great.
One admin. Two hundred servers. That's five milliadmins per server, for the mathematically impared. With no clustering or vendor support, other than for failing hardware, and in a dirt-cheap bare-bones budget environment. Can a Windows admin, even an experienced one, make that claim? I think not.
Re:I'm still weary. (Score:3, Informative)
Both were equally time consuming, but for very different reasons. Hardware failures on the cheap Dell workstations caused me a lot of grief with the Windows workstations. Constant software updates, installs, and hardware upgrades consumed most of my time with the *nix machines.
I also had no clustering or vendor support, except for Dell techs who were
I saved money (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/facts
As a personal user - I can testify quite the opposite - if I include not just the OS, but all the programs I use.
Before leaving the Windows world, I used the following programs because I couldn't find a free one to get work done. I'll list the price I remember paying:
WsFtp (~40)
PhotoImpact(80)
Quicken (30)
Spybot - Detect and Destroy (free, donated $
Re:I saved money (Score:3, Informative)
WsFtp (~40)
PhotoImpact(80)
Quicken (30)
Spybot - Detect and Destroy (free, donated $15)
MS Access - (300 ?, needed a DB program)
MS Visual Basic ($99, not full version which costs as much as $699 IIRC)
Tiny Firewall (was free when I used it, it seems to be $49 now)
Cost I had to pay: $550 (Not including donation)
You're not really comparing like for
Re:I saved money (Score:3, Insightful)
But I mentioned Windows had free solutions in my post - I didn't intend to just compare like-for-like - just my actual experience.
When I was on Windows - I expected to pay money for products and so did not look for nor trust the free solution to do the job. It was an effect of being a corporate user & being in the windows world mentality.
Switching to Linux, I saved money by being introduced to the concept that good software can be free. And I got introduced to all those progra
Re:I saved money (Score:2)
That list of software wasn't meant as a corporate roadmap, only my actual personal experience. Nothing more or less. ^_^
I have a stupid question... (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft's efforts in these studies is obviously part of their marketing efforts. Microsoft's strongest suit is marketing, not technology development. After all, look at how many companies they've purchased vs. original technologies which have been developed in-house.
I will qualify my question with this: I like Linux, but I make my bread & butter off of Windows - like it or not, it's easier to find income [here] with Windows. n.b. I said easier. I didn't say the work was better.
Now:
If Windows is such a great product, why is Microsoft plucking out their own short hairs (one-by-one) in frustration because they cannot convince tens of thousands (hundreds of?) of corporate licenses to move from Windows 2000 when it went out of service on June 30 '05 [microsoft.com]; well-covered by the media, no less? It would seem businesses|corporations are well aware the various flavors of 2K are (relatively speaking) arguably the most stable of Microsoft's O/S products. Office 2000 and Visual Studio 6.0 dovetail quite well with 2K, creating a very cozy ménage à trois.
The TCO certain is dropping over time. No need to upgrade software, no need to purchase an assload of new hardware to support upgraded software. Microsoft may have to break one of their "rules" re: backward compatibility. It's been said IE 7.0 won't work on pre-XP systems, although I don't think that's going to make corporate accounts give a rat's posterior because there are some fine, decaf browsers which work quite well and don't make anyone miss IE at all.
As I said, MS could easily prove TCO of Windows is low(er), but to do so would admit loudly businesses don't want to budge. So the question remains: how do they motivate the 2K users to pry open their accounts payable budget and upgrade? Until they answer that, it doesn't matter what they say about TCO.
Actually, I find Microsoft marketing pretty lame (Score:3, Interesting)
They need to rip off Apple marketing. Those fellas know what they're doing. I'm convinced, if Microsoft outsourced marketing to Apple, they'd boost their revenues at least 30% and grow a huge, rabid fanbase in a matter of 2 years.
Wise move (Score:2, Insightful)
Sounds like a reality show to me (Score:3, Funny)
Each week a new peripherial or application has to be installed.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, What? (Score:2, Insightful)
No real need for upgrades for core software anyway (Score:2)
By stable I mean one that is impervious to most common attacks:
1. MAC lockdown at switch level - bring in a foreign laptop, and it will be on an entirely different VLAN firewalled off with Internet access and
Re:No real need for upgrades for core software any (Score:2)
That's not true. Users can still install apps in their user space unless you mount their user space as noexec. So, what you've described is possible, but I disagree with you that it's something we take for granted in the Linux world.
Cracker of Hacker? (Score:2)
Control... (Score:3, Insightful)
Control has everything to do with it...
I let nobody tell me how to do my business, not Bill, not Steve, nobody!!!
The fucking arrogance these people have in thinking that they can...
Re:Control... (Score:2)
And do you seriously think the OSS world is devoid of telling people what to do? (Gnome 2 has a vision and direction and dammit, it's gonna be the way the devs way. Which seriously, is a good thing.) They make decisions that I have to live with and they have upgrade paths they decide to take that some people eat. Say hello to computers.
Th
I'm going to be subjective here ... (Score:2)
Can you run a server in which the only money you put into it is the cost of the hardware and the electricity to run it? No.
Wait, what about Open Source or Free Software or those of us who don't think there's a difference between the two? What about it, it's free!
Yes, it is free, but there still needs to be someone to maintain the server. There is nothing autonomou
Re:I'm going to be subjective here ... (Score:2)
"When taking into consideration TCO for the company just big enough to want to do their server stuffs in-house, but not big enough to hire a full fledged IT department ... Microsoft wins. Hands down it wins."
Bullshit [mitel.com].
Just because you only know one way of integrating IT into small and medium sized businesses doesn't mean that's the only way to do it.
I worked for three years with Mitel, and have about 7 and a half years' experience with Windows systems small, medium and large business. The server softw
What a dumbass quote (Score:2)
How the hell can a Linux proponet such as OSDL conduct "a ompletely independent comparison between the two platforms"? What an idiot.
TCO and Productivity? (Score:2, Insightful)
Calculate the TVO (Score:2, Insightful)
Linux in itself, independent of cost, is a much more valuable product that Windows in many ways.
TCO of Freedom? (Score:2)
How do you factor in the cost of freedom? For example, MS give-aways (like IE) are only free if you ignore the lock-in costs involved. That is why MS has turned a blind eye to the copyright infringement of MS Windows in third world nations (so-called "piracy"), because the rapid distribution of MS Windows through copyright infringement was destroying the freedom of those nations to switch to genuinely free alternatives - free as in liberating.
MS software is cheaper than free softw
"we want them to steal ours" (Score:2)
I think here's the quote you were looking for:
Switching Costs (Score:2)
Who doesn't know that? Yes if you want to bring new things into your organization, you're bound to have a switching costs. You have to look long-term and see whether the switching costs get compensated for, which I believe they do- in terms of lesser hardware needed to do the simplest task, fewer
Re:Linux and Windows (Score:5, Insightful)
Your claim of 800 hours is also completely off base from a corporate perspective. By setting a few GUI preferences, you could make it look and feel close enough to Windows that the majority of the Win32 workforce wouldn't care. The real work is done by the I.T. department, which probably already has significant in-house Linux muscle.
I won't even get into the benefits of improved manageability/lower licensing...
Re:Linux and Windows (Score:3, Funny)
And don't come with the training bs, training is a mandatory if it is buy-ware or not.You can be cheap and not train your personal or expect they train them self, but don't whine when they make un-educated decissions like not preferring open source when its a viable candidate.
Re:Linux and Windows (Score:1)
Because people like you don't realize that something that's "free" can cost a small fortune? That the managers realize that they have to pay someone to install the free software, pay someone to manage and maintain the free software. Pay someone to use the free software.
And don't come with the training bs, training is a mandatory if it i
Re:Linux and Windows (Score:2)
Last time I checked, MS billed me for about $350 for a couple of support calls (which I didn't have to pay because it was a bug after all).
I'm bloody well payed for installing MS software at my work, there is no difference with open-so
Re:Linux and Windows (Score:2)
So your TCO over that incident was just your time troubleshooting, just as it would have been for Linux. Quite compelling counter arguement.
I'm bloody well payed for installing MS software at my work,
I never said MS software magically installed itself. just that anyone who only looked at the acquisition price and thought that was the only consideration has a lot to
Re:Linux and Windows (Score:2)
However I do realise that there are other costs then license costs, but why don't you realize that these costs are independent of the platform?
And yes for
Re:Linux and Windows (Score:2)
Aimed at Corporates (Score:2, Interesting)
800 hours to learn Linux "to be equally skilled as
Re:Linux and Windows (Score:2, Insightful)
Or so you think. If Linux were more widely supported, companies would provide drivers for both Windows and Linux on the CD. I must add that I have had to manually install drivers off the CD for most sound cards (among other things) I've dealt with in the last several years. It did not work out of the box.
Is it easier to install t
Re:Linux and Windows (Score:3, Informative)
My experience has been, Windows works out of the box -- sometimes. When it doesn't work out of the box, good luck getting it to work, ever. Linux works -- all the time -- just maybe not out of the box. And Mac works out of the box, every time.
Say what you will about the reasons, but I have three Linux boxes, one of which dual-boots XP, and Gentoo has been more compatible than XP. I have one Powerbook, and I haven't had a compatibility issue yet. In fact, it had all the Unix
Re:Linux and Windows (Score:2)
Nope, no need to reinstall, but I'll admit I always found that to be a bit problematic. You gotta login first before it detects/installs your new devices - which you happen to need to login in the first place.
Enabling DOS USB support may help (if the BIOS has the option - it's common nowadays), but I wish we wouldn't have to do that (then reboot and go disable it again). It has been a common enough occurence for me to always conn
Re:Linux and Windows (Score:2, Informative)
I did manage to get one of my sisters to use linux, though, and so far she's had very few problems, all of which were with particular programs, not with the OS.
Re:Linux and Windows (Score:2)
Re:Linux and Windows (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, here's a personal study from my PC experience.
I used to use DR-DOS and GEM but moved to Microsoft DOS and Windows when Windows 3 came out, I then moved to windows 3.11 when that came out (TCO was a ligit copy of MS-DOS, and a pirate copy of Windows) it didn't take too long to pick up windows (or DOS) but it took years of fiddling to get the best performance out of it.
After that I mo
Re:Linux and Windows (Score:2)
It all depends. If someone knows windows, has used windows for a long time, then windows might be cheaper. The person pays the hundred bucks or so for the OS and they are done.
Agreed, it all depends on how you want to spin the baseline assumptions before you start measuring. Naturally if you are going to exclude the biggest of the one-time costs for one OS (mastering the learning curve) but include it for the other, then you've introduced a serious bias. In the situation you describe, you aren't measurin
Re:Linux and Windows (Score:2)
You are suggesting that it would take 4 months of general productivity use to become fluent in the new system or that it would cause 4 months of lost productivity? These are very different fiscally.....
Secondly, I guess it depe