__/ [eros.tintory@xxxxxxxxxxx] on Friday 02 September 2005 16:02 \__
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> Many of you have probably seen this by now:
>> In short, Linux if 40% cheaper than Windows in terms of total cost of
>> ownership, i.e. setup /and/ maintenance. This study comes from IBM and it
>> is surely something to wave at the boss' face when he/she considers the
>> deployment of a new system, whatever its nature may be.
> Wrong, most companies specially large ones are subject to IT audit such
> as SAS94 and others which are very skeptical about Linux.
I beg to differ. Many who use Linux know very well what they do. Just
because they are not subjected to the Microsoft shackles does not imply
that something illicit takes place. In fact, a Linux machine can expose
more than a Windows machine in my humble opinion.
> don't use free moving-target hobyist Linux versions, they have to use
> enterprise distros, ant those are extremely expensive, and what's
> worse, after a year is over you have to purchase your Linux licenses
> all over agian, Linux TCO is skyhigh!
I suggest that you either look at these licences or read the article. You
have just made a laughable argument that Linux licences are more expensive
than Windows licences.
PS - Try to bottom-post please.