On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 13:59:09 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> __/ [George Ellison] on Wednesday 15 February 2006 13:07 \__
>
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> http://www.levanta.com/linuxstudy/
>>>
>>> EMA Study: Get the Truth on Linux Management
>>>
>>> "In various older studies, Microsoft and some analysts claimed Linux has a
>>> higher total cost of ownership (TCO) than Windows...
>>>
>>> ...However, in a new study of over 200 Linux enterprises, Enterprise
>>> Management Associates (EMA) found that this perception is no longer
>>> accurate. Sophisticated management tools now allow Linux management to be
>>> fast, effective, and inexpensive. With far lower acquisition costs, Linux
>>> is now a cost-effective alternative to Windows."
>>>
>>> 21-page PDF therein.
>>
>> In other late-breaking news, despite a detailed report from the Gartner
>> group to the contrary, NASA experiments show the sun is actually brighter
>> than the moon.
>
> *smile*
>
> It's nothing new, I agree. IBM conducted similar studies and, if I recall
> correctly, Linux TCO was ~40% lower than that of Windows. Having said that,
> when falsifying figures from the Get The Crap Campaign, one could use
> /several/ impartial studies which conflict with Microsoft's findings.
How exactly is a study by a company that depends on the success of Linux
for it's livilihood any more impartial than any study Microsoft has ever
funded?
|
|
