__/ [ NoNamer ] on Sunday 14 May 2006 06:00 \__
>
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> India lays down 'open' challenge
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | After his first trip to India, regular columnist Bill Thompson looks
>> | forward to the end of western domination of the free software community
>> |
>> | [...]
>> |
>> | I visited one company, Om Logistics, who simply cannot pay what
>> | Microsoft want to charge for licences when one of their bureaux might
>> | make a few thousand rupees profit in a month.
>> |
>> | They use Linux on both servers and desktops, and the result is that they
>> | have an affordable and reliable system. Soon it wlll be even more suited
>> | to their needs, because Indian developers will be deciding how it
>> | should develop.
>> `----
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4764565.stm
>
> Linux undoubtedly has the lowest initial cost.
>
> As the company grows however, and they need productivity applications,
> at some point, they *will* consider moving to Windows when it makes
> sense.
Why? It is less secure, less stable and offers nothing better in terms of
productivity. It is a well-established fallacy as Linux has user-friendly
front ends for everything.
> Microsoft can't really fight linux on initial cost (although it can
> fight RedHat, Novell, etc.), but they can fight on overall
> productivity, TCO, etc.
Studies suggest that they cannot. One example among many others:
http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?newsid=4321&inkc=0
Linux 40 percent cheaper than Windows, exclaims IBM
,----[ Quote ]
| Linux's total cost of operation (TCO) is typically 40 percent lower
| than Windows, according to an IBM-sponsored report from the Robert
| Frances Group (RFG), publicised by IBM this week.
`----
> If a company thinks it can get its product to market x months faster
> because of productivity improvements - they won't bat an eye paying a
> bit for Windows (or anything else for that matter).
You are overly fixated on this idea that "more expensive must be better".
Mind you, software can be duplicated without any cost. Is is not a pair of
shoes, which require raw meterial and labour. That is the key point and
seed of reason (or raison d'être) for Free Open Source where /support/ and
services bring in the cash.
> Finally - they still have to buy hardware - and OEMs get Windows at a
> vastly discounted price.
As regards /hardware/: Where is the conflict of interests? Buy and wipe.
Install Linux. If the OEM receives money to pre-bundle some junk that will
never reach the eye, then the more the merrier. It's the vendors of the
pre-bundled junk that lose.
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | /earth: file system full
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
6:30am up 16 days 13:27, 11 users, load average: 1.40, 1.11, 0.93
http://iuron.com - semantic engine to gather information
|
|
