"Linux was found to be over 10 times more expensive than Windows Server 2003".???
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3600724.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3600724.stm
Lies, damn lies and ...
- Thread starter Dev
- Start date
tones
compulsive cantater
...Benjamin Disraeli?
but seriously Tones, comparing the costs of Linux running on a couple of Mainframe CPUs to Windows 2003 Server running on a couple of Xeons
tones
compulsive cantater
Dev said:
but seriously Tones, comparing the costs of Linux running on a couple of Mainframe CPUs to Windows 2003 Server running on a couple of Xeons
I wouldn't know, ol' bean, I'm just a humble patent attorney whose computer knowledge has now advanced to the stage where I can switch the thing on and off unaided. I just added the originator of your topic subject.
they only way it is shown to be more expensive is where the you pick a very comercial/expensive company to buy and support the system for you.
for instance although it isnt linux SCO doesnt come cheap. and the same applies for top end redhat.
Although if they compared it to a smaller support company that would support at an honist price and use better freeware distrobutions you would end up with a way cheaper deal.
but you cant blame M$ for this is the major marking defence at the moment against Linux, and if it wast this they would just pick somthign else to over exagerate.
for instance although it isnt linux SCO doesnt come cheap. and the same applies for top end redhat.
Although if they compared it to a smaller support company that would support at an honist price and use better freeware distrobutions you would end up with a way cheaper deal.
but you cant blame M$ for this is the major marking defence at the moment against Linux, and if it wast this they would just pick somthign else to over exagerate.
