All Things Microsoft > Microsoft as a Company
Get the facts - or so they say..
brk3:
Has anyone seen the recent ads around the web lately - get the facts, Linux is 10 - 12% more expensive to run as a server than microsoft? http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/facts/default.mspx
Theres the url, plain as day. thats what they're saying. is it a lie? you all may just jump on and scoff, oh that must be bullshit but how could they make claims like that if they arent somewhat true.
Comments please.
Orethrius:
quote:Originally posted by brk3:
how could they make claims like that if they arent somewhat true.
Comments please.
--- End quote ---
The answer to your final question is quite simple, actually: it's their website, they can say whatever they want on it as long as defamation can't be proved (and let's face it, they have deeper pockets than Torvalds & Co.). My concern is that the reports cited are spinning off half-truths as fact by stating manhours to be equivalent to lost revenue. That's not necessarily so; most Linux admins I know work for the same wages as MSCE-certs, and get ten times as much done in a five-minute period. What the reports are analysing are the INITIAL TCOs, which involve compile time on the Linux side and installations on the Windows side. To that end, there is a certain billable loss in manhours, but the reports - more often than not - fail to cite the increased productivity AFTER the initial setup. The mistake becomes apparent when defined corporate entities attempt to spin initial setup fees as absolute truth.
In summary, it's not so much the content of these reports as the way Microsoft interprets them. Yet another reason to wish another pie in Billy's face.
EDIT: Fixed 4th-hour dyslexia.
[ September 11, 2004: Message edited by: Midnight Candidate/BOB ]
flap:
Most if not all of the factors leading to higher costs they point to relate to the initial adoption of the platform, not the cost of running it long term e.g. Cost of training, unfamiliarity with the platform, steep learning curve for companies already familiar with/using a different system.
Oh and it's a bit carelessly researched - they refer to the GPL (General Public License) as the "GNU Public License".
brk3:
im sure they can twist results whatever way they want. infact i just heard there that they put microsoft on a brand new mainframe and linux on older pcs for the test!! microsoft did a completly unfair comparison. the full story is on linuxformat.co.uk. (link on the homepage)
brk3:
fuck - im just googling it now. heres the the full story. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3600724.stm
Microsoft are so full of shite its not true. they have to resort to lieing to make buisness
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version