All Things Microsoft > Microsoft as a Company

Microsoft cheaper than Linux ?!

(1/3) > >>

HibbeeBoy:
OUT OF CONTEXT: WINDOWS THE LOW-MANPOWER CHAMP?
"Linux requires more care and feeding [than Windows 2000], basically. That's what the results [of a Microsoft-commissioned study] are really telling us. The amount of manpower required to run a particular [Linux] environment is going to be higher."
-- Al Gillen, research director for IDC's System Software group, as
quoted by ComputerWorld

pkd_lives:
Ahh don't worry about it. This report is sponsored by M$, so it's already questionable, an internal M$ memorandum (halloween VII) already said that TCO was in favour of Linux. And the report also shows that under M$ backed report it is still only just a lower TCO and this is the only scenario where M$ come out on top.

And yes there is a wage descepancy between *nix qualified and M$, because any dumb shit can run windows - which is implied in the report, and the fact that there is already a M$ knowledge because of how long it's been around. That report will backfire - they have just devalued evey M$ qualification in existance and every worker who uses M$. If I worked solely with M$ I would be very pissed at this report essentially calling me dumb.

Refalm:
Here is the article (notice that it's written in ASP).

However, I find the article bloated because:

[*]The article didn't mention any particular distribution.[*]The research has been done more than a year ago, but with distro's like Red Hat, Lycoris, SuSE, Mandrake etc. Linux has become much easyer.[*]Windows has become more expencive than ever before.[/list]

HibbeeBoy:
I thought PCWorld was Gates' bitch anyway.

lazygamer:
Just curious, are all those computer magazines Windows bitches, or do some simply follow Windows alot because so many computers use Windows?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page