Home | FAQ | Server | Presentations | Mailing Lists/Archives | Member Tools | Links | Sponsors | ContactHome | FAQ | Server | Presentations | Mailing Lists/Archives | Member Tools | Links | Sponsors | ContactSo wait a second, I send a link that clearly shows that Linux is cheaper written by someone that any Microsoft shill will tell you is written from a Linux slant and that one is debunked because it was funded by Microsoft? The other two, well show me where those studies were funded by Microsoft. The Gartner study was more than likely funded by Microsoft, but I have participated in those studies and I have never been asked questions in a way that would present a Microsoft slant. So unless they are sitting back there and saying "This one is good for open source, we will throw that one out" The problem with what you are saying is the classic pandoras box. On one hand you want facts, but when presented with them, even with facts that shows Linux as favorable well those are no good because they were funded by Microsoft. A truly independent study can never happen because only big companies like Microsoft can afford a study of that magnitude so the results are always going to be suspect. This is starting to sound more and more like those conspiracy guys. "We know there is a conspiracy because there is such a lack of evidence of a conspiracy." -----Original Message----- From: Spurling, Shannon [mailto:EMAIL:PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Spurling, Shannon Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 8:12 AM To: MLUG Off-Topic Discussion Subject: RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] cost of Linux vrs Windows? Well, I think I need to simplify the reason why your information has not made a good argument. All of the links you point to are all information from the three or four "Independant" studies of TCO for windows versus other OS's that were performed over the past couple of years. The reason that no one put crediance in any of the studies that these refer to is because, although the companites are "Independant" you will see that they recieved large amounts of payola right before or shortly after releasing the study. And the payola is almost always from a certian large corporation or their subsidiaries. Very few companies have felt the need to pay for a counter study, because it would look just as bad as the current studies, but back on them selves. Most Linux companies are smaller and don't want/like/take to the idea of payola when they don't have a lot of extra cash just lieing around. Instead they point out the flaws in the study and debunk it. Much like what people are doing with your links that you are pointing out now. The point is that there are no deffinitive INDEPENDANT studies of TCO for the Linux versus Windows. None that are not tainted in some way by Microsoft money. Shannon -----Original Message----- From: EMAIL:PROTECTED on behalf of F Vernon Green Sent: Sat 10/18/2003 8:12 PM To: 'MLUG Off-Topic Discussion' Cc: Subject: RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] cost of Linux vrs Windows? Oh my God, So I sent three different links with information that makes a valid argument, I have expressed numerous instances where the cost is less and you tell me I have not made my case? I guess I could send you even MORE information from different places, but you would simply say that they are not valid. If I give you examples you say they are all just misinformation. I have laid out my case and al you can say is "you have yet to present any evidence". There is no way you can have a debate with someone like that so I give up. Tell you what, you go out and make your case that Linux is cheaper than Windows now, you have not done anything like that yet. See Ya > -----Original Message----- > From: EMAIL:PROTECTED [mailto:discussion- > EMAIL:PROTECTED] On Behalf Of EMAIL:PROTECTED > Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2003 5:55 PM > To: MLUG Off-Topic Discussion > Subject: RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] cost of Linux vrs Windows? > > 8<--snip > OK so well the debate continues. I see there is no way to calm the ravage > Linux > shills. > >8 > > No there has been no debate yet. . . you have yet to present any evidence, > therefore you have not made any arguments. If you wish to debate, present > at > least one argument. Second, there is a simple way to silence me . . . > prove me > wrong. I have in the past and will be in the future quite often admit to > being > wrong, but only when confronted with fact or number that support > (honestly) the > argument set forth. > > ===== > -- > proticon konijntjesbroek (arlo gittings) KC0MNN > proticon at yahoo dot com > MOSLUG Home http://www.moslug.org <http://www.moslug.org/> > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search > http://shopping.yahoo.com <http://shopping.yahoo.com/> > _______________________________________________ > discussion mailing list > EMAIL:PROTECTED > http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion _______________________________________________ discussion mailing list EMAIL:PROTECTED http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
_______________________________________________ discussion mailing list EMAIL:PROTECTED http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion