RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] cost of Linux vrs Windows?

["Spurling, Shannon" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Looks like someone has been drinking too much Microsoft koolaid.
Geez! If there were one that said Linux was cheaper, and it were funded by RedHat, that would be suspect. Of course it would.
If one were funded by Microsoft, I would have trouble thinking that if it said Linux were cheaper, every one in the open source community would be jumpping for joy and saying "See! I told you so!" You don't see that, and I have never seen one published. If one does exist, I would still be skeptical that it was not manufactured by some one with an agenda. I am not saying it would be no good, but I would still be skeptical of the results no mater what.
The problem with these studies, no matter who they come from, is that the parameters for the cost are set by the organization doing the study. You don't need to select cases that prove your point and disreguard ones that don't. You just "Preload" the study so that you have a favorable outcome for the company funding the study. That's why TCO numbers are most always the domain of Marketing and not factual. That is why they are always in brochures and commercials. The only problem with that is pointy haired bosses make buying decisions based on marketing information. A better solution is to have the technical people of a company evaluate the product under consideration to provide an estimated cost of ownership. Chances are that it will be off by +/-10%, but I guarentee it will be more realistic than what you get from Gartner studies. And these guys are not going to present the study with a Micorsoft slant. In fact, I think they are much smarter than that. But I am sure that the company requesting the study does some have latitude over what the study is over. By defining the study in a particular way, not overtly in favor of a particular company, you can influence the outcome.
Now, I have never completely read the data and parameters from the study in question, but then I don't care what it says. I know what works best for a particular application. I also know that most highly paid MCSE's don't know beans about maintaining a secure server either. It's a sad situation. You make a server any idiot can install, and any idiot will. It's sad to say, but there is a bit of merit to the cranky Unix admin's attatude of "If you can't figure it out, maybe you shouldn't be allowed to use it!" There is a learning curve, because you need to know how it operates in order to fix it. Microsoft just covers it up so that the real fixes become registry hacks. There you are messing with something you shouldn't be messing with by hand. It's like putting a security lock on the hood of your car,  but not giving any one the key to the lock. When the check engine light comes on, you would have to send the car back to the factory. The mechanics would end up finding ways to crack the lock and fix it because sending it back is stupid. That might be a poor analogy, but that's how I think of it. Just to put this in context, there was a big discussion on converting Linux to machine readable config files versus human readable. Read the arguments on the Linux developers mailing list archives. Basicly, the main reason not to do it is "Look at Windows, and how big of a PITA it is to maintain."
 
Just my thoughts on the matter.
 
Shannon
 
	-----Original Message----- 
	From: EMAIL:PROTECTED on behalf of F Vernon Green 
	Sent: Sun 10/19/2003 12:57 PM 
	To: 'MLUG Off-Topic Discussion' 
	Cc: 
	Subject: RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] cost of Linux vrs Windows?
	
	
	So 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

<<winmail.dat>>

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion