Windows cheaper then Linx? What! What a crock!

[spiedra]

http://www.vnunet.com/News/1136574

[Counterspy]

It shows just how desperate they are getting. They didn't see this coming and everything they try to slow it down blows up in Billy boy's face. For those of us on the Linux side we can sit back and laugh while we go out and recruit more new users.

 

Counterspy

[Ixthusdan]

What a bunch of malarky! These people are assuming that the average user, any where in the world, is gullible and stupid!

[Guest LinuxExplorer]

Odd how they didn't go into detail on the total cost of ownership (TCO) and how that information was acquired. So we're supposed to presume Microsoft is being totally truthful on this? Really now. For all we, the general public, know that TCO is a statistic stemming from the number of times Windows crashed and cost the companies money!

[Guest duir66]

LinuxExplorer is right. Everyone knows that Windows costs no less than $100 US just for an upgrade. Since upgrades come out every other year that adds up to no less than $500 per license/per decade. That adds up real quick.

 

At least with Mandrake I get a fully functional Office Suite for free. That costs even more on top of the OS.

 

Since everyone seems to supply certifications these days M$ can't claim that as cheaper than linux-related certifications.

 

Only a truly blind, brainwashed moron (or something like that) would believe the story that inspired this string.

[bigjohn]

sorry all,

 

But this is a bit "told you so!"

 

Now I can't say whether any of you are aware as more often than not, we don't even put locations, let alone nationalities on our profiles, but........

 

The two things that tell me (a Brit and newbie at that - well with linux anyway) that the article is only worth reading to get an understanding of "the other point of view" is because it is a "vnunet" article.

 

vnu are computer publishers with mainly british interest (they are the publishers of "computeractive" amongst other magazines). As far as I can suss out after a quick look around, all the vnu magazine titles revolve around "pc's and current populist technology" i.e. micro$oft and their bloody awful window$.

 

Secondly, the last part of the title is "say Micro$oft". To me, that says it all, I cannot think of any company in the IT world who have been proven to be capable of such poor marketing tactics, falsehoods and poor quality software products as Micro$oft.

 

 

None of this is new, it's public knowledge. There is much in micro$oft's products and services that can be "slagged off", for a variety of reasons. And some of the negativity should also be directed at those who, for what ever the reason, become mouth piece's for micro$oft.

 

Myself, I am an aspiring micro$oft refusenik on social, moral and ethical grounds. I.E. I don't really give a "flying F**k" about what's occuring inside the case of my computer, I just want it to do the things that I can do under window$. Unfortunately for me, this has meant that I am loosing large amounts of hair/sanity/patience in trying to learn how to use linux. I have gained knowledge/understanding/stomache ulcers during this process.

 

I should like to point out that I feel that the only real failing of the linux distro producers, seems to be their inability, to produce clear and concise easy to follow documentation. That would enable the"rest of us" i.e. me and the rest of the non computer world to be able to opt for linux as a genuine alternative to M$ products.

 

Even the sterling works of the "linux documentation project", could do with some waking up. About an hour ago, I was reading a "tldp" howto on the basics of linux/unix etc. After about 6 screen's of it, I abandoned it and came here. The howto was supposed to be "basic", but instead, it was blathering on about "IRQ's", virtual memory, etc etc. I might have been at fault by trying to comprehend the WRONG howto? But maybe, if things were better laid out, and in smaller sections, with better linking to the various other information, I wouldn't have ended up with thought's of "what am I trying to read all this irrelevant crap" going through my head.

 

 

To finish, I would like to say that my post isn't meant to sound overly critical or disrespectful to those who have the intelligence and ability to genuinely influence the "going's on" in the linux world, I think that they are doing a damn fine job. They could just do with some assistance from "non-linux" people, like professional technical authors, proof readers, editors and so on, as well as more non-linux people who could act as "guinea pigs" for things like applications etc.

 

And that you can all take the original thread idea for what it really is, a slanted piece of propaganda from the master of disinformation!

 

keep up the good works.

 

regards

 

John

[zero0w]

Thought they learned their lesson in Halloween document 2002 :wink: .

[Guest LinuxExplorer]

Actually, I have to agree with bigjohn with this to an extent. To put it simply, the actual migration to Linux From Windows is not as intuitive and simple as a lot of people would like. This especially goes for the general public trying to change anything within the OS. Give the rest of the people a dumb terminal and let them surf for porn, but there are several that might be frustrated by the documentation overall. Of course, with the growing community and tutorials by people as generous as DOlson, there's always help. Let's just hope this is a growing trend!

[Guest JaseP]

Did you read Halloween 2002?!?!

 

Halloween 2002 states that they think the Linux bashing is backfiring so that they should focus on TCO and enforcing IP rights in certain technologies.

 

The biggest problem with M$ is that they have deep pockets and can pretty much beat up smaller companies that can't afford to litigate an IP lawsuit. They are sitting on $40 Billion and that's for several reasons. Finance (stock valuation, that is being classified as a Large Cap Value stock as opposed to Large Cap Growth), R&D, etc. are just some reasons. The ability to use that wealth to enforce Intellectual Property rights is another.

 

This TCO thing of theirs is just a marketing ploy. Most will see through it in time,... when license fees begin to get factored in and add to cost, and when time down and system maintenance and licenses for apps get added in as well.

 

The real theat is the fear that they may start employing lawsuits to enforce their IP right acquired through buy-ups.

[Guest LinuxExplorer]

Ok, actually I'm reading the memo right now...and anyone else who wasn't familiar with what it is, here: http://www.mandrakeusers.org/viewtopic.php?t=898

[johnnyv]

TCO

 

linux: you can use one bought box, put it on 100 computers.

the server(s) use the same box as the workstations.

you require 1 full time admin maybe.

you can get away with less powerfull hardware.

 

windows: you can use one bought box for 1 computer buy 100 boxes for your work stations

the servers use a different os which costs alot more, then you buy the client licences to access the servers.

you require 1 full time admin(who wants to commit suicide because they spend all there time rebooting work stations instead of server work, unless there rebooting the servers of course) or more most likely.

you need a P4 3ghz to use wordpad :wink:

you are far more likely to be brought down by virii

 

gee i can see how TCO is gonna swing in m$'s favour

 

software upgrades are about the same frequency for workstations.

what you basically pay for with linux is admin time.

what you pay for with windows is admin time and lots of software licenses(LOTS!!!!).

[mtweidmann]

I suppose they've got a point, after its not like anyone actually pays for windows..... ;-)

[DragonMage]

I got this in my old utexas email account (which I use to put all the various mailing list I joined when I was a college student in Austin). This one from Austin Linux Group.

 

http://www.linuxworld.com/site-stories/200.../1113.barr.html

 

Note no 6.

 

6) If Linux is so great, how come it has a higher TCO than Windows?

Torvalds: By the phrasing of that question, I can only assume that by TCO you mean the "Totally Cool Operation" value as opposed to it's more common technical meaning. And quite frankly, nobody knows why, but clearly it is so. Using Linux just makes you Totally Cool (admittedly mostly in a geeky kind of way, but hey, if it's cheerleaders you want, you would be in a rock band, right?)

 

Now you know why Linux has higher TCO than Windows :D

[spiedra]

That's a great link!!!

[Guest joehill]

Actually, I have to agree with bigjohn with this to an extent. To put it simply, the actual migration to Linux From Windows is not as intuitive and simple as a lot of people would like. This especially goes for the general public trying to change anything within the OS. Give the rest of the people a dumb terminal and let them surf for porn, but there are several that might be frustrated by the documentation overall. Of course, with the growing community and tutorials by people as generous as DOlson, there's always help. Let's just hope this is a growing trend!

 

Um, have you ever spent any time going through Windows docs? I can find much more quality and user-friendly docs for Linux issues. Linux error messages, though rare, are very helpful, unlike the infamously cryptic Windows messages. Hell, if I am really stuck with a particular Linux app or function, it's quite possible to communicate directly with the developer. As for Microsoft's tech support...oh, I forgot, they don't have any.

 

This "Linux is still too hard to use" is FUD, FUD, and more FUD. Give it up. It's over. Done. Finito.

 

An OS that doesn't crash, is more secure, and runs all the apps I need or want is easy to use. An OS that crashes daily, is prone to virus attacks, and provides the most frustrating and pointless tech support in the IT industry is NOT easy to use for anyone.

 

but they keep trying.