The point that struck me was their TCO (total customer cost) comparison.
They claimed that TCO went beyond licensing (buying) the OS.
This is true for UNIX. Most commercial UNIX dists charge for support.
This is true for NT. Microsoft -definately- charges for support.
I can find it believable that support might cost more for commercial
UNIX dists. Personal users don't tend to use those dists. Businesses do
and can afford to pay more.
NT support pricing likely grew out of Windows support pricing which is
geared towards the personal user, but I am certain they charge bundles
and bundles to business users.
This is where they err.... claiming that a comparison between UNIX and
NT in the realm of TCO can be logically extended to Linux.
I have seen pay-for-support organizations offering Linux support, but I
think most users get their support from... other users!
For the cost of a pizza and a six-pack of Jolt, you can get someone to
come to your house to help you. Try that with Microsoft, SUN, etc.... :)
Jack Baker wrote:
>
> Just saw this on ZDnet....Micro$oft is again slamming Linux. Now that the
> Justice Dept investigations are over, hee is the newest release from there
> website. Love to here what y'all think.
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/NTServer/nts/news/msnw/linuxmyths.asp
>
> Personally I think it is a load of HorseShit (TM).
>
> -Jack
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
> ************
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
--
O .--. Give me some Slack!
o. |o_o |
U==l_/ | Just This Girl
// \ \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(| | ) http://home1.gte.net/archmage
/\_ _/`\
\__)-(___/ Spam >> /dev/null
************
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
