Microsoft: Linux isn't cheaper

TalkBack 27 of 31:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

5 years isn't long enough and assumptions are unknown

Two points:

First, since the article seems as though it might be broken (or, if not, they're just not covered), we don't know the assumptions. There could be some major MS cost factors involved, like a failure to accommodate rolling licensing costs, cost of extra hardware required to support Windows overhead, additional cost of Windows applications to accommodate non-standard interfaces, etc.

Second, and most important: Considering that for most mission-critical applications, 5 years is a bare minimum lifespan, that's not nearly enough time.

Interestingly, 5 years is right at the edge of the Microsoft upgrade cycle, which means that a 5 year plan can avoid assessing the cost of doing a major migration to a new host OS. That probably doesn't need to happen in a *nix environment (much less likely to be necessary in Net/FreeBSD or Linux, but still less likely than Windows in most other flavors of *nix).

Posted by: escoles@...   Posted on: 05/27/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Building the Virtualized Enterprise with VMware Infrastructure VMware VMware virtualization software has been adopted by over 120,000 enterprise ... Download Now
• Why Isn't Server Virtualization Saving Us More? A Few Small Changes May Dramatically Increase Your Efficiency VMware Companies have rapidly adopted server virtualization over the past few ... Download Now
• Open Standards Technologies Provide the Ingredients for Delivering Security Across the Papa Gino's Enterprise Dell Papa Gino's Holdings Corporation founded by the entrepreneur operates one ... Download Now