Check out this article:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/comp/articleshow?artid=30122...
Whats the catch??
Nikhil Kale Software Engineer. Mahindra British Telecom Ltd. NikhilKale@linuxmail.org NikhilKale@indiatimes.com
Check out this article:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/comp/articleshow?artid=30122 416
Whats the catch??
The catch is that its M$ that publishes such studies.
-ah
Amol Hatwar writes:
Whats the catch??
The catch is that its M$ that publishes such studies. -ah
from the article <quote> Houston said that customers had been asking for data to support Microsoft' claims that its software is easier to use and hence, cheaper to maintain. </quote>
Hence the <quote> sponsored </quote> (read *RIGGED*) study.
************** Vinayak Hegde APGDST Student NCST-Juhu **************
On Tue, 03 Dec 2002 09:49:14 +0500 Nikhil Kale wrote:
Check out this article:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/comp/articlesho w?artid=30122416
Whats the catch??
The catch is: <quote> The report argued that Linux costs more because more network administrators are needed to maintain a Linux system. </quote>
This thing has come up on various forums several times lately and the a lot many people feel that this is the point that will appeal to the PHB's since they find it more cost-effective to hire MCSE monkeys (that's what many posters call them, honest!) to look-after workstations as well as the servers than a more expensive Unix/Linux sysadmin.
I don't know for sure whether Linux admins are more expensive or not. However, I guess the "more network administrators" bit is crap.
Here are some discussions related to this: http://newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=02/10/30/2229244 http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/11/13/1322227 http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/10/08/1618253
Tahir Hashmi writes:
<quote> The report argued that Linux costs more because more network administrators are needed to maintain a Linux system. </quote>
This thing has come up on various forums several times lately and the a lot many people feel that this is the point that will appeal to the PHB's since they find it more cost-effective to hire MCSE monkeys (that's what many posters call them, honest!) to look-after workstations as well as the servers than a more expensive Unix/Linux sysadmin.
from slashdot: Good techies + OSS = highly effective, low TCO MCSE Monkeys + M$ = Disaster
I don't know for sure whether Linux admins are more expensive or not. However, I guess the "more network administrators" bit is crap.
M$ haasn't got value for money. Maybe they should hire better manipulators next time a *sponsored* study is conducted.
The above was the first discussion that came to my mind on reading the article. Maybe you can read minds Tahir ;-)
************** Vinayak Hegde APGDST Student NCST-Juhu **************
-
Amol Hatwar -
Nikhil Kale -
Tahir Hashmi -
vinayak_hegde＠softhome.net