Bob Tanner wrote: > http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20011030/tc/tech_intel_napster_dc_2.html > > "In any case, using Linux is not much cheaper than Windows 2000. Although Linux > as an operating system is free, the real costs are related to the computers, and > support and maintenance, he said." > > I might be blinded by by religion and this group my not have the ability to let > the religion go, but can anyone look outside the box on this and comment? > > My perspective is Linux is much cheaper then Windows. Even if you pay for a > distro you are starting out ahead. Add the virus resistence, stability, > reliability, and security out of the box. Linux should be have a better TOC then > Win2k. Linux is far cheaper in the place your expenses are highest. Labor. Every single UNIX/Linux shop I've been too, in 13 years in IT, did more with fewer people. At least a 2 to 1 ratio, but usually higher. This is a complete myth perpetuated by Windows people to justify their poor systems.