I don't think you can compare them on such a broad manner. The cost of something depends on more factors than are being acknowledged. Extreme 1 If you are a smaller business not at all involved in anything technical, a seed corn company for example, your only real option is windows. You can't justify learning Linux when the knowledge doesn't benefit other aspects of your business. You also can't afford to hire anyone, as they will be doing nothing most of the time. In the end you just need a few computers and something like MS Office to do basic business accounting/mailings/etc. with a small customer database. You only have five machines or so and every seems to have Windows and MS Office experience. So, in that situation, you're obligated to use Windows. It is beyond your means to use anything else. Mind you small businesses can take advantage of Linux consultants, however, this example business won't even be pushing their Windows boxes to the limits. They don't care or need what Linux can do for them, windows is always cheaper than a good consultant. Extreme 2 You are a huge business providing financial services, a bank for example. You have a huge cluster of computers running thousands of transactions per second. Your costs are the cost to put Win XP Advanced Server on each box, plus a server support employee, plus the Microsoft Support contract. Any downtime when running mission critical applications costs more than all your machines, software, and employees put together. The performance of Win2k(XP?) is not as good as a Linux platform customized just to run your app, so with Windows you need more machines and more Windows licenses. The price you pay for a good Linux support employee is offset by the money you avoid loosing with less downtime, better performance, an no per/CPU costs. Just my $0.02. David Blevins > -----Original Message----- > From: tclug-list-admin at mn-linux.org > [mailto:tclug-list-admin at mn-linux.org]On Behalf Of Bob Tanner > Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 10:21 PM > To: tclug-list at mn-linux.org > Subject: [TCLUG] Linux and Win2K TOC the same? > > > 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. > > -- > Bob Tanner <tanner at real-time.com> | Phone : (952)943-8700 > http://www.mn-linux.org, Minnesota, Linux | Fax : (952)943-8500 > Key fingerprint = 6C E9 51 4F D5 3E 4C 66 62 A9 10 E5 35 85 39 D9 > > _______________________________________________ > Twin Cities Linux Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. > Paul, Minnesota > http://www.mn-linux.org > tclug-list at mn-linux.org > https://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list