On Tuesday 30 October 2001 22:21, you 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. In a large organization I can see this. Chances are your staffing numbers are based on the total number of boxes that you have to keep running. It really doesn't matter what they are running. After you get to a certain number of techs and admins to maintain the operation, that's your cost. Everything else is at the margins. Now if you take that analysis and extend it down to the smaller company that runs a small number of servers with one admin/tech and/or some outsourced help then the actual cost and some of the scripting/automation tools that are available with Linux will bring the TOC down. The thing that I see more and more is that people who use Windows and Exchange and IIS, etc. aren't real happy right now. The are ripe for alternatives, but, and its a big but, they have a user community that expects certain types of services and right now most of the community's options are not as full featured. That said one too many "explosions" of Windows will make them look elsewhere. Microsoft has become very good at "blaming" its users for being lax with their administration. The problem is Microsoft doesn't make it easy to apply patches to the system. I don't know any admins, especially those in smaller operations, that want to deal with rebooting a server for every patch. If you install a "fresh copy" of NT 4 with SP6 and the option pack to get IIS4 and all the current fixes it takes 5 or 6 reboots of the system. Applying most of the security patches for IIS require a reboot to activate. Unfortunatly these things are hard to quantify so the droids that right the TOC reports don't include it. The assumption is that all systems need to be patched so that cost will be the same for each system. <closing rant> Well maybe its not the same but since we can't calculate that number we'll call it the same and then all the other numbers work out how we want them to/ Linux costs just as much as Windows to maintain, maybe more. The managers who buy our reports will feel vindicated that they made the "right" decision to stick with the known (Windows), instead of giving into the whim of the technical staff (Linux). </closing rant> I've rambled enough and don't think I really addressed your question. -- Jack Ungerleider jack at jacku.com