> > No, probably not. On the other hand, I wouldn't feel > > too comfortable flying the "build-your-own-airplane" > > kit from that Linus guy, either. > > Build-your-own-airplane? That's an odd analogy. Have access > to the engine and all the working parts of the airplane I > think is better analogy.
Neither analogy is particularly good, because of the radically different nature of mechanical devices and electronic computers. But, if you use Linux, you typically have to know a bit more about the operation of the computer than if you don't, for many reasons. First, you typically have to install it yourself - most Windows users don't ever actually install Windows. Second, Linux tends to favor security over convenience - you may have to enable things, rather than disable them. Not that this is a bad thing, but when I'm in an airplane I don't want to have to manage the flight myself. > > Nor would I want to fly Sun or Oracle, but that's OK, > > since I wouldn't be able to afford the ticket. > > Sun and Oracle make rather solid products. I would feel > much more comfortable flying in a Sun airplane then a > Microsoft airplane. While Sun and Oracle make solid products, those products tend to be very expensive, in both sticker price and ongoing costs. I suspect that the Oracle plane would only fly to Silicon Valley, and you'd have to take the bus from there. > Plus, since Microsoft makes operating systems, keyboards, > mice, game stations, office software, and games - they > are more likely to "enter the airplane arena". I don't think Boeing is especially worried. > > I'd hardly argue that Microsoft products are perfect, or > > even best-of-breed in most cases. However, they often > > provide a happy medium of comparative value. > > XP upgrade = $160.00 > Red Hat 8.0 = Free > > Yeah, I can totally see the return on investment. That's because you're falling into the common mistake of assuming that the "sticker" price is all there is. If you buy a computer with XP, and you wipe it and replace it with Linux, and you spend two hours doing that, well, that costs you something. You'll never get those two hours back. For it to be worthwhile, you have to recoup other costs - that is, Linux has to do something for you better or easier than what it replaced. Presumably, with a server, that would be pretty easy to do. However, since you mentioned XP, which isn't a server OS, I assume you're talking about a workstation OS. > > I suspect that most people on this list have little choice > > about what products their companies or clients use. > > No doubt there. If that were the case, we probably would be > in such financial trouble. I assume you meant "wouldn't be in such financial trouble". If you mean what I think you mean, this just demonstrates to me that a good programmer isn't necessarily a good economist. Are you saying that if everyone switched to non-MS products the economy would be better? That strikes me as absurd on its face - it's certainly next to unprovable, anyway. > It was just a joke anyway. You're spending a lot of effort defending it, though, and I'm spending a lot of effort disparaging it. The reason I'm doing that is simply to point out that things aren't as simple as they seem. People like catchy phrases and aphorisms, but they're rarely accurate, when you take the time to examine them. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
