To Jeff's:
> >>Yea, they like it, but most of those statistics fit with Mark Twain's
> >>"Lies, Damn Lies, & Statistics." They especially require a good
and Paul's
>> MTBF is another meaningless statistic. Just thinking about the words
>> makes it blatantly apparent that it doesn't apply to an OS.
I agree with both statements but they completely miss the point. I used MTBF,
although it's a hardware measurement, because it describes what I need.
"Reliability" is more accurate but far more ambiguous. I've read both
responses thoroughly. They make perfect sense but fail to address the core
issue. The fact of the matter is that when upper level management, or C-level
executives, of multi-billion dollar companies are interested in deploying
Linux, that's the language they speak. I have three such "talks" scheduled
over the next three weeks. As silly as their requirements may seem to us the
fact is that they won't write that multi-million dollar check, and deploy
Linux, without these numbers to back up their decision. My original question
stands.
> Question 2 - This is more a request for information. I've several high
> level customers who need statistics on Linux. We (us here and the Linux
> community in general) have done a good job of making Linux a viable
> alternative. We've got their attention. But now I need the next
> level. All that upper level management junk like ROI (Return on
> Investment), TCO (Total Cost of Ownership), MTBF (Mean Time Between
> Failure), etc. I've read every article on the subject but am having
> trouble finding hard numbers, particularly on MTBF or reliability. My
> favorite source of good articles is OSOPINION. Does anyone have any
> suggestions on where I might get more information?
>
> Thanks again. GGK
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
