On Tue, 03 Dec 2002 09:49:14 +0500 Nikhil Kale wrote: >Check out this article: > >http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/comp/articlesho >w?artid=30122416 > >Whats the catch?? >
The catch is: <quote> The report argued that Linux costs more because more network administrators are needed to maintain a Linux system. </quote> This thing has come up on various forums several times lately and the a lot many people feel that this is the point that will appeal to the PHB's since they find it more cost-effective to hire MCSE monkeys (that's what many posters call them, honest!) to look-after workstations as well as the servers than a more expensive Unix/Linux sysadmin. I don't know for sure whether Linux admins are more expensive or not. However, I guess the "more network administrators" bit is crap. Here are some discussions related to this: http://newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=02/10/30/2229244 http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/11/13/1322227 http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/10/08/1618253 -- Tahir Hashmi (VSE, NCST) http://staff.ncst.ernet.in/tahir tahir AT ncst DOT ernet DOT in We, the rest of humanity, wish GNU luck and Godspeed _______________________________________________ http://mm.ilug-bom.org.in/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
