> > one.  For almost all of their networking products Microsoft has the 
>lowest
> > total administrative costs per unit out there.  The same is true for 
>systems
> > and software integration.
> >
>       Cept Linux, right?  Because its free...

Wrong.  From an enterprise (large organization) standpoint an open source 
non-supported version of Unix is just about the most expensive possible 
solution you can select.  You will fight to get adequate internal tech 
people then pay them an arm and a leg and they will not be ther in six 
months, then the next guy will look at what they did and just take six 
months trying to figure it out.  A cost nightmare for any manager.  Save 
$6000 on software costs and rack up $200,000 in support costs.  (Now note 
that this is not true for smaller, "cookie cutter" operations - ie web 
hosting on Linux is very cost effective because each machine is set up 
identical, has identical problems, does one relatively simple task, and uses 
already debugged solutions - this is one example where linux shines - and 
even MS's Hotmail runs on Apache servers.)

With a supported brand of Unix (ie Sun OS) they will charge you about double 
what MS charges for the same functionality in Win NT+ and then they will 
charge you incrementally for new versions every 6 months that are 
essentially fixes that make it do what it is supposed to do in the first 
place.  You will also have a lot of the same problems as with Linux finding 
competent people that can handle cryptic utilities that were named after 
peoples initials and late-night body noises.

With Windows you will buy a product thet will almost literally HAMMER your 
techs into doing things a cerain way.  The updates and software fixes are 
generally free, and you don't need an advanced degree to administer it 
effectively.  In fact, there is an entire industry devoted to teaching new 
talent to accept that hammer and work within its confines.  This is 
frustrating, confusing and enraging for those who are used to the 
flexibility of the vastly more complex unix systems, but it is THE MOST COST 
EFFECTIVE way to do things.

This is not my bias.  Personally I was an OS2 supporter and spent the 90's 
enraged that I could not get it pre-loaded on a new PC.  This is the one of 
the many conclusions of numerous insider market studies that we have 
conducted to determine how best to fulfill certain requirements.

Anyone who wants to talk about this more please e-mail me directly as this 
is WAY too off topic for the list...

Faust
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org

Reply via email to