> http://www.pcworld.com/resource/printable/article/0,aid,107517,00.asp > > the FUD goes on... :)
And look at the interesting quote: "IDC's findings, published Monday in a study commissioned by Microsoft, suggest that the Windows 2000 Server operating system has a lower total cost of ownership than Linux, mainly due to savings associated with staffing." No kidding. They are the "Masters of the obvious." What they are telling us are common sense... with a sprinkle of FUD to make the story look truthful. What if a company has staffs that has extensive knowledge of Linux... would deployment of Win2K have a lower TCO? obviously not. Makes perfect sense? yes? --- Andre _ Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fully Searchable Archives With Friendly Web Interface at http://marc.free.net.ph To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
