> * costs 3: A server running LINUX does not need as much grunt to do the
> same WinNT based machine.
Says Who!? This might be accepted wisdom on this list but I bet I can find
a windows lists that disputes that and offers an alternate view.
The original poster is asking for colateral that supports your statement.
Where are the benchmark results, where is the report from an accepted
"independent" authority. Scattered Linux success stories do not a
business case make.
> * costs 5: If you have ever to run an NT *AND* Linux based network
> you know that admin for LINUX takes less time -> hence less cost.
Again see above, where are the reports/benchmarks that show that Linux
boxes require less admin.
rgds
Pete
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
