> > * 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.
It comes down to who you trust. Do you trust some report that is very
likely biased towards a commercial entity, or do you trust an experienced
admin who has worked with both systems and knows what they are capable of.
Too often it seems that companies will trust software marketers more than
they trust the wisdom of their own tech staff.
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
