> All of the advantages I mention are real and substantive. One serious
> problem I have to
> overcome in that setting is the "image" that linux has been saddled
> with. I have
> to address questions about a "hackers toy" or "Its freeware who do we
> hold responsible
> if it blows up?".
There's a really simple answer to that question "what do you prefer, holdin'
some one responsible
or that the thing actually works without unexplainable hangs and problems?".
And let them see a real test
, I've done so in the last work I had, and they're so happy with Linux that
they changed the Novell server into a
linux one after the proyect that depended upon the novell server was
finished.
As you said the ones with the checkbooks have to be sure on what they do,
but some one has to tell them that
while an Nt can fail and you can held responsible Ms$, you'll get months
till the bug is corrected, not hours or days as
it's the rule on Linux, and on those months you'll lose more money than any
perjudice you can suffer by using linux.
A example, due to an error on the mother board of our linux server we lost
accidentally one of the disks, just the main one,
the mbr seemed corrupted ,I took the ext2 especs and wrote a program to try
to recover all the information, in less than a week
after the crash all the info was recovered with no cost; if you suffered
that on NT, you can hold ms$ responsible, and while you get some response
from them, you either lost all your info or you pay really big bucks to a
recovery enterprise so they recover the data.
There's a great economic point in using free software, you certainly don't
get any guarantees but what can give you more guarantee
that a great pool of developers and web sites using linux?.
Vicente A. Werner
--
To get out of this list, please send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e
Check out the SuSE-FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/ and the
archive at http://www.suse.com/Mailinglists/suse-linux-e/index.html
