Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on June 02, 2002 01:26 PM
From the article:
>>>A study for LinuxWorld.com was less credible, because the author cooked the books a little. For example, he assumed that Microsoft-based systems would require all parties to upgrade upgrade their equipment and software every few years, but that, for some reason, Linux users somehow would add nothing to their desktops and system managers would add nothing to their back-end systems during the same period.
1- Last I checked, most Linux software could be upgraded at no cost while with Microsoft no cost equals no upgrade. There's no way to know that Linux software would not be upgraded "every few years".
2- Last I checked the hardware requirements for the latest Linux software was about the same as the requirements for two year old Microsoft software.
These two points mean that a company has at least two of the most important TCO bases covered: up to date software (as to security and/or features)and a longer hardware life cycle.
I'm sure that after a few MS faithful are fired (with fanfare)the rest of the workers' responsibility level would rise enough for them to start doing their jobs with the (free)tools provided.
How much is it worth to have (or lead) a self determined company? Perhaps therein lies a very important aspect of TCO studies that has been neglected in all but very few of all the TCO studies I've seen. In fact the most self determined companies are the ones that, in the name of TCO, try their hardest to tie other companies into their "solutions"; and the reason for their self-determinism is merely that they own the said "solution".
Now if a company takes say 3/4 of a million dollars per year out of the savings from points one and two above, and hires a few hackers familiar with the kind of software development the company needs. Wouldn't said company be in a better position than a company tied to the whims of another?
The basic needs of people are still along the lines of food, sleep, housing, transportation, hygene, clothing, entertaiment, etc.
Of course there's a lot of people in the world, and software is a great help in the production of stuff we need (or don't)but I can't help to think that a high percentage of the fortunes of software tycoons is money unnecessarily paid out of the bottomlines of companies that produce the things we ultimately consume/use.
Fortunately free software addresses these issues but most companies' management have to grow the balls to love their own companies more than they love the software companies and their over priced products.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
A study for Linux World...
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 02, 2002 01:26 PM>>>A study for LinuxWorld.com was less credible, because the author cooked the books a little. For example, he assumed that Microsoft-based systems would require all parties to upgrade upgrade their equipment and software every few years, but that, for some reason, Linux users somehow would add nothing to their desktops and system managers would add nothing to their back-end systems during the same period.
1- Last I checked, most Linux software could be upgraded at no cost while with Microsoft no cost equals no upgrade. There's no way to know that Linux software would not be upgraded "every few years".
2- Last I checked the hardware requirements for the latest Linux software was about the same as the requirements for two year old Microsoft software.
These two points mean that a company has at least two of the most important TCO bases covered: up to date software (as to security and/or features)and a longer hardware life cycle.
I'm sure that after a few MS faithful are fired (with fanfare)the rest of the workers' responsibility level would rise enough for them to start doing their jobs with the (free)tools provided.
How much is it worth to have (or lead) a self determined company? Perhaps therein lies a very important aspect of TCO studies that has been neglected in all but very few of all the TCO studies I've seen. In fact the most self determined companies are the ones that, in the name of TCO, try their hardest to tie other companies into their "solutions"; and the reason for their self-determinism is merely that they own the said "solution".
Now if a company takes say 3/4 of a million dollars per year out of the savings from points one and two above, and hires a few hackers familiar with the kind of software development the company needs. Wouldn't said company be in a better position than a company tied to the whims of another?
The basic needs of people are still along the lines of food, sleep, housing, transportation, hygene, clothing, entertaiment, etc.
Of course there's a lot of people in the world, and software is a great help in the production of stuff we need (or don't)but I can't help to think that a high percentage of the fortunes of software tycoons is money unnecessarily paid out of the bottomlines of companies that produce the things we ultimately consume/use.
Fortunately free software addresses these issues but most companies' management have to grow the balls to love their own companies more than they love the software companies and their over priced products.
I gotta go.
#