Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on August 30, 2004 09:19 PM
company's that work with GNU/Linux are working a lot cheaper then company who use Microsoft
The biggest area where they are working "cheaper" is in that they are working cooperatively, with a lot less duplication of effort. I believe that in the process you will see proprietary Unix dissapear as well.
In the past the time cost of puting togeather a linux solution was definately higher than putting togeather a windows solution, and you may be right that now it is only a little less. But here again we see another pointer in the same direction as the article pointed, as linux continues to be improved, it will be even easier to set up, customize and use. This will make the labor cost difference even greater in favor of Linux. This is a long term trend, just like the rising prices/cost of M$ software. So lets say that 12 years ago linux cost 4 times as much to set up as windows did for a specific job that linux could do, and it has now become just slightly less expensive than windows. If we project that out, in 12 years more, windows will cost 4 times as much to set up as linux will. If most management cost decisions are based on the immediate price, then this will be the most important cost consideration in selecting what operating system gets used, and, well, we get the same conclusion that the article had.
as for doing contract work, I can often -- though not always -- buy the hardware for the project, and bill my time at $60/hour and still come in under the price for microsofts software alone. Anyone who would set up the M$ solution would then have to spend about the same ammount of time setting that up as I would setting up the open source solution. As time goes on, I would not be surprised at being able to charge $120-$150/hour and still beating the prices for a M$ based solution. If these prices are less than what the M$ shops are asking, then those M$ shops are just begging for their customers to develop internal linux skills which can deployed for $25 - $35/hour.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re:counting
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on August 30, 2004 09:19 PMThe biggest area where they are working "cheaper" is in that they are working cooperatively, with a lot less duplication of effort. I believe that in the process you will see proprietary Unix dissapear as well.
In the past the time cost of puting togeather a linux solution was definately higher than putting togeather a windows solution, and you may be right that now it is only a little less. But here again we see another pointer in the same direction as the article pointed, as linux continues to be improved, it will be even easier to set up, customize and use. This will make the labor cost difference even greater in favor of Linux. This is a long term trend, just like the rising prices/cost of M$ software. So lets say that 12 years ago linux cost 4 times as much to set up as windows did for a specific job that linux could do, and it has now become just slightly less expensive than windows. If we project that out, in 12 years more, windows will cost 4 times as much to set up as linux will. If most management cost decisions are based on the immediate price, then this will be the most important cost consideration in selecting what operating system gets used, and, well, we get the same conclusion that the article had.
as for doing contract work, I can often -- though not always -- buy the hardware for the project, and bill my time at $60/hour and still come in under the price for microsofts software alone. Anyone who would set up the M$ solution would then have to spend about the same ammount of time setting that up as I would setting up the open source solution. As time goes on, I would not be surprised at being able to charge $120-$150/hour and still beating the prices for a M$ based solution. If these prices are less than what the M$ shops are asking, then those M$ shops are just begging for their customers to develop internal linux skills which can deployed for $25 - $35/hour.
#