> From this, perhaps it would it be fair to state categorically, that
> the total cost of ownership can't ever factor in the total cost of
> incidents and therefore it is a fallacy to try and use this as a
> measurement of any value to business.
As as standalone figure, that is true... in the same way as a routing protocol
metric of 23452 has no meaning on it's own.
However, if ( taking everything into account )
OS 1 costs 1billion to implement in an organisation
OS 2 costs 2billion to implement in the same organisation
then clearly we can make a comparison and decide that OS 1
has a lower cost.
The issue with the MS TCO arguments, is that they are not comparing
like with like - and that never works no matter how much you want it to.
The costs incurred in implementing the OS,
plus the costs incurred by the organisation maintaining the OS
and the costs of extracting the data back into a generic format to
move to another system should all be included in the TCO
Clearly OSS wins if you green field any site.
However, MS are claiming that the third one is a clear sign that
TCO with MS is lower, and I'd actually see that argument as proving
that TCO with MS is higher.
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!
