OT Security measures 38k feet Re: [ILUG] Fwd: Modem hijacking information from UTV Internet

[Gareth Eason]

Chris Higgins wrote:
> 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.
[munch...]

	I think the answer to this one is in the very naming MS (and others) 
use: TCO ... TOTAL cost of ownership.

	So they have already admitted that their shrink-wrapper products are 
not cheaper than the OSS variety (Linux ~ FREE, MS Windows XP > $0)

	So they created a magical measurement that proves that the TOTAL cost 
of ownership is less? Without including the TOTAL sum of costs that a 
business must pay for using the OS? And seem to be prepared to argue 
that certain costs should NOT be included in the TOTAL cost?

	Am I the only one that has difficulties with this? Is my command of the 
English language slipping, and/or have Collins/Oxford/Webster changed 
the definition of 'total' without informing me?

	Perhaps it's best if the world continues to take the TCO arguments from 
MS with a similar pinch of salt to that taken with a comment from a used 
car salesman that his cars are of a better quality, run faster and more 
fuel efficient and give a better driving experience to those sold by 
Cowboy Joe's car dealership down the road :-)

	YMMV, usual disclaimers apply, IANAL, etc., etc.

	Best regards,
	-->Gar