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.
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.
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!