Linux costs more than Windows

Hard to fathom. I mean, Linux is "free" for all intents and purposes. But, this article from Forbes highlights Microsoft's recent success at proving to corporations who are looking to drop Windows in favor of Linux that it will actually cost them MORE to use Linux than to stick with Windows.

Quote:

---

Consider the deal that Microsoft (nasdaq: MSFT - news - people ) snagged with the London borough of Newham, announced in early August. Looking to overhaul their computer systems, the Brits originally planned to dump Microsoft's Windows and switch to open-source programs, including Linux. But when they commissioned a study to evaluate costs, they found it would be cheaper to stick with Windows. So they signed on for a 10-year deal.

---

Full article: Thanks, Linux

Okay, even still after reading that article I still don't really see how in the long run (or short run) it costs more. The mere fact that linux itself and whatnot is free should be enough. It's stable enough to be cost efficient on it's own, IMO.

Quote:

---

Is Linus Torvalds secretly working for Microsoft? That sounds crazy until you consider that lately, the free operating system he created, Linux, has been helping Microsoft close deals.

---

Quote:

---

And, yes, as Newham proves, Linux is forcing Microsoft to slash prices and to work harder to keep customers.

---

So Linus is helping microsoft by them having to slash prices?

Quote:

---

For years customers griped that Microsoft was gouging them. Now, thanks to IBM, Novell, and Red Hat, customers are learning what it is that Microsoft charges them for--upgrades, patches, research and development, indemnification, integration of disparate programs.

---

Quote:

---

Some, like the folks in Newham, are discovering that Microsoft isn't ripping them off at all.

---

So is linux helping companies understand that they are being gouged or not? As far as Newham is concered, yes they supposadly got a good deal, but will that deal last for the whole 10 years.

Here is another take on this matter
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news...le.php/3397021

All of those point's seem like a crock of serious **** to me. By saying Linux/Microsoft are one and by saying Linus Torvalds is working for Microsoft is ludicrous and is an extremely (IMO) blank and retarded accusation. Trying to look at the logistics of these kinds of matters and then twisting them is what is happening IMO and this is the result.

Ive faced this kind of reaction from my clients when i offer *nix instead Windows on some deployments.

Most say "software is free, but how can i get SUPPORT? its free too"?

riiing. No, its not.

Ive mencioned on other thread, big companies dont like free software because they dont believe in "free lunch".

On medium ones, they ask me if i will support them if they cant get support in other place. So, ive signed $$$ contracts to support it. (and hire other to do that, since im not exactly an linux expert)

On small ones, they simply want to expend less money as possible.

Companies just trust in Microsoft that it will support them because they have paid for that.
So they only trust in a linux company (lets say RH) if they can contract a support...

its a kind of business model.

Well, the thing with large (or even medium to larger) companies is that most simply won't use free, open-source software. They would rather buy vulnerability scanning built around Nessus from Tenable than simply downloading Nessus for free. They will spend the $800 to $2500 per server for "maintenance" from RedHat rather than simply downloading any of the umpteen variations of Linux for free. They want a real company with real support people they can call and they don't like just downloading software and winging it.

Fortune 100 companies often won't do business with ANY company that hasn't been around for at least 3 to 5 years and without seeing current financials and sales projections to prove that the company will actually live long enough to provide the support they are promising. A lifetime guarantee from a company that folds tomorrow is useless and there are companies whose products I have reviewed in the last two years that don't even exist any more.

From those standpoints, I can see where the issue lies. If companies were willing to use the free, open-source versions of stuff that you can just download they would only have to worry about the training concerns, but they would prefer to pay RedHat to give them a "free" product just so they have a toll-free number to call when it breaks and someone they can hold to a contract and a performance SLA.

I do agree thought that Microsoft is having to do some major scrambling and price slashing to close these deals and make sure they undercut a comparable Linux solution. From that stance it seems that it is the corporations, not Microsoft that are benefiting most from this competition. In the end they are getting more (or at least the same) bang for less buck from Microsoft.

I don't think that they are talking about the cost of the operating system itself. Linux has that one because it is free. But, when you factor in the costs of teaching your users about the ins and outs of the system, Microsoft will probably fair better simply because just about everybody who has ever used a computer has used Windows before and therefore will probably require less training. Which equals less $$. Just a thought.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by hobbdebub
I don't think that they are talking about the cost of the operating system itself. Linux has that one because it is free. But, when you factor in the costs of teaching your users about the ins and outs of the system, Microsoft will probably fair better simply because just about everybody who has ever used a computer has used Windows before and therefore will probably require less training. Which equals less $$. Just a thought.

---

Coupled with this will be the cost of redevelopment of organization specific applications which were originally written for a Windows environment. Depending on the size and complexity of the applications, the redevelopments costs could be staggering. :eek:

Cheers:

the cost of interia is nothing (with only friction showing you down) while the energy inputs to change interia can be quite high. In business this means that when you have a development department, sysadmins and end-users all familiar w/Windows the cost to maintain the current direction is obvious, known and already budgeted. OTOH, the cost to retrain development staff, IT staff AND end-users in a Linux environment is probably larger than the cost of the Windows licenses already on hand and due for renewal soon. So, unless you are focused on security, often develop code on your own or sell IT, Windows is the choice of inertia. In my mind it will take a major MS security FU to change the energy flow.

Todd

Whether companies think linux is less or more expensive than windows is irrelevant. We can discuss the semantics of X OS versus Y OS and support contracts and hardware requirements, but the bottom line is any operating system that's not Windows will save any company more than anything Windows due to the fact that 90% of your "viruses", exploits, bugs, and anything else that's deemed bad are targeted towards MS and all related products including IE, Outlook, OE, etc. Saving money by the boatloads because while you're not invulnerable to anything, you reduce the risk factor by a huge amount and hence, save yourself, your company, your IT staff, and whoever else the stress of the numerous zero-day exploits coming out that affect said targeted OS/applications.

That combined with a good IT staff and good policies that are enforced save the most for a company, if you ask me.

Quote:

---

Saving money by the boatloads because while you're not invulnerable to anything, you reduce the risk factor by a huge amount and hence, save yourself, your company, your IT staff, and whoever else the stress of the numerous zero-day exploits coming out that affect said targeted OS/applications.

---

I only partially agree. In theory I agree, but that would be in a perfect test world somewhere.

In reality, ignorant and irresponsible users will still be ignorant and irresponsible users. The biggest reason Linux is more secure for those of us on AO is because we know what we're doing. With Linux-novice admins and Linux-novice users it would take a while to reverse that "inertia" mentioned earlier and get to the point where everyone was comfortable enough with Linux and understood how to configure, administer and use it properly to see the fruits of those labors.

I honestly think that if you unleash 5,000 employees used to using Windows onto Fedora desktop machines they can find a whole plethora of ways to break it that Linux gurus haven't even thought of. I also believe that good network and perimeter security is good network and perimeter security and if the fundamental network infrastructure were configured and secured properly issues on the internal workstations would not have the impact they do now.

I will grant you that current attacks and malware predominantly target Microsoft, but just let a major corporations, especially banks and financial institutions, swap their infrastructure over to Linux and see how long it takes for malware and attacks to target the multitude of flaws and holes in that system as well.

I am not saying I think Windows is cheaper in the long run and I am not saying I think Linux is inherently secure. I am saying that the debate is not as black and white as Linux gurus would have you believe. There are many more factors that play into the decision both short and long term.

I don't think that the "insecurities" out there will stay targetted to Windows. Someone in AO, not too long ago, made the point that, all the viruses written, are for Windows, because almost no one uses Linux...
If more people switched to Linux, you would see more problems with it, as well as more virii. Linux has just as many holes as Windows, if not more. But MS has abused the "security by obscurity" concept. The few things I see wrong with MS is; the monopoly, the prices, and Windows ME. Of course, the prices are the basis of many things...but they do provide prompt, quick updates to users free of cost. Though I don't agree with charging me $200 for Win95, and charging me another $200 for Win98..as they upgrades there should have been free...but a company has to make money. Bill Gates has a buisness mind...to be rich, you have to be a *****, that's just the way it is. He squandered all the companies he could to make more money, to continue creating this product. God only knows where this world would be if MS went under after Windows 3.1, and we were all using Macs...(*BARF*).

Quote:

---

I honestly think that if you unleash 5,000 employees used to using Windows onto Fedora desktop machines they can find a whole plethora of ways to break it that Linux gurus haven't even thought of. I also believe that good network and perimeter security is good network and perimeter security and if the fundamental network infrastructure were configured and secured properly issues on the internal workstations would not have the impact they do now.

---

If that isn't the truth, I don't know what is, hehe...I write php applications at work and spend a significant time ensuring data integrity, security, etc...and I release it and get 3 bugs reported to me in fashions I've NEVER considered...

Quote:

---

Someone in AO, not too long ago, made the point that, all the viruses written, are for Windows, because almost no one uses Linux...
If more people switched to Linux, you would see more problems with it, as well as more virii.

---

AxessTerminated, you are probably correct, and we shall see down the road, when more schools start using linux. Then people will start using linux at home(more so than at the present time), more businesses will use it. Then we will see what happens with virii, malware etc.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by tonybradley
Hard to fathom. I mean, Linux is "free" for all intents and purposes. But, this article from Forbes highlights Microsoft's recent success at proving to corporations who are looking to drop Windows in favor of Linux that it will actually cost them MORE to use Linux than to stick with Windows.



Full article: Thanks, Linux

---

It seems to be said that microsoft funded that report http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08...ham_10yr_deal/
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...40817033940321

Here is an independent study that is quite comprehensive and says the opposite in regards to TCO http://www.researchandmarkets.com/re...6&t=d&cat_id=4

Of course linux costs more to switch to than to keep running windows... think about all those idiots straight out of devry and ITT tech and all those other things you see on TV that end up with IT jobs... They would probably need 20 hours of training to get up to speed on linux... and at least a good year to get good at configuring and securing the OS... You tell me which is cheaper... Training 10-15 IT guys or buying $5000 or so worth of M$ software?

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by tonybradley
In reality, ignorant and irresponsible users will still be ignorant and irresponsible users. The biggest reason Linux is more secure for those of us on AO is because we know what we're doing.

---

That's being awful generous.

Quote:

---

I honestly think that if you unleash 5,000 employees used to using Windows onto Fedora desktop machines they can find a whole plethora of ways to break it that Linux gurus haven't even thought of.

---

You are giving your average linux user quite a boost in knowledge. Whether or not SOME of the community are "gurus" is irrelevant to the fact that a growing number of users HAVE been interacting with systems over the past three years especially.

Quote:

---

I am not saying I think Windows is cheaper in the long run and I am not saying I think Linux is inherently secure. I am saying that the debate is not as black and white as Linux gurus would have you believe. There are many more factors that play into the decision both short and long term.

---

"Linux gurus" is an awfully ambiguous term. I've seen it applied to people (here and elsewhere) who then go to others and ask for help. I've yet to see anyone quite knowledgeable about the OS state unequivocally that it is far superior in every way to Windows, and therein lies the problem. No rational minded clear thinking individual will say that -- for a number of good reasons. Chief among them is the understanding that every piece of software will have its place, and each operating system fills a void.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by AxessTerminated
I don't think that the "insecurities" out there will stay targetted to Windows. Someone in AO, not too long ago, made the point that, all the viruses written, are for Windows, because almost no one uses Linux...

---

I've heard this argument for OVER five years -- basically since I've been using linux as my primary desktop. The fact of the matter is Linux as a whole (including various unnecessary third party projects) have had maybe a couple of worms (Lion springs to mind as the most obvious), and a half dozen viruses in that time. Compare the numbers and you start to see that market share to attack ratio doesn't track. Linux has say a 5% overall desktop market share (estimated, it could be well more), to Windows' 90%.
Compare these Virus/Worm numbers from viruslibrary.com:
Linux: 7
Windows: Over 300 in the worms section alone. They break up the library into more parts than there are linux viruses to display the number of them. There have been more variants of Bagle in the LAST MONTH than there are total linux viruses. Now consider this for a moment, and let's work out a projection. For linux, in all its lifetime to have 7 viruses, and currently have 5% desktop marketshare, means that Windows should only have 140 Viruses with 90% market share in the current timeframe. Linux has 1/18th the market share, and easily less than 1/200th the viruses. Attribute this to whatever you like, but the statistics are there for you to look through. An operating system's security model as well as the number of scrutineers doing source code review will always reduce the number of methods viruses and worms can function once in a system. The development model linux has generally does an excellent job at both ends of this equation.

This is ignoring certain other factors, like the fact that linux should make a more attractive target for certain types of attacks (trojans) given it and apache are one of the most popular (if not the most popular) webserver combination on the Internet.

Quote:

---

Linux has just as many holes as Windows, if not more.

---

If you know this to be true, why not patch them then? You can't because it's utter bull. Is linux invulnerable? No, only a fool would think so. However it is equally foolish to say it is precisely as problem-riddled as Windows.

Quote:

---

But MS has abused the "security by obscurity" concept. The few things I see wrong with MS is; the monopoly, the prices, and Windows ME. Of course, the prices are the basis of many things...but they do provide prompt, quick updates to users free of cost.

---

Which "prompt and quick updates" that are free are you referring to? There have been numerous times Microsoft has managed to issue patches that unpatch a previous issue, break functionality altogether, or outright don't work. How about the "promptness" of the dozen or more IE6 flaws that went unpatched for OVER A YEAR? I have serious questions about what you consider prompt service.

PS: http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/35688.html < Marketshare info.

The basic problem I see with linux adoption is an unwillingness on the part of people who are in such positions to support it, and to recommend it as an option. I know many consultants who are avid linux users, but would not and do not recommend it to companies because they feel they do not want to shoulder the responsibility of supporting it. It's not out of a lack of feeling that it will perform as advertised, but rather in situations where a patch is needed, it is harder to explain to a client that they are waiting on an individual in Norway to issue a patch than it is to explain they are waiting on Microsoft to issue a patch. The difference appears to be where blame is shoved. In the former case, it is at the consultant, for making such recommendations, in the latter case it is at Microsoft for not patching it. I hope Novell's acquisition of SuSE as well as RedHat's continued corporate success will help fix this perception on the parts of consultants, and provide the support framework that is needed to back up the consultants and other people involved.

Imho Linux will never take over MS as OS. If you were to start a computer infrastructure for people who never used computers before, then maybe yes.

Linux is cheaper, and support for Linux is relatively cheap as well. The problem is the bulk of the users who are unwilling for change. I work in a company with 800 employees, and I dare not think about changing form Windows to Linux. The people in my company are not interested in IT, Linux, Windows or whatever. They are only interested in doing their job quicker using a computer. They have been using Windows over the past years (at home or at work) so they are very reluctant to change, because it would require an effort for them. Windows would not require that (initial) effort, because they are already used to it. It's an effort they are not willing to take (since they are not interested in IT).

What I'm trying to say here is that Windows will always be the major player because most people are not interested in IT and most people have been using Windows for years. So why change? That's the genius about Microsoft, they are excellent marketeers and sales people, no matter if there product is good or bad.

Okay, that's it, I can't stand this anymore:

1. Windows may be more expensive than Linux. Linux may be more expensive than Windows. You know what? Who gives a fsck which is more expensive and which is cheaper. NO one that has anything better to do with their lives, that's who

2. Stop bitching and arguing over fake statistics. Most people here are complaining and theorizing about situations they have never experienced nor had interaction with. Stop it. Some companies will find Windows more expensive because of licensing, product porting and employee training, while other companies may find Linux more expensive for the exact same (don't bullshit me about licensing either, read enterprise level OS licensing options). Each company will assess what is best/cheaper for them, and arguing for a god damn answer it all universal to the question is not going to happen.

3. If you are considering an OS change on an entire company level, you had damn well better look beyond costs alone. Usablity, speed, comfort, productability, customization, portability, and so forth need to be primary concerns. If a company does not have the funds to make a switch (a proper switch, mind you) to another OS just yet, then it's time to set that on the backburner and GET SOMEONE TO SHOW YOU HOW TO MAKE THE OS YOU ALREADY HAVE, DO WHAT YOU WANT

4. Which brings us back to here. What was the point of this conversation? This entire thread?! It makes no difference which is more expensive because each cost situation will vary per user/company/idealology and buisness practices.

Well,

1. There is no such thing as a free meal.
2. The quality is remembered long after the price is forgotten.
3. "Securityology" is a new way of spelling "Mythology"
4. The "bean counters" rule our lives (unfortunately).

Sorry...........just took my cynical pill :D

My views only................

Quote:

---

Originally posted by: Travish
Imho Linux will never take over MS as OS.

---

I presume you meant to say it will never take over from Microsoft offerings as the dominant OS, and I ask, why not?

Quote:

---

[...]
Linux is cheaper, and support for Linux is relatively cheap as well. The problem is the bulk of the users who are unwilling for change. I work in a company with 800 employees, and I dare not think about changing form Windows to Linux. The people in my company are not interested in IT, Linux, Windows or whatever. They are only interested in doing their job quicker using a computer.

---

What users are interested in is irrelevant in a corporate setting. It's not their equipment, it is the company's. It is a company decision, and users live with it regardless. Users may well want to do their jobs quicker and more efficiently, but this could be accomplished using either Operating System. The amount of work would vary with the needs as has been previously stated numerous times, but it is still a decision that should not be related to "user interest". If a user can accomplish their tasks as fast or faster on a Linux desktop compared to a Windows desktop, what does it matter?

Quote:

---

They have been using Windows over the past years (at home or at work) so they are very reluctant to change, because it would require an effort for them. Windows would not require that (initial) effort, because they are already used to it. It's an effort they are not willing to take (since they are not interested in IT).

---

Well, apart from my point above about it not being their decision, I wonder if you have in fact had much experience with user reaction. Have you actually loaded up a Linux box and showed it to a user? In my experiences, it takes a very minimal effort to "learn linux" as an end user becuase a lot of the software developers of open sourced projects like Evolution are mindful of the fact that the big players offer certain features, and have a certain look and feel to their software, and do their best to emulate it. With KDE, you can make it so the user doesn't even know they aren't using Windows untli such time as they try to do something like run a game they downloaded (which they shouldn't be doing on work time anyway, right?).

Quote:

---

What I'm trying to say here is that Windows will always be the major player because most people are not interested in IT and most people have been using Windows for years. So why change? That's the genius about Microsoft, they are excellent marketeers and sales people, no matter if there product is good or bad.

---

The fact is Linux support is growing in many economically deprived countries. There will be employees in under ten years coming from Asia and South America who as students were exposed primarily to Linux, which will bring more use and familiarity with it, and in turn effect change. Whether we see a lot of that in North America remains to be seen, but it will have an impact in a global sense.

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting you should switch, but I am saying that it isn't as "incapable" of an operating system from a user perspective as you might think.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by: pooh sun tzu
1. Windows may be more expensive than Linux. Linux may be more expensive than Windows. You know what? Who gives a fsck which is more expensive and which is cheaper. NO one that has anything better to do with their lives, that's who

---

There are people to whom this matters as they will have a direct benefit/detriment from implementing either solution. Requirements do vary by needs, that's a given, but looking at TCO is a good measuring stick of where you will start baseline-wise.

Quote:

---

2. Stop bitching and arguing over fake statistics. Most people here are complaining and theorizing about situations they have never experienced nor had interaction with. Stop it.

---

I don't see any bitching, and I do see some healthy arguing, so what's wrong with that? It's not being personal, each person is arguing their own point of view (as you are here), I see no reason this needs to stop. If it continues, you might even learn something, which is the whole point of conversing and arguing points in the first place.

Quote:

---

Some companies will find Windows more expensive because of licensing, product porting and employee training, while other companies may find Linux more expensive for the exact same (don't bullshit me about licensing either, read enterprise level OS licensing options). Each company will assess what is best/cheaper for them, and arguing for a god damn answer it all universal to the question is not going to happen.

---

Those aren't the only issues in converting/implementing, those are in fact the quantifiable ones, where fact comes into play and the numbers will compare favourably for Linux (at least, in my experience). There are certain circumstances that this does not apply to, where costs of one system will far outweigh the other, but for the bulk of companies (say, those with more than one server) Linux usually ends up being cheaper in the Licensing/Training/Hiring column.

Quote:

---

3. If you are considering an OS change on an entire company level, you had damn well better look beyond costs alone. Usablity, speed, comfort, productability, customization, portability, and so forth need to be primary concerns.

---

These are other factors in TCO, which is why it is a reliable number. Reimplementing software, ensuring comfort of users in performing their tasks, etc., all belong to the varies-per-company category of TCO.

Quote:

---

4. Which brings us back to here. What was the point of this conversation? This entire thread?! It makes no difference which is more expensive because each cost situation will vary per user/company/idealology and buisness practices.

---

True, but as in all things generalities apply to a lot of people (otherwise they wouldn't be generalities), so it is perfectly useful and reasonable to compare two things that commonly affect the companies in question. This isn't really all that different from examining the benefits of switching your network from IPv4 to IPv6. I don't get why it's a big deal to you that people are arguing about TCO of various operating systems. Perhaps you could explain it, if you care to do so?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by: Nihil
1. There is no such thing as a free meal.

---

Sure there is, soup kitchens and food banks operate under this premise.

Quote:

---

2. The quality is remembered long after the price is forgotten.

---

This may apply in certain industries, but in software it is generally irrelevant because of how frequent changes and updates occur. Windows 2000 has had numerous updates that both change the quality, generally improving it, and by and large come at no cost. The quality at time of purchase doesn't reflect the quality of the software now.

Quote:

---

3. "Securityology" is a new way of spelling "Mythology"
4. The "bean counters" rule our lives (unfortunately).

---

Beancounters only rule our lives when beans are the issue. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by nihil


1. There is no such thing as a free meal.
2. The quality is remembered long after the price is forgotten.
3. "Securityology" is a new way of spelling "Mythology"
4. The "bean counters" rule our lives (unfortunately).

---

on bulleye. :D


Pooh has made a point too. Its a matter about what is the current status of the company. Its use to be cheaper stay on the same course instead change it.

The cost of changing isnt only on IT. In fact, They are the smaller part. Most of the cost is about re-training the users (*nix to windows or vice versa). Please remember that 99% of companies are not IT related so they dont care about IT. TCO is used to measure costs just because we allways think about "IT costs" and not "Company costs".

About School, here we use to train students on both O/S (no Windows/*nix Jihad here). Even on other areas. They learn to use Windows Desktops with "companions" and learn to use a linux distro (Conectiva in our case) with the appropriate companions. Its a very good experience.

Since here we have a program to allow to "poor people" gain access to private colleges, we have got students (all areas) that never had contact with a computer.
We did a kind of survey with those guys, since they were not "corrupt" previously :D

For those guys, use Linux or Windows doesnt matter. For their usage O/S + office tools is enough to their purposes (doesnt matter if is ms office, open office, etc)...

Remember again they are "regular users" <--- non IT

The only problem they reported is about "portability". Sometimes they see that they cant transfer files from one platform to another.

They asked us: "There is no standard? isnt easier if a standard for those file is defined?"

no winners here :P

Agreeing with what has been said, and it really it horses for courses. That IDC study has already got in trouble with various organizations due to the fact that the testing was done on two completely different setups (if I recall what i read the Linux boxes were about twice as expensive as the Windows boxes to begin with).

TCO is such a fudgy stat, and can take into account all kinds of factors, the bottom line is that in the end (hopefully) companies will size up what best suits there needs and take that, all the Operating systems have pros and cons, so it does come down to each org. to figure it out. And costs must play a part, moreso now then ever, given the recession the US is coming out of it very few big IT shops are going to undergo massive new OS procurement, and most of these are (as far as I know) running Windows or Solaris,l and then using some of the more less popular OS's (AIX, AS400, OS90, etc...) (just building on what Pooh said).

Current stats point to an east/west split in the use of Windows and Linux, with many eastern economies adopting Linux, and the west sticking with Windows, Solaris etc...

This whole thread reminds me of the introduction of the IBM PC. I was convinced that there were better technical solutions, including Zenith and Mac, but you know what? Business opted for Big Blue for a whole host of reasons that seemed good to them, and here we are discussing the best operating system for IBM PC clones.

It would be nice if technicans were able to make rational technical decisions and that would be the end of it. Unfortunately, history is not on our side.

Quote:

---

Unfortunately, history is not on our side.

---

Could that be because marketing is on their side? How much crap, (and good stuff), has passed before our eyes being toted as the best thing since sliced bread that has fallen by the wayside.... Disappeared in the bit-bucket of quaint but unusable technology? Sometimes you look back and think, "hmmm.... That would have been nice in this situation..."

Quote:

---

Could that be because marketing is on their side? How much crap, (and good stuff), has passed before our eyes being toted as the best thing since sliced bread that has fallen by the wayside.... Disappeared in the bit-bucket of quaint but unusable technology? Sometimes you look back and think, "hmmm.... That would have been nice in this situation..."

---

VHS vis Betamax.

Betamax was by far the better product. It lost out to vhs............Why?

Some people are just naturally stupid. Example.
I work in the printing industry. The guy in the parts department tells me this story.
We have this printing press. It has a computer. The CGA monitor on it dies.
He researches on the net and finds the exact original type, brand new unused,
for four hundred dollars. His supervisor says "no, we're getting it from the
press manufacturer", $1500. Why? Some clueless suit gets a warm fuzzy
feeling dealing with his fav vendor.

Whaddaya gonna do?

Price doesn't matter when it isn't your money
The bigger the company, the worse it gets.
They buy windows because someone "likes and trusts"
the Microsoft salesman. Nobody really knows
the difference in cost between windows and Linux,
they just play hunches.
:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by: Tiger Shark
Could that be because marketing is on their side? How much crap, (and good stuff), has passed before our eyes being toted as the best thing since sliced bread that has fallen by the wayside.... Disappeared in the bit-bucket of quaint but unusable technology? Sometimes you look back and think, "hmmm.... That would have been nice in this situation..."

---

That sounds like most old timer Amiga or NeXT users I know (even an OS/2 guy). :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by: jinxy
VHS vis Betamax.
Betamax was by far the better product. It lost out to vhs............Why?

---

Betamax was better quality (and only initially, VHS caught up in quality very quickly), but it lacked the superior recording length VHS had, which made releasing movies on Beta impractical. Most of the broadcasting industry setups I've seen have Betamax as their primary recording media and it is very suitable for such situations. For being able to buy your favourite movies for home however, it wasn't a good solution.

chsh:

Quote:

---

Sure there is, soup kitchens and food banks operate under this premise.

---

So do a lot of marketeers :) ..........SOMEONE has to pay, and the recipient pretty soon becomes dependent.

Quote:

---

Beancounters only rule our lives when beans are the issue

---

I have never encountered an organisation that was not under BUDGETARY CONTROL, nor one that had a bottomless pit for a budget, so beancounters rule our lives most of the time.

IT generally has to fight harder than most for its slice of the cake, generally because we are trying to replace or update something that is already working. Also, we are an overhead, it is damn difficult to produce a business case that shows a plausible positive payback.

Even if IT takes the hit for any hardware and software and maintenance you come to "User Training"...............now this is traditionally the responsibility of the user departments, or in a bucket under HR......................just try spending a significant amout against their cost centres, and you will learn how a crash test dummy feels...................you hit a brick wall :D

Another consideration is that senior management will be mortally afraid of the "business impact" of changes as fundamental as an operating system.

As for software quality...............it is important, your commercial systems must be flexible, robust and able to handle the volumes. With apps like CAD it is paramount! as we are talkiing core functionality.

Just my personal experiences over the years ;)

So what if linux costs more,
you'll get a better system :P