See, this is what get my goat. When I read reports like this one that point out why Windows is better than Linux according to a report released by Microsoft;
[quote="C|Net"]
Research firm IDC, in a Microsoft-funded study, has reinforced a Microsoft argument that Linux is more expensive to administer than Windows, a factor that makes Windows less expensive overall in most server uses.
[/quote]
Surely, that bit is red should render the whole thing unusable? What are teh chances that if the report were to say that Windows is in fact more expensive, that we would get to know about it?
Of course, when Microsoft can't compete, Microsoft has to lie, or at least avoid the truth like the plague.
The whole article is so sympathetic to Microsoft's woes and how it's so tough being at the top that I almost feel tempted to weep for the pressure that Microsoft must be under.
Any readers of The Register will know that Microsoft's tactics, on an individual level with companies moving over to Linux, are not unlike the old Protection rackets. In fact, one eyewitness account on the Register mentioned that the only way that Microsoft could counter the decision of this cost aware company to move to Linux was to offer server software for free. Even then, the company still went with Linux.
And anyway, where is this article going? It starts off saying that it would be bad news if Linux gained a foothold in the Desktop market and proves it by showing dubious figures that highlight the cost of running a server.
Get real Microsoft. I'm not going to kiss your booty and nobody with half a brain will either.
[quote="Terrible how Linux needs to be rebooted all the time"]
Much more significant is the cost of unexpected computer downtime, when companies have to spend time rebooting and reconfiguring systems and the people who need to use the servers are idle. [/quote]
[quote="Desperado"]
The findings reinforce a long-held argument by Microsoft that its systems don't cost as much to run as Linux does. These administration costs account for the vast majority of the overall ownership cost--62 percent, according to IDC--dwarfing differences in the initial software costs. [/quote]
[quote="Advertisment"]
Linux's price has been influential, however. For one thing, it spurred Microsoft to sell a new lower-priced "Web Server" edition of the next version of Windows, .Net Server 2003 due in April. For another thing, Linux has pressured companies such as Sun Microsystems to sell Unix servers.
[/quote]
[quote="Reasonable and Fair"]
And Microsoft acknowledges its own prices have been an issue in cash-strapped countries such as Namibia.[/quote]
[quote="Yeah, right..."]
"We believe these higher costs are...related to the relative immaturity of the management tools available today for Linux systems," IDC said. Administrators, too, will become more adept. "Over time, the gap in support costs between Linux and Windows will contract." [/quote]
So, Linux is immature. Remind me, upon which OS is it based again?