Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 16:56 UTC, submitted by Robert
Novell and Ximian Novell might have signed a patent and interoperability deal with Microsoft Corp but it is not about to give up competing with the software giant and last week released a study that suggests its Linux desktop product is better value than Windows Vista. The company's competitive guide compares SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop with Windows Vista and claims that the Linux product provides 90% of Vista's functionality and 10% of the price.
Order by: Score:
v Linux is free if your Time is Worthless
by rakamaka on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 17:19 UTC
IanSVT Member since:
2005-07-06

You're missing the point. It's about the business OS, not the play in your "basement" OS.

Reply Score: 5

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

You're missing the point. It's about the business OS, not the play in your "basement" OS.

Correct. Though I can run Windows at home with 0 maintenance/security issues, I'd rather have my balls crushed by a wooden mallot than have to administrate it on 500 desktops. In fact, I'm pretty sure I'd need a bottle of Jack Daniels stashed in my desk drawer just to help relieve the stress a little ;) I don't know how Linux would fair in this regard, but hell .. it couldn't possibly do much worse.

Reply Score: 5

flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

That's a bit over the top.

Windows is properly managed and administered across thousands of organisations with greater numbers than that. I've worked simultaneously at two over the past two years where more or less there's relatively little administrative effort and costs compared to other parts of the infrastructure.

With the appropriate processes, controls and support models it's not all that difficult to do. Certainly not worth crushing any part of your anatomy.

Reply Score: 3

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Yet, studies have shown that it requires less administrators to manage and maintain a the equivalent number of Linux servers compared to Windows...I imagine the same would be true of Linux desktops.

Reply Score: 3

flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

That depends on which study you read and whom it is sponsored or paid by. Blanket statements that either Windows or Linux is more expensive than the other are narrow minded. Additionally, comparisons of just maintenance and management costs do not consider other costs such as training, user resistance, user efficiency, software changes and alike.

There are a great deal more factors to consider. It depends very much on the organisation and its needs.

Edited 2007-01-22 21:54

Reply Score: 1

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

That depends on which study you read and whom it is sponsored or paid by.

IIRC, this was an independent study done a couple of years ago. It is also reflected by personal experience, as well as basically every sysadmin I've talked to. *nix servers are just more stable and easier to maintain.

As far as desktop goes, of course user training costs exist, but depending on the apps used they are minimal. In any case, there is always cost involved in any migration; the benefits are usually long-term, and some may be hard to quantify (such as freedom from Microsoft lock-in).

Reply Score: 2

Rayz Member since:
2006-06-24

IIRC, this was an independent study done a couple of years ago.

Do you have a link for this 'independent study'?

It is also reflected by personal experience, as well as basically every sysadmin I've talked to. *nix servers are just more stable and easier to maintain.

Well, they *nix admin folk; what did you expect them to say? I know folk who have administered both and swear blind that Windows was a lot less hassle to work with. The difference is that I know that is probably based on familiarity and experience, and so won't desperately try to present it as evidence that one OS is better than another.

Reply Score: 2

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Interesting, and those who complain about the perceived 'high cost' are those who never use the tools which Microsoft makes available to lower the cost of deployment and administration.

It would be the equivilant of me installing WIndows using all the tools provided by Microsoft, but manually installaing each copy of Red Hat Linux/Fedora rather than using Kickstart - then coming onto this forum claiming that Linux is more expensive.

What is holding Linux back is applications, applications, applications and applications; until you can get the exact same application on Linux as you can on Windows, companies aren't going to move - no matter how 'virus resistant' your favourite operating system is.

Edited 2007-01-23 00:46

Reply Score: 1

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

All I indicated is that maintaining Linux servers requires less manpower than maintaining Windows servers, and extrapolating that one could expect the same thing on the desktop - something which I, as a "family/friends support" technician, can very well attest to.

The fact that you quickly changed the subject to applications availability tells me that you've basically conceded that point...

I'll add a precision to what you said: you don't need the exact same applications on Linux, you need applications that can do the same thing you need. After all, companies do switch from one app to the other even when they stay after Windows (like when we switched from Outlook to Lotus Notes).

Will this suit every company? Of course not, but it doesn't need to. The fact that the MS apologists have renewed their usual FUD with extra vigour is a good indication that Novell indeed represents a threat to Redmond's quasi-monopoly.

Reply Score: 2

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

The fact that you quickly changed the subject to applications availability tells me that you've basically conceded that point...

And the fact that you post a smart ass comment like that speaks volumes to the fact that you didn't read my comment, let alone comprehend what I was saying.

Studies can be bent either way; they're like statistics, you can bend to say what ever you want them to say - if statistics state that the number of reported crimes have gone up, a government will say that due to the increase in spending on law and order, people feel more confident that criminals will be caught; if the number of reported crimes go down, the government will claim that due to its tough stance on law and order, they've lowered the rate of crime due to the tough deterant.

I never said that I believed Linux was cheaper or Windows was cheaper; hence I gave an example as to how one cam claim one is more expensive than another by simply not using the tools that are available by the said software companies, and more importantly, its ignorant to say that there is somehow a blanket one size fits all idea that the cost said in the report can be duplicated in almost ever setting.

I'll add a precision to what you said: you don't need the exact same applications on Linux, you need applications that can do the same thing you need. After all, companies do switch from one app to the other even when they stay after Windows (like when we switched from Outlook to Lotus Notes).

But at the same time, even if they do move from Outlook to Lotus Notes, at the same time, the majority of their applications they still rely on, only run on Windows.

Where is Lotus Notes on Linux (as one example of the lack of application availability)? for me, no trial version simply says to be that its a big fraud; and no, I'm not going to delve through the bloated beuacracy that is IBM to try and plead of a 'trial version' - if they can't put one, smack bang on their front page, without the need of me needing to register myself to their download service, then tough-titty, they've lost a customer.

Customers want a good RAD tool, equal to that of Visual Studio, nothing like that exists on Linux, they want the ability to continue running the same branded applications, be it Dreamweaver, Quicken, Peachtree Accounting, Corel Draw, or what have you - until Novell pulls finger and actually does something about it, things aren't going to change.

Right now, Novell isn't doing a bloody thing about it! ride the horse that is Novell, but you'll realise after trotting for 300km, you'll find yourself again in the middle of no where, wanting direction, and the horse that is Novell, still dazed and confused.

To put it bluntly; Linux orientated businesses suck; they suck at what they do because they have no focus, they have no drive, they have no strong leadership from inside, they're wishy washy when it comes to setting up alliances with other companies, they fail to see the short comings in their own products in favour of bashing who ever happens to be the top dog at the time, and worse still, they can't even understand *WHY* customes choose Windows over their own product! they'd rather use 'vendor lock in' when in reality, "there is no bloody applications!" is the real excuse!

Reply Score: 2

abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

Multiply your hours spent on tweaking linux system, and solving intricate config files for working camera, printer, scanner etc etc. consider average base rate of 1hr = $10. What is your real cost?

I don't think you read the article. We're talking about business here not home use. All your examples are poor because they work out of the box on Suse.

Consider your time spent, on that Novell or Ubuntu box in your basement, in isolation, away from wife, kids, other little pleasures because you want to get that damn scanner or wifi card configured for your new shiny kernel 2.xx or KDE 4.xx. You will realize when your wife leaves you seeing that you have married to that linux box.

Again it would have helped if you read the article. This isn't comparing Windows with Linux, it's comparing Vista to Novell Desktop. The article is also focused on business use, not home use.

Consider cost of getting free windows programs(which is myth in linux community, how can be a windows program is free) examples firefox, OO, avast antivirus, paint.net, comodo firewall, adware, spybot, spywareblaster, GIMP, picasa, and thousands other to secure your windows machine and you will never have to look for paid program. Windows is costly-is the FUD by linux zealots.
This is link to get BEST FREEWARE UTILITIES for windoes machine.


You won't find freeware utilities on enterprise desktops. You will however, find free (GPL free) enterprise level applications on enterprise desktops from Suse. Besides most of the applications you mention are antivirus or antispyware. Linux doesn't need those for the desktop. The security provided by AppArmor exceeds that of the security applications you mention by an order of magnitude.

ALL YOUR HARDWARE, PERIPHERALS WORKS and INSTALLS in less that 10 minutes on windows machine.....

In a business environment this makes no sense. All hardware is bought with support in mind. All installs are done from images, not an individual basis.

If you ignore the fact that we are talking about businesses, it is obvious that you have never installed Windows and all its peripherals before. Windows can be a hassle unless you have OEM recovery discs or images. HP printer drivers alone take 30+ minutes to install. SATA HDDs aren't supported by an OEM Windows install disk. From my own experience I have found it much easier to install Linux on a computer than Windows. I never had to track down drivers. Almost everything worked out of the box and the few drivers that weren't on the install disc for my distribution were available through the package manager.

Reply Score: 5

amadensor Member since:
2006-04-10

Unfortunately, you are mistaken again. I have both Windows and Linux in my house. Linux takes approximately 10% more effort to install (I choose to specify more about disk partitions) but less total time to install and set up. My Linux time is about 12 minutes from bare metal, where, the Windows machine is about 45 minutes. Linux patches to get up to date require about 5 minutes of my time. I have not timed the actual download, but it does not reqire any effort or monitoring by me. Windows, the last time I did a bare metal install took 6 hours to complete the updates, with my attemtion required every hour or so throughout the process.

From there, it gets worse. I spend more time fixing Windows than Linux, even though the Windows machine is not mine (my wife uses Windows, is computer savy and does most of her own maintenance.) I also need to do more frequent re-installs (45 minutes+updates) about every 6 months to a year as compared to when I buy a PC. And after a re-install, the patches take several hours to do (and I have a high speed line) with the download of patches to get to where I can download SP2, the the time for SP2, and then the patches that follow that, where with the Linux machine, it does not take the multiple itterations of updating, and also, I do not have to monitor it. I simply tell it to do the update, and I can go do something else.

The savings of Linux over Windows are small at purchase time. You real savings are down the road with reduced maintenance and easier managment of upgrades.

Reply Score: 5

zerohalo Member since:
2005-07-26

I agree.

Sure, Linux has a bit of a higher learning curve when it comes to setup and administration (besides the very basic install). However, most of that learning curve is because people are used to Windows. Take someone who has never used either Windows or Linux and I'm not sure the difference would be that great.

But even with the learning curve, I have non-geek friends who have switched from Windows to Linux on their small Home networks, because the time that it was taking them to deal with malware/trojans/viruses on Windows was much greater than the time that it took them to learn how to set up and administer Linux.

Reply Score: 3

rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

However, most of that learning curve is because people are used to Windows.

This point should not be underestimated. Windows seems obvious to those that have been using it for a long time, but it's not to those who haven't. The last version of Windows I used as my primary desktop was NT 4.0. I have to use XP often enough that I can do a basic install, but its administration is not obvious to me. For example, I know if I'm having problems with my wifi card on Linux, I can get its status by doing "cat /proc/net/wireless". What's the equivalent on Windows? What's the equivalent to "dmesg"? Or anything in "/proc" for that matter? On a more developer-oriented note, what's the equivalent to "readelf", or "strace"?

I think a lot of complaints about Linux usability stem from Windows power users who get frustrated by the fact that their acquired knowledge is now useless. People whose first reaction to needing software is to Google for it, instead of firing up Synaptic. People who have no problem with regedit, but find /etc to be arcane. It works both ways too, of course. Part of my frustration with XP probably stems from having things like 'ls' ingrained into my muscle-memory.

Edited 2007-01-22 19:28

Reply Score: 5

merkoth Member since:
2006-09-22

I think a lot of complaints about Linux usability stem from Windows power users who get frustrated by the fact that their acquired knowledge is now useless.

That's why we hear so much comments like "I won't learn about computers a second time just to use Linux". The problem is that the average user thinks that he/she knows about computers just because someone else explained them how to burn a CD with Nero. So, when moved to a different platform, they suddenly find out that they don't have a single clue. Is this their fault? No. This is what happens when you have a monopoly: most people think that Windows' way is the only and better way of doing things.

Now, leaving the dead horse alone, I think that SLED 10 is a great contender for Vista: in fact, it might beat Vista on performance / hardware requirements. The UI isn't that different from Windows and works nicely.
They both would be way more suited for the enterprise without fancy graphics, though. You don't need XGL+Compiz / Aero Glass to use a freaking spreadsheet or a database frontend.

But I agree, there's a lot to keep in mind when deciding the OS your bussiness will use for a very long term besides price.

Edited 2007-01-22 19:48

Reply Score: 3

yak8998 Member since:
2006-07-28

"That's why we hear so much comments like "I won't learn about computers a second time just to use Linux". The problem is that the average user thinks that he/she knows about computers just because someone else explained them how to burn a CD with Nero. So, when moved to a different platform, they suddenly find out that they don't have a single clue."

Well it also comes full circle. A lifelong user coming to Linux comes to Windows and won't know how to do anything either. Same with OSX in either of those situations. They're all different platforms. You don't "know about computers" just from knowing how to use one OS over another.

I support and use Linux. I also work as sys admin for a 98% windows enviroment (10 *ix servers and one mac) so I get the best and worst of both worlds. =/ lol'd about the compiz/xgl for a spreadsheet comment

Edited 2007-01-23 08:26

Reply Score: 1

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

With that being said, there are still deficiences; for example, I've moved back to Windows XP because it is impossible to surf the net and rip a cd at the same time - soundjuicer sucks up all the CPU and the internet slows to a crawl; I've yet to experience that problem running Windows XP + Intels latest drivers.

Add that to the list of applications that end users need, its not just a simple tasking of picking up, replacing and carry on working - its a whole lot more complex than that; like I keep repeating, businesses do more than just type out letters.

Reply Score: 2

DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"With that being said, there are still deficiences; for example, I've moved back to Windows XP because it is impossible to surf the net and rip a cd at the same time - soundjuicer sucks up all the CPU and the internet slows to a crawl; I've yet to experience that problem running Windows XP + Intels latest drivers."

Then use grip on linux. I can rip many CD's and nothing else gets slowed down when I do. One should have nothing to do with the other.

Reply Score: 3

DeadFishMan Member since:
2006-01-09

With that being said, there are still deficiences; for example, I've moved back to Windows XP because it is impossible to surf the net and rip a cd at the same time - soundjuicer sucks up all the CPU and the internet slows to a crawl; I've yet to experience that problem running Windows XP + Intels latest drivers.

I believe that SoundJuicer somehow was the culprit here. My main machine is an old P4 1.5 Ghz with only 256 Mb of RAM but it flies with Opera (I used to swear by Firefox but its infamous memory leaks are getting on my nerves and there is little point using it with so little RAM available) and KAudioCreator running on the background ripping an audio CD. I know because I do that a lot as I still have 120 or so more audio CDs to convert to MP3 to use with my MP3 player.

A few days ago I was using k9copy - arguably a CPU intensive application - to.. erm, make backups of.. erm... some DVDs that I own (yeah! ;) ) while KTorrent downloading three... erm, Linux ISOs files (yeah, thatīs it! ;) ) and everybody knows that those Bit Torrent clients open as many connections as they can and slowing down the machine considerably - as far as internet activities are concerned - but it still was churning along with Opera reading a few simple websites including OSNews (although those that had some Flash ad or something like that were a definitely no-go for obvious reasons).

GNOME used to be a heck of a memory hog but it is somewhat better now so thatīs why Iīm placing my bets on SoundJuicer being the culprit but in no way I would force myself to use Windows at home just because of that! ;)

Reply Score: 2

amadensor Member since:
2006-04-10

I agree completely. I remember my first, jolting experience with Windows. I had to ask someone just to figure out how to change my password. Who would have guessed the three finger salute. Typing passwd made much more sense.

Reply Score: 1

Dark_Knight Member since:
2005-07-10

Novell's commercial Linux distribution SLED (SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop) is not the same as OpenSUSE. It also targets a different market similar to how Windows Vista Ultimate would be overkill for someone using it in the home.

Novell is correct that SLED does cost less for businesses than Microsoft's Windows Vista Ultimate which is including both tech support and the OS per client (workstation). SLED also works on older hardware unlike Windows Vista which has strict requirements to run it's eye candy effects causing it to behave more of a resource hog than Windows XP Progessional.

Novell's Linux solutions aren't the perfect solution for everyone and reason why they believe SLED can meet 90% of consumers requirements. For example Novell does need to work more closely with manufacturers like Logitech, D-Link, etc to get better driver support for webcams, wireless cards, etc. D-Link is reluctant to supply Linux drivers with their products even though there are manufacturers such as Linksys that do provide Linux support. To get a manufacturers support I find it's better to let the company know via email or phone call that you're going to start buying from their competitors unless the company starts providing real cross platform support. I recommend for consumers considering using either a Linux distribution or upgrading/purchasing Windows Vista should do some research to ensure you have driver support for the hardware you currently use. D-Link as pointed out doesn't provide Linux drivers and has recently notified me via email that they don't have a timeline on when drivers for Windows Vista will be released for their products. Logitech released a Windows Vista driver for the Logitech Orbit but I have yet to get it working properly on my test system.

Definitely some things to consider whether you're purchasing Windows Vista as an upgrade or with a new system. The same goes for those considering switching to Linux or switching Linux distributions. Don't believe all the hype no matter what OS you're considering using. It really is a "consumer beware" market.

Reply Score: 4

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Consider cost of getting free windows programs(which is myth in linux community, how can be a windows program is free) examples firefox, OO, avast antivirus, paint.net, comodo firewall, adware, spybot, spywareblaster, GIMP...

There's only one problem. In a Linux distrbution, I have an awful lot of those applications ready to install at the click of a button. I don't need anti-virus, free or otherwise, and I don't need to spend half my life finding out where to get these things and spend the other half downloading a ton of exe files and then install each individual one.

If nothing else, you've given an example of why it's a bad idea to write open source software for Windows, simply in order for Microsoft to sell Windows. After all, remember that if you're an ISV developing on Windows, whether you develop free software or not, you're a one night stand:

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleB...

and on top of that ALL YOUR HARDWARE, PERIPHERALS WORKS and INSTALLS in less that 10 minutes on windows machine.....

Yer. Right after I've downloaded and installed those motherboard drivers I already have installed with Linux (assuming that goes OK), along with my graphics drivers, my TV card drivers and the awful software that comes with it (I already have TV card drivers installed on Linux and Kaffeine allows me to watch TV in a couple of minutes of scanning), download and configure my wireless drivers............................ That's assuming I've got the discs or know where to download them from online.

And then I go on holiday to get over it.

10 minutes. Bugger. If you do all that above then you've got little time to even get yourself a wife.

Reply Score: 1

Axord Member since:
2005-06-30

If nothing else, you've given an example of why it's a bad idea to write open source software for Windows, simply in order for Microsoft to sell Windows.

Does that outweigh the benefits of cross-platform software? If the state of software is equal between two platforms then people would choose solely based on the merit of the platforms.

Additionally, switching both the platform and the apps at once is more difficult than just switching either the apps or the platform individually.

Reply Score: 1

Xaero_Vincent Member since:
2006-08-18

I always enjoy the remark: "Linux is free if your time is worthless".

Well Windows isn't free if your time is worthless. Buying a new computer to run it isn't free either.

OK... maybe free for lucky winners. But frankly I haven't won anything lately. Have you?

Whether its learning the new APIs, navigating menus, figuring out why your apps wont work, or performing ritual clicking exercises on security prompts; there is a certain learning curve people will face.

Reply Score: 3

Novell could be half right
by abraxas on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 17:21 UTC
abraxas
Member since:
2005-07-07

The costs of running a Windows Vista workstation definitely eclipses Novell's desktop by a wide margin if you include security applications and productivity applications. The only problem I see with Novell's statement is that it is very hard to measure functionality and it could vary widely amongst different users. Novell could provide a complete (100%) replacement for many users (maybe even most users) while for some users it wouldn't even contain 50% of the functionality of Vista. The real issue isn't the OS, it's the applications. Linux provides very good replacements for a lot of Windows applications but there is still some specialty software out there that doesn't have a Linux equivalent.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Novell could be half right
by netpython on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 17:33 UTC in reply to "Novell could be half right"
netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

Linux provides very good replacements for a lot of Windows applications but there is still some specialty software out there that doesn't have a Linux equivalent.

The opposite is also valid.Correct me if i'm wrong but Nero burning still isn't compatible with Vista.So k3b doesn't have a windows competitor at the moment.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Novell could be half right
by WorknMan on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 17:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Novell could be half right"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

The opposite is also valid.Correct me if i'm wrong but Nero burning still isn't compatible with Vista.So k3b doesn't have a windows competitor at the moment.

Ummm, the latest version of Nero (v7 I think) is now Vista ready, so you guys can shut up about Nero already ;)

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Novell could be half right
by abraxas on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 17:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Novell could be half right"
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

The opposite is also valid.Correct me if i'm wrong but Nero burning still isn't compatible with Vista.So k3b doesn't have a windows competitor at the moment.

Nero isn't a specialty application. There are many burning applications out there. I'm talking about applications that talk to specialty hardware and things of that nature. For example I have a friend who makes signs and he has to use Windows to support Corel Draw and the application that takes the Corel files and sends them to the vinyl cutting machine to be cut. I haven't found a Linux equivalent for that application yet.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Novell could be half right
by DrillSgt on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 22:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Novell could be half right"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"The opposite is also valid.Correct me if i'm wrong but Nero burning still isn't compatible with Vista.So k3b doesn't have a windows competitor at the moment."

Actually Nero runs great on Vista, as they had the Vista version out a couple months ago. It does require an upgrade, so your old version will not work, but Nero works fine.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Novell could be half right
by zerohalo on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 18:47 UTC in reply to "Novell could be half right"
zerohalo Member since:
2005-07-26

True. So much depends on the business/industry in question and the applications that they need. A lot of businesses nowadays are wisely building server-side apps thereby only requiring their clients to use a browser. For those, a switch is easy.

For companies with special demands that are not met by apps available on Linux (ie, graphic design), there's no point in switching to Linux. However, even in those cases, you could still have a Linux server, with employees who don't need to run the Windows-only software running Linux, and then just buy Win licenses for the workstations that need them. Of course where that's a smart move or not depends on the configuration of the company and how many workstations are needed for which tasks.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Novell could be half right
by twenex on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 05:11 UTC in reply to "Novell could be half right"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

The only problem I see with Novell's statement is that it is very hard to measure functionality and it could vary widely amongst different users.

That's true - but it's also why Novell concentrated on the cost argument. Bean counters care about the bottom line, so (as many testimonials have shown) it doesn't really matter to them if users and administrators have to be constantly interrupted by/on-hand to deal with Windows problems, as long as they get a sweet deal from Microsoft to switch from $OTHEROS to Windows.

Novell, et al, are turning the cost equation, which has historically favoured Windows, on its head.

Reply Score: 3

more humour
by Haicube on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 18:24 UTC
Haicube
Member since:
2005-08-06

A Nissan Micra is 90% of what a BMW is, basically of great value then aye? however, there are more values than simply price.

Reply Score: 3

10% Missing
by sb56637 on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 19:44 UTC
sb56637
Member since:
2006-05-11

>...claims that the Linux product provides 90% of Vista's functionality and 10% of the price.


That's well and good, provided that your company doesn't depend on the 10% of functionality that Windows provides and Linux doesn't.

Reply Score: 3

RE: 10% Missing
by Temcat on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 21:59 UTC in reply to "10% Missing"
Temcat Member since:
2005-10-18

Moreover, that 10% bit is always different.

Reply Score: 1

Another day, another tome
by moleskine on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 02:47 UTC
moleskine
Member since:
2005-11-05

Another day, another study. Sigh. Is the world really full of people angrily waving a "study" at each other? Look! You can save money! It must be true because it's printed in this here study [shakes fist of spare hand].

Just my 2 cents but I suspect the whole idea of "Linux has the advantage because it is cheaper" is a mistake. People will pay for something if they think it's worth it and has quality. And if they don't think that, then they won't want your product at any price down to zero.

I'd like to see some Linux companies dumping the cheezy cheapniz line and instead talking up their product - emphasizing the applications, capabilities and engineering excellence they have to offer. Because if they don't believe they can offer top-drawer examples of all three then they're in the wrong business.

By the way, did I say that a new study's just come out saying that running Linux costs less than Windows?

Reply Score: 3

business machine specifications
by unclefester on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 09:53 UTC
unclefester
Member since:
2007-01-13

The vast majority of desktop corporate machines have hardware that works perfectly with any recent linux distro.

They *don't* use:

winmodems
wlan
usb webcams
cheap usb printers
3D graphics
high end soundcards

They usually have low-mid range CPUs (~3GHz) moderate RAM (1GB) and integrated video, sound and LAN.

I can imagine in the near future many corporations removing all external mail and internet access for most workers due to the huge amounts of work time lost top these activities. Laptop access will probably also be severely restricted due to security and privacy risks.

Reply Score: 1