Linked by Ryan (aka Aurex) on Thu 10th Jun 2004 19:55 UTC
In the News Ever since Microsoft started publicly outing Linux with their "Get the Facts" campaign, I have seen numerous articles and studies about the TCO (total cost of ownership) of both products in a head to head manner. However, I have yet to see one article discuss the TCO for home users and small businesses. I have thought long and crunched many numbers to devise a conclusion to this years old debate and I think the results are obvious... Windows is way more expensive than Linux.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
It ain't all that easy 2
by Roar Eriksen on Thu 10th Jun 2004 21:41 UTC

Well, when you have new hardware with a month old distro you may not even get into KDE or Gnome because you have no clue of how you should and can configure your video card. All new hardware have compatibility issues with Linux, I know that it's the vendors fault, but it shouldn't be hell just to get into KDE or Gnome in order to do some useful paperwork. All the time it takes to configure and tweaking takes away the big money issue. People should not have knowledge about everything they do, but a little they must have i.e cars, you need to know the most basics things and that's what most people with a Windows machine knows. Having them migrate to a new OS will 9/10 times be less inefficient than what they previously used.

I like Linux, don't get me wrong, but when you have "thousands and thousands" of distro's, something is bound to get wrong, we don't need 4-5 different standards, we need only one and that's a problem in the Linux world imo. The other things are that you complain what Windows come with, strip Linux down to the kernel and ask a average person to install that and so on. Distro's take software here and there and implement in their install and hencefort begins to argument that Windows lacks of free software, almost all the same software availible to Linux is also availible to Windows.