Linked by Ryan (aka Aurex) on Thu 10th Jun 2004 19:55 UTC
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.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
You want an example? How about this one.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS03-021.mspx
The attacker would only have access to manipulate the media library on the user's computer. The attacker would not be able to browse the user's hard disk and would not have access to passwords or encrypted data. The attacker would not be able to modify files on the user's hard disk, but could modify the contents of any Media Library entries associated with those files. The attacker might also be able to determine the user name of the logged-on user by examining the directory paths to media files.
Microsoft makes it sound like only malicious people would do such a thing, but who is it that makes you go to particular pages, pages that could determine who is running Windows and what they are playing in Windows Media Player? Maybe someone who sells DRM'd media files and wishes to verify that unauthorized copies aren't being used?
Now, who sells DRM'd WMV/WMA files, can make users go to a particular page (-cough- Windows Update -cough-) and would be interested in knowing who is running Windows and what files they play? I'll give you three guesses, but you'll only need one.