blogs.zdnet.com — “We found that many times when companies had chosen to migrate from UNIX to Linux, those decisions were made at a much lower level within the organization. In fact, it was often an IT administrator who was making the decisions, typically not using robust ROI (return on investment) or TCO analyses.”
Sep 25, 2006 View in Crawl 4
sanchoSep 26, 2006
Clearly he was making a joke. MS is also an abbreviation for Multiple Sclerosis.
spisskaSep 26, 2006
I advise anyone interested in this study to write Microsoft and ask to be sent a hard copy by mail. In fact, ask for a hard copy of everything they've got. They'll send it too.Back during their 'get the facts' campaign I sent away for it. Snazzy package. I know that the printed materials alone must have cost them $10.00 or so, not to mention the duplication, mailing, or administrative costs. Whatever the material production costs, the consultancy that ran the gig got at least five times that, probably more. I signed up around 10 or 20 times using different addresses, and different names at duplicate addresses. Only got five packeges in the end, but I figure it cost them at least $200 to $300 to get them to me.In the end I sent them a paper letter thanking them for their hard work and concern, but explaining that I had trouble accessing their web resources through konqueror and other standards-compliant software. Switching from Linux would simply not be possible at that time.I did wish them the best of luck.
Closed AccountSep 26, 2006
MS no longer can produce a product that works for two fundamental reasons: Windows is fundamentally broken beyond repair - even it's most basic precepts are wrong - and there is nobody competent left there. All the real programmers left over the last few years, as the company was fully taken over by their marketing department.MS fully recognise that they actually haven't got a product to ship - "Vista" is an expensive joke - and are having to resort to all sorts of obvious underhand tactics - like paid-for "studies".Nobody with any desire to keep commercially sensitive information on their computer should consider Windows. It is now so full of holes that it's trivial to break into ANY 'net-connected PC. This fundamental lack of security is the most common business reason I hear for migrating to a proper operating system.
dacheetahSep 26, 2006
From the actual study:"the RISK-ADJUSTED returns for migrations suggested Windows was often essentially a wash with Linux – and sometimes even advantaged – on total costs." (My Caps)So the suits have taken the results, and a qualitative factor, that is probably proportional to the amount each company paid them to do the (microsoft-funded) study, and used this factor to skew the reults in the favour of said company, but only enough to get it to a similar level.Sounds to me like if you were to actually check the TCO and ROI on real life systems, without going and adding arbitrary factors like "risk-adjustment" then Linux would kick Windows' arse. (How is linux riskier? I've found there is better support for Linux than Windows, and having talked to Microsoft support on the phone, I can tell you THAT is both expensive and useless.)And if the migration is so much easier than expected, why does the initial labour constitute 80-85% of the TCO? If the software cost is 2%, and for a major company with hundreds of computers, buying Windows Server, that's easily US$15K for software, that makes about $650K for just the labour for initial migration. Split that between a team of say 10 experts ($65K each) working for 8 hours a day at say $80/h, that's over 100 days to migrate. And this is assuming a non VLK-type licence, I've heard of big companies that pay over well $50K just for their Windows licences. That's over two million ($2,000,000) dollars of labour. At that cost, it'd want to be a damn complicated process.
Closed AccountSep 26, 2006
fun FuN fuN fUn Fun fUNI still got an original w i n d o w s nt for burn in the fire, oh and mS license too. This shows clearly how much I appreciate everything what that company made :~
sixdaysSep 26, 2006
Chill the f**k out *hug*
baalzebubSep 26, 2006
if microsoft spent as much money, time, manpower, effort on making Windows better as they spent on marketing FUD then MS-Windows would be a better product, but they don't so you have MS-funded FUD reports & fake white-papers, and astroturfers* trolling places like Digg & other websites that collect user comments...astroturfing: n. 1. The use of paid shills to create the impression of a popular movement, through means like letters to newspapers from soi-disant ‘concerned citizens’, paid opinion pieces, and the formation of grass-roots lobbying groups that are actually funded by a PR group (AstroTurf is fake grass; hence the term). See also sock puppet, tentacle. 2. What an individual posting to a public forum under an assumed name is said to be doing. This term became common among hackers after it came to light in early 1998 that Microsoft had attempted to use such tactics to forestall the U.S. Department of Justice's antitrust action against the company. The maneuver backfired horribly, angering a number of state attorneys-general enough to induce them to go public with plans to join the Federal suit. It also set anybody defending Microsoft on the net for the accusation “You're just astroturfing!”.
spiff21Sep 26, 2006
@i440 wrote:"People say they use Linux for ethical reasons.But there is a lot of hypocracy related to that, isn't there?"I can't see why this got Dugg down, except that it might come across as an anti-Linux comment. I think that i440 hits a major point here. Free software is built around a set of principles. When you start doing childish things such as what spisska was doing and then talking about them as if you're starting some revolution against Microsoft, you hurt the image of free software.
subgeniusdSep 26, 2006
I kind of admire anyone who can type straight after half a bottle of Jim Beam....fingers accurately translating skull jumble.