Replies

Microsoft Corp. won't cut the price on its Windows operating system to compete with a $199 personal computer that runs rival operating software, the No. 1 software company's CEO said Wednesday At the time a new IBM PC cost $4,000.00 minus monitor. That is when the first clones hit. After IBM lost the court cas on BIOS they announced that they would not lower prices to compete wiht an upstart brand called Pc Limited owned by a college student named Michael Dell. The Dell cost $2,500.00. Today Dell has a much larger share of the PC business than IBM. IBM is not clost to having a monopoly.

The problem for the people who think LINUX can compete with Windows is it is not competitive to Windows. The Dell PC was an IBM Pc clone. LOOK UP CLONE IN THE DICTIONARY. It is the key to success in defeating Microsoft.

If you could run IBM's Pc you could run Michael Dell's Pc. Back in 1915, when Ford had 90 percent of the car market, if you could drive Ford's Model T, you could drive General Motors' Chevrolet.

Being able to run Windows does not mean you can run LINUX. NO one could have defeated the Ford' car with an airplane. And LINUX will not defeat WINDOWS. LINUX and Windows are operating systems in the way that planes and cars are transportation vehicles.

What kills Linux is the training costs. I can buy a Dell for $800 bucks with Windows installed and spend zero on training. Or I could pay $200 for one with Linux and spend $1,000 on training. When my total cost is $1,200 to buy a LINUX computer or $800.00 to buy a Windows computer, which do you think I will buy?

When you look at the total cost FREE LINUX costs more than EXPENSIVE WINDOWS. CEO's look at total cost. That is why they get the big bucks. Until the LINUX people solve that problem they are doomed to 1 or 2 percent of the desktop share.

Even in servers LINUX can't get the low end market. One can easily spend $2,000 on operating system software for each Windows 2000 server. The same functionality comes with FREE LINUX. Anyone can install and hook up Windows 2000 servers to windows 2000 or xp clients. It costs at least $50,000 a year to get a guy who can get a Linux server to work seamlessly with Windows 2000 and XP clients.

The total cost of server software for 4 servers running Windows 2000 is about $12,000.00 including labor to install and maintain them for the first year. OK! The total costs of server software for 4 servers running LINUX is $50,000.00 when the cost of the required LINUX GURU is included. And each year of its life thereafter the windows cost is about $3,000 for labor to maintain the servers, and the GURU to keep my Free LINUX running will cost $50,000.00 plus raises.

It works like this small business can't aford FREE LINUX. But it can hack the costs of EXPENSIVE WINDOWS.

Linux now installs as easily as Windows. But configuring it so Windows clients are able to talk to LINUX servers costs at least one LINUX GURU.

When a Linux client has no training costs and any windows server jockey can do a linux server, Bill Gates will be in deep doo doo. But until a LINUX GURU is not required to use a LINUX server with Windows Client, ONLY the big RICH companies can affort LINUX.

You said:
"When you look at the total cost FREE LINUX costs more than EXPENSIVE WINDOWS. CEO's look at total cost. That is why they get the big bucks. Until the LINUX people solve that problem they are doomed to 1 or 2 percent of the desktop share.

Even in servers LINUX can't get the low end market. One can easily spend $2,000 on operating system software for each Windows 2000 server. The same functionality comes with FREE LINUX. Anyone can install and hook up Windows 2000 servers to windows 2000 or xp clients. It costs at least $50,000 a year to get a guy who can get a Linux server to work seamlessly with Windows 2000 and XP clients. "

First off, there's something wrong with your caps lock key. It seems to keep switching on and off.

Secondly, the TCO on linux boxes is lower than on windows. Check this link, posted on another thread:
http://cin.earthweb.com/article/1,3555,10493_1477911,00.html

As for the cost of linux sysadmins: You pay peanuts, you get monkeys. Linux sysadmins handle two to three times the number of servers a windows admin does.

Regarding allowing windows boxes to talk to the linux server: I can't name one distro that doesn't come with samba. If you can read, you can have samba up and running in less than 5 minutes. Oh, and if you're only paying 50k for sysadmins, you're not going to get anybody competent, even in the windows world.

You also say:
"When a Linux client has no training costs and any windows server jockey can do a linux server, Bill Gates will be in deep doo doo."

I think that Bill Gates will be in deep doo doo as soon as the Microsoft apologistas actually try a modern linux distro and ind out Microsoft has been lying to them about how hard it is.

You must not have played around with Linux recently. What you say is *very* true about Linux a couple of years ago, not so true about last years Linux, and only slightly true about the latest batch of Linux. RedHat8 and Lindows are *really* slick. Someone who hasn't used a computer before can web surf right out of the box. Microsoft and its fans are just whistling dixie when they say Linux is hard to learn. Students everywhere are learning it. My sister, who is not particularly computer literate, has picked it up on her own.

Microsoft has slit its own throat with Windows XP licensing. The number of people that i know (and i know a LOT of people who use computers) that have actually purchased Windows XP (some got it on their new computers without asking for it) I can count on my fingers and toes.

I've spent the last two days cleaning up after the bugbear virus. On Microsoft machines, of course.

Those who have made the switch to Linux don't have to worry about this. Linux is worth having *just* because it is higher quality software, and as a result MUCH, MUCH safer from a security standpoint.

Microsoft is quickly becoming an economically fascist organization: when you download the "latest" Windows Media Player (8 or above), it installs Digital Rights Management software so you can only play MP3 files which are RIAA approved...

The biggest problem with Windows and any Microsoft software is that whatever you study and learn about it is not *real* knowledge.

Learning what combinations of pull down menus to exercise to do something is superstitious behaviour... which will become obsolete next time you upgrade.

With Linux, when you learn about how programs interact with the system, that knowledge is usable to solve the next problem -- and furthermore is usable under Solaris, AIX, OS X, BSD, etc...

I have been running Linux and OpenBSD on ALL of my servers and simply have not had the issues you mention.

My customer that is hosting his NT4 box on my network, had to manually change all the IIS settings - using the GUI. There was not a way to change the IP in one place and have it apply everywhere.

Under Apache, you change the IP address ONCE and all the virtual hosts pick up the change.

Concerning X Windows, it can truly be a pain, but then again, you don't run X windows on a server.

While all the MSFT apologists groan about Linux, I am running my entire company on it (save one WinME laptop) and I just do not have downtime.

.. LINUX will not defeat WINDOWS.

Look, not even Linus Torvalds thinks that Linux will topple Windows. Linux was meant to be an alternative, not a replacement. In that sense, Linux is doing very well by just being out there, since it introduces a standard of stability and reliability that Microsoft can only dream about. If Windows users didn't start demanding better performance you'd likely still be running NT.

I can buy a Dell for $800 bucks with Windows installed and spend zero on training. Or I could pay $200 for one with Linux and spend $1,000 on training.

Irrelevant. You can also spend thousands on Windows training and zero on learning Linux, since everything is available on the web or usenet. This is NOT rocket science and not all users are idiots, contrary to popular opinion.

The total cost of server software for 4 servers running Windows 2000 is about $12,000.00 including labor to install and maintain them for the first year.... And each year of its life thereafter the windows cost is about $3,000 for labor to maintain the servers...

What did you pull those numbers out of? Application and back-end software will cost you many times that... unless your servers are just going to be sitting around running Windows. Linux distributions typically include all of the apps you'll ever need, and if they dont, there are places where you can download what you need, usually for free.

So when you get down to it, you'll see that Linux + Guru costs less than Windows + Guru + Software Assurance + apps + app maintenance + (licenses * seats).