FUD about Linux costing more
Microsoft loves to try to scare people away from Linux by talking about "overall costs". This Yankee Group report has similar language:
"All of the firms would like to reduce the amount of up-front capital expenditure dollars they spend on expensive Windows and Unix software licenses," the report found. "However, they also recognize that in certain instances, a wholesale or significant switch to Linux might reduce up-front costs but result in higher overall costs."
Well, I've seen quite a few customers switch from Unix to Windows and it has ALWAYS cost them more. More support, more people, more everything. So how can the opposite switch ever cost more? Properly setup Unix/Linux systems need little on-going maintenance, and often only a part time consultant is needed. Many of my clients get by with paying me very little per year, which isn't good news for my retirement plans, but it sure costs them less. But on the Windows side of things, "there is always money flying out the window", as one customer put it.
The Yankee Group also makes sure to put in other quotes Microsoft likes:
"We have no intention of switching to Linux," an unnamed MIS manager is quoted as saying in the report, "but we do find it useful as a stone to throw at Microsoft."
Implying, of course, that many of the people who said they were looking at Linux might not really be. It's all just a hoax, don't worry Bill, the bank vaults won't be empty any time soon.
Bull-poop, I say. And further I say that I am, right now, as you read this, actively switching people to Linux AND IT'S OFTEN AT THEIR REQUEST.
Microsoft FUD is what it is, but reality is something entirely different.
Got something to add? Send me email.
(OLDER) <- More Stuff -> (NEWER) (NEWEST)
Printer Friendly Version
Increase ad revenue 50-250% with Ezoic