[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
james kilty wrote: > Whilst the up front costs of a Microsoft Desktop compared to it's > Freeware Linux counterpart may appear to favour the Linux route, the > total cost of ownership would show a different picture. The additional > work required on the Linux platform to create an integrated set of > tools, which is out of the box functionality for Mirosoft would very > quickly overtake any initial purchase savings, as has been experienced > by Penwith. This is outside of the argument for the business to be able > to quickly respond to changing needs. > I can't help but the guy who answered the question doesn't actually understand anything much about Linux. 'Freeware Linux counterpart'. Hmm... I think he thinks of it as being free as in cost. What integrated set of tools do they want? OpenOffice.org is fairly integrated, and if they wanted professional services they could go to the likes of IBM / RedHat / Novell (or even Sun?) who could probably tailor a system for them at a lower cost than M$. I bet they don't consider the amount of money spent on keeping a Windows system up and running. Rob -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html