Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Windows vs. Unix Revisited

Posted by michael on from the save-a-million-bucks-or-two dept.

dubious9 writes "Linuxworld has another TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) comparison of Windows vs. Unix. Note that is it not a Linux comparison or a specific Unix comparison at all. The comparison here is the Windows client/server model vs. the terminal/server Unix model. It discusses the needs of a school/university and considers such facts as what the students will have to run at home. It's written by a self proclaimed Unix evangelist, so don't expect it to be unbiased, but he makes points that are hard to argue with. All in all, it is a refreshing TCO comparison."

5 of 388 comments (clear)

  1. Shouldn't Have Even Been Posted by TrollBridge · · Score: 0, Troll
    "It's written by a self proclaimed Unix evangelist, so don't expect it to be unbiased"

    This fact should have disqualified the story from even being posted, unless the editors have entirely abandoned any attempt at making Slashdot even appear to be a credible source of honest, factual information.

    Statements by a "Unix evangelist" has no business being reported as news.

    --
    There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
  2. Inherent flaws in this article by (1337)+God · · Score: 1, Troll
    1. What about academic discounts? Many students, even those at public colleges, can get copies of Office XP and other popular software packages for as little as $5.00.
    2. Unless your office is entirely UNIX-based, you'll need VMware or other OS-emulation software to share Microsoft Word and PowerPoint documents. When it comes down to it, businesses would rather pay the extra money for compatible software than save money on software that prevents them from interacting with other businesses.
    3. What about maintenence costs? UNIX administrators are far more advanced and intelligent than your typical high-school age MCSE. UNIX is much more powerful, but Windows is easy, and in a world full of mostly dumb people, they choose what's easiest.
    4. What about Citrix?!

      Join my Slashdot clan
    --

    Background: 28/M/Bi-Sexual; Owner of a Linux company; MBA Harvard 2003; B.S. Comp Sci MIT 2000
  3. Re:You don't need to pay Red Hat by The+Bungi · · Score: 0, Troll
    You're paying Red Hat for support, not software. If you don't like their prices, find someone else for support. The software is still GPL.

    It must be nice to live in a world where everything is so simple.

  4. Re:give it a rest..... by Yort · · Score: 0, Troll
    Why would you settle for 99% compatability?

    Um, excuse me while I saw PUH-SHAW?!? Are you seriously implying that Windows is 100% compatible? You, my friend, have obviously never used different versions of MS Office. I can't tell you the number of headaches (and pissed off friends and relatives) that I've had from Word97 not reading Word2000, or even WordXP not reading Word97!

    Have you ever sent somebody a Word .doc as a resume? I can tell you that you darn well better find out which version they have, and give them that *exact* version, or your chances of getting the job are going in the trashheap as soon as they see the first mis-formatted character or error dialogue box.

    Huh. 99% compatibility indeed.

  5. Re:You don't need to pay Red Hat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Convicted Monopolists (tm).

    You keep throwing that around like it means something. The stages in the legal process following that particular dog and pony show have demonstrated that it was a case of a very biased judge with a vengance, and a politically motivated DOJ that got the 'Monopoly' label applied.

    Time to move on.