Slashdot Mirror
The Hidden Cost of Using Microsoft Software
Glyn Moody writes "Detractors of free software like to point out it's not really 'free,' and claim that its Total Cost of Ownership is often comparable with closed-source solutions if you take everything into account. And yet, despite their enthusiasm for including all the costs, they never include a very real extra that users of Microsoft's products frequently have to pay: the cost of cleaning up malware infections. For example, the UK city of Manchester has just paid out nearly $2.5 million to clean up the Conficker worm, most of which was 'a £1.2m [$2million] bill in the IT department, including £600,000 [$1 million] getting "consultancy support" to fix the problems, which including drafting in experts from Microsoft.' To make the comparisons fair, isn't it about time these often massive costs were included in TCO calculations?"
I was about to come in here and post something almost identical to what you said.
I'm kind of upset that I don't have mod points so I can't mod what you said insightful. It's 100% true. People who bash Microsoft for malware are total uninformed idiots, and they make themselves look it by bashing Microsoft thusly. I work in IT, in a 100% Windows shop (the only non-Windows we have is ESX running under multiple Windows installs) and we simply do not have any problems with any form of malware, at all. It's all about taking precautions. I guarantee you that no matter what OS you run, you're going to run into problems if you don't take precautions to protect your software from malicious code.
Sure, you may cut down on these malicious code problems by switch to a non-Windows platform (the smaller the market share the logically fewer malware coders for that platform), but you also have to take into account the downside of using software et al. that isn't innately and intrinsically compatible with what 90%+ of people are running. Of course you can bring up examples of inter-compatibility and interoperability, but the fact-of-the-matter is, is that nothing plays as nice with Windows as Windows. SAMBA doesn't play as nice with AD as Windows does, and WINE doesn't run Windows apps as well as Windows does.
As for these people cleaning up Conficker...talk about a bad example! The vulnerability that Conficker takes advantage of has been patched for what...8 months now? People really still have or are getting this worm? Big shops are still allowing their computers to get this worm? I wouldn't be complaining about the malware or the cost of removing it, I'd be firing the IT department en masse and finding people who aren't totally incompetent -- I have a mother who is totally computer-illiterate -- she can't even open files on her own -- and she doesn't have Conficker because I set her Windows updates to do themselves automatically.
That is how easy THAT is. Considering you anti-M$ people like to accuse the people in Redmond of throwing FUD around, you sure are happy and obvious about being total hypocrites, aren't you?
For slashdot readers, the not so hidden cost of using microsoft software is the stream of FUD coming from editor kdawson.
since it's universally agreed upon that users / admins had plenty of time to patch the systems before conflicker hit, does this mean I should include the cost of water damage to my possessions when I leave my windows open during a hurricane that I knew was coming?