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?"

Comments

It is the hacker's mentality.

[reporter]

Hackers target Microsoft software only because it is much more popular than non-Microsoft software. The mentality of the typical hacker is that he gets a cheap thrill from injuring the most people. If his worm or virus caused $1 billion of damage and if a prominent newspaper like the "Wall Street Journal" published a story about the damage, then he would become orgasmic. Maximum damage -- and, hence, maximum orgasm -- is achieved by targetting the software that most people use.

This attitude is little different from that of a terrorist. The typical terrorist aims for maximum publicity. He craves it.