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?"
There is still no comments on the article and it is already tagged as troll! :)
Linux will have its malware day when it becomes more popular. Broken interfaces, poor documentation, mediocre support, incompatibilities up the wazoo, but dang...I bet it's secure as hell.
For all the talk and the BS, Linux is still a very sub-standard operating system compared to Windows.
Unless you enjoy typing nonsensical commands to accomplish simple tasks, Linux is not for you.
Save yourself the aggravation and use a real Operating System like Windows or OS X.
These costs are only included in TCO calculations by smart customers, the other customers trust corporations like Microsoft, because they are dumb and/or bribed.
Microsoft is driving the planet to ruin with its wasteful high carbon footprint. All those employees driving and flying to work just for Micorosoft... While FOSS is typically done from the home office... no driving involved. You can include linux as part of your Company's "Green" initiative!
You are unique, just like everyone else.
TCO is not calculated to include misconfigurations and improper use.
Viruses are not a function of the operating system but simply a result of misconfiguration and or improper use.
I look forward to the day when linux kids get hit with something really bad that is impossible to remove and results in massive $$ to clean.
If anything you should be happy that you haven't been properly targeted yet.
Oh really? You make it sound as though it's a comparable situation between Windows and Linux as regards malware. I'd like to see you substantiate this claim with some solid data with a clear comparison between the platforms. Otherwise, I suspect you of being nothing more than a glib, sideways-talking astroturfer.
Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
I'll say it anyway. Man, shut the f*ck up already!
I get that this is Slahdot and bitching is a way of life here, but can we please just put this shit to rest. People use whatever technology is good for them. Each has costs, each has benefits, each has security issues, each has usability issues, each has moron users, each has technical users that can hack it to make it work, each is attacked by criminals to exploit, each can be used by governments where they see fit, each can be used by non-profits where it fits, and each can cost whatever the f*ckin' money it wants, each can be bought by whomever in a box, DVD, flash drive, ftp, torrent, or whatever...
I like to see lists of how your use of it has benefited you..."I use it and I like it because I can do x,y, and z which is what I needed" This shit of, "your dick is small so we can't really talk about my man-boobs" argument is starting to annoy me.
Actually, you are more dangerous to the Linux community than the parent poster you call a moron. Let me make this clear: any computer attached to the Internet is a vulnerable computer. If Linux was THE OS, some things would have to happen. One flavor of Linux would come out on top. It would be considered the best for business and hope use and everyone would use it. With a standard Linux, more commercial software would be made for it. Thus causing an increase in the # of standard applications that are on most boxes (that and you will have a dominant Linux). More people are then going to write viruses for it. Does Linux have inherent advantages over Windows? Absolutely, and that will mean squat when everyone is writing viruses for it and all the script kiddies want to tip over as many boxes as possible.
Your attitude of "Linux is SO MUCH MORE SECURE..OMG, shut up stupid people" is counter-productive. Keeping your information safe is always an ongoing battle and protecting your system is always on the side of catching up. I mean really, do you deny that if Linux was the #1 OS, people would give up and go find day jobs? Please.
But Linux isn't going to take over. Why? It just doesn't work out of the box. There is always some driver issue, always something that fails to work correctly that is annoying. It is too complex for a normal user. They don't care about sudo apt-get update. They want to download something, double click on it, then have the icon on their desktop so they can double click it. But the biggest reason is that corporations want someone to blame when something goes wrong. That is what MS gives them. Linux is going to stay niche. And I am saying this as someone who likes and uses Linux.
In any case, don't sit back and think Linux is safe. It isn't. It's the same as telling a Mac user that they don't have to worry about viruses. Yeah, the odds are less likely...but as soon as more things are written for it, you have a bunch of smug users that think they are safe and click on everything.
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
around longer than the comparable "code" in DOS and Windows. The
fact that Unix is a harder target and it's users are intolerably
smug doesn't mean they aren't thinking about the problem.
The only thing protecting UNIX from viruses is incompatibility. The more mainstream the system gets, the less secure it will be in that regard. Barring security through obscurity, a UNIX system is a sieve comparatively. Windows' anti-exploit code is insane... this is something they come out ahead on. The idea of the POSIX model being inherently more secure is just a myth, it has a shared memory architecture that can never be hardened past a certain point.
When's the last time Windows Server systems were taken out by a major virus or worm? Conficker preyed on idiots with their doors wide open, not enterprise systems. I'd say this is just FUD.