I don't see that happening much at all. In fact many of the companies I work with find the fact that they will have to hire their own coders to implement quickfixes the dealbreaker for open source.
In order for this to be a refutation of the TCO of opensource vs Windows, wouldn't there have to be some sort of cost savings mentioned in the article? The only numbers I find ain the article says
""I'm happy to pay for Linux support by moving to Red Hat Advanced Server which is about $1500," he said. "Choosing Linux is not about acquisition costs and I'd be prepared to pay $10,000 per server for it. I wouldn't have a job if there was two minutes of downtime and I wouldn't trust Windows for that."
Which says that costs weren't his concern. (windows is stability concerns are just flamebait and another topic)
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see that happening much at all. In fact many of the companies I work with find the fact that they will have to hire their own coders to implement quickfixes the dealbreaker for open source.