Reality: Free Operating System Does Not Mean Low Total Cost of Ownership The Linux community will talk about the free or low-cost nature of Linux. It's important to understand that licensing cost is only a small part of the overall decision-making process for customers. The cost of the operating system is only a small percentage of the overall total cost of ownership (TCO). In general Windows NT has proven to have a lower cost of ownership than UNIX. Previous studies have shown that Windows NT has 37 percent lower TCO than UNIX. There is no reason to believe that Linux is significantly different than other versions of UNIX when it comes to TCO.
It really is amusing that they cite a document which compares the costs Sun Servers to WinNT and then conclude that Linux servers cost more than WinNT. By their logic Linux must therefore be equivalent to Sun. Wow. What a compliment. Seriously though I don't think that any of us will disaggree that sun servers can be expensive. They are, and rightly so. But to equate Sun servers with Linux servers does an injustice to both. They are each designed for different markets even though they can do similar tasks.
Having said this I think that it is wrong and unfair, to both Microsoft and the Linux community, to have anyone related to or in either camp to try to compare the two against each other. A truly independant group needs to be set up in order to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each system.
On the topic of security, I may either be naive, which I freely admit as a possibility, or unaware but the US govenments C2 classification for an operating system means nothing to me, especially considering its stance on strong crypto (but thats another topic). The security of a system is only as good as its administrators, who must practice due diligence in reading multiple sources for security information. I have personally witnesed Microsoft hold off on announcing security problems (IIS's::$DATA hack which reveals web source code) several days and even when they do, they decline to post enough information to be practical.
* The brightness was low. Two reasons: If you make the picture twice as big, it's half as bright (assuming every single photon makes it to the right place). If you're projecting it, you need to be fairly far away to watch it without blocking the light. Secondly, not all of the light coming out of a monitor goes straight out. The bigger the lens, the more light you get...
Actualy if you double the image size you quarter the brightness. It follows the inverse square law.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the idea is great, but looking at the clear C3D I am forced to ask myself, "Self, how do you label the damn thing?"
Reality: Free Operating System Does Not Mean Low Total Cost of Ownership
::$DATA hack which reveals web source code) several days and even when they do, they decline to post enough information to be practical.
The Linux community will talk about the free or low-cost nature of Linux. It's important to understand that licensing cost is only a small part of the overall decision-making process for customers.
The cost of the operating system is only a small percentage of the overall total cost of ownership (TCO). In general Windows NT has proven to have a lower cost of ownership than UNIX. Previous studies have shown that Windows NT has 37 percent lower TCO than UNIX. There is no reason to believe that Linux is significantly different than other versions of UNIX when it comes to TCO.
It really is amusing that they cite a document which compares the costs Sun Servers to WinNT and then conclude that Linux servers cost more than WinNT. By their logic Linux must therefore be equivalent to Sun. Wow. What a compliment.
Seriously though I don't think that any of us will disaggree that sun servers can be expensive. They are, and rightly so. But to equate Sun servers with Linux servers does an injustice to both. They are each designed for different markets even though they can do similar tasks.
Having said this I think that it is wrong and unfair, to both Microsoft and the Linux community, to have anyone related to or in either camp to try to compare the two against each other. A truly independant group needs to be set up in order to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each system.
On the topic of security, I may either be naive, which I freely admit as a possibility, or unaware but the US govenments C2 classification for an operating system means nothing to me, especially considering its stance on strong crypto (but thats another topic). The security of a system is only as good as its administrators, who must practice due diligence in reading multiple sources for security information.
I have personally witnesed Microsoft hold off on announcing security problems (IIS's
-M.
* The brightness was low. Two reasons: If you make the picture twice as big, it's half as bright (assuming every single photon makes it to the right place). If you're projecting it, you need to be fairly far away to watch it without blocking the light. Secondly, not all of the light coming out of a monitor goes straight out. The bigger the lens, the more light you get...
Actualy if you double the image size you quarter the brightness. It follows the inverse square law.
Just wanted to correct a fact.