OT Security measures 38k feet Re: [ILUG] Fwd: Modem hijacking
information from UTV Internet
bigbro at skynet.ie
Mon Oct 25 15:40:35 IST 2004
Chris Higgins wrote:
> The issue with the MS TCO arguments, is that they are not comparing
> like with like - and that never works no matter how much you want it to.
I think the answer to this one is in the very naming MS (and others)
use: TCO ... TOTAL cost of ownership.
So they have already admitted that their shrink-wrapper products are
not cheaper than the OSS variety (Linux ~ FREE, MS Windows XP > $0)
So they created a magical measurement that proves that the TOTAL cost
of ownership is less? Without including the TOTAL sum of costs that a
business must pay for using the OS? And seem to be prepared to argue
that certain costs should NOT be included in the TOTAL cost?
Am I the only one that has difficulties with this? Is my command of the
English language slipping, and/or have Collins/Oxford/Webster changed
the definition of 'total' without informing me?
Perhaps it's best if the world continues to take the TCO arguments from
MS with a similar pinch of salt to that taken with a comment from a used
car salesman that his cars are of a better quality, run faster and more
fuel efficient and give a better driving experience to those sold by
Cowboy Joe's car dealership down the road :-)
YMMV, usual disclaimers apply, IANAL, etc., etc.
More information about the ILUG