[plug] M$ justification

[Peter J. Nicol]

These reports are nearly always 'accurate', he question is whether they are
'relevant' to the vast majority of situations.

One needs to question at least two things, viz:

1.	The report's assumptions
2.	To what sort of enterprise do they apply

If you are a SME with sales in the $15M - $50M mark, your IT needs are
vastly different to the fabled 'Fortune 500' companies with sales in the
$billions.

I for one, laugh at this report, and fail to see how it could possibly be
true, but this is most likely the prejudice of my experience.  There is no
way that in the setups that I have seen, Linux is more expensive, including
TCO than Windows.  But, the bigger the gig, the more likely some of the
features of Windows (and Novell) are likely to result in savings (group
policies and such).

So, to understand the report, it needs to be seen in context.


>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: caston at iinet.net.au [mailto:caston at iinet.net.au]
>  Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 1:24 PM
>  To: plug at plug.linux.org.au
>  Subject: Re: [plug] M$ justification
>
>
>  The report based it's findings on the assumption that Linux techies
>  recieve a higher salary becase there are much less of them then dime a
>  dozen MCSE's.
>
>  It also stated that this could change with much wider adoption of Linux.
>  There are of course quite a lot of Linux savvy people that haven't yet
>  done a year or more actually working with Linux as their full-time
>  occupation.
>
>  regards,
>
>  Chris Caston
>
>  > I've always wondered on the accuracy of these reports,
>