Study: Windows cheaper than Linux

[lowtech1]

Originally posted by: KeyserSoze
Is it all about money ONLY???

The good things I've heard about Linux were due to SECURITY. Why is it just coming down to Money right now? I GUESS Windows would be cheaper to administer, for the sole fact that they Network Admins are more in abundance for Windows. (That's a TOTAL GUESS on my part too.)

But my point is, wouldn't a company pay a little bit more for a SECURE Network than a cheaper one? So the whole "Which is cheaper thing", shouldn't really be THAT big of an issue.


I dunno, I'm talking out of my A$$.



KeyserSoze

The money is one point, but we all are appreciated of open source for security & its immunity vs. virus. That can?t be said for MS Windows, Outlook, Exchange, IE & IIS.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: KeyserSoze
Is it all about money ONLY???

The good things I've heard about Linux were due to SECURITY. Why is it just coming down to Money right now? I GUESS Windows would be cheaper to administer, for the sole fact that they Network Admins are more in abundance for Windows. (That's a TOTAL GUESS on my part too.)

But my point is, wouldn't a company pay a little bit more for a SECURE Network than a cheaper one? So the whole "Which is cheaper thing", shouldn't really be THAT big of an issue.


I dunno, I'm talking out of my A$$.



KeyserSoze

Because there are studies out there that say that Linux has more security holes than Windows. This study just focuses on the cost issue. Wait...I already know your retort. It goes something like this, "MicroSHAFT paid for all those studies. If those studies were UNBIASED and completely true, then they would show that LINUX is more secure than windows because I know everything and I am so smart. I know this because my mommy told me so." But if EVERYONE knows that Linux is sooooooo much better (cheaper and more secure), then why does anyone even do studies? After all, you'd think it's a proven fact by now after all the FUD linux people spread.

 

[GermyBoy]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: KeyserSoze Is it all about money ONLY??? The good things I've heard about Linux were due to SECURITY. Why is it just coming down to Money right now? I GUESS Windows would be cheaper to administer, for the sole fact that they Network Admins are more in abundance for Windows. (That's a TOTAL GUESS on my part too.) But my point is, wouldn't a company pay a little bit more for a SECURE Network than a cheaper one? So the whole "Which is cheaper thing", shouldn't really be THAT big of an issue. I dunno, I'm talking out of my A$$. KeyserSoze

Because there are studies out there that say that Linux has more security holes than Windows. This study just focuses on the cost issue. Wait...I already know your retort. It goes something like this, "MicroSHAFT paid for all those studies. If those studies were UNBIASED and completely true, then they would show that LINUX is more secure than windows because I know everything and I am so smart. I know this because my mommy told me so." But if EVERYONE knows that Linux is sooooooo much better (cheaper and more secure), then why does anyone even do studies? After all, you'd think it's a proven fact by now after all the FUD linux people spread.

Harvard did a study saying that Cellphones cause increased traffic accidents. WTF. Why are these studies even done?


Answer: Because stupid people want to talk about them.

 

[her209]

Microsoft = teh sux0r

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: KeyserSoze
Is it all about money ONLY???

The good things I've heard about Linux were due to SECURITY. Why is it just coming down to Money right now? I GUESS Windows would be cheaper to administer, for the sole fact that they Network Admins are more in abundance for Windows. (That's a TOTAL GUESS on my part too.)

But my point is, wouldn't a company pay a little bit more for a SECURE Network than a cheaper one? So the whole "Which is cheaper thing", shouldn't really be THAT big of an issue.

I dunno, I'm talking out of my A$$.

KeyserSoze

Because there are studies out there that say that Linux has more security holes than Windows. This study just focuses on the cost issue. Wait...I already know your retort. It goes something like this, "MicroSHAFT paid for all those studies. If those studies were UNBIASED and completely true, then they would show that LINUX is more secure than windows because I know everything and I am so smart. I know this because my mommy told me so." But if EVERYONE knows that Linux is sooooooo much better (cheaper and more secure), then why does anyone even do studies? After all, you'd think it's a proven fact by now after all the FUD linux people spread.

Sometimes, to show that Linux has more holes than Windows, they will end up counting each vunlerability in each distro, even if it is the same vulnerability counted twice. Maybe that tactic is not used these days, but it has been in the past. What matters more is the time taken to respond to any security vulnerability that is discovered. Of course, the MS fanatics on the board will claim that their company is very fast at this, but I will leave that up to those who have an open mind to discover the information for themselves.

 

[MinorityReport]

The solution is LINDOWS 🙂

 

[Electrode]

Originally posted by: MinorityReport
The solution is LINDOWS 🙂

Ugh. Lindows is the most disgusting bastardization of Linux ever seen. They take Debian, stick a bug-riddled Windows clone GUI on top of it, charge $100 a piece for it, and worst of all, they impose an MS-style license on it, in direct violation of the GPL that governs the software it is based on.

Michael Robertson = teh suck

 

[tcsenter]

Hmmmm.... 2002 - 5 = 1997. W2K was released in 2000, how can they determine that Windows "is cheaper over a five year period", since the OS they are comparing Linux to wasn't even released? Answer: they can't, they are pulling their numbers from their ass.

I guess the word "projection" is new to you, eh? You know, study the results for a year, then multiply by 5 = representative of 5 years? WOW, I know, super powered brainy stuff here!

 

[MinorityReport]

Originally posted by: Electrode

Originally posted by: MinorityReport
The solution is LINDOWS 🙂

Ugh. Lindows is the most disgusting bastardization of Linux ever seen. They take Debian, stick a bug-riddled Windows clone GUI on top of it, charge $100 a piece for it, and worst of all, they impose an MS-style license on it, in direct violation of the GPL that governs the software it is based on.

Michael Robertson = teh suck

amen .. Lindows is a shame on Linux/open source idea

 

[StageLeft]

oh well. i still hate linux

 

[jonnyGURU]

Originally posted by: Electrode

Originally posted by: MinorityReport
The solution is LINDOWS 🙂

Ugh. Lindows is the most disgusting bastardization of Linux ever seen. They take Debian, stick a bug-riddled Windows clone GUI on top of it, charge $100 a piece for it, and worst of all, they impose an MS-style license on it, in direct violation of the GPL that governs the software it is based on.

Michael Robertson = teh suck

I actually think Lindow's convoluted work around for that is the fact that the software itself is in fact "free". It's the "subscription" that costs you money. Sure, you can fork over $100 and get Lindows "over the counter", but you also get Lindows FTP access for a year. Just like if you pay $100 for Redhat or SuSE, you get "support" for a year.

On a side note: The $199 PC's that WalMart and Tiger sells have Lindows, but they have the "free" version on it. You get an X desktop capable of running Windows and nothing more. Of course, if you already own all of the Windows software you need and know where to find the Linux software you need to download, you really don't need that $100 subscription to Lindows, do you? 😉 Of course, already owning Windows softwares and knowing Linux is rather contradictory to Lindows' business model (low cost + ease of use).

One thing I will say about Xandros (the Windows emulator that Lindows uses); it works a lot better that wine and is "cheaper" than VMWare. 😉

Oooh... Back on topic..... The study is somewhat correct. They're not talking about tangible costs. They're talking about upkeep and that's going to include training, hours on the clock, etc. Of course, that number is going to vary so wildly, one can not accurately say "Linux is more expensive". What if you had a Linux guru of 10 years as your admin and what if your work force was made up of complete Ludites that don't even know anything about Windows or what a mouse is, never mind Linux (it's going to cost a lot for training no matter what) and what if the app that your work force uses is so user friendly that it doesn't matter if it's run on Windows, Linux or an abacus... it's still reliable?

There's too many variables involved for that "study" to be even close to accurate.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Hmmmm.... 2002 - 5 = 1997. W2K was released in 2000, how can they determine that Windows "is cheaper over a five year period", since the OS they are comparing Linux to wasn't even released? Answer: they can't, they are pulling their numbers from their ass.

I guess the word "projection" is new to you, eh? You know, study the results for a year, then multiply by 5 = representative of 5 years? WOW, I know, super powered brainy stuff here!

OK, how can they "project" it? I mean, how can they assume that MS wont raise prices again? How do they know how far Linux will advance? How do they know how many Linux-admins will be available? Sure, they can make guesstimates, but since this study was funded by MS, I would say those guesstimates are biased.

"For the sake of this study we will assume that everybody already knows Windows, whereas no-one really understand Linux. We will also ignore MS's dismal security track-record when doing our calculations and we will assume that no-one will upgrade their Windows-software (against the wishes of MS), whereas people will constantly change and upgrade Linux and oay full price for this free software. We will also assume (against established facts) that Linux takes more time to administrate and it take more admins to do the job than on Windows. Of course, Windows is more stable than Linux in our study as well."

Yeah, really unbiased study

.

 

[tcsenter]

OK, how can they "project" it? I mean, how can they assume that MS wont raise prices again? How do they know how far Linux will advance? How do they know how many Linux-admins will be available? Sure, they can make guesstimates, but since this study was funded by MS, I would say those guesstimates are biased.

Look at their methodology to determine how these issues are dealt with. I don't know, I was merely answering the question of how studies can projected 5 year results without doing 5 years of study. Its done all the time in statistical exercises.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

OK, how can they "project" it? I mean, how can they assume that MS wont raise prices again? How do they know how far Linux will advance? How do they know how many Linux-admins will be available? Sure, they can make guesstimates, but since this study was funded by MS, I would say those guesstimates are biased.

Look at their methodology to determine how these issues are dealt with. I don't know, I was merely answering the question of how studies can projected 5 year results without doing 5 years of study. Its done all the time in statistical exercises.

Their methods are flawed. For example, they assume that it takes more personnell to administrate Linux than Windows, whereas real-life experience shows completely opposite. Same goes to security and stability.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Hmmmm.... 2002 - 5 = 1997. W2K was released in 2000, how can they determine that Windows "is cheaper over a five year period", since the OS they are comparing Linux to wasn't even released? Answer: they can't, they are pulling their numbers from their ass.

I guess the word "projection" is new to you, eh? You know, study the results for a year, then multiply by 5 = representative of 5 years? WOW, I know, super powered brainy stuff here!

OK, how can they "project" it? I mean, how can they assume that MS wont raise prices again? How do they know how far Linux will advance? How do they know how many Linux-admins will be available? Sure, they can make guesstimates, but since this study was funded by MS, I would say those guesstimates are biased.

"For the sake of this study we will assume that everybody already knows Windows, whereas no-one really understand Linux. We will also ignore MS's dismal security track-record when doing our calculations and we will assume that no-one will upgrade their Windows-software (against the wishes of MS), whereas people will constantly change and upgrade Linux and oay full price for this free software. We will also assume (against established facts) that Linux takes more time to administrate and it take more admins to do the job than on Windows. Of course, Windows is more stable than Linux in our study as well."

Yeah, really unbiased study

.

[sarcasm]Of course they are biased. Microsoft's name appeared somewhere in the credits so the whole study should be thrown out! [/sarcasm] When did microsoft raise the price of their OS? Home edition is the same it always was when you factor inflation in. Professional was meant to be used in businesses and it looks like it's the same price as previous versions. Server looks about the same price. Or are you just pulling information out of your *** like most linux gurus?

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
[sarcasm]Of course they are biased. Microsoft's name appeared somewhere in the credits so the whole study should be thrown out! [/sarcasm]

this study compares Linux and Windows. It was comissioned by MS. And you are saying that MS sponsorship does not endager the integrity of the data? Yeah, right

When did microsoft raise the price of their OS? Home edition is the same it always was when you factor inflation in. Professional was meant to be used in businesses and it looks like it's the same price as previous versions. Server looks about the same price. Or are you just pulling information out of your *** like most linux gurus?

Well, you could read this for example... In our case, the licensing-costs went up by 100%. I would call that "raising the price".

 

[StageLeft]

BTW if MS wasn't going to sponsor the study who would? If done properly the terms of the agreement would be that those running it would have no bias towards microsoft - kind of like if a supplement company pays a university to run a double blind study. Although the researchers received money nowhere would it say "Since we paid you skew the results". Merely they are paying to have the study done. Chances are the same went on here with MS, so just because MS sponsored it doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
BTW if MS wasn't going to sponsor the study who would? If done properly the terms of the agreement would be that those running it would have no bias towards microsoft - kind of like if a supplement company pays a university to run a double blind study. Although the researchers received money nowhere would it say "Since we paid you skew the results". Merely they are paying to have the study done. Chances are the same went on here with MS, so just because MS sponsored it doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong.

"Do not bite the hand that feeds you". There are several things in that study that are against real-world facts.

EDIT: A study with completely opposite findings than this study

 

[LAUST]

Here is another one

 

[jonnyGURU]

Maybe it all wouldn't matter if Microsoft would just make applications for Linux. 😉

WHOA!!!! You posted the same link as me. 😱 Maybe I wouldn't be two minutes behind you if I wasn't at work and just had to take the trash out to the compactor. 🙁 Guess I owe you a Coke.

 

[LAUST]

Originally posted by: jonnyGURU
Maybe it all wouldn't matter if Microsoft would just make applications for Linux. 😉

WHOA!!!! You posted the same link as me. 😱 Maybe I wouldn't be two minutes behind you if I wasn't at work and just had to take the trash out to the compactor. 🙁 Guess I owe you a Coke.

LOL that is weird,

I'm also at work, but there is no fires going on right now... nothin better to do but hang out chat get a few laugh's and drink this coke that just came in the mail 😉

 

[lowtech1]

Originally posted by: jonnyGURU

Originally posted by: Electrode

Originally posted by: MinorityReport
The solution is LINDOWS 🙂

Ugh. Lindows is the most disgusting bastardization of Linux ever seen. They take Debian, stick a bug-riddled Windows clone GUI on top of it, charge $100 a piece for it, and worst of all, they impose an MS-style license on it, in direct violation of the GPL that governs the software it is based on.

Michael Robertson = teh suck

I actually think Lindow's convoluted work around for that is the fact that the software itself is in fact "free". It's the "subscription" that costs you money. Sure, you can fork over $100 and get Lindows "over the counter", but you also get Lindows FTP access for a year. Just like if you pay $100 for Redhat or SuSE, you get "support" for a year.

On a side note: The $199 PC's that WalMart and Tiger sells have Lindows, but they have the "free" version on it. You get an X desktop capable of running Windows and nothing more. Of course, if you already own all of the Windows software you need and know where to find the Linux software you need to download, you really don't need that $100 subscription to Lindows, do you? 😉 Of course, already owning Windows softwares and knowing Linux is rather contradictory to Lindows' business model (low cost + ease of use).

One thing I will say about Xandros (the Windows emulator that Lindows uses); it works a lot better that wine and is "cheaper" than VMWare. 😉

Oooh... Back on topic..... The study is somewhat correct. They're not talking about tangible costs. They're talking about upkeep and that's going to include training, hours on the clock, etc. Of course, that number is going to vary so wildly, one can not accurately say "Linux is more expensive". What if you had a Linux guru of 10 years as your admin and what if your work force was made up of complete Ludites that don't even know anything about Windows or what a mouse is, never mind Linux (it's going to cost a lot for training no matter what) and what if the app that your work force uses is so user friendly that it doesn't matter if it's run on Windows, Linux or an abacus... it's still reliable?

There's too many variables involved for that "study" to be even close to accurate.

I though Xandros is a Linux distro and it uses "CodeWeavers CrossOver Office" (base on WINE) as the Windows emulation program, that Lindows also uses.

By the way don't forget Win4Lin

Windows Emulators for Linux: VMware, Win4Lin Face Off

 

[jonnyGURU]

I'm not sure that information is acurate.

Xandros isn't a distro. It's a desktop environment.

Lindows is Debian with Xandros.

Now Xandros is working on a "server solution" code named "DaVinci" that is supposed to be stand alone, but I've yet to see anything.

 

[lowtech1]

Originally posted by: jonnyGURU
I'm not sure that information is acurate.

Xandros isn't a distro. It's a desktop environment.

Lindows is Debian with Xandros.

Now Xandros is working on a "server solution" code named "DaVinci" that is supposed to be stand alone, but I've yet to see anything.

What is Xandros Desktop based on?

Xandros Desktop is based on the Debian 3.0 distribution. The graphic desktop environment is created by an enhanced version of KDE 2.2.2.
Debian provides a reliable, thoroughly tested foundation to build upon while KDE provides an environment that is stable and easy to use. When combined with the Xandros Installer, file manager, package management interface and other enhancements, these components provide a Linux OS that is unequaled by any other distribution.

Microsoft Windows Compatibility.

Access files from shared MS Windows machines without any additional system configuration.
CodeWeavers Crossover Office provides compatibility with some applications that also run on Microsoft Windows.
Existing Windows are automatically detected and mounted with original drive letters.
Existing Linux partitions are automatically detected and mounted.
Support for dual-boot with MS Windows operating system and other Linux distributions.
Support for user authentication via Windows PDC.
Search network for Windows machines by name.
OpenOffice 1.0.1 provides word processing, spreadsheets and more and reads and writes files compatible with Microsoft .doc and .xls file formats.

 

[jonnyGURU]

We'll I'll be. 😉