[CS-FSLUG] OT: Study shows Microsoft, Linux costs neck-and-neck

[Don Parris]

On Wed, 06 Apr 2005 09:51:41 -0400
Frank Bax <fbax at sympatico.ca> wrote:

> At 08:02 PM 4/5/05, Don Parris wrote:
> 
> >On Apr 5, 2005 7:55 PM, Fred A. Miller <fmiller at lightlink.com> wrote:
> > > http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5654036.html?tag=nl.e589
> > >
> >

<SNIP>
> 
> 
> So you are saying number of machines per customer might not be consistent 
> in a study that favours one platform over the other?  What a 
> surprise!  These studies can be made to favour either platform by simply 
> choosing a sample population that will produce expected results.  I'm not 
> suggesting that the results of a survey are tampered with.  I'm saying
> that if Microsoft asks you to do the survey, you can do the study several
> times and give Microsoft the results they expect to see - any
> investigation about that single survey would appear legit.  Same thing if
> survey was requested by a Linux supporter. 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
Uh, I think my question was more rhetorical.  Still, I suppose I should have
used the phrase "in an un-biased study".  I'm not really certain there's any
such thing any more.  I remember looking for some text books for English
Comp, only to discover that the titles used "Rhetoric", which certainly
seems appropriate for the times - but does anyone teach any degree of
objectivism any more?  Not that I'm all that objective in the OS holy wars.
;)

<discourse>
My own bias is based on my understanding of GNU's philosophical
underpinnings.  Thus, even if GNU/Linux is 10x more costly than Windows, I'd
probably stick with it.  The problem is, I'm running three different
distributions on 9 different boxes.  The maximum cost thus far is the $90
(+S&H) for SUSE 9.2.  

Even if I obtained Msft apps from my friend or my brother (both of whom work
for Msft) - assuming I pay them or return a gift of equal sum (can't claim
value here), I'd still pay a fair sum more than I could possibly fork out. 
I'd have to buy piecemeal for sure.  I believe it's against their rules for
employees to receive payment for it - has to be a gift.  Still, if you
assume the cost, then...

9 WinXP Pro x $30 = $270 ($30 = Msft Employee Discount)
9 Office ?? x $30 = $270
1 SQL Svr   x $30 = $30 
========================
                  = $570

Given my bias, I still fail to see how $570 < $90.

If the people I know at Msft donated each of the copies (cost = $0), then $0
< $90 is true.  On the other hand, two of the distros I have (Mepis &
Ubuntu) were free.  Thus, I could easily run the ministry on $0.  Now it
comes down to the usability, stability/security, and maintenance (assuming
no philosophical issues).

I've described in other threads the experiences that fueled my interest in
GNU/Linux.  Honestly, I initially went for the surface-level enticements -
enterprise-class OS at rock-bottom prices.  Since then, I've discovered the
philosophical issues raised by Stallman and others, the freedom of choice
(distro vendors as well as tools), and the real - as opposed to perceived -
stability of GNU/Linux.

Still, if we had to pay the same price for OOo that we pay for MS Office,
wouldn't we still have advantages not available to MS Office users?  The
freedom to modify OOo beyond macros is priceless.  This brings me to the
question, what price would Msft put on their source code?  What would it
cost for a free/open Msft distro?  What value do they put on their source?

If we were to account for that in all of these studies, I'm sure we'd see a
different picture altogether.
</discourse>

Blessings,
Don
-- 
evangelinux    GNU Evangelist
http://matheteuo.org/                   http://chaddb.sourceforge.net/
"Free software is like God's love - you can share it with anyone anytime
anywhere."