Bob Tanner wrote:

> http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20011030/tc/tech_intel_napster_dc_2.html
>
> "In any case, using Linux is not much cheaper than Windows 2000. Although Linux
> as an operating system is free, the real costs are related to the computers, and
> support and maintenance, he said."
>
> I might be blinded by by religion and this group my not have the ability to let
> the religion go, but can anyone look outside the box on this and comment?
>
> My perspective is Linux is much cheaper then Windows. Even if you pay for a
> distro you are starting out ahead. Add the virus resistence, stability,
> reliability, and security out of the box. Linux should be have a better TOC then
> Win2k.

Linux is far cheaper in the place your expenses are highest.
Labor.

Every single UNIX/Linux shop I've been too, in 13 years in IT, did more with fewer
people.
At least a 2 to 1 ratio, but usually higher.

This is a complete myth perpetuated by Windows people to justify their poor
systems.