Well, it's probably true that your support costs more as you can't really hire morons to administer unix boxes, and non-morons generally aren't cheap. I still think linux is probably cheaper though in the long run because you don't get constantly screwed buying licenses which are unreasonably priced. Plus, there's less downtime, which saves you money if you have strict SLA's with your clients, and there's less chance of a security breach which could cost you ALOT. Jay -----Original Message----- From: Bob Tanner [mailto:tanner at real-time.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 10:21 PM To: tclug-list at mn-linux.org Subject: [TCLUG] Linux and Win2K TOC the same? 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. -- Bob Tanner <tanner at real-time.com> | Phone : (952)943-8700 http://www.mn-linux.org, Minnesota, Linux | Fax : (952)943-8500 Key fingerprint = 6C E9 51 4F D5 3E 4C 66 62 A9 10 E5 35 85 39 D9 _______________________________________________ Twin Cities Linux Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.mn-linux.org tclug-list at mn-linux.org https://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list