Fear! Uncertainty! Doubt!
Anyone ignorant enough to believe that FUD without actually testing the software deserves an M$ site license.

If you count the training and overtime pay you have to give your developer after he spends 2 weeks trying to configure ip settings, then windows is probably cheaper than linux in the long run

Mac OS with apache web server - so friggin easy my 13 yo niece hosts her own web site.

If your developer can't configure the networking of ANY operating system in less than an hour, maybe your developer is a complete and total idiot?

/Not at all bitter

/Gave his 2wks notice at his corporate IT gig today

Thanks.

I'm also in college right now (Manuacturing Engineering Technology - CAD, Industrial robotics, that kinda thing). I've got a 17 hour class schedule this semester. Need my free time to retain sanity ;) Plus I am just sick of IT...

if only they weren't so damned successful.

Let me throw in my congrats to Tyler. Enjoy this time.

How much more expensive is Windows when you consider the security holes? When you by it, you've also got to get virus software, spam protection, and keep a computer guy on retainer. All the extras do add up!

BTW, XP SP2 has holes in it. Keep up the good work, Redmond.

Dear Poster,

I read the article you posted, congratulations on the post by the way, and I can't find where it mentions that Microsoft got slammed. It did mention "truth in advertising" which you obviously missed when you were too busy creating your biased headline.

If by "cheaper" then mean "poorer quality", then yes, they are dead on.

Oh, and I hate IT. My friend keeps trying to get me to move to Austin to go back to being a sysadmin, but I think I'd rather stay here and be a programmer (not that that's a whole hell of a lot better or anything). Besides, I'm going to school so I can get higher in the food chain, and going back to IT is kind of a step backward in that regard.

I don't like Windows, but what can I say? That's where the video games are.

Maybe they were comparing Windows starter edition?

Okay, yea even I know that Windows is more expensive. I want to switch to Linux, but so help me God, if this bootable Knoppix CD is too hard to master, then so help me God, Tolvaldis will get a very bad midnight torturing by a Windows ME disk.

If by "cheaper" they mean patched, repaired and still full of crap, they're right.

On the plus side, I recently switched from IE 6.0 to Firefox.

/non-techie rant
//sorry to the techies

Microsoft lie? That's unpossible!!!


And it's nice to see the political asshats are getting quicker on the draw. Good on you , trolls!

What next?

Which game system performs better, the Xbox(Costing merely $199) or a gold covered jevel encrusted Playstation that had its video card ripped out(costing over $700,000)

The facts dont lie people!

Fark is turning into a day-late Slashdot echo.

I was thinking the same thing Xuge

Aarrg. How the heck can it get cheaper than free? Aarrg?

"Linux was found to be over 10 times more expensive than Windows Server for Windows-comparable functions of file serving and Web serving."

So you have to pay more to get linux to crash and get more viruses? Thanks for the heads-up.

/Once I get rid of these stupid USB network adapters I'll be free of Win XP (except for some games). Thank God.

Since my copies of Windows have also been... err.. copies of windows, I have to agree, they are cheaper.

this thread has me head hurting!

squidloe

Uh, "slammed" isn't exactly a well-defined business or legal term, AFAIK. What's your beef? This ASA group said Microsoft needs to watch its advertising practices. Sounds like a "slam" to me.

In other words, how the hell is the headline biased?

There's a vast difference between "cheaper" and "less expensive".

Microsoft whines too much.

Is Microsoft THAT blind? Since when has linux costed money? (Lindows doesn't count, heh) aside from people buying it on disc at stores, it's always been free.... now, HPUX and BEoS have costed money.. I know BEoS isn't that much,and HPUX is expensive.. but damn.

/didn't even read the article and is upset. :(

What? a headline with content not in the original article! *gasp*

You might read the article again the ASA questioned there comparisons, and asked them to amend the ad. That is kind of "Slammy"; but more like "denied."

Iollowapache is a free download right? does it support dreamweaver ext's?

squidloe, you need to RTFA (again?)

TylerEaves

If your developer can't configure the networking of ANY operating system in less than an hour, maybe your developer is a complete and total idiot?

Or maybe you should have hired a network tech instead of a programmer?

I get paid to develop software, not configure hardware. That's someone else's job and a waste of my time. Only students believe they can be a jack-of-all-trades.

To the geniuses that are comparing the initial cost, it's not what they're saying. They're comparing TCO including maintenance, setup time, blah blah blah.

So Micro$oft compared Windows to Linux on two completely different boxes? Why?!? Why not compare them on two identical boxes, hmmm? Could it be that the results might not be in favor of Windows?

No one read the article. The problem is that they did the comparison on hardware that was an order of magnitude in difference.

"BTW, XP SP2 has holes in it. Keep up the good work, Redmond."

Gee, that's almost as useful as saying "software has bugs".

All software has bugs and the fact that SP2 is big makes it not too surprising that there are issues.

--

Re: Linux vs. Windows

Do we really need to rehash the same old shiat?

Windows is a good OS. It get's the lion's share of security attacks because it has the lion's share of desktops. If Linux had the samer, er, penetration, you'd hear more about Linux security issues.

the reason this is bunk is because they put windows and linux on totally different hardware.

RTFA

or go to slashdot and read their thread on this first.

Linux=BAD
Marketing=BAD
Microsoft=GOOD

I successfully got my Mom using Linux at her office. Now, instead of daily calls and a sami-annual format and re-install, I get no calls and it has been running for a year.

It did take me about a week to show here where everything was, but as soon as she saw how similar things were, she stopped calling.

Overall time per year w/ MS Windows spent in support = average 5min/day + 2-3 hours twice a year = 30.5 + 2.5 = 33 hours

Total time spent in the last 18 months = 2-3 hours install + 1 hour per day for a work week = 7.5 hours total.

I did get a call last week. She wanted to know how to export her OpenOffice file to a Mac format MS Office, since someone she was sending it to didn't have the converter installed. 5 minutes.

Sorry <i>farkdog</i>, not necessarily true

Apache has the majority of Web Servers.
IIS gets attacked and breached the most.

.

farkdog

Windows is a good OS. It get's the lion's share of security attacks because it has the lion's share of desktops. If Linux had the samer, er, penetration, you'd hear more about Linux security issues.

Misinformation repeated again by people who do not clearly understand the technical differences in the OSes.

Non-Windows Apache webservers outnumber Windows webservers by a rather sizeable amount, yet the majority of comprimised webservers are Windows webservers.

Linux.

fork
fork
fork
fork
fork
fork
fork
fork
fork
fork
fork

What rpm said.

Horg it's built-in to OSX, but I am not familiar with Dreamweaver (except to know that there is a Mac verison).

The thing was, they were comparing Windows on one system, and linux on a setup that cost 10x more, just to start with.

its like comparing, as one farker said, a xbox to a gold plated jewell encrusted ps2.

Let me help you all out: Linux is indeed less expensive to install, deploy, maintain, and update IF your time to do so is worthless.

Other than that, Linux still has issues that need to be resolved that makes Windows a superior solution. For instance, SAMBA is a POS that just doesn't work right. Printing over IP is a bit fubar, CD Buringin under Linux produces far more coasters than under Windows (on the same hardware, no less.) I could go on, but won't.

Linux tries despirately to be all things to everyone: jack of all trades = master of none.

Additionally, Linux is not more secure than Windows. Just ask the NSA, CIA, the DoD and others for their ratings of the various OSes...see which one is on top of the chart (hint: it isn't linux or unix.)

Meh.

I'd prefer Linux, but I have to make exception for everyone else to use the family computer. So, therefore I'm an MS slave for now.
Hopefully, Linux will become more user friendly.
Less CHMOD, Grep, and compiling a Kernel would go along way to making this the #1 desktop choice.

I guess it could be the same if you got windows off of suprnova....

I still wouldn't use it

/linux user