Microsoft has always used the line of Reduced Total Cost of Ownership(TCO) they did a study comparing Windows NT and SCO Unix and Solaris i believe and found that WinNT came in as a cheaper solution... now what does this have to do with Linux? Well, acording to them since linux is pretty much like unix we should expect the same costs. (i dont have a link to their web site right now, i will post it if i find it again) the quoted article is merely repeating and rephrasing a Microsoft study, and we know that these studies are fail and impartial. -munir On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, 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. > >