| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Thanks, Linux | |
|
||
| Time: 15:33 EST/20:33 GMT | News Source: Forbes.com | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Consider the deal that Microsoft (nasdaq: MSFT - news - people ) snagged with the London borough of Newham, announced in early August. Looking to overhaul their computer systems, the Brits originally planned to dump Microsoft's Windows and switch to open-source programs, including Linux. But when they commissioned a study to evaluate costs, they found it would be cheaper to stick with Windows. So they signed on for a 10-year deal. "We think the savings following the Linux route would have been about half what they were when following the Microsoft route," says Richard Steel, Newham's director of information and communications technology. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 326 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:06:19 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 10022 (24.169.21.19) at 9/7/2004 8:04:29 PM |
|
What would be nice is if people realized that what you get with Microsoft is a COMPLETE SYSTEM!
I would love it if someone compared a full featured (all MS Products working together the way they were designed to) to the bunch of random applications and wishfull thinking of a linux network system. When they can do all that can be done with 2003/Exhcange/SharePoint/Office/Active Directory/DFS/XP/Group Policy... as easy as it can be done in the Windows world, then they can start talkn trash. And for about $1500 you can get all that with SBS 2003!! Also, what people tend to forget is that you can make you own applictions that are Active Directory aware-- Imaging making your own custom program that understands your entire network systems ability... But right now, there is just too much config time in linux world (not to mention lack of hardware/driver support, download and compile time, re-training, smaller pool of trained professionals, security concerns, leagal issues, fragmented product line) |
| #2 By 18033 (211.26.193.94) at 9/7/2004 9:00:42 PM |
| yay MS! :) |
| #3 By 18033 (211.26.193.94) at 9/7/2004 11:38:20 PM |
|
Halcyon,
What a pathetic boring post. Most people can summarize far more easily than you: 1)More people (billions more) and comfortable with Windows, and not comfortable with Linux. 2)There are so many more risks and unknowns in deploying a Linux application/system 3)Devel requires twice the amount of people, and at twice the cost = ~4 x the cost of Windows devel. 4)Linux IS NOT FREE 5)So many windows applications cannot be replicated in an OSS environment? e.g. MS Project OSS clone anyone??? Um where is it?..... 6)So what if a Linux Distro comes with heaps of apps, thats why its several gig, takes 10 years to install, and opens up a plethora of security holes (just as many as a default windows install), that this 'new user to Linux' would have no idea how to secure. At least with Windows this situation is more managable. 7)Any users using Linux coming from Windows will require TRAINING or RE-TRAINING. Halcyon I wonder if you have ever worked in the real world........Step out of your mums basement dude. Yeah Parkker said it best, Get over it.......Your side lost this battle and it will lose the next one too. |
| #4 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 9/8/2004 12:28:29 AM |
|
#9
"1)" Absolutely correct! What's your point? There was a time not that long ago when people were far more comfortable with mainframes than anything else... times change. "2)" Only if you haven't done your research... maybe that's been your problem... then again if you don't do your research you'll be screwed over with commercial software too, so there's no beating it. "3)" Yes, please back those statistics up with non-Microsoft funded research. "4)" Of course it is, it's even free in terms of cost in the majority of cases unless you want to pay for support. "5) MS Project OSS clone anyone??? Um where is it?..... " You mean like Imendio Planner (http://www.imendio.com/projects/planner/)? Or you can choose to purchase something like Intellisys Project Desktop (http://www.webintellisys.com/project/desktop.html) etc. I guess you just proved that you can't do any research, no wonder you find Linux so difficult. "6)" You've never installed Linux huh, it's ok, there's nothing wrong with that, just don't spread FUD about something you have little to no idea about. "7)" A user coming from Mac to Windows will require "TRAINING or RE-TRAINING", so will a user coming from Linux to Windows and so will a user coming from Windows to Mac... what's your point? That all OS are different, even if those are only slight differences in some cases? |
| #5 By 18033 (211.26.193.94) at 9/8/2004 1:53:00 AM |
|
#11,
1) My point is that this doesnt make a good case to downgrade to Linux, does it???? Seems kinda obvious to me. 2) Look just face it, it is far more risky. And more costly. Thats why MS is still winning these contracts. duh. I base these facts on real world scenarios...... So I need to do more research to learn about deploying Linux...... This is EXACTLY my point. Are you going to pay for all this research? Is it worth it? 3) http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=world+pays+through+butt+to+deploy+linux&btnG=Google+Search&meta= 4) Well I would imagine that most if not all people would HAVE to pay for support, given the gen eral lack of knowledge. I dont care how you hide the price, and whilst it may be free software, it certainly isnt free to use. 5) Go read some news. Youll see it has not been replicated fully, due to restrcitions imposed outside of a Microsoft environment. I saw it on SlashDot. Honest. 6) Actually Ive installed just about every flavour at least once. OK so your machine is fairly quick, it took me 3 hours to do Red Hat 9. Then I ran a security scanner against it and I almost fell over in disbelief after it discovered over 100 vulnerabilities. Wow that really is secure.....FUD my ass! 7) No dude, what is your point? Why dont you re-read my post. Although I do agree with you, since you are strengthening my original point anyway. I was responding to Halycon's comment about not needing to do that much training if a user goes from Windows to Linux. You will need heaps of training.... Oh well, at least we agree on something ;-) Peace ;-) |
| #6 By 21203 (4.5.32.137) at 9/8/2004 4:14:09 AM |
|
There are more applications in a Linux distribution than in a version of Windows.
Absolutely true but you're so missing the point. Windows works with every product it ships with, seamlessly. Linux ships with damn near every GPL program out there, and they don't interoperate well sometimes, depending on who wrote the bundle or the packaged app. We're not talking quantity here, we're talking quality. SBS2003 comes as a fully integrated interoperable seamless usable platform, for example, that springboards people to writing 3rd party apps quickly. Even with the best linux suite, you would have to program for months/years to approach the same level of functionality and interoperability. This post was edited by mram on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 at 04:15. |
| #7 By 21203 (4.5.32.137) at 9/8/2004 4:17:34 AM |
|
Macros: Your post is painful to read.
You're one of those who believes it's purely the download price that determines "cost". Ok ... moving along. |
| #8 By 9589 (66.57.158.211) at 9/8/2004 1:47:47 PM |
|
Meanwhile, Novell, the erstwhile competitor of Microsoft and owner of Linux Suse pulls this stunt:
Novell shoots blanks on Linux offer By Dave Kearns Network World, 08/23/04 A couple of months ago, Novell announced that anyone who wanted to try its new Linux offerings and utilities could sign up for what's called the Novell Linux Technical Resource Kit. Well, if a company with real marketing had been behind it there would have been great fanfare and much hoopla. This announcement simply showed up on a Web page. This is Novell we're talking about after all, and, as the old saying goes, its extremely difficult for the leopard to change its spots. Still, stealth marketing did its job via word-of-mouth and the occasional mention in a column or news story. Many people did, in fact, sign up to receive the free CD containing: •SuSE Linux Standard Server 8.0 (ISO installation images). •SuSE Linux 9.1 Professional (bootable installation DVD). • Ximian Desktop 2.0 Evaluation (ISO image). • Ximian Red Carpet 2.0.2 Evaluation (ISO image). • Novell Linux Services 1.0 (ISO image & NLS companion CD). • Novell GroupWise for Linux 6.5.1 - Server, Client & Messenger (ISO images), and a lot more. In mid-July, Novell announced a delay because of the "phenomenal response to this free offer," according to a note sent to those who had registered for it, but it was still due to ship in late July. Two weeks ago, in mid-August, recipients were finally notified that the package had shipped ("please allow up to six weeks for delivery . . ."). Turns out that, with the delay, the Standard Server 8 had turned into SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 9. That's certainly worth the wait, isn't it? In fact, many more people now thought this was a good deal and flocked to the Novell registration page to sign up. What they found was a notice that says, in part: "We appreciate your interest in the Linux Technical Resource Kit, offered by the Novell Customer Communities. At this time we are not accepting any more orders . . ." Did they run out of Linux? Maybe it was all just a marketing scam to get you to give Novell your e-mail address so it could spam you with advertising. After all, most people still haven't received the package that they'd expected in late July. Novell might be the bright new star in the open source firmament, but its marketing is just as tarnished as ever. |
| #9 By 21203 (208.252.96.220) at 9/8/2004 2:29:57 PM |
|
Yadda yadda oss free yadda windows sucks yadda yadda.
Give it a rest. You'll never convince me that "free" is as good as wasting hours of several people's time researching a "possible fix" on several available yet not technically advanced free support sites for various non-commercial free OSS resources, and I won't convince you that TCO actually includes the paycheck that you spend on people's time and productivity. Noone is debating that OSS has free tools. I could build a mountain of free, a monument to OSS in my company. The problem is that even though I'm paid salary, they want this stuff done NOW, not weeks/months from now. Why pay me 20k worth of time to develop a tool that I then wouldn't have reliable resources for support (I just developed myself into a corner)when I can buy a solution for half that price and have some supportability behind it? Get it into your [rather thick] head that noone has ever said that oss can NOT do what you're saying. It's just not FINANCIALLY VIABLE for most people. Believe it or not, TCO is valuable. I cant tell you how many times I've actually had the above paragraph's conversation with my boss. I could care less that we use OSS, but the reality is that once we start down that road, the costs skyrocket in COMPARISON to windows. |
| #10 By 21203 (208.252.96.220) at 9/8/2004 4:30:05 PM |
|
People get stuff done with Linux all of the time.
I'll simplify this so you can understand. Hopefully. Windows gets stuff done. Linux gets stuff done. When faced with a product choice, you can choose Windows or Linux to develop on. More likely you have a choice of buying a pre-written product for Windows, or develop one yourself for Linux. The cost and comparisons are easy -- one is a labor charge, the other is a raw expense. Then there is a supportability issue. That's where the TCO comes in. Windows has a raw expense of say 10k for a product + support. Would it cost 10k in development and personnel dollars to construct a similar product? What about the ongoing support costs? Lets ask the magic 8-ball... signs point to yes! As an aside, Hal: please try to stay on the point. You occasionally have a good point, but I never said that you couldn't do things with linux. I am illustrating how TCO devalues Linux as a product. Seriously, here's an example. Sharepoint 2003 + Exchange 2003. Buy and license it for a group of 500 people, or build an OSS alternative. Must have all equivalent features. Prove your point. All kinds of stuff like that is relevent. I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT YOU CANNOT DO ANYTHING YOU DAMN WELL PLEASE in OSS. But when you compare Apache to IIS, I just start giggling -- Apache is thin and weak compared to the feature set of IIS. A lot of that is true. If you want to add features you SURE CAN .. to OSS ... but it will require PROGRAMMING TIME to do it. That is not free. Time IS money. Businesses do not just sit around waiting for a linux coder to finish months of work on getting apache on-par with IIS when they can pay LESS to BUY the real, supported product. It's just not business-sound. You might disagree, but these companies are walking the walk, they've done the analysis that, apparently, you can't, won't, or refuse to believe. If you don't get it, or you can't be topical, just don't post. |
| #11 By 21203 (208.252.96.220) at 9/8/2004 5:14:04 PM |
|
Nevermind. This post was edited by mram on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 at 17:15. |
| #12 By 21203 (208.252.96.220) at 9/8/2004 5:30:58 PM |
|
Of course you will actually have to do something extra to make any successful site, especially programming (markup/CGI). If you go with the same cookie cutter results some wizard provides you, you'll end up with the same thing everyone else has. Are you saying that you shouldn't have to do anything extra at all?
People get stuff done with Windows all the time. |
| #13 By 21203 (208.252.96.220) at 9/8/2004 5:42:59 PM |
|
The issue was you saying that it took extra work with Apache compared to IIS to get anything done, and you haven't illustrated that this is the case.
But the thing is it wouldn't, problems don't take a day to hunt down and solve. A lot of help you can get is available, so you would need to spend a lot less time, if ever. |
| #14 By 21203 (208.252.96.220) at 9/8/2004 7:01:24 PM |
|
That's just what I was saying.
Well, when your statements are so ambiguous that they support both sides of the argument, I'll just save myself the energy. |
| #15 By 21203 (4.5.32.137) at 9/8/2004 10:11:24 PM |
|
Nope.
Apache is simplistic. IIS is robust. Both have extensibility. One has support. One has a greater out-of-the-box feature set. One is free, the other costs money. Now this is the specific part I want you to answer, with as good, and well thought out statement as you can possibly muster: To make Apache as good as IIS it would cost more than the value of buying IIS, in programming time. Why would someone use Apache, if one wanted more features than the base package? |
| #16 By 16451 (65.19.16.245) at 9/8/2004 10:30:31 PM |
|
>>> if one wanted more features than the base package
And specifically what features might those be? |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 326 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:06:19 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
