According to a statement jointly released by Novell and Microsoft today the TCO of Windows is less, just as most previous studies have shown. Do you have anything to say during your Linux pimping that isn't bogus?
And they admit that they currently run several different Linux distros and will save money by reducing that (probably to one, Novell's). The TCO study is based on an abnormally-high Linux cost due to supporting many different distros.
HSBC claims it will achieve cost savings by reducing the number of Linux distributions it uses and by improving the interoperability of its open-source operating system deployments with Windows.There's the proof. I also wonder if they're charging those interoperability costs to the Linux or Windows side of the equation. Linux is built on open standards, which means easy interoperability with other systems built to open standards. Microsoft likes proprietary standards, or its own non-standard implementation of open standards (*cough*Kerberos*cough*).
Aside from that, I'd like to see what roles which platforms are running. TCO varies widely between jobs. Microsoft kills you with licensing fees if the role is on a per-seat or per-connection basis, but the platforms are closer when that is taken out of the equation.
just as most previous Microsoft-funded studies have shown
There, fixed.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^Do you have anything to say during your Linux pimping that isn't bogus?^^^^^^^^^^^^
Almost any admin could state otherwise.
Besides, most studies are flawed. Coffee is good for you. Coffee is bad for you. Butter is good for you. Butter is bad for you. Margarine is good for you. The earth is getting warmer and it's all man's fault.
dude, a company that funds a "study" is usually paying somebody to produce results favorable to that company. So, just because MS is releasing it, it's gospel and must be taken absolutely?
Pure MS shilling. Again.