Replies

I could see why Linux would be more expensive than one would expect. Basically, technical people are not as common and therefore more expensive than Windows.

But I have a hard time believing a sweeping statement about MS being cheaper. It seems to me that the size of the installation, # of admins, # of servers, etc. would vary so much that you can't say a particular solution is best for situations.

Bing bing. If you don't write a gui most windows admins are lost. And windows admins in my experience don't usually have the first clue about the hardware, much less the software. They don't know why or how things work - just that they have to push button a followed by button b...

Although I am probably not representative of most users, I used *nix and CPM before DOS came to the market. I spend less time administering my linux machines (3) than I do on my wife's W2K machine.

There is a world of technical help available on USENET, in fact, many of the developers are there to assist. Having source code, many problems can be fixed on the spot.

KDE and GNOME are reasonable desktops and there are several GUI based admin applications.

The flexibility of linux does not impose a "one size fits all" paradigm; however, this does concern many less than top notch administrators.

Linux registered workstation: 157312
Linux registered user: 224182