Is Microsoft Really Less Expensive Than Linux? (CIO) [LWN.net]

Is Microsoft Really Less Expensive Than Linux? (CIO)

Posted Sep 11, 2003 21:14 UTC (Thu) by gilb (subscriber, #11728)
Parent article: Is Microsoft Really Less Expensive Than Linux? (CIO)

One of the most telling things about this latest study is that the press, instead of simply regurgitating the press release, is instead cynical about the results. 2 or more years ago, a press release on a study funded by Microsoft would have uncritically repeated the results with the headline "Microsoft is better/cheaper than Linux doing X". Now a study is an opportunity for the trade press to say "You know, Linux has really arrived and many people are basing their businesses on it." and "The study, paid for by Microsoft, tries to show Linux in a bad light, be we aren't buying it."

Yet another example that Linux, free software and open source is getting mindshare.

(Log in to post comments)

Is Microsoft Really Less Expensive Than Linux? (CIO)

Posted Sep 12, 2003 5:29 UTC (Fri) by dkite (guest, #4577) [Link]

I await with baited breath to read a review where they describe the Microsoft solution as "good
for a Microsoft shop". The implication being that you wouldn't use it otherwise.

It's almost there. It's amazing to live through another sea change in this industry. Microsoft has
benefitted from most, but this one must be scary for them.

What really surprised me is the study comparing IBM Mainframe with linux to MS servers. Like,
why? If they are that concerned about losing sales to IBM, they have a real problem.

Derek

bated breath

Posted Sep 19, 2003 20:30 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

bated = stopped or held back. Similar to "abated."

baited = containing bait (e.g. a baited mousetrap).