Re: [tlug] Total operational cost... hard stats anywhere?

["emiddleton@example.com" <emiddleton@example.com>]

Dave M G wrote:
> In any case, don't worry that I'm going to wade into those murky
> waters too deep. I just wanted to know how far I can go in saying that
> truly conclusive and objective proof doesn't exist. So far, what
> you're telling me gives me confidence that existing data only supports
> a big fat gray area. Grey enough for me to stand on my claim that
> piracy completely obstructs any claims extracted from that greyness.

There have been early Linux adopters who have reverted back to Windows
and made the claim that TCO was a factor.  I have lost interest in such
arguments because the people making the claims appear to have rather
mixed motives for returning[1] and don't or can't provide enough
evidence for anyone outside to verify the veracity of there claims.  The
problem is that to refute such claims you really have to do the work, as
Stephen suggested.

Edward

1.  Doing a double changeover even if Linux failed to meet exact
requirements is going to be very expensive in terms of TCO.  To go this
far you would expect that there Linux adoption would have had to be
totally unrecoverable.  If there adopted Linux system was really that
unsuitable for their requirements, how good was there judgement in
making the initial changeover? are there judgements about current TCO
any better?