seeing if this is true or not.

LunarEagle · 02-18-2005, 08:47 AM

quote "I just wanted to point out, In a Business enviroment Linux is not free. It cost money to maintain it just like windows."

Also, are there good paying jobs with Linux?

(Just to settle a discussion).

0pal_t0ad · 02-18-2005, 08:51 AM

system admin...'nuff said

Thymox · 02-18-2005, 08:55 AM

This is the age old misconception that Linux is inherently "free as in beer". People trying to justify not using Linux because you still have to pay for someone to maintain the system. It's a pointless argument, it really is. It's like trying to argue that water isn't as good as cola because you still have to pay someone (ie the water board) to maintain its "purity".

File that quote under "Yeah, that's common sense".

ryedunn · 02-18-2005, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by LunarEagle
"I just wanted to point out, In a Business enviroment Linux is not free. It cost money to maintain it just like windows."

Correct, whos going to maintain the server once its running? Someone has to do it, and I dont think they are going to do it for free.

Quote:

"Also, are there good paying jobs with Linux?"

Thats a bit vague, Linux what?
Data entry? - not really
System Administrator? - yes

amosf · 02-18-2005, 09:04 AM

Even if you need someone to look after the system, you will need it for windows or linux. Windows will cost the same regardless. And there is more to freedom than lack of monetary cost.

Tinkster · 02-18-2005, 01:33 PM

Yeah, M$s TCO comparisons lack to mention that the
people who now administer a 2003 server didn't need
to go on a training course because they already paid
> 4000$ to become an MCSE/MCA before they got
their job ... ;) ... or had used extensively for a long time
which brought their knowledge about that PITA up to
scratch ...

Cheers,
Tink