[kwlug-disc] OT: "No I will not fix your computer."
unsolicited at swiz.ca
Sun Nov 3 01:21:39 EDT 2013
A LOT of FUD floating around here.
Windows / Linux costs not all that different. (Amount MS gets per PC
Large scale deployment of either involves a lot of up front i.t. costs
to figure out how to deploy / maintain.
User education is user education.
Hardware / software costs very small proportion of TCO.
If Linux desktops were such a panacea, Windows wouldn't exist.
Free is free. Debian is Debian.
Support contracts not required, either way.
Part of MS subscription model for continuous revenue stream matched by
outrageous pace of distro releases. Thank goodness for LTS. (See
- I'm so tired of the upgrade treadmill. It's not a better mousetrap.
Keep me trapping mice, not figuring out how to set traps. (Use the
hammer, not learn about a new one.)
Windows install, linux install, not much difference.
FOSS encourages just about same amount of payment, but to fund further
development. That it's not to MS bottom line is irrelevant - money is
still out of your pocket.
- refer back why Floss Fund invented. (That it's dying is sad.)
See prior thread - people time not deemed affordable. Local or otherwise.
Either you're a better global value provider, for your measure of value,
or you're not. Local doesn't matter. Global stage.
Playing / learning irrelevant - developers still put in the time. Model
is many more users paying less getting you to same funding level.
Evidence is we're not there yet / not working. (Or there would be no
Windows desktops in the world.)
If Linux were so much cheaper, no need for threads about where to get
computer repairs. We'd all be doing their own / they wouldn't be
necessary at all.
Biggest difference is WHEN you pay, not how much. MS up front.
Assumption on Linux is you pay for an i.t. department instead - writing
code and contributing that back to the community. (See people not deemed
affordable.) [Let alone - MS defined cost, not so Linux. Can budget /
plan / allocate over time.]
Support desk, bodies, and cost, is same either way.
Small business can't afford it, either way.
Let alone home users.
Flamewar not intended.
Suggestion: before making claims, provide links to credible evidence.
(Never mind the MS anti-Linux costs FUD - biggest problem there seems to
be all the costs of Windows they don't mention, and all the ludicrous
costs of Linux they do mention. Gotta love marketing. And politicians /
CFO's that buy into it.)
If all of this were absolute truth, we wouldn't still be talking about it.
Comments from people like John and Cedric welcome.
Sadly, many arguments bifurcate between servers and desktops.
Are we not repeating all the FUD between cloud and not? With a security
/ privacy / FUD / twist?
On 13-11-02 03:35 PM, CrankyOldBugger wrote:
> I read somewhere that the cost of purchasing a Windows PC is only 10% of
> the total cost of ownership.
> However... we must remember that FOSS isn't free as in beer in a
> corporate world. There are licenses to buy for Linux there. My rule of
> thumb is that if you use the computer to make money, then you should pay
> the developers. If it's just your own computer for learning or playing,
> then ok. But we mustn't think that Linux grows on trees. Developers
> need to eat too!
> Despite what MS says, Linux is still far far far cheaper to install and
> maintain than Windows. And it runs a darn sight better!
> On 2 November 2013 14:04, John Kerr <johneddie.kerr at gmail.com
> <mailto:johneddie.kerr at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Well everything that you have said confirms what we Penguinistas
> have been saying about Windows' hidden costs of ownership.
> I wish that I had the link to a news story about a school system in
> Great Britain that saved mega bucks (pounds) by switching to Linux.
> Just the relief of not having to keep track of system disks and
> licences alone was a substantial savings.
> I wish people would understand that it is better to pay someone like
> you to do the work that they would rather not do -- like installing
> an operating system. Better to pay you, a person in our local
> economy, up to $100.00 to install Linux than to buy a system with
> Windows installed but done in some foreign country.
> Thanks or sharing
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Rashkae <rashkae at tigershaunt.com
> <mailto:rashkae at tigershaunt.com>> wrote:
> On 13-11-01 12:17 PM, John Kerr wrote:
> So would you agree that repairing a Linux computer would be
> more time
> Restoring email, browsers and data would be the same effort
> as in Windows
> but at least the applications would be a breeze.
> That can depend. Absolutely, without question, installing and
> updating Linux is *way* faster and more time efficient...
> Unbelievably faster.
> However, the wealth of options and customizations can be it's
> own trap. I'm not really happy with any of the current Linux
> desktops as they ship, and at least on my own system, end up
> spending way more time tweaking and customizing to my taste. I
> think it's great that Linux offers all these UI options, and
> everything works amazingly well together, considering.
> (although, on a side rant, wtf is with the GTK guys... Every
> new point release breaks all gtk themes, so now you have to hunt
> for themes that were released specifically for the point release
> of gtk shipped with your distro?? Insanity)
> PS. I don't charge bench time, because if I'm leaving a system
> unattended, the process can take 1 or 2 days, since I only get
> back to it opportunistically. OTOH, I charge less for that. If
> you have 3 or more benches, you can do multiple systems at the
> same time, and get better efficiency that way. However, it's
> relatively rare that I have more than 1 or 2 computers in 'shop'
> at the same time, since my service business is mostly mobile,
> not drop in.
More information about the kwlug-disc