On Wednesday 28 May 2003 11:42 am, Hartmut Meyer wrote:
Hi,
Am Dienstag, 27. Mai 2003 18:14 schrieb Johnny Ernst Nielsen:
On the topic, it says "Deal goes to Linux", just with a few more words.
But here is a link.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=technologyNews&storyID=2836 822
There will probably be bigger articles about it tomorrow or the day after that.
Take this:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=technologyNews&storyID=283789 4
Greetings from Bremen hartmut
"IBM and Suse declined to give the value of the bids for their Linux offerings." "Media have reported that Microsoft's offer of about 27.3 million euros ($32.3 million) had been almost three million euros below that of the Linux competitor, but the city had still chosen Linux for strategic reasons." "Microsoft confirmed it had offered discounts for the total project, but declined to give details." Translation: If you go for the apperently lower bid are you really saving money in the long run? Considering the licensing agreement. Force upgrades will more than make up the difference. And consider the point of all the ancillary software - Office X and per seat licenses and the list goes on. Not to mention the never end cycle of bug fixes and vunerability patches, oh and the reboots. The old "pay me now or pay me later" scenerio. Buy up front what you need and then pay later for only what you'll again need. Not pay less now then be forced to buy up regardless of the need, the cost in labor hours in getting new systems up and running. Also, W2k3 servers aren't compatible with a good many existing programs and software - what's the cost of finding replacements and upgrads for all those apps and services? No, may seem like M$ offered more for less but I bet after they did a long term cost analysis the ROI was in favor of Linux and OSS. Cheers, Curtis.