And once again, the Microsoft camp attempts to spread the F.U.D. that “we’re winning” and “Linux is not free”.

Turner also added that Microsoft is by no means declaring peace. “And we’re really getting the message out about the fraudulent perception of free in the marketplace as it relates to open source. IT pros and decision-makers are starting to get it, that it’s not free, that there’s a lot of TCO that goes along with that, and there’s also substantial security risks that go along with it. And so we’re really making some traction in this area, and we’re going to continue to hit the gas and go more and more aggressive as it relates to winning share,” he stated.

So, let’s try to figure this out.
Initial Cost of Ownership:

Linux is free. You don’t PAY anything for it, whatsoever, at least you SHOULDN’T. If you do, you’re foolish enough to buy into a system you can get for free. Even RHEL can be obtained as CentOS, for nothing at all.

Windows is NOT free, and must be purchased individually. If you have multiple pc’s, you can’t run the same version or copy of Windows. Pricing as follows:

XP : (good luck finding it any more): $89-180
Vista : $100-300
Server Edition: 500-3000

Already, Windows is losing this battle, and on server editions, it’s GROSSLY losing the battle. That’s ok, though, let’s continue the comparison.

Hardware:
Linux will run on virtually anything, as the Asus Eee has repeatedly proven. You can’t GET Windows to boot with 512 M Ram any more.

Windows, on the other hand has very specific requirements for the setup. With Vista, you’re looking at (minimum) 30 gig drive and 1 gig ram, and optimum 4 gig ram.

Once again, advantage Linux, for providing cheap(er) solutions.

Administration:
Linux doesn’t require a TON of experience, but you’re better off by hiring a Linux admin to look after your servers. This can run you (if you do it right) from $65-300/month per server. Not a lot, but not a small chunk of change either

Windows doesn’t require a TON of experience either, however windows admins start off a LOT more expensive than Linux, from 50+ / hr, and good luck getting one to work on a monthly rate as quoted above.

Software:

It’s my experience that Windows, every once in a while, needs a ‘refresh’, or an OS reload to keep things running smoothly. This should be done every few months to clear up registry issues, fix slow PC’s (and servers), etc. At an hour or two per reload, this can get costly, because those of us in any sort of ’service’ business know that time is money.

Linux? I’ve kept Linux servers running on the same old OS for years. Of course, that’s not recommended, as hardware needs change, things update, all that, but still. The idea is that less time is required to maintain the Linux side of things.

Day to Day maintainance:
Here, we’re almost tied. In most cases, this is going to be hardware related, not OS, and, it’s not that hard to compare the two, because they’re comparable.

So, someone, please, tell me what I’m missing here? In the end, Microsoft LOSES every point in this battle except the last, because THEY cost more. The F.U.D. they’re spreading about ‘we cost less’ is just that, it’s F.U.D. Overall, the Microsoft OS (Windows) costs MORE to run and operate on a day to day basis!