The latest study, conducted by BearingPoint, found that even looking at only the "hard costs" of licensing and support, Windows Server 2003 was often cheaper than Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Novell/SUSE Linux.
"While the acquisition costs associated with licensing and support should be evaluated, this study has found after comparing the cumulative costs within medium and enterprise scenarios over a five year period that those costs do not significantly differentiate Windows Server 2003, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 or Novell/SUSE Linux 8," BearingPoint said in the conclusion of its report.












All the lies, half truths and statistics provided to back up MS claims of being cheaper than Linux are well known of the community. Anybody who takes the time and effort to scrutinize MS arguments will soon realize what bullshit the company is talking.
First MS ignored Linux.
Then they laughed at Linux.
Then they rediculed the whole concept.
Now they are fighting Linux with every
dirty trick in the business.
What comes next?
How can MS know how many downloads I make and which distribution I'm using? How can they or anybody else know in how many servers and/or desktops I then install the software? All without
violating anybodys intellectual property rights!
What research?
What studies?
What sales?
What revenues?
Which distribution?
When MS can clearly explain and answer questions above I might believe their claims.