May 26, 2004 12:48 PM PDT
Microsoft: Linux isn't cheaper
Microsoft on Wednesday released the latest in a series of studies it has commissioned that show Windows to be as cheap or cheaper than Linux as part of its "Get the Facts" campaign. 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.





http://www.bearingpoint.com/news/press_releases/2004/pr_05-17-2004.html
'nuf said.
"Neither Red Hat Nor SUSE Is Cheaper" (or something along
those lines) because it's not Linux that is the question - it's
specifical Red Hat and SUSE distributions. Debian is
obviously cheaper.
Furthermore, it's not even fair to say "Red Hat & SUSE," because
in fact they're comparing enterprise server configurations, and
that's not the same as "Linux." Clearly, the $39 for SUSE 9.1
Personal Edition is much cheaper then the current price of a
brand new boxed version of Windows XP.
When Microsoft's competitor is a movement that has no time pressure and no revenue goals to meet by a particular quarter then that competitor will win or lose on its merits--not on the basis of Microsoft's well-known marketing tricks and gimicks and illegal arm-twistings.
Linux is far from perfect if you need specific server needs like exchange, but if you just need a web, file, other "basic" server why would you go with anything else really?
To say Linux costs more in the long run may be true in specific cases, but to say that generally if just a flat out lie.