Re: [Fsfe-uk] The threat of a good example continued

[Marc Eberhard]

On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 07:17:33PM +0100, Ramin Nakisa wrote:
> The cost argument is a good one.  I think it's one we should use, but
> only if we back it up with plausible numbers.  I found a link to this
> linuxjournal article on NewsForge's newsvac:

That sounds good indeed. Alex, can we put/link that stuff from the AFFS
website?

> http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=6057
> 
> My summary: An Australian company called Cybersource has done a study
> which tries to estimate the total cost of ownership of a GNU/Linux
> based system compared to a Microsoft-based system.  Microsoft claims
> that the cost of license fees is negligible compared to the total cost
> of ownership of an IT system.  Many clients of Cybersource had asked
> them how much they would save if they switched to a Free Software
> based system.  As the CEO says in the article:
> 
>    Many of these customers approached us with the question: "How much
>    will we save if we move groups, departments or the whole company to
>    Linux?" We didn't have an answer for them then. We do now.
> 
> The numbers are calculated for a medium-sized organization of 250
> computer-using employees and include staffing, software, hardware and
> connectivity costs.  They also look at expenditure over a 3 year
> period (the life-span of most computer systems they say), and amortize
> purchase and installation costs over that period.  The bottom line is
> that over 3 years Free Software saved about 30%.
> 
> We could adapt these numbers to suit our own campaigns.  Here's the
> article itself at Cybersource if you want to see their calculations:
> 
> http://www.cyber.com.au/cyber/about/linux_vs_windows_tco_comparison.pdf

Bye,
Marc
_______________________________________________________________________________

email: address@hidden
email: address@hidden, web: http://www.aston.ac.uk/~eberhama/