I’d be willing to accept that Linux has a lower TCO than Windows (note how BSD is absent), but as always, proof would help. Unfortunately, the links to the study and summary are both dead, so we have no way to determine exactly what was said; the link doesn’t even show up in the Internet Archive.

This is important; we need to understand what methodology and circumstances were used in testing. They certainly expect it if the report originates from Microsoft.

Then again, even facts wouldn’t sway the die-hard Freedomite…

“ “For too long, special interest groups have attacked the manageability of Linux, and fuelled the FUD that Linux environments are somehow more difficult or labour intensive to manage than Windows environments,” said OSDL chief executive Stuart Cohen.

“In fact, Linux system management tools are in many cases outpacing Windows management tools.” “

Apparently, NIS > Active Directory and Plain text files > Group Policies.
Or oh wait, I think they mean Novell’s directory tools, but hey, those are proprietary!

“ Linux was found to be more productive, as Linux administrators tend to manage more servers than Windows administrators, and Linux systems tend to handle greater workloads than Windows systems. “
Oh sure, ask a Linux management systems vendor about that. I’m sure they’re not biased or something. However, if a Linux vendor makes statements about Microsoft, their bare truth; however if Microsoft does the same the other way round it’s FUD.

“ “Previous Microsoft-sponsored reports on Linux management are simply outdated and one-sided,” said Matt Mosman, chief executive at Levanta. “
Yes, Gartner and IDC are paid M$ $hills. Common knowledge.

However, in case you’re also sad that Levanta with their obviously superior technology died, you can submit your condolences here: http://www.linux.com/archive/feature/135838

@Delano

As I say, most links are dead. I agree it would be a better demonstration of Linux FUD if it were more up to date.

However, I reckon it’s a decent archetype for the sort of thing that Linux apologists come up with, even now. On the rare occasions they even bother to offer up evidence, it’s normally some bogus “study” like this, it normally quotes “experts” in the field (ie people trying to sell you Linux), and I suspect everybody involved normally disappears after a short period. (BiannualDeathMarch™ revisited?)

The consultancy who apparently produced the original report, btw, has now moved on to evangelising Cloud Computing.

God help us all.