It's good to see the US navy is prepared for...
... giant cats.
1207 publicly visible posts • joined 20 Mar 2012
We, here at work, switched to Mint at the end of XP with LESS ISSUES than those who have moved to Win8/8.1. Windows advocates will say "Oh it's (Mint) more work, you'll be typing thing on the command line all the time. You won't save any money because of the time it (Mint) will consume.". Tosh - Mint uses less support than XP, you actually SAVE time using it.
Gah - It's a good deal more complex than 'Look on the website' in my experience. That's why I asked if anyone actually knew.
"Linux costs more to run for almost all uses except web servers.". How does that work? More electricity? More servers? More admins? More hamsters? Extraordinary claims require details. Bald statements are the stuff of astroturfers.
"Only if your time has no value."
My actual experience... less time is used looking after Linux than looking after Windows, so the time-has-a-value thing works IN FAVOUR of Linux.
"- the supported versions like Redhat and SUSE are more expensive to license!"
Are they? Does anyone here actually know the facts (comparing like-for-like) here?
It's not like there are no alternatives. As for the 'It doesn't work the same' argument, surely that has been taken care of by Windows 8 and Office 2012. In fact Linux Mint seems to work almost the same as Xp and Libre Office seems a lot more like Office used to be that the current version.
I'm only guessing but I feel the answer is that the people responsible for purchasing have some sort of relationship with MS?