Microsoft sponsored studies always show Windows to be cheaper :)

What I want to know, is what assumptions did they use to conclude that linux boxes are more expensive to manage than Windows boxes. On the slashdot thread about this topic, most of the commenters seemed to agree that linux admins make more than Windows admins--but that linux admins could service more units. If the study assumed that a Windows admin could service the same number of machines as a linux admin, then that would explain the difference.

I just figured it was more FUD :)

Well, I had this same conversation today, and what keeps coming up is that most everybody knows Windows, but few know Linux. Having to "re-educate" everybody to an alternative costs so much money, etc...

I feel comfortable saying that Linux requires a higher degree of computer literacy than Windows; then again, I feel comfortable saying that accessing the net without AOL also requires a higher degree of literacy than many Americans possess. :-(

I'd like to help narrow the gap.

well, i think the trick is that it's not that it requires a higher degree of literacy so much, but that it requires a different literacy. if we were still in the dos era, it would be much easier for people to acquire linux server admin skills than use a gui and run windows.

as for aol, you oughta check out how easily msn works on windows. pretty easy.

I'm sure the difference could be explained, as stated above, if Linux admins can service more machines than Windows admins in the same amount of time. Could supply and demand come into play here as well? I would guess there are plenty of Windows admins out there looking for jobs, and relatively few Linux admins out there. Thus, Linux admins candemand higher salaries.