Where are the actual figures? (Score 0, Redundant)

Sorry but I cannot take this report seriously. There are no facts given. I had to do a little investigation to get to the bottom of this. The article takes into account three primary costs; Initial Software, Staff Support and Downtime. The Initial cost is really not a big concenr for corporations since, rightfully so, the largest expense will be in manpower. The Dowtime impact is never really compared between Linux vs Windows vs others. They state it has a 23.1% affect to ownership but do not state which one cost more. Based on experience and all the available evidence it seems that Linus would have a lower dowtime and therefore a cost advantage here. This seems to be supported by the cost efficacy of Linux in the Web hosting space where dowtime would have a much more significant effect. The only other factor must be then Support cost. The presumption is that a Linux sysadmin is more expensive than a Windows 2k admin. I have never actually took this to task until now. It does seem a logical presumption but do the facts bear this out. I decided to check this out. The site I used to compare this was http://www.pencom.com/isg.html. I compared just Linux OS to WinNT OS only and found a Windows NT admin (no win2k mentioned) salary was $2,000 greater than LINUX admin. This held true regardless of region or skills provided that the skill sets were equivelant. The only explanation I can think why a Linux sysadmin may be given a larger salary is the fact that they would not just be a Linux Sysadmin. They would also be required to administer other *NIX systems and probably some Windows systems. This broader skill set would command a greater salary. This still would be much cheaper than a seperate Windows admin with a seperate Linux/UNIX admin.