Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • TCO (Score:5, Insightful)

    Interesting quote listed in the article:

    People are voting with their hearts, not their heads. The total cost of ownership of open source is open to question. It is a bit like the move from mainframe to server-based computing: it may cost less to buy, but in the long-term, it may cost more to manage and maintain.

    This is the bugaboo that open-source software has to overcome, but it frequently succeeds. From personal experience, I can tell you that I would much rather administer Apache than IIS. IIS has

    • The "cheaper to manage and maintain" argument is a bad one. I hate to use the IIS vs Apache example, but I will. You could argue IIS is cheaper to manage because it has a pretty GUI that an unskilled (and thus lower salaried) person could figure out, with Apache you need to hire somebody that knows what they're doing (though they could manage more servers). This ignores the amount of money that you lose when your network goes down when the next Code Red/Nimda/etc hits.