[svlug] Fedora or Ubuntu for novis

[Luke S Crawford]

Chris Miller <lordsauronthegreat at gmail.com> writes:
> Oh, there was some Microsoft propoganda about four or five years back
> which cited some rigged study to say that the total cost of ownership
> for a Windows IT infrastructure was less than a Linux IT infrastructure.
>  Which is total bull:
...
> 
> 2) Windows-trained IT guys cost lots of money.  They have pretty
> certifications and education that lets them hold up their employers for
> more money.  Linux guys...  not as much.

Really?  I was always under the impression that Linux/UNIX  people
were able to charge a lot more.   At least from the informal salary survays
(that is, talking to people I know)  windows admins are lucky to make 60%
of what a similarly experienced Linux/UNIX admin does.    I'd be interested
to hear what other people know about this. 

I thought the problem with windows was that you needed more windows
people to admin a given number of servers than you would need to manage
the same number of Linux servers.    I mean, I personally have installed Linux
on more than 2000 servers in one day.  It wasn't even hard.  (of course, 
they were alrealdy cabled and racked, and I had a database with the mac
addresses)    With a multiplier like that, even if you can get windows admins
for 'Luke in Highschool' rates, you are better off with a Linux guru. 
(I was a windows SysAdmin in highschool.  I made minimum wage.)  

Of course, I don't know how many of those advantages would extend to the 
desktop.  It wouldn't take very many 'I can't do X' questions before any 
ease of mass configuration advantages were wiped out.