You have to give M$ points for persistence. They still believe GNU/Linux costs more than their product, at least “internally”. I guess that means they are in denial or their salesmen don’t care about truth.
“The study concludes that at €60.6 million (approximately £51 million), the City of Munich’s Linux migration was considerably more expensive than reported by its council last November. However, last week, Microsoft Germany had emphasised that the study was compiled for internal purposes.”
see Microsoft partly releases study on Munich's Linux migration.
The details show M$/HP consider it reasonable that Munich would migrate to XP at a discount and stay with it forever… Of course something costing $millions to upgrade every release or two from M$ would cost far more than GNU/Linux. We learned some maths, M$. A little bit X many times is more than $0 many times. Quit trying to persuade us maths lies. It is you lying.
On top of ignoring M$’s licensing costs repeatedly, M$ assumes Munich will pay heavily for maintenance contracts despite the fact that is not so.
“HP’s study includes support contracts for the Linux client software (in this case based on Canonical’s support pricing), but the City of Munich did not pay for such contracts, neither for its Linux nor its Windows systems.”
Don’t hire either HP or M$ to do your analysis for your next project. You will be wasting your money and get the wrong answer. They might even include fiction.
17504
12787
206
3
2
23955 
11877 
11729 
4652 
4279 
1641 
198 
14 
2 
0 
0 
0 
At least we can see the stupid logic used to convince companies that migrations to Linux are not cost effective.
This is exactly what I expected Munich to trigger.