Re: End of Days
>>"Well, last time the rest of us checked, 20% of required labor is still 20%, not 2.5%. The number of systems involved ultimately doesn't enter the equation, since the discussion is about labor costs."
Go back and read what they actually wrote. If 90% of the machines (type A) only require 20% of the total labour and the remaining 10% of the machines (type B) require 80% of it, that means the former machines are way, way more efficient than just 20% the labour cost. That IS what they wrote. Check it before replying.
It's interesting how I asked the simple question of someone to support their amazing claim that Linux boxes were so much more efficient than Windows boxes to administer and so far all I have had in response is one weak joke and two people who can't multiply. I'm beginning to suspect, hard though this is to believe, that the OP can't actually back up what they say. But feel free to take a shot at it. Even if you want to take the order of magnitude higher figure you arrived at by misreading their post, I'd still love to know what you think makes GNU/Linux boxes take only 20% of the administration that Windows boxes take.
It can't be Puppet because I've used that. ;)