Reply to post: Re: End of Days

Microsoft points PowerShell at Penguinistas

h4rm0ny

Re: End of Days

>>"First, you stated 2% out of the blue."

No, I didn't and you're now simply trying to argue that you're not wrong as it's not your fault you didn't understand what I wrote. Which wouldn't make you right even if true. The OP proposed that 90% of the of the servers (the GNU/Linux ones) accounted for only 20% of the total work. Immediately after that post is my reply asking them to justify their statement that the Linux boxes only take 2% the support work. That figure isn't out of nowhere, I did a quick multiplication in my head and realized it was between 2% and 3% and put down 2% as it really didn't matter whether the OP was claiming Linux boxes used 3% of a WIndows box's resource or 2%.

The fact that someone thought 20% of total work translates into 20% efficiency despite it coming from only 10% of their machines is not my fault because I was not their maths teacher and their ignorance isn't on my head. Then you come along and weigh in (still failing to remotely answer the actual question I asked which was about justifying such outrageous claims, btw) and completely failed to understand the point by stating that the number of machines was irrelevant. Which it plainly isn't if you're trying to compare efficiency which is what the OP was doing.

>>"Then, you stated 2.5% based on a loose association of the values "90%" and "20%" with no explanation for the math involved"

I didn't realize an explanation was necessary. I put the slightly more precise figure because it was becoming an (irrelevant to the point) thing you were hung up on. But I can explain the maths to you happily if that will help you. There are different ways you could do it but the easy to get version is to just think of how much total work there is and solve it as an equation:

Type L computers comprise 90% of the total computers.

Type W computers comprise 10% of the total computers.

Type L computers account for 20% of the resource spent.

Type W computers account for 80% of the resource spent.

0.9L = 0.2

0.1W = 0.8

L = 0.222

W = 8.000

L / W = 0.028 = 2.8%

So there you go, the OP stated that GNU/Linux boxes only take 2.8% of the administrative resource that Windows boxes do. Now that the maths has been explained to you, would you like to take a stab at justifying such an astounding claim? I mean you're joining in with this argument in trying to shoot down my posts so would you like to take a crack at the actual topic?

No-one has actually tried to support the OP's wild claims as yet, which says something by itself. The only thing in that vein posted so far is you saying "not every environment is the same", that you "don't give two furry fucks if I prefer WIndows" and a (not very) helpful link to search for "benefits of linux over windows".

Really what is the point - you take issue with me challenging the OP's hyperbolic claims but when asked for any reason why the OP would be right to make them you paste in a Google search link for advantages of Linux. This is nothing.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019