Case Study: "RadioShack is one of the best-known electronics retailers in the world, with approximately 5,100 company-owned stores and 1,800 dealer-franchise locations that people turn to for batteries, toys, telephones, PCs, and more. However, the company's 11-year-old, UNIX-based point-of-sale systems had reached the end of their useful life and had to be updated. After an extensive evaluation in which RadioShack compared Windows® and Linux, the company selected Microsoft® Windows Server System™ and Windows XP Embedded because the platform offered lower long-term costs, less risk, better alignment with long-term technical strategy, stronger vendor support, and better use of existing development and IT operations skills. The company's move to Windows will reduce the number of servers in its stores by 50 percent and save millions of dollars in hardware, software, system management, and support costs."
Did they say save millions or spent millions?
1. Microsoft is smart in presenting the facts their way
2. RadioShack was misguided by pro-Windows people
3. RadioShack no longer has Linux/Unix people
4. Google / Yahoo are in a lot of trouble because they use Linux and Microsoft says using Linux can cause legal problems.
5. I don't know what "lowered TCO" are they talking about
6. I don't know what reliability they are talking about.
7. And security with Windows (makes me giggle)
8. "New options for future growth" OR "Limited options for future growth"
I would say someone spent millions when they could have passed the savings to their share holders. May be I am biased because I have never found a better operating system / server system than Linux.