osOpinion: Does OS Stand for Overhead Spending?Feb 06, 2001, 19:39 (6 Talkback[s])
(Other stories by Wesley P. Taylor)
"...the idea that an OS is overhead makes real sense from a business standpoint. Any expense that doesn't contribute to a sale or directly to the bottom line is overhead. The money a company pays for operating systems is an overhead cost, because it isn't the OS itself but rather the application that supports the business."
"...I think IBM may get it. By adopting the Linux operating system, and porting so many of its programs to it, IBM is turning the overhead cost of maintaining the operating system over to the people who maintain it for free, either because they are proud of their work or have an ego to maintain along with the OS."
"Apple may also get it because it's made Darwin open source. The more enhancements and bug fixes that Apple accepts from the community of Darwin enthusiasts, the more Apple lowers its overhead cost. I just wonder, will Microsoft ever get it?"