It has been two weeks since I reported on two studies that claimed Windows is cheaper to deploy and I'm still getting mail on the subject. One of the studies claimed that a migration from Windows to Linux is too costly for enterprises. The survey of 1,000 businesses by the Yankee Group found that most enterprise IT pros think a Windows-to-Linux migration would be prohibitively expensive.Here are more reader thoughts on these topics:"One of the major cost elements in the type of migration these "studies" examine is this: How much does it cost to have all of those expensive Microsoft licenses suddenly just sitting on the shelf?" says this reader, who is a network integrator. "The majority of Windows licenses out there are either volume licenses or OEMs, so the company can't recoup part of their investment by selling them on eBay."Another reader said:"Of course it is expensive to convert from one server [operating system] to another! When you deploy a server, you do so under the assumption that the box will eventually (5 to 10 years) die and be replaced ... The beauty of Linux running Samba is that you can just keep your users running the same old NT 4 file services they've become used to without telling them otherwise."Echoing this sentiment, another reader adds that any technology change may cost money, but is sometimes worth it:"What nobody seems to remember is the study [Microsoft] did when pushing Windows 3.0 over DOS. The study concluded a heavy expense in 'change' ... They were quite right. It costs [money] to get hardware to push the extra overhead of a GUI. A person had to learn one time the Common User Interface ... in hindsight I think it was money well spent."