Linux TCO: Less Than Half The Cost of Windows

ggruschow writes "Linux Today reports 'The cost of running Linux is roughly 40% that of Microsoft Windows, and only 14% that of Sun Microsystem's Solaris, according to a new study which examined the actual costs of running various operating systems over three years.'"

Comments

Yea But..

[Pave Low]

you also get less than have the features and productivity you'd get from running windows.

sorta comparing a KIA with a BMW.

different strokes for different folk, I guess.

DUH

[kenp2002]

Wow there's an objective, non-biased report. Nothing like fair objective reporting on how linux is better from Linux Today. I guess those performance reports on Windows XP from Microsoft.com must be just as unbiased right?

I get all my data from the Gartner Group. I have my TCOs done in house using Gartner's TCO standards. Linux has NEVER been cheaper. Ever. Due largely in part to one simple factor: SLA (Service Level Agreement). Red Hat won't give me an SLA even close to MS. I will post again after I tear this "Unbiased" TCO part and post the conviently missing facts in detail. I'll be back....

Re:first?

[madfgurtbn]

The Windows technicians, however, only managed an average of 10 machines each, while Linux or Solaris admins can generally handle several times that.


That could be a very misleading statement, though. What if Windows is much easier to manage, so it can be admin'd part time by someone who does other productive work? In that case, it is very misleading to say that "Linux or Solaris admins can handle several times that". It just means that smaller deployments work better with Windows because anyone can admin them. The windows admins might be able to admin 100 boxen, but they work in places that only have 10.