Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
What a surprise... Linux today says linux is cheaper. There are many ways of calculating TCO. What makes this more credible than the next?
I've always thought something was wrong with those TCO studies that say MS has a lower TCO than Linux. It just seems blindingly obvious that free software would give you a much lower TCO than something that comes with massive license fees, regardless of what other factors you work into the equation - - - and I've always suspected that those other factors are mostly just handwaving and smoke and mirrors.
For example, at the University of Waterloo, you can get a Windows XP CD for free if you are a student. I'm sorry, but I don't know how much Waterloo paid Microsoft for this... so maybe it isn't quite free. I actually got Windows XP from them. I'm mostly a Linux user, but they sucked me in with the free CD thing. Came with a unique activation ID and everything. How soon will it be before Microsoft starts giving away Windows XP to small businesses, home users, then big businesses. They can still make their main money from Office and other things. I think they're going to have to keep cutting costs, in order to match the cost of Linux.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that Microsoft fully realizes that Linux is a somewhat cheaper system to opearate, and this is one way that it is trying to change that. By giving it away free, they've reduced the cost of running Windows by a lot.
No- it's not the other way around. This is exactly what happened w/my company.
We decided that using Linux could help us out w/a couple things that we wanted to do- but we were short on cash to go the MS route.
So I went to Frys Electronics and picked up RedHat. I installed it, learned how to do the stuff we wanted to do, and found out 2 things. Pretty much all the software - and support- you need are available for free.
The community provides so much more than development.
One project we needed was a server running SSH for transfering files over a dedicated T1 between us and a client. You don't need me to tell you that it was cake.
Our other larger project is focused on Apache, PHP and PostgreSQL. There is great, free support out there for all those products.
We bought the box to get started - planned to buy support but dropped those plans when we say that the open source community will provide you with tons of support.
That may not be good enough for some big companies- but for someone in the middle and (always) strapped for cash- it is great.
.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
As for productivity, there will be significantly less time spent on Blue Screens of death, software updates that break most of the functioning, software virii commandeering programs and wiping your hard drive clean and the like.
Your KIA/BMW comparison is highly inaccurate. Linux to Windows is comparing a Honda and a Ford Pinto with a full tank of gas and a bunch of near-sighted rage drivers right behind you rushing home to find their glasses.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Are they built into the OS or do you have to purchase them or download them after the fact? All the Linux, Solaris and Mac OS X Server boxen I deal with have all the CLI tools built-in. I have never seen Microsoft brag about their remote CLI management.
Also, I was calling the "Zombied Windows Server Admins" idiots not all Windows Server Admins. Reading is fundamental...
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
I've worked as a Unix and Windows admin at various times. And here's the deal: A company that knows enough about IT issues to seriously consider UNIX probably hires good admins, whether they are Windows admins *or* UNIX admins. The companies that just blindly buy a bunch of Microsoft stuff to slap on the boss's old Dell machine (which is now the "server") probably don't hire good admins. Or, honestly, have any kind of cohesive idea about what they are using their PC's and the network for. Which means they will ALWAYS be dumping money into it to try to make it work, to cover up for their lack of planning. UNIX, on the other hand, isn't even CONSIDERED by shops that aren't pretty fuckin' serious about their network/workstation/applications, and they'll keep costs down, because they aren't screwing around. What I'm saying is, Windows works fine, if it does what you need it to do, and you hire people that know how to do it. But that's rarely the case with Windows shops. And it's almost *always* the case with UNIX shops.
Their numbers on Solaris are whacko.
To establish my background (and biases),
I've been a UNIX sysadmin for 15 years
primarily on Sun, but including most
other UNIX variants and a little Windows.
I'm currently at a Sun VAR, so I have an
idea about how to price Sun boxes and software.
First of all, it will take about 1 CPU to
meet their Processing Unit definition.
When your basline comparison unit is less
than 1 CPUs worth of effort, comparing using Sun
enterprise class systems is ridiculous.
They're not intended to replace a stack
of 1U servers; they're there for the one
application which needs 99.5% uptime or
better and doesn't split across clusters
of independent systems. The Sun 1U servers
(Intel or SPARC architecture) are $1k each
including OS, not this ridiculous $12.5K
per CPU that they ascribe to software costs.
My opinion: this is a sly slam on Sun made
to look like a boost of Linux.
OK Here is the shattered remains of this pathetic TCO. Warning STRONG language later on as I was getting very pissed at the half assed job they did. This is a rant about the TCO NOT LINUX. Keep that in mind.
..."
... is... beyond comprehension.
First of all this thing is 8 pages? The last 15 or so TCOs I've had to read through have been in the area of 70 to 400 pages in length. This looks like something a 10 year old would write in highschool. But I digress. Here we go:
1 - Executive Summary
Who are these numerous executives? (I had coffee with Elvis)
How many is many? Many people have Aids but MOST people do not. (I eat a lot of food compared to a starving Ethiopian)
Survey Participants? Who are they? How do I know you didn't make this shit up? Where is your work sited information? The least you could do is say Client - A, and Client - B if there was a NDA issue.
2 - Methodology
Ok so their WHOLE concept of this TCO factors ONLY web servers? This should be titled as TCO of LINUX WEB SERVERS. Holy Shit I'd fire these guys if they were my consulting shop.
One or two processors in the machines? How do I know the majority of the MS or Solaris machines are not Single versus Dual on the Linux Boxes? Where is my node breakdown summary?
"External" support hardware and software were excluded?! Holy Fuck! Ahem! I consider hardware and software compatibility pretty fucking important. The NIC performance is crucial! If I have to alter my NIC choices based on driver availability that can totally skew a cost per MB in a TCO. The difference, for example, in a web server using Intel and 3Com NICs amounted to $1500 dollars when placed into a Proliant server doing SQL after boiling the TCO numbers. BIG difference if I have to have 100-200 of those.
All prices are based on retail!? What moron pays retail for a corporate purchase on Mid to Large sized companies!? Mother of God are these guys scamming their clients? I get a bulk discount on orders greater than 20 from 3Com. Used to level the playing field? Ahem this is a COST analysis! Enterprise discounts are not irrelevant THEY ARE CRUCIAL! Case in point if Intel gives my 20% off on an order of 2000 NIC cards and 3Com gives me 25% off and Linux won't support the 3Com card (for the sake of argument) THAT IS RELIVANT TO THE TCO!
3 - Cost Breakdown
Software purchase costs per processing unit? Ahem where is the implementation costs, maintenance costs, or as I like to put HOW COULD THESE DOLTS COMPLETELY IGNORE THE SYSTEM LIFE CYCLE!?
Paragraph 3, line 4 "beyond the purchase of the software", ahem DOES LINUX INSTALLS AND CONFIGURES ITSELF!!?? FUCK DUDE I'M SWITCHING NOW! They cover this later; I'll bitch about it when I get there.
CALs are primarily used only in Intranets unless your are running remote services like Outlook's Mail program. But authenticated services are NOT being specified on both systems, only MS. Are we running software here besides Apache and IIS comparisons? Now we have a whole separate TCO on just the application alone! God this TCO is a mess.
Also there is no lie in the last paragraph, the new terms from MS are terrible.
No lie here, Linux is cheaper cost wise for the software. Too bad like in automobiles labor is the major cost. Even then the data is terrible at best.
3.2 - Hardware Cost Breakdown
Wow Linux only beat out MS by about $1000 bucks? I'd rather pay the $1000 bucks and write that off as application compatibility, hardware compatibility, and more importantly I actually have the MAJORITY of hardware vendors writing drivers NOW for Microsoft. Don't tell me "But that is changing" TCOs are a static snapshot, "What-Ifs" are not allowed, otherwise they become Cost Projection Reports.
Concerning their benchmark concept per processing unit how do we know we have the same data going across? Where are these number coming from? I have yet to see any concrete data. I get the results but how was the data collected? Was the test based on identical web pages? Was it base on client side or server sides scripts? WHERE IS THIS DATA COMING FROM? When I play cards and my friend says he has a full house he's gotta show me the cards. SHOW ME THE DATA!
3.3 - Support
Oh God I loved this part:
"Support Costs Were Those Fees Paid To Consulting Providers or Product Vendors...." "Many administrators were taking advantage of mailing lists, free news groups, support,
Hmmm how many of those groups will mail me monthly CDs like TechNet for a fee? I wonder if that added to the cost? WE DON'T KNOW THEY STILL HAVEN'T GIVEN US ANY DATA. WE ARE SHORT ON BRENT SPENER (Did I get his name right? I'm not a Trekkie) JUST RESULTS. Did your result of 42 come from 40+2 or 21x2 or WHAT!? They say $46,360 for MS. I have been consulting 8 years and have NEVER seen an administrative expenditure like that. Show me the data! Are we looking at 1000 Linux Workstations for every 4000 NT based systems? Right there the admin costs should be x4 as much. No data, no trust. Tell me where that 46k went and then I'll listen.
Oh how about this one,"... for the purpose of this survey administrators...."
Ok so my NT guy that handles my SQL server, Exchange, and 4 other servers is only going to be counted for the web part. Hmmm... Wouldn't that deflate the number of Web specific servers per admin? WE DON'T KNOW! GUESS WHAT? STILL NO DATA! If the 1 Linux admin handles 10 web servers, but all he does is handle 10 web servers that is going to drastically skew results of the MS web guys all share duties on 5 other types of server which is the case.
How about bullet #2 "... System automation tasks... had not been written yet for Linux..." Is this guy drunk?! Holy try going to one of hundreds of scripting pages for Linux you dolt!
4 - Soft Costs
"... Difficult to assign values to..."
Let me think, WRONG. I can roughly estimate over 3 years what those costs are by taking fixed costs and subtracting budget expenditures for the year and I can write THE WHOLE GOD DAMN THING OFF as a soft costs and estimates. That is how you in part determine the next year's budget. The more years you factor in the better the estimate. There is a reason TCOs I read are at least 30 pages long. I accept nothing less.
4.1 - Security
No arguments save one, The reason Linux SEEMS more secure than MS is that is hasn't been as critical of a target. I remember some Linux admins (back when Slashdot was just starting) making the claim that Linux was IMMUNE to viruses. No, people just haven't been writing Linux based viruses. Same with hacks in general. Here is a real solid fact:
Based on the number of attempts and system penetration MS products are 20% more likely to be hacked and infected than Linux. This is a basic arithmetic case of market share. If 60% of the targets are red and the other 40% are blue. Red is 20% more likely to be targeted than blue. It's that simple.
4.2 Availability
Holy this doesn't even get a page?! If I do 4 billion dollar of transaction a week this had better fucking be at least 30 pages long with in-depth up-time analysis including MTF ratings and severity analysis. This is a glaring example of RFG's TOTAL AND COMPLETE LACK OF CREDEBILITY. If I am Amazon or Barnes and Noble if my site isn't up I have no business. How they could blow over this is
4.3 Scalability
One word, Datacenter.
From a cpu standpoint MS leads, note the fact they kind of gloss over this section. Damn near a page for software costs with some statistics but virtually nothing here. This fucking piece of trash looks more like a poorly disguised outsourcing bid from some half-assed Linux shop. With the advent of cheap blade servers and AMD's entry into SMP this should have been a 60 to 100 page section! What about support RAID systems, Fibre Channel links, high speed switching systems, clustering, FUCK THE LIST JUST KEEPS GOING ON AND ON AND ON....
These people have NO FUCKING clue how to do a TCO. NONE. ZERO. ZIP. My 14 year old non-techie niece could do a better cost analysis.
I am not going to even bother on the rest of this crap. I have only one thing to say in my summary:
IF RFG IS WORKING FOR YOU, FIND BETTER. THE HOMELESS GUY DOWN THE STREET MIGHT EVEN BE BETTER.
Suggestion to web sites that quote this: Give Linux a real chance to succeed Bullshit like this doesn't help.
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
I think you just made an important point - "...the few windows boxes I've had to manage..." Of course they've been a pain, you've only had to do a few, never learned the (sometimes hellishly complex and quixotic) details of how to effectively manage Windows. If you had managed a thousand Windows boxes and just a couple linux ones you'd probably feel the linux boxes were a bigger pain.
I'm not saying Windows is easier/harder to amin, just that you need someone with equal experience admin'ing both to make a fair comparison.
closed minded is as closed minded does
www.ibm.com...
The link at the bottom goes to ibm.com(/FUD)
I wonder if they would per chance be biased against solaris in anyway?
Maybe that explains why they think people will use 6800's to run a web farm. Their hardware comparison is dell pcs and 6800's and 4800's.
Really...
Perfect example - You see, it is very easy to keep a large number of win boxes patched. You can host an update server on your lan, set all your clients (via group policy) to look to it for automatic updates. You decide which updates go on the update server (and out to clients) and, of course, you can set different update times on individual boxes (remotely, via script) to handle reboots and whatnot.
What you might also not know is the update packages MS sends out are horrendeously (sp?) documented, use different (undocumented) switches and have a small chance of blowing up whatever you're patching. This is the biggest patching problem, not the logistics of making the patches run. Are there similar problems with patches in Linux?
Funny sig btw
closed minded is as closed minded does
All MacOS 9 viruses. Didn't he say he's running OS X?
Plus, the risk of a Mac OS virus infecting an x86-based machine is exactly 0. Different opcodes.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
What's funny is they'll post TCO stories from LINUX TODAY, but won't post any from MICROSOFT such as this point-by-point comparison found here. How is it FAIR to link LINUX TODAY, but not MICROSOFT? Ahh... more classic Slashdot bias (notice all of the other OS's get real icons, MS get a borg Bill Gates... very mature)
Basically, the LINUX TODAY article is saying the TCP (Total cost to purchase) is equivalent to TCO (Total cost of ownership)... in effect saying that any positives and negatives Windows may have in the software itself has NO value. As other above have said, you can calculate TCO in many different ways. If you want to assign EVERYTHING other than software licensing a VALUE of $0... maybe this article strikes a chord with you.
All I am saying is consider the source!
Prevent linux based DDOS's!
http://linux.denialofservice.org/