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.'"
I read that and thought it was very interesting myself, but they don't give any reasoning for it. The idea that a Linux admin can handle more machines then a Windows admin doesn't wash with me... Maybe the average Windows admin has less system administration experience then the average Linux admin? That could explain the difference I suppose.
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?
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.
Basically: scripting is everything. If you understand shell scripting and perl, you can make Unix machines dance. A real Unix wizard can nearly bring about world peace from the command line.
Scripting in Windows is much harder. It can be done, but it's relatively alien to the system, and some complex things are unscriptable.
Windows 2000 has improved this capability a lot. If they have been studying for three years, chances are that a lot of the machines are still 4.0. A true from-the-bottom-up 2K network is A LOT easier to administer than 4.0. One poster in the linked thread claims to be running about 200 clients and 37 2K servers all by himself. With 4.0, I don't think that would be possible. Things would break faster than you could fix them. With 2K I can just barely imagine doing it, though I bet that guy is incredibly busy.
Linux is easier still to administer. Perl, ASCII text configuration files, and separation of services beat Kixstart and the registry hands-down.
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/