Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Linux TCO: Less Than Half The Cost of Windows

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the no-surprise-there dept.

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.'"

3 of 527 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Production download their distro from the web? by stoolpigeon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?
  2. Re:GUI bad, CLI good? by toupsie · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Considering the tools are all there, why didn't you learn how to use the CLI admin tools for Windows? Just kind of seems to me you shouldn't be calling people idiots when you don't know what you are doing yourself.

    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.
  3. Re:first? by Malor · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From real-life experience, I can assure you that this is accurate. I posted here in a related topic.

    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.