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.'"

5 of 527 comments (clear)

  1. Friko by rtstyk · · Score: 0, Troll

    Perhaps the fact that it's free helps? BTW FP!!!

    --
    I hate the fact that you people don't salute me
  2. Re:GUI bad, CLI good? by sheldon · · Score: 1, Troll

    "Are they built into the OS or do you have to purchase them or download them after the fact?"

    Uhh, built into the OS. NT4 had a good deal of remote administration capabilities, but they were further expanded with the Win2k release. .Net Server 2003 will be able to run headless for those who want to deploy blade server farms.

    "I have never seen Microsoft brag about their remote CLI management."

    Go lookup a few keywords on google.com like WSH, WMI, Resource Kit, etc.

    "Also, I was calling the "Zombied Windows Server Admins" idiots not all Windows Server Admins. Reading is fundamental..."

    Regardless, the insult was unnecessary and inappropriate. Quit demostrating that the Linux community is full of nothing but technical know-nothings.

  3. Linux is free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    ...only if your time is worth nothing.

    1. Re:Linux is free... by Dave2+Wickham · · Score: 0, Troll

      Dunno if the AC is trolling, but he/she did make a valid point - it's still not free unless they don't pay you.

      Then again... fsck it. I bet someone else has posted this whilst I was reading.

  4. The Sun zealots respond by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    The study doesn't do much more than skim its methodology, but it seems that RFG overbuilt its Solaris environments (for example, using 8-way servers as prototypical Sun web servers), thus contributing to the massive disparity between Solaris costs and the other rated environments. Comparing SunFire midrange systems with single-processor 2U systems, even with the "processing unit" methodology used in the study, is worse than comparing apples and oranges -- more like apples and industrial air conditioners.

    The only explanation I have for this is that the Sun web servers were being used for application execution as well -- or perhaps the companies just had too much money to burn.