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.'"
Windows 2000 & XP Forever!!
Perhaps the fact that it's free helps? BTW FP!!!
I hate the fact that you people don't salute me
I just heard some sad news on talk radio. Horror/Sci-Fi writer Stephen King was found dead in his Maine home this morning. Apparently, he electrocuted himself trying to get a stuck piece of bread out of the toaster with a fork. There weren't any further details. I'm sure he will be greatly missed by the Slashdot community - even if you didn't read any of his books, you probably dined in one of his restaurants. Truly an American icon.
"Are they built into the OS or do you have to purchase them or download them after the fact?"
.Net Server 2003 will be able to run headless for those who want to deploy blade server farms.
Uhh, built into the OS. NT4 had a good deal of remote administration capabilities, but they were further expanded with the Win2k release.
"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.
...only if your time is worth nothing.
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.
Okay, I'll bite
Now we're killing the last Windows desktops, putting Lindows-OS in their place.That's gonna work really well until the rest of the world moves to the next version of Office.
There is a huge fear of change, and this works in Windows' favor.And rightly so. Linux cannot, I repeat cannot currently outperform Windows on the desktop. So, stop lying.
But there is no doubt that open software is better built and cheaper to run.Okay, so you're a troll (oh wait, pro-linux posts with nothing to back them up don't count as trolls here on /.). Yeah, Open Office runs WAY better, can do more, is easier to install and maintain than MS Office (not). MYSQL is MUCH better (and easier to work with) than DB2, Oracle, or SQL Server (not). What does your office actually do? Is it a call center? Is it a server farm? Because that makes all the difference.
Changing costs something. But there is no doubt about the TCO of Linux (and its applications) being lower.Hmm, well with lower costs, you also get less ability to keep up with the rest of the world. You can't do as much with Linux because not as many Hardware Vendors make drivers for Linux, the GUI and video performance suck compared to Windows (don't even step!), and the software is atrocious (there's no common widget-set that every developer uses like there is on Windows, which is why Windows software performs better and is easier to use and develop!)
So basically, give us all a break and stop lying just to whore karma.
Oh yeah, and I know that this is being modded as 'Troll' or 'Flamebait' when a similar pro-linux post will be 'Interesting'. Well, go ahead, prove me right :)
Blow it out your ear...
Oh, and quit fucking cussing so much. There's children on here.