Reducing the TCO of IT with Linux?

Bil Simser asks: "I've been asked by upper management to look at the feasibility of replacing our current Windows IT infrastructure with Linux. Basically someone has said that Linux is free so now we're off to see how free that really means. A full replacement is probably impossible, but I can see some benefits coming from selective replacement of specific technologies (e.g. application servers, web servers) that might be feasible. This is both from a cost reduction standpoint and increasing productivity when it comes to system management. I've already looked at a few studies done on TCO reduction on this and they look good so now I'm turning to the Slashdot community to see if anyone has either practical experience or informative insight into a problem like this? The objective is to determine the TCO of deploying Linux as a core part of our operational environment so what does that mean in the sense of hardware, software, middleware and management impact?"

Comments

Probably best to do your own math.

[Anonymous MadCoe]

I've never been really impressed by studies that claim to produce general numbers on TCO. Things depend very much on what you do and how you do it. Any study you see could be of use to you though, they can help you do your own numbers.

Re:Probably best to do your own math.

[Ian Wolf]

Probably best to do your own math.

This cannot be stressed enough. TCO reductions are completely subjective. TCO reports are worse than cross-architecture benchmarks for objectivitiy. Every IT environment is different, with different needs and wants. I've seen situations where a Linux migration drastically decreased the TCO of the shop and I've seen situations where it did not.

The most important element in reducing TCO is your human resources. If you have a shop full of Windows admins, who are either unable or unwilling to learn Linux, then you are doomed to failure. It isn't just a matter of can they learn it, but will they. I've seen many migrations spoiled because the admins lead a quiet insurrection to derail the migration. I'm not talking just Windows guys either, most of the time its been the UNIX guys. Also, retraining your staff, can be expensive, but in the long run, you'll save twice that by reducing downtime, cutting down on consultants, and the less tangible, but very real, benefit of higher morale because your admins are not frustrated that they don't know enough about an issue to fix a problem.

The cost savings in hardware, if you're a Windows shop, is insignificant. Sure, many people will say that you can get by with less of a machine using Linux, but that is only a half truth. A linux server can run on lighter hardware mainly because servers do not need a gui to run. This frees up a significant amount of memory, but it will be more difficult for many Windows admins to manage, at least in the beginning. Many of the migrated environments I have worked with have run in to this problem; their admins, simply were not ready for a CLI only server. Eventually, they got to that point, but in the beginning there was longer downtimes and lower morale.

As fot the cost, Linux is not free, at least not for the unitiated. A linux migration with nothing more than downloaded iso's and a reformat of the servers is in for some seriously rocky roads. If your people are not Linux savvy, then spend the money for a professional or server edition of the distribution and get the support. You're still paying a fraction of the cost for Windows software and getting support from the vendor.

Oh, and one more very important thing. Make certain your management knows this may not be easy. Some managers think migrations are simple and painless. Even the best laid plans get blown completely out of the water now and then.

Good Luck and take our advice with a grain of salt. Your mileage WILL vary.

Use baby steps.

[miffo.swe]

Introduce linux servers when its time to exchange old ones and use linux as a replacement for things where windows dont work that well. A complete overhaul at once is probably going to cost more than its worth. There is no need to toss something that works out the window.

If you replace things as they are too old/broken you dont get the problems that arise when you rip/replace everything. A slow steady pace of replacing should keep the TCO down.

That is unless you want to rip everything out and install an iron_butt of an IBM server. In that case it can save a lot of money but the investment is pretty hefty the first year.

Re:Use baby steps.

[morie]

replace things as they are too old/broken

Very true, but also try to figure out how much it would cost you to start using desktop Linux (and if that would be wise in yur situation) in situations where a group of desktop computers would be replaced and you would become subject to heavy new licencing

It may not be profittable, since switching half might increase your support costs for supporting two systems and interoperability costs may arrise, but it will strenghten your case if you look into non-viable options as well and show that you are nt just advocating change, but only usefull change.

Good Luck

Re:blunt

[rovingeyes]

Most people are stupid.
No most people are plain ignorant.

Stupid people don't know linux.
Using Linux doesn't make you intelligent, smart and sexy either

Teaching Stupid people == Money
It also takes patience and knowledge on your part.

I don't know why people consider themselves to above the rest when they start using linux. Let me tell you its just an OS, get over it. Every person is good at what he/she does. For eg my mom, even after working on a pc for 8 yrs now thinks its her fault when something goes wrong or system hangs. She just plainly hits the reboot button. But at the same time she is very calm and composed on a surgery table even in an emergency. I have seen her being at her best. But not once have I seen her calling others stupid, even if that person has no sense of medicine.

Personally its been over 30 years since people working on computers were considered god. Even my 7 yr old nephew can install a dual boot. And guess what he cannot spell most of the words properly.

Oh boy. Ask a better question.

[Hanno]

I wonder what kind of IT manager you are, expecting us to give you a detailed answer to _such_ a generic question.

What does your company do? What kind of software do you run, on servers, on desktops? What hardware setups do you have? What software are your employees used to? How IT-competent are your employees - will they freak out when the "start" button looks different on their desktop, will they call support when Clippy is missing? Is retraining an issue or do you use custom-made software that can be ported to the new environment? Can you estimate the cost of porting your custom-made software?

Etc. etc. etc.

Despite what the marketing people tell us, TCO is always a subjective calculcation, there is _no_ objective way of measuring it. Ask two people in the same company for a TCO calculation and you'll get massively different numbers.

Speaking from my own experience, I can say that using Linux instead of Windows has massively reduced my frustration with server setups and networked clients. A non-frustrated, happy IT manager is good for the company, so that alone should be something to consider. :-) Next to that, yes, we are saving a lot on our IT budget by using Linux instead of Windows. But we're just a five-person shop and we all studied informatics, so we don't shy away from tweaking our systems and we don't really care about the system our software runs on.

start small

[morgajel]

the best I can recommend is to start small. Let everyone know that you'll be making some changes. the fisrt step is openoffice/mozilla.
the training for that will be relatively little. go one office at a time; first IT, then accounting, etc.

Use that as a yardstick. gauge the companies relative stupidity/oblivious user.

Mozilla will be easy. it might be as simple as sending a tech traininer to each dept's next meeting and saying "we're upgrading IE, it will look a little different, but it's almost the same.(use the modern skin- people tend to think of it as more of an 'upgraded' look)

next try openoffice. this will be your key. it will require retraining stupid people. This means you taking the time to document it and create a FAQ and a 'how do i...' list.

if they can make it this far with relatively little pain, then try converting a few company servers to linux(webservers are a good start.) then try the IT dept. measure how difficult it is for each person. figure out the basics of exactly how long it takes the fairly tech-saavy people to get it. then take it one office at a time.

start small. baby steps.

Be Sure to Consider +- of Licenses/Paperwork

[Josh]

One of the ways in which Linux + free software can help is in the removal of need to count licenses and also do the whole purchase order dance whenver adding a node or an application to an existing node. Not spending time on that stuff can be a cost savings in itself.

Crashing servers??

[NineNine]

Throughout all of these posts, there are always quotes like "...now we don't have to deal with crashing machines all the time...". What in the hell are these people doing to crash their W2K boxes? It's pretty widely known that W2K is *very* stable. My boxes (I know, anecdotal evidence) don't crash. Period. A few very strained web/db servers, a few POS machines, and a few random boxes. No crashes. Ever. What in the hell are all of these people doing to get their W2K boxes to fail? I'm really, really curious.