Slashdot Mirror
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?"
Also, before all the fanboys out there start screaming "Linux is better", consider this: the reason Windows server software is present at most companies is not because of IIS nor because it offers a secure server environment. It is because of Exchange. Although it has MANY shortcomings, it works, and even though it is perfectly feasible to use open protocols to accomplish most of what Exchange does, you will not have a clear upgrade path (something that is important to upper management, however irrelevant it might be in real life) and you will have to go through hell to do the transition.
Basically, my opinion is the following: move your file servers, proxy servers and print servers to Linux. It should be fairly straightforward if you plan it well, or have a decent project manager. Leave Exchange for last and research the subject very well.
Or post another Ask Slashdot :-D
Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
Yeah in fact, you're true. But I think your conclusion (== Money) is little bit to fast.
/*** Got the name, waiting for the brain ***/
Changing a whole IT infrastructure from Windows to Linux is not simple, as any other migration, but ther can be a TCO reduction I think. Though it won't be fast, it's a long term saving and the visible money saving may come up only after a few years I think. When you realize that there isn't anymore licence upgrading.
Another important thing that I would like to add, is that you will need a lot human resources and knowledge, at least for the start.
Hope I could help and keep me up to date about the evolution, 'cause I'm also planning a similar migration.
Best Regards
NeoEinstein
n-e
If you will try to find the closest thing to what you have, you most likely will end with more headache than if you just list all the necessary functions and install whatever does them best.
Say, you have email. There is Exchange equivalent for Linux (Samsung Contact), but if one can survive with moving meeting scheduling functionality to something else (or abandoning it -- people should not spend so much time at meetings that they need to mess with each other calendars to schedule it), Cyrus + sendmail with IMAP will outperform everything else UNLESS people like to send multi-megabyte attachments to giant lists instead of placing files on some HTTP server.
Meeting scheduler and web server management programs can be installed separately (and nothing wrong will happen even if large attachment will get copied to 100 people, as long as it fits on the server's hard drive), but people should be aware that they are there. On the other hand, performance, security and flexibility of Internet connection will improve dramatically compared to Exchange.
Same kind of "similat to what you had on Windows" vs. "what performs this function the best" dilemma exists for pretty much every other service.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
I've read a few things on the web about the topic. It seems to me that if you are involved with a small to mid sized business, there could be some decent savings on licensing fees etc. Also lots of people site support as being the great thing about windows products, well, if you actually look into it, it costs a heck of a lot for getting that support off microsoft each year. BUT, it's like what others have said, it depends a lot on just how much stuff can be painlessly transferred across to linux whilst maintaining the functionality and ease of use that is required.
I don't know but in my opinion a feasability and TCO study would definetely have to be based on the individual components of your infrastructure. Sadly this article doesn't say anything about what kind of solutions would have to be supported/replaced. Without that kind of information you simply can't do any cost analysis. You cannot just say that TCO with any specific system (even Linux) is going to be lower/higher *without* knowing the facts about the infrastructure.
All that I CAN say based on recent experience is that a Linux server solution tends to be more stable, thereby saving costs in comparison to Windows servers with respect to reliability. Base installation costs for our shop has been equal to Windows, by the way, because it took our people more time to get things running in the first place. But that's only *our* experience.
Again: without knowing the facts you cannot get meaningful conclusions for your specific situation.
At the beginning of 2001, we changed all development servers (with our testing Oracle 8i databases), and everything went sweet. So in april 2001 we changed our production server from a Sun Enterprise 5000 (4 Ultra Sparc processors) to a Quad Xeon. No more server crashes, no more high maintenance costs.
Some interesting facts:
He says they are using Windows IT infrastructure.
Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.