Slashdot Mirror
Windows vs. Unix Revisited
dubious9 writes "Linuxworld has another TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) comparison of Windows vs. Unix. Note that is it not a Linux comparison or a specific Unix comparison at all. The comparison here is the Windows client/server model vs. the terminal/server Unix model. It discusses the needs of a school/university and considers such facts as what the students will have to run at home. It's written by a self proclaimed Unix evangelist, so don't expect it to be unbiased, but he makes points that are hard to argue with. All in all, it is a refreshing TCO comparison."
It's written by a self proclaimed Unix evangelist, so don't expect it to be unbiased
I am shocked and appalled that Slashdot would ever report something from a source biased towards *NIX!
That with Linux the software is cheap but the people are expensive and with Windows its the other way around.
It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
isn't that slashdot every day?
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
I am neutral on Linux versus Windows versus everyone else.
I think they all suck.
People should read this book The Invisible Computer, by Donald Norman.
Most computers are just not worth the excitement, and certainly not worth reading the related propaganda.
It seems we get one of these every couple of weeks and you get the same people posting the same arguments. Its been some time (weeks, maybe more) since the last article was posted, so at least we got a break this time. On with the rants that "M$ sux" or "xxx Linux is the best"
Johnkoerner.com
I'm looking forward to the insightful and unbiased discussion we will have about the relative merits of Windows and *nix.
Random is the New Order.
TCO studies are useless. It all breaks down to what is the right tool for the job.
My company is a Windows shop. We have so much proprietary software that a switch to linux corporate wide would be far more costly than getting raped by M$. In our case, Windows is cheaper. The OS comes with the PC, so we're paying the OEM license cost rather than the shelf cost for the OS. I've done a TCO study. The cost in software and time would cost more than Windows, not to mention the increased headache of pissed off users who can't use their downloaded programs any more.
Another shop I consult for is ready for linux. They use an NT server as a file/print server, and MS Office is their primary application. I'm in the process of working with them to migrate to linux, because they have $0 for software upgades and hgave run out of NT licenses. My consultant time will be cheaper than the MS license. The software they need exists, is easy to use, and free. They will be happy with linux.
So, before you start reading all these TCOs by computer magazines, do one yourself, and figure out what the RIGHT TOOL FOR THE JOB is.
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
Usually, I'd try to make some witty comment here about Unix/Windows, etc, etc. But, we've already seen this story a few dozen times, and I'm all out of original material.
are we ever actually going to see real dollar values comparing *nix to windows? or are we forever doomed to the whining babies on slashdot to compare the os's?
I've seen several of these on slashdot. The only cost comparison I need to know is.
Windows costs me money.
Linux doesn't.
http://use.perl.org
"The comparison here is the Windows client/server model vs. the terminal/server Unix model"
obviously, you're not aware that Windows does provide a terminal server mode, therefore, the above statement doesn't really make much sense.
I don't know what it's done TCO wise, but I do know the helpdesk are a lot more helpful now and seem to have more time than they did a couple of years ago. Roll on the desktop, say I.
[FUCK BETA]
Why keep having this constant battle between all of these OS's when we can just build one os that will run everything from Windows software - Mac Software - Linux Software
It's written by a self proclaimed Unix evangelist, so don't expect it to be unbiased
I really think that anything that comes from a *nix or windows outfit is not worth printing if you want an actual objective review. It may give objective reviewers something to base their reviews on if they survey stories from all sides, but to the average person these sided arguements are just marketing. I'm not going to believe MS or <insert *nix outfit here> on this issue.
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
Articles like this from a technical source are kind of pointless. Us Unix guys like unix better and see it as a better solution to many problems, and vice versa with the Windows camp.
There are lots of frothing-at-the-mouth microsoft people that are jsut as big as a zealot as some hardcore linux people.
I think the bottom line is still to determine your problem, then determine your solution. For many problems, Linux is the better and cheaper solution.
Example: say all you want to do is store and serve static web pages: I think it would be hard to argue that Windows would have a lower TCO than linux, and linux is trivial to set up these days to perform these tasks.
Another Example: For groupware, one may look at all the software out there, and then go with Windows because it runs Outlook. This is fine - if they need those features and Outlook is a better solution, then that's what they should go with. In another few years, linux will likely be veyr easy to set up like windows is, to do many common tasks. With this will come cheaper admins, and more linux. And at this point, the TCO of linux will have dropped even further, and Microsoft will have to continually adjust their strategy to compete.
If you had nuts on your chin, would they be chin nuts?
As a self proclaimed kde evengelist, I bias my self towards kde, because behind that kolourful gui, theres of a lot of cool stuff like a proper file dialog, kparts, dcop, kioslaves and most importantly, mouseover audio playback in konqueror.
Gnome couldn't beat it even if it tried.
When real managers calculate real TCO's, they take into account the use of the technology, the learning curve for *their* employees, and everything else that is specific to them.
Anyone who says 'this is cheaper than that' is just showing their own agenda.
It's no big surprise MSFT's agenda is selling MS products. But when "independant computer professionals" start doing it, it just bores me. I don't buy into the "fight FUD with FUD" approach to preaching Linux.
It just reads like the PS2 vs Xbox fanboy type crap. Who cares.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
I realize schools are sorta like businesses and all, but this is yet another TCO "study" that ignores the cold hard facts prevalent in the real world. "Think of the students" is not the most insightful way to make a point about how everyone should be using Unix instead of Windows, sorry.
I find it hard to believe any of the Win vs. Unix articles. There is always some sort of bias when comparing the two. It's interesting to note that when microsoft commissions the study, there is an outcry about them fixing the results, yet if a unix guru/evanglist writes and article about unix it's okay...
I use Win2k and Red Hat 8 in equal amounts. There are good points about both, and bad points about both.
Is the cost of edgimicatin' users.
Every time I try to edgimicate my wife, she tells me to go to hell and reinstall XP on the damn 'puter.
Cheers,
prat
Terminal Services for Windows has been available for like 4 or 5 years now. Why not use terminal approach with windows, too, if you need it that much?
*
What fonts can't mozilla display?
Sure, your basic consumer-level apps are better on Windows than on Unix. Unix really isn't a desktop OS (yet). But in the workplace where engineers need real power, unix can't be beat.
The comparison here is the Windows client/server model vs. the terminal/server Unix model.
Where's the comparison between Windows TERMINAL/server model vs. terminal/server Unix model? Aren't Terminal Server and Citrix options any longer on the Wintel platform?
The most important advantage for windows against unix based systems for servers is that people think what they have at their home/office PC's is the best for everything.
Khalid
"What you 'seek' is what you get!"
This fact should have disqualified the story from even being posted, unless the editors have entirely abandoned any attempt at making Slashdot even appear to be a credible source of honest, factual information.
Statements by a "Unix evangelist" has no business being reported as news.
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
Very interesting that your last look at Mozilla gave you the ability to judge the quality of all unix apps. Last time I looked at IE (version 2.0) is sucked ass, so by your logic, all windows apps suck?
Maybe today. Maybe not. But keep in mind, M$ hasn't stopped. They will continue to jack up their prices, lock you into expensive long-term "support" contracts, force you to upgrade hardware/software on their schedule, not yours. They do it because they can and that's who they are.
Comes a time when you have to stop the abuse and fight back. Short term pain for long term peace of mind.
Yet Another Bogus Total Cost of Ownership Comparison.
This one has sooooo many problems it's hard to know where to start. Heck even from a "basics" point of view, he has the "Microsoft" clients have printers but the "Unix" systems not. Whatever happened to comparing apples to apples? This is just plain bad and rotten reporting. Every student "needs" a 2.8ghz Dell, err, not.
But the most egregious thing is the setup for the whole comparison. xterms vs full fledged clients. How is this somehow Microsoft vs Unix? You can adopt either topology for either OS. The very premise is absolutely flawed. That the article poster somehow considers this "refreshing" is laughable.
Whendoes is basically, as always a proprietary OS. Unix to me at least, is, has been, and will be the standard thing. Unixes have been around much longer than Windoughs.
/ tco.asp
Microsoft has there take on this.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/migrate/unix
A. Doesn't know any better
B. Doesn't understand what is wrong with it
C. Doesn't want to bother learning anything else
D. Doesn't get the difference between user and admin
Well to be perfectly honest, I wouldn't employ a Unix evangelist.
Or a Windows evangelist.
I'd far rather an Best-Tool-For-The-Job evangelist. Evangelism is all very nice and well, but most of the Windows and Linux evangelists I know tend to completely fail to look at something objectivily because of their biasedness towards a particular platform.
If you're totally impartial, you come to an impartial decision, you haven't got clouded vision, you actually do make a difference, you don't waste money going down pointless changes but rather migrate because there are solid facts that tell you that you should and, best of all, you do actually save money for the company.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Unfortunatly when told of the Terminal/Server method most people get in their minds a DEC VT100 terminal or a Wyse terminal hooked up to some huge slow mainframe. Todays Terminals are "Smarter" then the old Dumbterminals. And support an enviroment that is nearly undestinguishable to working on a workstation. (with Graphics and Mouse support!). But the problem lies with the PHB who dont want to go back to the terminals because it seems like a step in the wrong direction (not realizing that IT Design goes in cycles). Centralized processing is defently a lot cheaper then Distributed Processing because of the amount of Labor is reduced. But PHB have a great fear of going "backwards" in technology because they dont feel confortable about it. And unfotunatly all the Tech Impovements and Cost advantage wont help a Boss that dosent feel confortable about the product. The trick is to get them confortable about the Terminal Server method then you can get them to switch
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
average windows guy costs less is because they are simply not worth it.
Not to insult you top end Windows admins, but lets face it. The ability of Windows admins has a larger varience then that of Unix admins. The learning curve is much higher and they don't have quite the popularity. I think the reason that Windows techs are cheaper on average is because, on average, the Windows techs don't know as much and don't deserve the high salary.
If you want a good, professional Windows admin, then you are going to pay as much as the same quality of Unix admin.
It if wasn't for the fact that it takes bloody ages to load and consumes about three times the memory that IE uses, I'd be using it as my primary browser.
I have a great 10 user - 1 server Xterminal+linux server combination here. so I am 100% legal with the software thought police. I even have 11 licenses for Win4lin to run the few windows vertical apps that do not exist in linux/unix land.
WE spent less than 20% of what it would cost for the SAME Thing but using Windows instead.
NCD terminals + server Linux is spend the money and you're done.
Windows?? I had to buy 2 licenses per workstation, plus licenses for all the MS apps per workstation. AND the server. it was horribly overpriced and then we add the cost of the citrix.
It's much cheaper to buy seperate computers and avoid any terminal server with windows. Buy $850.00 dells and call it done... peer to peer networking and hire 2 ms drones..
If you have talented sysadmins that actually know their job you can save massive amounts of cash using unix... even more if you didnt get fancy-smanchy NCD X terminals but used your old pc's as diskless terminals.... but we wanted the invisible PC+ sleek lcd on everyone's desk.
I no longer listen to the zealots (Either side) I know what is cheaper and better because I did it. Until someone SHOWS me a legal and working Windows example I'll ignore them as someone who has no clue.
Linux (not Unix) has the lowest TCO on the planet. and you CAN hire a linux expert for the same as a windows expert.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Because this is a similar question. I think a truly unbiased review would bind that both camps can solve similar sets of problems similarly. While there may be some fringe applications (LOTR's rendering farm) that lend themselves to one solution over the other, both camps are suitably developed and robust to handle most tasks...in business. But this is a University environent. They have a continual revolving door full of new CS students willing to admin for cheap or free. The labor costs alone might sway them towards the Unix camps. To paraphrase: "Linux is free, but only if your time is valueless".
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
It seems to me that comparing the two is a farce. It has been done more times than the amount of girls John Holmes nailed in his career.
Windows = Games and Glamour
Linux = TuxRacer and data serving.
The stability of the two operating systems is really a moot point these days. Both OS's are stable! (This is of course NOT referring to Windows 98 or Redhat 5.1.)
We need something more compelling for Slashdot's "news" postings, for example -- a discussion on the War.
These are troubled times, it has been established thousandfold that "Linux is l33t, and Windows is not!" OMFG!111 LOL
It starts off good, telling you how to prepare your bosses to hear "there is a world besides Microsoft."
Then it plods into a quagmire of half-truths and outright lies, like "If the faculty picks Unix, the students will be able to pick almost anything for home use because there aren't any significant proprietary elements to worry about."
It's just more ideological fodder about the "open" model of UNIX and the "closed" model of Windows. These symbols misrepresent UNIX and even Windows. Then why "open" is better and "closed" is bad, with traditional Linux-head misuse of the word "proprietary."
Makes no fucking sense. And if you think that getting multiple UNIXes to play nice together on a network is easier than multiple Windows, you've never had to administer them.
My questions to the author: why all the oversimplications about UNIX behavior and performance? Why all the FUD about Microsoft Office? If Linux/UNIX is so good, why do you have to stoop to sensationalism and deception?
It just doesn't add up.
Linux gives us the power we need to crush those who oppose us!
:)
Windows...well...it gives you blue screens of death.
The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.
--Aristotle
It all depends on whose doing the comparing. You have a writer from linuxworld , he will favor linux, you take a write from windows mag, he will favor windows. All these articles lead to are arguments back and forth over how biased the author is. I feel like atleast once a month there is bound to be a linux vs windows article on slashdot with not one person changing their minds about the OS they currently use and are happy with that.
So it may be worth looking into discussions and issues that could have a real impact on that paycheck, you know? Anything that saves my company money--and me headaches (why yes, I am a support tech, how could you tell?)--it worth looking into.
But yeah, definitely get out and smell the freaking roses. It's going to be a gorgeous spring here.
Nothing says you have to completely migrate to linux - it doesn't really matter if the client/server run similar OS's. These days, samba does a better job at emulating windows than windows does anyway.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
I think having an all eunuchs campus is a bad idea. You'd be missing an essential part of the college experience.
Vote for global prefs bug
There are a number of problems with this article, general TCO reports like this usually don't apply to larger businesses. Obviously if you can't use unix terminals then Windows PCs or terminals are your best option. Which brings me to another problem in that.. why would they choose to compare Unix terminal services/thin clients with traditional Windows PCs at every desk? There are too many variables to make any kind of informed decision if you ask me, why not start with comparing Sun architectures with that of Citrix/Windows 2000 if you are interested in Unix vs. Windows cost differences? On the other hand, if you want to do traditional PCs at every desk comparisons of Unix vs. Windows, take Redhat vs. Windows 2000 Pro.
Also, where are they getting prices on Dell GX260s? Working for an academic institution that adopts the Windows PC model, we buy GX260s with CRT monitors and no printer for about $1,000.00, their cost should only be a couple hundred dollars over that per unit. And if they buy in bulk it will go down quite a bit. I don't think I would want 510 Canon bubblejet printers to feed/support either.
Why not just make a poll instead?
1> Linux is better than Windows
2> Windows is better than Linux
3> They both suck.
4> I use the best of each.
Okay, so yet another "biased" report. There should be another on the Windows side somewhere for thsi guy's audience. Lets dig it up.
/. reader.
Most of us have used both setups, and from the looks of this article, the author's audience is not as comptuer saavy as the typical
We know that fun difference of logging into the "server" and joining the users in the group. In the MS world, there is still that "my machine" thinking. Perhaps this is biggest difference I take from this report.
I must say, I agree here. The "my machine" aspect has caught quite a few of my users defending their files and setup much more earnestly than they should (we swipe their box and give them a new one - "network drive is your personal space, lowly user"). "Roaming profile" is an ugly add-on in the MS world.
I would be EXTREMELY happy to admin a *nix user group rather than an MS group. The endless capability for users to junk their machines, or for our own applications to crowd the machines is a bit of a hurdle to learn for each MS os release.
It's been posted, but more interesting to me are the admin/software maint. specifics between the two.
Interestingly, MS argues almost the SAME THING as the reason their process is more productive. They sell with the slogan that independence of machines overcomes the bottlenecks that centralized OS's can create. They say for those "down" numbers, that 1 or 2 crashes for a Unix box kill EVERYONE logged in, not just the single person who is hosing Access from...well, using it.
mug
In this particular case, it is client/server, so I don't think there could be too much crossover, but I am sure in other applications it could. Of course, that integration would be much easier if MS played well with others. But what about setting up an infrastructure so that the client side could be anything? (Linux, Windows, Mac) In reality they usually aren't pure client/server but some kind of bastard stepchild.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Join my Slashdot clan
Background: 28/M/Bi-Sexual; Owner of a Linux company; MBA Harvard 2003; B.S. Comp Sci MIT 2000
I have worked as a NT admin, for about 1000 nodes. Taking care of these systems was a nightmare in my humble opinion. Software updates(SMS usually works), people screwing up their system(No, I didn't install AOL after you said not too). But I love Bonzai Buddy!, virus updates, back-ups, etc.
;-) )
I then went to work at a Unix shop, it took me awhile to get used to certain aspects(throwing windows, the process is running on the server), etc. Things that seems so obvious now. Quick note, ask a Windows user to bring up a share and run a program from the share, does the program run a the share or locally.) Windows users don't think like this everything runs runs locally.
No, I understand why my mother wants to use Windows, and most other lay folks. I think Windows does certain things very well(besides crashing
What I don't understand if why big business
and many colleges don't use a system with x-terminals and beefy servers in the back. Most students/workers only need e-mail, internet, word processing on lab computers. Those departments that have to have program that only run on Windows could get Windows machines.
It would seem to save alot of time and money. But I may also be naive.
So why isn't this more common(or is it and I just havn't noticed)?
Please don't answer that MS has brainwashed everyone, or everyone is just stupid, etc.
For the next few years at least IMO, there will still be a few programs that are only available on MSWindows, which will require some machines to support that. Also, for the "home use", folks are going to want to install MSWindows for things like games. This will cause support issues even if not required by the university to purchase the OS/other software licenses.
Most TCO compares only one system or another. This one assumes that the environments will EITHER be MSWindows or Un*x/Linux and not some hybrid, which is what you see in the real world.
Hi numbers are very ficticious...
5 full time staff members for $75,000.00 while 1 Unix staff full time $120,000.00??
he is on some really good drugs...
Unix/Linux staff can be had for $45,000.00 to $60,000.00 in the midwest... more if you live in the la-la-land called california. while Windows drones are not that cheap.... About the same price for good skilled windows admins. $45,000.00 to $60,000.00 less ($28,000.00 to $35,000.00)if you are a MCSE without a IT work histroy. (lesson for kiddies... expierience means LOTS more than that stupid cert.)
maybe the $120,000.00 is accurate for wages+ overhead. but the MS number is so far off it stinks horribly.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
As for you compiles, how much money did they cost you? Were you forced to buy new computers to be able to run the newest bloatware put out by Linus? If you chose not to upgrade, would you find yourself unable to communicate with clients who had because their version of OpenOffice used a new proprietary format that your old version couldn't read?
Most importantly, your upgrades were for your reason (to get better functioning/support). They weren't artificially imposed on you by Microsoft, who needed to regularize their money flow.
Of course the dumb terminal model is going to be cheaper, especially when combined with free software.
But what happens when you have to support 200 people living off campus? What happens when you have to explain to Dad who just bought his kid a $2000 portable that he can't use all that software? What happens when you have to explain to the professors that they have to convert all their files?
The knowledge people have of how to use the tools they have is extrordinarily valuable. I've had people tell me "tell me to use Windows" and I quit. I've had people tell me "Linux and I quit". They have extraordinary loyalty to the tools. Sure it is emotional and not rational, but you sure better understand the politics when you advocate change. And figure in the education and lost productivity costs while people regain their comfort level.
Man, I wish we had someone like him! I'm doing a masters degree in earth science. We have two separate servers in our department - a windows 2000 server, with windows Ex Piss client machines, and a RedHat server, with Redhat Client machines. all the machines in the main earth science labs are dual bootable, which also mean that we have two separate home areas - one for windows, one for linux. because of this, we can't access files in our linux home areas when we're in windows, and vice versa when we're using linux. on top of this, we have a general university computer network home area in the library, which is separate yet again (these are Ex Piss clients running off a novell server) so we have three, (yes 3!) mutually incompatible home areas. if we want to retrieve files from our linux home areas, we have to reboot the machine. it's total madness, and it REALLY pisses me off. We also have some SUN workstations, but fortunately, they are linked up to the linux server, so at least we can get files there. Why they don't have a simple SAMBA set up is beyond me. The sysadmin gave me some blurb about linux not being able to write to the NTFS file system as the reason for not using samba (oh, man, can you believe that???) to top it all off, we have no ftp access to the outside world, because it's a "security risk" this has got to be the shittiest, dumbest, crappiest most worst run, disjointed computer university network in the world. It takes me between 7-10 minutes just to log into a Windows Ex Piss machine - yes, i've actually timed it, and i'm not exaggerating. the longest was 12 minutes! sometimes i just reboot, and use linux, because it's really quick (unfortunately, it means I can't work on that excel spreadsheet, because we don't have OpenOffice, and we don't have a unified filesystem!!!) By contrast, my girlfriend is at another university, and they have a unified filesystem - four UNIX servers with Windows 2000, linux and UNIX client machines. Her home areas follows her around, wherever she is, no matter whatever OS she uses. Plus she can ftp in from our place and get her files from her home area...
-- Fuck Beta
It's written by a self proclaimed Unix evangelist, so don't expect it to be unbiased.
*gasp* A biased Linux article on Slashdot? Get out.
I don't understand. They're comparing a bunch of X Servers versus a bunch of Dell PC's?
What about the guy who's playing MP3's at his desk?
What about the guy who wants to sync to his Palm Pilot?
What about the guy who's using Messenger?
What about the guy who *NEEDS* a specific piece of software to communicate with his peers?
What about the guy who's burning DVD's of classroom presentations?
What about the guy who wants to run mid-priced shrink wrapped applications like Mathematica or MATLAB or IDL (all probably less than $10,000 for a single user license, but could get expensive for a big machine).
What about the guy who runs small simulations -- the kind of thing a reasonable desktop could do in an evening or a weekend? People who run computer centers often complain about 40 hours of computer time on the big boxes.
In short, what about all the flexibility that the Personal Computer gives the user? Why ins't that included in their "TCO" at all?
Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
Long term (I know, we are all dead) you always want to place your bet on the solution with the lowest human cost measured in Hours not Dollars.
That is how countries / Companies / organizations get to be and stay rich. Using lower labor rates is only an option in the beginning and is becoming less so at a rapid rate. Migration of manufacturing to the Far-East has more to do with efficient infrastructure as far as component availability is concerned than $/Hour.
Microsoft , SUN , IBM etc. knows this and this is where the OS / Middleware software batttle is heading.
Where does that leave Windows / *nix / Linux? Compare Germany with UK. Much stricter rules for adjusting workforce and higher labor cost in Germany is forcing a more rapid uptake of Linux than in the UK. Second I will venture that *Nix penetration is higher in Germany than UK, but I do not know for sure.
Help fight continental drift.
Oh, and Red Hat and the other Linux distributors aren't Convicted Monopolists (tm).
So, you shall remain stupidly M$ focused because you cannot think, in other words, you cannot handle Unix mentally. So what else is new? Your latest baby picture collection via M$ media apps? BTW my name is Glanz.
Thanks for that wonderful insight into how you organize your porn.
This article can hardly be viewed a cost of ownership analysis. It's just a list of highly subjective arguments to use Unix in favor of Windows. There is nothing wrong with that but don't try to pass it off as a TCO study. He is trying to position it as a high level strategy / business case piece but in reality there is no analysis of any kind.
This article is correct about Linux being, by the numbers, cheaper than windows... but it ignores things that, ultimately, will cost the university even more money.
Specifically, TCODI... Total Cost Of Dealing with Idiots.
Now I mean idiots in the nicest possible sense. Sometimes, computer idiots are just people who don't have the time, effort, or motivation to bother with computers, and view them as a magical source of evil powers which they must fight with on a daily basis.
In the article, he goes on to discuss how a student could easily translate a word document for use in Konquerer, or StarOffice, and back again. Yes, if the student possesses more than a mild understanding of computers. If that student has only a limited experience of using Microsoft Office, in a very limited manner, the cost and the effort to teach this user how to convert their documents to and fro before their 5 minute deadline passes will strain even the most patient of your student lab aides.
Most college students aren't computer enthusiasts. Some, like, I am ashamed to admit, my own sister, view the computer as little more than a calculator. When things go wrong, she promptly turns on her charm on the nearest nerd and thrusts the laptop into their hands... fix it! Make it work like it did before!
As a former network administrator, I think most of the university's students and professors fit this description. I used to administer the computers for the University of M----'s department of Zoology. Most - there were a few tech junkies and I treasured them - just wanted their computers to spit out the data it spat out last week, work exactly like it did last week, and most importantly, look exactly like it did last week. Anything different overwhelms them and gets in the way of doing what is important - to them - their research.
I got constantly called to fix non-working PC's (floppies left in drive), to revive dead hard drives, to find out why the printer wasn't responding. I had students hand me floppy disks with the only surviving copy of their thesis on it... after they had run in and out of the library's magnetic sensors with it in their backpacks.
When we finally did upgrade the administrative department's computers to Windows 95 after years of Windows 3.1 - in 1999, no less - I spent weeks explaining the basics, over and over, to frightened secretaries who were afraid of damaging their computer by clicking the wrong button! I had to explain what a double-click was to a mac user, not once, but three times.
And as for my sister... she's not stupid. She just doesn't want to bother with her computer, so she finds some geek to do it for her. If you try to force her into using Linux, with Konquerer, she'll only turn around and force some poor geek to translate all her papers for her prior to her deadline.
It's easy to get excited about computers. But ultimately, the computer is a tool, and as my father said, you use the best tool for the job. If a professor is getting along fine using a Apple 2 to do his data collection, then my job is to support his Apple 2. Forcing him into Linux, or Windows, or OS2 warp, just wastes his valuable time which could be better spent analyzing the brain chemicals in frozen mice (no, not making that up). Or the guy who analyzed mice breasts in petri dishes. I never did get around to asking him why....
This is why unviersities will continue to be a hodge podge of different operating systems. It works. Mostly. And it gets the job done. And when it doesn't, that's where the IT department is there for. Not to evangilize. But to make it work just like it did before, and get that thesis back, by the time they're done installing wires in that monkey's brain, preferably.
Tepp
...Linux televangelists???
Blatent shameless plug: I just added a link to this linuxworld article from my new site - MS Versus. I'm putting together a very broad comparison, covering as many bases as possible, of MS and alternatives. Contributions are welcome.
Developers: We can use your help.
I like that he assumes 5 administrators/support staff at a university will make $75k each. That could happen...
Got 50 X seats running against a V880 with 2 CPUs.
The server also runs Oracle, Apache, sendmail, Samba and ftp. The single box runs the desktops, server functions and web functions.
One box to backup, one place to admin users and apps.
Add a CPU cluster or RAM to the box and everything speeds up.
Someone's desktop hardware died? No problem, throw a new terminal in its place and within 2 minutes they are right back where they left off -- no loss of data since no data is stored locally.
Our per-desktop TCO is abysmally low.
We have been running this model since 1993 and it continues to amaze me why more shops don't do this. It will always be a mystery to me.
Maybe its because X stations do not do sound (or do it poorly) and have few first person shooter games available. I dunno.
The same NCD terminals can also be used as Windows Terminal Services clients.
The article should have compared Unix/Linux & Windows thin client solutions, as well as full clients. Not mixing and matching.
As someone who was once an Admin for a 40 user Citrix machine, I'm going to address everyone's statements about comparing Terminal Server.
:-)
What I found when we used Citrix is that support cost dropped dramatically. The majority of the problems were either "I have my numlock on" type of problems or from the PCs in the marketing department. (They didn't like Citrix very much and had the political clout not to use it.) In general, users were happier and more productive since they couldn't mess up the system or access any software except the ones we put in their list of icons. If they did something stupid like moved all their icons off the screen, they'd simply log off and log back in and everything would be fixed. If they wanted a permanent change, a quick phonecall to IT would take care of it.
Now, the problem with Citrix/Terminal Server is scale. 40 users was about all you could handle on the machine before you went beyond the architectural limits of Intel hardware (i.e. 4 gigs of RAM). This meant that shops larger than we were, had to spread their users across multiple Citrix machines. Not too bad, but every machine increases support costs substantially. With hundreds of users, you'd be supporting tens of machines. Not good. On top of that, it was still a windows machine. Every time we needed to upgrade software, patch the system, or change just about any setting, the machine had to be rebooted. The system would also crash on occasion and have to be rebooted. Processes would run away and couldn't be killed and we'd have to reboot. As you can imagine, our users didn't like it much when halfway through the day they had to save their work and sit around until the machine was back up.
Before I left, we had several projects underway to look at the viability of using Unix to replace Citrix as a more stable, lower cost alternative to Microsoft's forced upgrade to Terminal Server. (Terminal Server, BTW, was over 3 times the cost of Citrix. And we couldn't go with a Citrix upgrade because the new version was an add-on to Terminal Server!) This was especially viable for us since our NeoWare thin clients supported the X protocol as well as the Citrix protocol. Although, that was not a huge problem since Citrix for Unix was looking to be a good alternative to the X protocol.
So what was the number one problem in our way? Office? Nope, StarOffice was fine. Email? Nope, we used low-cost POP3 mail. Proprietary software? We didn't use much and the stuff we did use could be relagated to the old Citrix machine and run as "Citrix Applications". No, the real problem was the web browser. We were using Netscape 4, but it was showing its age and we were beginning to have problems with sites that required IE (which we were unable to install correctly). So our choices were looking pretty thin. The best solution on the horizon was Mozilla/Netscape 6. Unfortunately, it really wasn't ready for prime-time.
If I was to do the study again today, I don't think there would be a single point against Unix that I could find. Netscape 7.2 is strong and stable, OpenOffice 1.0 is a decent MsOffice replacement, and more and more software is being ported to Unix. Initial costs can even be mitigated by buying used E3500s+ from companies like AnySystem. And I can just keep going with that system for years without worrying about the next major OS update.
So in closing... Die Terminal Server, Die!
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
If you in school to learn and apply what you have learned to the real world. And if the real world runs both *nix and windows. Why worry about making the university ALL Unix or ALL Windows.
It should be a screwed up, headache causing mixture of BOTH.
"Times may change, but standards must remain the same." - George Carlin.
That's probably $100k/year in salary and $20k/year in coffee, but hey.
This is not my sandwich.
Uh, i'm going to have to disagree with that. Glaring errors:
1) 2.8 GHz on every desktop? Ack. Cut that down to 1 Ghz and now you're talking. 1/2 the cost of a smart display.
2) Why is there a 36 month HW refresh for the Windows side and not the Unix side? 1.4 Ghz on the desktop seems like it would last a long time.
3) Why are there TWO refreshes for software in 4 years and zero for Unix? (Even solaris needs updating) Plus, i'm running just fine on W2k and it's 3 years old. I probably won't upgrade until the version after win 2003.
4) Why is staffing so much more? That seems just absurd. You could buy a management tool like SMS or Tivoli and manage every desktop remotely. Both numbers and cost of skill. And despite what the author says, maintaining 500 smart displays connecting to a server takes man power.
5) 4 dual proc machines doing what for 500 people? You can do plenty with half as many machines.
Why would anyone say these are hard to argue with? Oh wait, it's michael...
This is a bit off topic, but maybe someone can answer this. Since Citrix is muy expensive, how effective is it to just set up the Windows clients as diskless machines? That way the only network load, of course, is disk traffic (more or less).
Since the TCO study is focused on schools I will as well. Using a terminal/server structure is fine in a liberal arts environment. They are just writing papers. It is insane in a science/engineering environment. Who would want to share a CPU with some guy trying to model the space shuttle in MATLAB?
Q.
I think this was most pronounced for me when I got a job with the Neurology department. Here is was, quite literally, working for brain surgeons. Lots of them, and researchers and medical students and so on. These wer REALLY smart people, smarter than me. However, most of them had NO idea about computer. Simple things would baffle them. Their world was medicine, not computers. They didn't know about comptuers and didn't want to know, they juse wanted them to work.
Something like a switch to Linux would have been a total disaster, partially because Linux was more immature back then, but mainly because it would have been a very different way of doing things. As it was, they got away with one part time student support guy (me) because all I had to do was look after the servers and respond to a problem when something unexpected happened. Had they tried a drastic change line to Linux they probably would have needed 10 or more full time support people to be continually on hand to help with the huge learning curve.
Dual boot G4 with OS 9, OS X, VirtualPC (XP), Linux (PPC version).
G4 Dual 867 $1494
Sweet 23" Display $1994
Wheel 2Button USB Mouse $25
Virtual PC/XP $224
Linux (blank CDs) $1
Total $3738
First off this guy is a Unix evangelist. No bias here. Second in the article the author makes a point that each new school desktop cost $2100 plus $213 with the software for office at bulk discount rates.
Does this seem a bit pricey for a school considering for $499 you can buy a
2.2 ghz dell?Schools are on a budget and its cheaper in the long run to just buy the cheapest now and upgrade every 2 1/2 years then buy the latest and greatest and upgrade every 4 years.
Also Linux lacks major software for students like games and MS Word and Excel. Yes openoffice can open some of the file formats but MS Word can check not only spelling but sentence structure, readability and Flecsh grade level, and ole ability to drop in an excel chart into a word document for example. Word 2003 even has Encarta integrated into it so you can highlight a word and research a topic. It's pretty nice when you're writing a paper.
Excel can do polynomial math while OpenOffice cannot which blows if you're doing anything accounting or scientific oriented.
Each operating has its strengths and weaknesses and is not better or worse then the other. As a basic operating system Windows blows goatballs. It's insecure, unreliable and not as programmable as Unix or Linux.
But for average joe users Windows is still king until openoffice catches up, Linux has a reliable package manager that's as easy to use as a Windows setup.exe program, and when we have more software ported. Also alot of gnu apps have been ported to Windows. I use Windows2k with perl, gvim, mozilla, apache, mysql, gcc with devc++ and openoffice. Windows users can gradually get use to the idea of free software and switch when Linux is ready or when palladium comes out.
Last but not least Dennis Ritchie himself uses WindowsNT as his main desktop operating sytem. He just logs into plan9 and inferno servers from a client on his desktop. I agree on the idea of terminals and vnc clients on Windows boxes. I think unless the school is really cash stripped that Windows with vnc software for the occasional unix app is more appropriate and would lower support costs since students prefer Windows. Go to any college NT/Linux lab and NT is always loaded.
http://saveie6.com/
or does the Unix graphic on this story look like it was taken from that "flying words" screensaver that comes with Windows. Very disorienting.
Evil is the money of root.
with Graphics and Mouse support!
But very often, no 3D support.
And no sound support.
And no ability to burn a CDs or DVDs.
And it's impossible to edit movies.
And you can't install your own quirky software, without going through 6 months to get approval from the University (like your favorite email program, or word processor, or text editor, or compiler, or database, or whatever else it is you use to get your job done).
In short, it's not a PC. PC's are kind of like automobiles. They're a hell of a lot more expensive than busses. The infrastructure costs everyone at the university more money. But that's what everyone wants to use, because it's certainly more convenient for the user. And, it's what everyone wants to buy, because most of the costs get shifted to someplace where they're easier to ignore or justify.
It would have been nice if they'd compared Linux PC's to Windows PC's, or compared Unix Terminals to Windows Terminals. But they didn't -- they compared Unix Terminals to Windows PC's. It shouln't be a shock that the Terminals are cheaper.
Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
BTW, that was supposed to be funny. :P
The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.
--Aristotle
Then again there is Phoenix - also from mozilla, a stripped down version of mozilla that is aiming at speed and memory footprint. Its still improving, but generally starts and runs much faster than mozilla.
I note with a "ps" that the phoenix process I'm typing this in now has been about 5 days. Works for me, even if it did take an extra minute or so to start up (which I doubt, but didn't check).
The article makes some good points, but is also totally full of crap in places. I fail to see the necessity for a SAN and 2.8 Ghz machines on each desktop. The points others have made about hardware refresh time are also spot on. Just because people WANT the newest, latest, greatest machine does not mean that they NEED it. I have Windows 2000 running on a 266mhz machine right now. It's not great, but it's MORE than adequate for Office, email, and surfing the web. His remarks about LCD monitors and Cleartype are simply assinine...
Microsoft's ClearType technology, available with XP and mostly applicable to LCD displays, offers clear advantages in readability. These advantages almost certainly correlate directly with the student's ability to understand and remember material presented on screen. Thus, these monitors are as much a requirement for PCs used in education as ABS brakes are on a new car for use in Canada or the northern-tier states.
What a load of crap that is. What evidence does he have that cleartype does anything to improve a students ability to read and understand material. I am using cleartype on a 7 year old 17" CRT and I am reading and comprehending things just fine, thank you. To say that LCD flatscreens are anything even approaching a necessity is absoloutly ludicrous.
The author could have written a good article, because I think there is a comaprison to be made that would be most favorable to the UNIX side of things. However he basically shot himself down by filling the article with half-truths and unsupported claims. Anyone who has worked in an academic environment of the size that he is talking about can tell you that he's full of it.
I only WISH we had had state of the art machines at the college where I worked...although somehow the students managed to muck through with affordable reasonably-fast hardware.
Wow, I have read some great cost comparisons before, but this one takes the cake,
"Unix can be 80 percent cheaper than Unix."
Thats the kind of TCO that I like to see.
You don't really know how much it costs to employ a person, do you?
Did you notice the text in there about "plus overhead costs"? That means little things like Employer Taxes (SocSec, Medicaid, etc), retirement contributions, health insurance, and other related.
The actual cost to employ someone is generally 50-70% more than their salary. A "cost" of $75k means the person is probably paid about $45-50k salary.
And this ignores the cost to actually hire anyone. For any large corporation with a serious HR department, it probably costs the company about $30k to go through the process of hiring someone. That's why large companies hate high turnover, the HR costs become unbearable.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
I have the same objection to Mozilla's memory footprint and load time. My solution was a little different than yours.
Instead of dealing with IE, I switched to Phoenix. The version 0.5 is kinda worrisome, but it is basically Mozilla 1.2 with a bunch of the excess junk stripped out. All the functionality for the browser, strips out the news and mail clients, and simplifies the user interface some. (Still supports all the configuration options through the CSS and js files.)
Try it, you may find you like it.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
First off, you might as well tell them up-front ta Unix evangelist. It isn't likely to be a secret, and there is always someone who'll chalk up a point or two for honesty.
I could only get this far and then I just couldn't take it anymore. This whole article is like something written by a child.
At least when you read some MS fud article, it at least shows some sense of maturity. This sort of writing just looks foolish.
bwt - I use one Unix for or another for just about everything, and I'm certainly don't think that the author had a good point, this was just done very immaturely.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Why would you need an nforce for a terminal? You will waste your money on an unused GeForceMX & Duron.
I would have gone for the VIA Epia, they are slow as hell, but smaller, quieter, and cheaper!
Shame Sun Rays aren't mentioned this time around. They'd still have a big place to play in the scenario the author's talking about - ability to hot desk around campus, zero maintenance, etc, etc.
My bike costs less to own than my car. They are both transportation devices. But Unix is a bike. It's a tricycle. err.. it's a big wheel...
Giving your sister additional reasons to turn her charm geekwards is unlikely to be seen in a negative light around here. :-)
Exactly, and like he said, the only hard part is setting it up. Once it's working, it'll keep on going for years, like the energizer bunny. There was a guy in my local LUG whose computer only went down because the fans inside failed and the chip shut itself down. Once they're up, Unix based systems tend to stay up.
terminal/server Unix model? What the fuck are you talking about mate!? Which era do you live in?
I would like to see a completely unbiased study and it seems to me that the only way this is possible is to create it using opposing sides.
Each side should demonstrate their costs based on a standardized set of criteria. Then each set of statistical information can be plugged into a format that allows some very clear side-by-side comparison of raw information.
This approach will help keep the playing field level and honest as there would be a minimum of the pro-side dissing the opposing side.
I believe this process would take a long time even to agree on what criteria is relevant and important, but I believe in the end, these facts will begin to spell out in clear and obvious ways where current strengths and weaknesses exist in the various platforms.
It's not just a comparison of Unix vs Windows, but also of Client/Server vs terminal/server. If the author wants to compute TCO properly between Windows and Unix, he should have pick the same computing model.
Joe
that *nix cannot fix.
Real life isn't an Apple advert - remind me again why anybody would be editing movies or burning DVDs with any regularity at work?
And you can't install your own quirky software, without going through 6 months to get approval from the University (like your favorite email program, or word processor, or text editor, or compiler, or database, or whatever else it is you use to get your job done).
Well that's not a flaw of the terminal services approach per se, it's more an issue with the fact that Windows apps often require admin access to install. I've been bitten by this one on our Win2K/TS box at work more than once, often the installers don't even tell you they need admin access, they just die. Rather lame, to say the least.
If you have Nazi admins who make it hard to install software then yes, terminal services are nasty, but I know when I've wanted something put on our server I just walk across the corridor and ask the IT dept to do it for me. They're normally happy to do so.
Actually if I had to use Windows, a terminal services setup is probably what I'd want. Having used it at work (via rdesktop on linux) I'm pretty impressed with it. The fact that it's an SMP box with a gig of ram helps obviously, but Windows feels way more responsive on that box than on the literal zoo of different configurations we have lying around the department. That might simply be because not many people use it, maybe if everyone used that box it would die horribly, but somehow I doubt it.
In particular because all the sucky animations are switched off, it feels very fast - starting and minimizing explorer feels basically instant for example.
I'm personally not too worried about smart vs. dumb terminals. I used to run internal email, word processing, spreadsheets, and COBOL programming from a VT100 connected to a DEC VAX 11/785. OK, it wasn't WYSIWIG, but it did what I wanted it to do. And I never had a disc crash, file corruptions or lost files. I'd go back to 'simpler' working any day of the week, if it weren't for people wanting specifications in Word format. I don't know about 'cycles' - this has been the first time that people tried "client/server" with the PC, and for many large organisations, it has been a disaster. Tech support and networks costs have sky rocketed due to missing DLLs or whatever. Software rollout costs are huge. To me, the beauty of web based or Java based systems is that they give the best of both worlds - centralised data management and software control coupled with distributed UI and graphics. Also, it's less for me to worry about as a user. I consume a service, close the window and don't have to worry about it until next time. It's not filling up my hard drive, and I know I can get it almost anywhere in the world from any computer.
Not to be one of those "just do it a different way" guys, but don't use NFS. Obviously its NFS that's the problem.
Distributed file servers are better from a technical point of view because it protects your data by physical separateness. What if that one machine dies? Then EVERYBODY is without their data.
Today there are several different architectures available for distributing data. I'm rather partial to AFS myself.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
An abrupt transfer would indeed be painful, which is why a slow planned migration is usually the answer when a decision is taken to abandon one platform for another. Few companies abruptly ditched their mainframes for PCs, they just started buying PCs and not buying more mainframes. Start with the servers, then the single app workstations (point of sale, data entry, etc) then eventually start moving all functions over to the back end servers instead of the Windows clients. Eventually the Doze boxes are only accessing back end apps and playing freecell. That is when they get replaced with thin clients.
But espousing a Kruschez doctrine of "Once on Windows, Always on Windows" is dumb. Granted that some shops probably couldn't migrate even if they wanted to, because they are entangled with too many closed apps that won't run anywhere else. But even there a long term plan should be in place to locate and install replacments as they are available and avoid locking into any more such anchors. Longterm, dependence on Windows is dangerous and anyone with vision will be making plans to escape the ship before it sinks with them.
Microsoft's financial structure is predicated on rapid stock value appreciation and they must do any and everything in their power to get that price moving upwards again soon. Market share growth is no longer possible (try doubling 90% market share) and to date their attempts to assimilate new markets aren't working. That only leaves dramatic increases in per customer revenue to boost earnings. And as the smarter folks leave that will only mean the sheep remaining will get fleeced that much harder to keep the cash flowing to Redmond. Eventually you WILL get fired for buying Microsoft because your company will be outcompeted by those with lower overhead and you will be 'rightsized' out or declared 'redundent' when your company gets bought by a leaner one.
Democrat delenda est
Good points, but in all scenarios which we have evaluated differences in time where we setup two teams; one windows and one linux admin team, and told them to do specific tasks. We had to let the linux guys go because they took too long to do simple tasks that windows allows them to do in much much less time.
Scoob
www.rainbowportal.net developer
If that is indeed a native-English speaker (implied because it's an English-speaking school in an English-speaking nation) then I pity the professors and TA's that correct or grade their essays.
If I were a member of the school, I'd find out who wrote it and put the poor soul into remedial English.
frob.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
Well if you have the disk space (the user) you can install the stuf you want!
O and why would you need 3d??
AND
"And it's impossible to edit movies."
Yes fuck it is! No one said that X terminal will do movies great!
(Thanks =)
CIA Factbook 2002 (US):"Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households
note the lower case "unix". Think kleenex, spam and googling. It's a generic term now in common language usage, no matter what the trademark owners want to claim of their intellectual property rights. They lost and need to get ofer it, just like we lost the fight over the term "hacker" which was hijacked away from us by the media.
Folks, it's time we all accept reality.
Yes, and...
Money spent on people usually stays in the local economy. Money spent on licensing usually leaves the local economy. Saving $10k on licensing but spending $10k in a learning curve for 2 employees is a financial wash, but has created more value for those people and for the local economy.
creation science book
Moving from Windows completely to a Linux-based system would require a complete revamp of user experience - Why hasn't the author taken into account the cost of training client-side staff members, students, etc. and the skilled sysadmins that need to administer it campus-wide?
'Tis true. I don't want to start off a whole "my uptime is bigger than your uptime", but I just happened to notice the uptime on my desktop linux box at work today:
19:27:15> uptime
19:27:17 up 292 days, 9:40, 28 users, load average: 1.08, 1.12, 1.12
19:27:17>
-- I speak only for myself.
I thank you.
Sorry, but my karma just ran over your dogma.
Case Closed!
Of course, all of this goes out the window if your users are mobile - diskless laptops are pretty boring :-) If you're in that environment, the obvious solution is to run Plan 9.
I was once interviewing at a friend's company, and as we were walking to his office, we went by some people who were trying to get their X terminal unconfused. He asked me how I'd address the problem, and it didn't take any think-time to answer "Power Switch". Boot time was one advantage of X terminals back then; diskless workstations took a few minutes to boot.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I have a dog; I named him Stay. So when I'd go to call him, I'd say, "Here,
Stay, here..." but he got wise to that. Now when I call him he ignores me
and just keeps on typing.
-- Steven Wright
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...