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."
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.
Right, because nobody else does that, sure.
That is so witty. I never get tired of seeing someone write *nix. It never ceases to amuse me. I just love it ever so much. Please continue doing this. Thank you.
I've always used *NIX to mean every OS that is UNIX related (as in * is a wildcard). Since Linux is not UNIX, but is UNIX-like, a lot of people will flame you for implying Linux is UNIX. So *NIX includes Linux. It includes *BSD (notice the wildcard) and OS X. It might even include Minix if you wanted it to. IIRC, UN*X was used to avoid the trademark issue. However, *NIX just means UNIX-like, and may or may not have anything to do with the trademark issue.
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 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
That's probably $100k/year in salary and $20k/year in coffee, but hey.
This is not my sandwich.
---I don't understand. They're comparing a bunch of X Servers versus a bunch of Dell PC's?
That's what it seems. Yeah, I know. The compairison sucks.
---What about the guy who's playing MP3's at his desk?
What? Lopster and XMMS arent good enough for him?
---What about the guy who wants to sync to his Palm Pilot?
There's already good sync software for Linux. Just un-endorsed. Hell, They might actually make a "legit" tool if stuff like this happens.
---What about the guy who's using Messenger?
There's buttloads of tools for IM on Linux.
---What about the guy who *NEEDS* a specific piece of software to communicate with his peers?
In limited cases, WIndows is the only answer for now. But as sysad, you could put heavy pressure on a company who does such.
---What about the guy who's burning DVD's of classroom presentations?
Get him a Mac. Most unix dudes could get one working.
---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).
OK... Your point ?
---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.
Help his department build a small cluster for job crunching. COuld even be a "beowulf" cluster if his apps support it. Then he could 'job' out time to other departments. That'll avoid cpu munchers on the main system.
---In short, what about all the flexibility that the Personal Computer gives the user? Why ins't that included in their "TCO" at all?
How about the flexibility of "use the tool that works for the job"? Trust me, you really dont NEED windows anymore.Look at all 3 links at your Math program question.
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?
That with Linux the software is cheap but the people are expensive and with Windows its the other way around.
People are a substantial cost in TCO calculations. But, you will spend FAR less in dollars per workstation supported for linux than for Windows. And this is the critical criteria.
Suppose you spend $100k/yr for a linux specialist, whereas the Windows specialist would cost $65k/yr.
The linux specialist can support 40 users. The Windows specialist, about 10.
Net cost per user for admins per year
linux: $2500
Windows: $6500
It is true that Unix admins cost more, but that is dwarfed by the total support you get per admin. Windows costs 2-3 times more per admin.
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.
It seems your all missing some very important points. The fact that linux will not only take fewer admins per user, but also that linux will run on cheaper computers better and support more users per server. This is a very big factor in cost. If you can avoid buying a new server for the next X number of users you get or even just get more power for the current users your cost savings is greater than the cost it takes to hire the expensive admins.
BTW, one of the biggest costs of Terminal Services is the per client charge. Under Solaris, they really don't care how many terminals you connect. Eventually you'll hit the machine's limit and have to upgrade. Under Terminal Server (last time I checked, which is admittedly a while), you have to buy a "connection" license for each terminal *plus* a Windows license for each terminal! In other words, choose Microsoft and pay through the nose... and the ears, and the mouth, and the... ok I'll stop right there. :-)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
A 200 Meg / is pretty big. It would be better to simply mount /tmp seperately or in memory if it will be that busy. Also that way / cannot fill up with crap from /tmp.
/var that is a large /var. If you really have that much logging you would have logging done to a seperate disk, ideally on a seperate channel to reduce I/O problems with the rest of the system.
As for a 2Gb
"So Linux is Unix.
Why should it not be?"
Because it isn't! Unix is a registered trademark and its holders don't like it used loosely.
More information can by found in the OpenGroup and Unix pages.
My internet connection isn't working well, so I couldn't check them for accuracy.