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."
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.
I'm surprised that Slashdot continues to report these at all. This must be almost the hundredth "Unix vs Windows" report this year, and we're not even in March yet... There'll never be a conclusion to this religious war, will there? :-)
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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."
Terminal services for windows cost $0 for each very cheap terminal added to the lan?
One of the main points of the article is that having a not so big server and a good number of cheap terminals (I think that in ebay you can have a bunch for few dollars), you have a good amount of workstations for a lot of students, with very centralized administration.
Even if you have buyed or have as a gift the terminal server licences to run all this terminals, the best way could be having a linux server running rdesktop and similars to run from all those cheap terminals (that normally supports the XWindows protocol) an application from a Windows server.
Windows costs me money.
Linux doesn't.
Everything costs you money. You need to hire people to support the stuff, whatever you buy. Just because you're saving $150/seat on the OS license doesn't mean you're done. Anyway, a lot of proprietary software is being ported to Linux. That stuff sure as hell won't be free. What it comes down to is which platform lets you do you work best. Cost is somewhat secondary if your work generates revenue.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
I've always wondered about this, I mean could it be that most of the time you are cleaning up a previous admin's work simply because they have a different style of work practice, i.e it's neither better nor worse, just different?
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.
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
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.
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...
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/
Comment removed based on user account deletion
UNIX, Linux, *BSD all have different kernels. Just because the UI is similar does not me that they are the same. It's just an easier and excepted way to saying UNIX/Linux/*BSD.
Get over it.
Understanding is a three-edged sword. -- Kosh Naranek
Sure, but none of those differences will make Linux a non-Unix. Even you yourself say that there are differences between Solaris and BSD kernels, yet both are usually refererred to as Unix. Why not Linux, too?
What you are talking about is the end-user applications that are Unix-like. When you are talking about the kernel (Linux is a kernel, and that's as far as it goes) there are kernels that operate in a very Unix-like fashion, which is System V standards (usually, I'm not going to get into SCO) which includes Solaris and the BSD family. Linux does things much different, with it's closest similarities to Minix which is considered a Unix-like operating system.
The differences you see as an end-user are slight, so that you cannot understand how different the underlying architecture is. A perfect example is driving a Rotary engine vs. a piston engine. From your average drivers point of view they will not know the difference. The actual mechanics beneath the hood are completely changed, so while both are engines they operate on completely different principles.
They still have the same end-user devices (pedals, steering wheel) just like Unix and Unix-like operating systems (shell, window manager/X, etc.)
Different kernels do different things better or worse, like Solaris Unix can scale very well, Linux can cluster very well. This is largely in part to the different architecture of the system.
Linux is a UNIX-Like kernel. Solaris is a UNIX kernel.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.