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."

Comments

Well it seems to me

[TerryAtWork]

That with Linux the software is cheap but the people are expensive and with Windows its the other way around.

Re:Well it seems to me

[drinkypoo]

Unix types have to know more but fewer of them have certifications (traditionally) -- they rely on their experience and their resume. An already-Unix shop will understand that no number of certifications prepare you for disaster like experience will. Anyway I know of plenty of complete bozos out there with M$ Certifications who don't really know anything yet, they've just learned by rote. Those people tend to be making (if they have a job) just as much as the more hardened Unix types, usually more. I know of one know-nothing "Exchange admin" (this is his only job, in a company of only 500 people or so) who makes $75k/year even now and spends half his day gaming. (Obviously this is not a technically-oriented company.)

Re:Well it seems to me

[cornjones]

Migrating to a new system (any system) w/o somebody who has done it a thousand times is just silly. You didn't have a sysadmin, why would you change your platform? You had a sysadmin set up your last platform and that was stable. you were able to keep it up from that point. that is VERY different from putting together a platform yourself and expecting it to Just work like the other one.

That being said...... I do agree w/ your point about people being more comfortable w/ win machines b/c they have them at home.

I just think your expectations were unrealistic.

ej

Re:Well it seems to me

[rseuhs]

Well, that's what I really don't get. Why is nobody able to distinguish long-term and short-term effects?

In the short term, of course changing systems never makes sense. Never. Doesn't matter what you are running, if you think i "couple of weeks" time periods and always come up with "but we are used to it" excuses, stay with whatever you are running now.

However, in the long term, that all is irrelevant. It may take a month (if you have a very inflexible staff) to get used to the new system, but in 2 years, the "we are used to xy" argument is pretty worthless.

In the long term you get something from Linux that is very hard to understand for Windows-fans:

Freedom

From a business point of view, freedom means first of all, freedom to choose your supplier. Less than a year ago, Microsoft changed the license scheme which doubled costs for most business customers. What makes you think that that doesn't happen again? What will you do against it? Bitch around a bit, but in the end you will swallow whatever Microsoft wants. The same is with crazy anti-piracy schemes. WPA is just the beginning and not-so-important companies will probably soon have to accept WPA or even some "improved" new version, too. - Not with Linux, if your distributor makes you unhappy, just switch to another.

Microsoft introduces a single point of failure. Linux on the other hand is a very safe investment that nobody can take away from you.

This is much more important than some short-term license savings.

give it a rest.....

[Lxy]

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.

Unbiased

[Flamesplash]

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.

YABTCOC

[binaryDigit]

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.

TCO doesn't take into account TCODI

[tepp]

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.

I will bite

[Billly Gates]

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.