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 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]
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
"There was a /. article about this recently, pointing out that the average Unix sysadmin costs more than the average Windows guy, but he can also manage more. So two windows experts do the same work as one Unix guy, but the Unix one costs more."
My company of about 20 people has always been mainly a Windows shop. A couple of years ago, our sysadmin left. I absorbed his responsibilities, adding to my full-time job. Funny thing is, I've been able to keep up with it. I had to fix a server once in a while. But I really haven't had to spend a whole lot of time helping people with Windows/Office issues. We certainly were never interested in hiring a full-time sysadmin as a result of that.
That was until a couple of weeks ago. We recently migrated the servers over to Linux. Since then we've had all kinds of issues that have needed attention. Unfortunately I'm a newb to the Linux world so I haven't been able to handle that. So now we have a full-time admin. (Just as a note: Part of the reason we hired him was for a future project he'll be able to help us with, but right now he's running around cleaning up this mess.)
Is this post about saying Windows is great and Linux isn't? No, not at all. If you're to take away any meaning from my post here it's that you should use the right tool for the job. Just about everybody who's worked here has a computer at home that they use a lot. You can probably guess, they use Windows at home. That was coupled with a policy at work along the lines of "Treat the computer as if it's your own", meaning that there were no policies about what you can/can't install etc. The result? Not only were people familiar with their tools, but they also didn't have a crippling fear that they were going to commit some great offense that'd incur the wrath of the sysadmin.
So, for us, the Windows NT line has been wonderful. (Note: 9X and ME were HORRIBLE, I'm not defending those OS's under any condition.) The switch to Linux just for the servers has been painful, and I do not look forward to the day that we switch over to Linux. (If that ever happens.) My main concern, though, isn't that Linux isn't ready for us. It's that we're so used to Windows that Linux will be that much harder.
I'm not really worried about it though. Windows 2k and even XP is doing wonderful over here. Nobody's itching to change, and frankly a "Unix Evangelist" isn't going to change our minds when we've got experience backing us up.
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.
It is a natural thing that the smaller the field, the higher the ratio of specialized people you'll have running things... The fact that there are users and administrators of Windows that have "less than desireable" capabilities does NOT speak badly of Windows. Maybe it speaks well: "even an idiot can manage it!"
Obviously this is not a technically-oriented company
What does this mean? Technically-oriented companies are businesses too, and so they exist to make a profit. If a company chooses exchange because it is more useful and easier to use and manage than anything else out there, why is that bad? Anyway, I don't think you are saying that Windows should be used by all non-technical companies are you? It could easily be construed that way.
Would you rather pay one sys admin that spends half this day playing, or two very busy admins? If you are running a business the decision is a no-brainer.
I think that the practicality of Xterminals is lost with many Linux users and almost all of Windows users. When people understand the efficiency of X over tcp/ip, it is like a big light turns on in their head.
Windows Terminal Server-Citrix/Metaframe environment is relatively slow and the licenses are so expensive that it really hasn't taken off as well as it could. TCO for that environment exceeds that of standalone Windows PCs.
There once was a time when Xterminals were more expensive than standalone PCs too. And old-line commercial UNIX software was/is always more expensive than Windows apps on a per-seat basis.
It seems like the current generation of IT greybeards were the early risk-takers of the generation that replaced the mainframe with standalone PCs. Now they are the ones stuck in their old ways.
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.
We white-boxed ours from a local clone maker. Micro-ATX Nforce boards, Durons, 128mb of memory. No CDROM, no hard disk, no floppy. Even in a real Micro ATX case, they are big, but they sure are fast! Many a time I've shocked an onlooker by telling them I was working on a terminal!
"Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
--Tom Schulman
In the real world, Linux behaves like Unix, looks like Unix (X Window system), runs the same programs as Unix (KDE, Apache, mysql, bash, etc.), is used by the same people as Unix and is even mostly source-compatible to Unix. Hell, the newer Unix-versions are even binary compatible to Linux (like FreeBSD and AFAIK AIX-L).
So Linux is Unix.
Why should it not be?
Does a Ford stop being a car just because Daimler-Benz made the first implementation of a car?
"What issues with Linux have you had?"
Well, some of it was Linux and some of it was the software we chose. Our mail package doesn't support some of the features that Exchange did. (or it requires more time than is available to put into it.) I don't remember which mail software it was, just that it's not PostFix or Sendmail. (We didn't exactly make a good choice there...)
I think we've also had some issues with Samba, but I can't be too specific because after the Apache migration I tried to stay out of it. Speaking of Apache, I didn't really have any problems with it, but it did get hit by a nasty worm. I wasn't experienced enough to lock that down. My bad.
Uhh other issues? Well the big one is that before we got the sysadmin we only had ONE person that really knew how to make those Linux computers sing. Unfortuantely, she was quite busy with othre stuff too. Not really Linux's fault, but my own attempts to learn what is needed to provide backup support turned painful.
I'm not sure how clear I was when I originally posted, but I wasn't poking at Linux, but rather making the point that I wasn't prepared for it. Since TCO was brought up, it was probably interesting to know that with Windows we didn't need to hire a full time admin. We're a small company so a single person's salary is rather significant.
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.
The unfortunate perception amongst much non-technical management however is that someone with four years of Unix systems administration but with no certifications is seen as being about as competent as someone with no experience but a couple of certs. This is amazingly dumb because this is not true of any job. I might take 18 units worth of auto paint classes and get a certificate that says I can paint cars but it doesn't mean I'm going to know half as much as someone who's actually been working in a body shop fixing and painting cars for three or four years. (Incidentally, there's not as much to it as you might imagine, until you get to major damage/frame repair, or spot repair/color matching. Mostly it's just learning to have the touch, and recognize what kind of damage something is, which tells you how you'd fix it. Mostly you just address things in the reverse order of damage.) A veteran body man can make upwards of $75k/year if he can do any kind of repair to an auto body, this includes auto electrical and air conditioning. Guess what I'm planning to do (at least in the short term) for a living now that I've fallen out of love with trying too hard to get one of the shitty, overworking tech jobs left after the dot-bomb?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
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.
But both Ford and GMs are cars, just like both Solaris and SuSE are Unix in every way that matters.
There are tremendous differences between the Linux kernel and the Solaris kernel. Same with any BSD kernel vs. Linux vs. Solaris.
Trying to say that they are the same in "every way that matters" is seriously on par with saying that a fire truck engine is the same as a Honda Civic engine in every way that matters.
If you would like I can get a complete list as to the major differences between each of the kernels, and how it can effect you. My guess is you are not a low-level system user, nor do any programming in C or lower languages, otherwise you would understand this already.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
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