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.
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
"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.