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."
It's written by a self proclaimed Unix evangelist, so don't expect it to be unbiased
I am shocked and appalled that Slashdot would ever report something from a source biased towards *NIX!
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.
isn't that slashdot every day?
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
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
Usually, I'd try to make some witty comment here about Unix/Windows, etc, etc. But, we've already seen this story a few dozen times, and I'm all out of original material.
I've seen several of these on slashdot. The only cost comparison I need to know is.
Windows costs me money.
Linux doesn't.
http://use.perl.org
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]
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
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?
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.
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.
For those of you who aren't familiar with the XXX distro of Linux, it's basicly just Red Hat with a various preloaded bookmarks for Opera directory structure like this:
usr/local/pr0n
usr/local/pr0n/buttsex
usr/local/pr0n/donkey
usr/local/pr0n/donkey/single
usr/local/pr0n/donkey/multiple
usr/local/pr0n/lesbians
usr/local/pr0n/milfs
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
I think having an all eunuchs campus is a bad idea. You'd be missing an essential part of the college experience.
Vote for global prefs bug
Right, because nobody else does that, sure.
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.
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
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.
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/
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?