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."
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?
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
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 $850.00 dells and call it done... peer to peer networking and hire 2 ms drones..
If you have talented sysadmins that actually know their job you can save massive amounts of cash using unix... even more if you didnt get fancy-smanchy NCD X terminals but used your old pc's as diskless terminals.... but we wanted the invisible PC+ sleek lcd on everyone's desk.
I no longer listen to the zealots (Either side) I know what is cheaper and better because I did it. Until someone SHOWS me a legal and working Windows example I'll ignore them as someone who has no clue.
Linux (not Unix) has the lowest TCO on the planet. and you CAN hire a linux expert for the same as a windows expert.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
If only that were true. Unfortunatly Unix admins have the same variance. I've had several jobs where at first much of my time was spent cleaning up after the incompetant who had the job before me.
The advantage of a Unix admin is that (s)he can make much more efficiant use of their time.
Unix types have to know more but fewer of them have certifications (traditionally) -- they rely on their experience and their resume. An already-Unix shop will understand that no number of certifications prepare you for disaster like experience will. Anyway I know of plenty of complete bozos out there with M$ 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.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
>> If you want a good, professional Windows admin, then you are going to pay as much as the same quality of Unix admin.
In such cases, you're getting a good IT professional, period.
From an administrative POV, they aren't that dissimilar.
A good auto mechanic should be able to work on foreign and domestic vehicles. A good admin should be able to administrate, regardless of the operating system.
Where I am, we have a mixed bag of windows and unix software. We also routinely interface with big old-timey mainframes of all shapes and sizes. We dont hire based on "I know visual basic or I know perl", we hire based on "I know how to program, languages are just syntax to me."
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
That is so witty. I never get tired of seeing someone write *nix. It never ceases to amuse me. I just love it ever so much. Please continue doing this. Thank you.
I've always used *NIX to mean every OS that is UNIX related (as in * is a wildcard). Since Linux is not UNIX, but is UNIX-like, a lot of people will flame you for implying Linux is UNIX. So *NIX includes Linux. It includes *BSD (notice the wildcard) and OS X. It might even include Minix if you wanted it to. IIRC, UN*X was used to avoid the trademark issue. However, *NIX just means UNIX-like, and may or may not have anything to do with the trademark issue.
"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.
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
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/
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