Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Windows Cheaper When Studied by MSFT Analysts

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the well-here's-a-surprise dept.

richdun writes "Here is a study done by an independent research firm which claims that under certain circumstances, it is cheaper to develop applications and enterprise solutions for Windows than for Linux. They cite costs from more education, time developing, etc. Of course, the story is quick to state that the whole study was funded and commissioned by our favorite Redmond, WA based software giant. "

84 of 425 comments (clear)

  1. You can't beat free! by usotsuki · · Score: 3, Troll

    Meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeh!

    Windows will NEVER be cheaper than Linux or FreeBSD.

    -uso.

    --
    Dreams, dreams, don't doubt dreams, dreaming children's dreaming dreams. Sailor Moon SS
    1. Re:You can't beat free! by MoonFog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This study takes into consideration more than just the price of the OS. Things like support, salary for developers etc.

      This study is sponsored by Microsoft, so it's probably biased as hell, but a Linux system is never absolutely free for a corporation.

    2. Re:You can't beat free! by teg · · Score: 2, Insightful


      You can't beat free!

      Sure you can. TCO isn't just a buzzword, time spent making things work is expensive for companies.

      E.g., installing Red Hat Linux on a server or a workstation is quick and will only need a small tweaking, while the same is far from truth on Windows, where installing the OS is just the first 5% of the job. This applies to other things... buying something which works can often be a lot cheaper than trying to find an open source project which works.

    3. Re:You can't beat free! by Falrick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why is it so hard to believe that developing on Windows could possibly be cheaper than developing on a Linux box? For you, as a developer of an open-souce, I code because I enjoy it, project, you are right. Developing under Linux (or FreeBSD) will always be cheaper than developing under Windows... for you.

      However, the corporate world is quite often very different. When you have preasures of deadlines and QA, quite often you don't have the time to work with a somewhat less feature-rich, but free, tool. Some tools just make developing certain kinds of applications more efficient, take VisualBasic for example. There's not much else that can compare to the RAD capabilities of VB. Sure, you might argue that there is no long-term viability for a VB app, but long-term viability isn't always needed. Neither is peak performance. Greater development efficiency directly translates into greater profits. Greater profits may quickly overcome any savings that you may have gained from developing your solution on an open source free OS with free tools.

      Take for instance a relatively simple GUI application. Say that it takes two weeks to develop the application under a free toolkit like GTK. Now say that it takes only one week to develop that same application under VB. If we use a $60k developer salary (which is only about half of what it actually costs to employ a developer), then we see that one week of time is worth ~$1154. After one month, the license for VB and Windows has quickly paid for itself.

      So, for certain kinds of development, yes, you certainly can beat free.

      --
      something clever
    4. Re:You can't beat free! by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      installing Red Hat Linux on a server or a workstation is quick and will only need a small tweaking, while the same is far from truth on Windows

      Look, I use and like linux like the best slashbotter, but lets be real. Either OS you end up using in a corporate environment is going need a lot of time for tweaking and customizing. I wouldn't let a virgin Windows or Redhat install just rollout to an entire enterprise.

    5. Re:You can't beat free! by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The study doesn't really have much to do with Linux, except that it was the OS used to host the J2EE apps. It's a study of the costs of developing web-based software for .Net vs. J2EE.

      The study was based on interviews with 12 companies, seven of which use Microsoft's .NET platform and five of which use Linux.

      Forrester said that the main difference in cost was not due to price of the basic software, but rather the price of developing the software, including labor costs.

      Despite the difference in costs, however, the Forrester report also noted that "many organizations will adopt Linux instead of Microsoft's alternative" because of the expertise they have built up on the Unix platform, Sun's proprietary operating systems used to run computer server networks.

      Not that I hold much faith in 'interviews with 12 companies' as a solid foundation for a sweeping generalization on the costs of development, but it's easy, for me, to see how developing for a Java platform would be more expensive for some people than developing for the .Net platform.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    6. Re:You can't beat free! by brlancer · · Score: 5, Insightful
      This study is sponsored by Microsoft, so it's probably biased as hell, but a Linux system is never absolutely free for a corporation.

      No, but most of the "costs" that are assigned to Linux presume an existing greater knowledge of Microsoft Windows; it never includes the money spent training these people to use Windows originally nor does it try to compare costs of complete training: how long does it take to get an admin for *nix and Windows (respectively) to go from 0 to 60?

      Despite what people say about the "learning curve" of *nix, I believe most of that is due to breaking bad habits they learned in Windows. I picked up Unix exceptionally quickly, in part because I never knew Windows very well. So, if one were to remove the costs of Linux training that they have ignore WRT Windows training, the cost is significantly less. Realistically, the costs should be counted for both, not discounted for both...

      --
      Someone asked if I had patched against MSBlast; I said yes, I installed Linux.
    7. Re: You can't beat free! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Interesting


      > Take for instance a relatively simple GUI application. Say that it takes two weeks to develop the application under a free toolkit like GTK. Now say that it takes only one week to develop that same application under VB. If we use a $60k developer salary (which is only about half of what it actually costs to employ a developer), then we see that one week of time is worth ~$1154. After one month, the license for VB and Windows has quickly paid for itself.

      In my experience, companies that want more bang for their buck should concentrate on optimizing their hiring practices rather than their tool purchases. A second-rate developer may only make 90% of what a first-rate developer does, but produces about half the results and lots more bugs. A third-rate developer might make 80% as much, and produce 1/5 the amount of code and vastly more bugs for the others to fix. A fourth-rate developer might actually drag the project backwards. And yet you still see these people on important projects.

      If companies want to optimize their IT performance, there's something a heck of a lot more important than tools and platforms that they should concentrate on as the first-order fix. IMO.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    8. Re:You can't beat free! by Windowser · · Score: 2, Informative

      Some tools just make developing certain kinds of applications more efficient, take VisualBasic for example. There's not much else that can compare to the RAD capabilities of VB.

      That just show how far from reality M$ as dragged you. Delphi is a lot better at this than VB and you can have the same on Linux with Kylix

      By the way, they even have a free version with about the only requirement is that you release your program under the GPL.

      And don't get me started on why VB is bullshit, regardless of being an M$ product.

      If you had told me back in 1982, when I was programming in M$-BASIC on my first computer (COCO2) that I would still be coding in BASIC 20 years later, I would have laugh to death

      BASIC whas a shitty language in 1982. Thanks to M$, is still is today ;-)

      --
      Avoid the MS tax, always buy I.B.M. PC's (I Built-it Myself)
    9. Re:You can't beat free! by ePhil_One · · Score: 2, Insightful
      This study takes into consideration more than just the price of the OS. Things like support, salary for developers etc.

      Its a simple formula.

      1) Find the categories your predetermined winner has advantages.
      2) Weight those areas heavily
      3) De-emphasize or omit any areas the predetermined loser has strong advantages
      4) ???
      5) Profit!
      Sorry,
      4) Release study!

      This has the added advantage of creating contreversy, which:

      1) Increases visibility
      2) ???
      3) Profit

      /Quickly runs from room/

      --
      You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
    10. Re:You can't beat free! by Lysol · · Score: 3, Insightful

      dude, this just doesn't make sense:

      "Take for instance a relatively simple GUI application. Say that it takes two weeks to develop the application under a free toolkit like GTK. Now say that it takes only one week to develop that same application under VB. If we use a $60k developer salary (which is only about half of what it actually costs to employ a developer), then we see that one week of time is worth approx. $1154. After one month, the license for VB and Windows has quickly paid for itself."

      Let's really look at company A (the GNULinux company) in a real world example, because like always, when people cite Windowze development-office stuff, they only present part of the picture.

      First off, let's use a office with 50 people, of which there are 2 full time developers and 3 full time IS people. The below are current prices from MicroWarehouse at their non-discounted prices.

      Now, for office B, first, the Windoze office (I'll leave hardware out of this cuz, especially with Exchange, that's a whole other cost issue):

      * 50 copies of XP Pro: $21,747.50
      * 1 Win2k file and print server with 50 CALS: $3018.72
      * 1 Win2k with Exchange Ent. with 50 CALS: $12,107.44
      * 2 copies of VS .NET Ent 2003: $4657.86
      * 50 copies of Office XP Pro: $21,747.50

      This doesn't assume any consulting fees, whatever, since we'll assume the 3 IS guys are Windoze experts and know how to set up everything.

      Total just to get office B up and running so that said developers can develop code: approx. $63,279.02

      Now, let's look at office A, the GNULinux office. For basic comparisons, we'll use Redhat 9 deployed.

      * 50 copies of RH 9: $0 (cost of 3 cd-r's: approx. $1.50)
      * Samba for file and print for all 50 users: $0
      * Kroupware (I know, not the best Exchange equiv, but the only free thing really avail strongly for GNU/Linux that delivers scheduling that works) for 50 users: $0
      * 2 copies of development environment for GTK-Java-whatever: $0
      * Ximian XD2 with Ximian Open Office: $0

      Cost (not including hardware or labor) to deploy office B to make snazzy app: $1.50

      Cost diff between office A & B: B: $63277.52

      Now, plugging in your formula of $1154 for two weeks of development which supposedly pay for VS .NET & Windows server ACLs and Windows Clients, we come up with this:

      Office A has no deficit, since their software didn't cost them anything. In fact, they probably had one less sysadmin, so they might have already saved $60k.

      Office B has a deficit of $62,125.02. Their developer, to make them money to cover said expenses will need to work an additional: 2118.71 hours.

      Obviously, company B should call M$ or MicroWarehouse and try to get deals on this stuff, but regardless, they're still going to need more people, more licenses, which translate into more costs to even start a system where 2 developers can program something.

      So, I call bullshit on this entire forumla and the like because they only take one fraction of the puzzle in to play. This is typical with most Windows vs. GNULinux comparisons. I've seen it happen in the real world over and over.

    11. Re:You can't beat free! by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I have to disagree. I spent years working with IDEs like Delphi, VB and the like, and you know what? The only thing I miss from them in emacs is context-sensitive symbol completion.

      On Windows, yes, an IDE is a crucial, critical tool. I've written code for Win32 in C, with no IDE (in fact I'm doing it now), and it's a nightmare. The same is not true on Linux. You don't have insanities like pixel-based layouts to deal with, you can actually construct your GUIs in code if you so wish. Or, you can use Glade, which spits out XML files you can load at runtime. This is far, far easier than Windows.

      The equivalent then to VB is something like Python with Glade/GTK, and emacs. Or it is to my mind, at any rate. These tools are not integrated into one super environment, but they don't lose anything for it in practice.

      The other reason you tend to need IDEs on Windows is because Windows is not designed to be text-editor friendly. For things like COM, it's often necessary to use wizards that spit out huge amounts of auto generated code. There are no such technologies on Linux, as far as I'm aware (in wide usage).

      Basically, I don't find it any harder to write software on Linux than on Windows, despite the lack of an IDE. I mentioned loss of context sensitive symbol completion - yes, that's a shame, but OTOH when in a Windows IDE I miss a proper command line, a strong and powerful text editor like emacs, and sane tools and toolkits like Glade and GTK, so it works both ways.

      Oh, finally, I found I much prefer the "just get on with it" approach of emacs to the one taken by IDEs, which tend to clutter your workspace with things you don't need, like class explorers, project trees, widget palettes and so on - I like having most of my screen taken up by the text editor, as programming is mostly about editing text.

      Anyway, just my 2 pence.

    12. Re:You can't beat free! by Stevyn · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't agree with you because windows is as standard to most people as how to operate a car. Say a company called Mazdafordix came out with a car that used hand movements picked up by lasers and infrared sensors to operate a car. The public would imediatly think it was more difficult to use and their argument of "well you're just used to a steering wheel so you're wrong" wouldn't hold up. I don't think this analogy is that much of a stretch when you see windows users try to do the same thing they're used to on a linux machine.

    13. Re:You can't beat free! by John+Harrison · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So well-paid developers tend to choose Linux. A well-paid developer tends to be an experienced developer. Maybe through experience they have learned to develop and deploy on Linux. Note that this study says nothing at all about the quality of the software developed on either platform.

      --
      Lasers Controlled Games!
    14. Re:You can't beat free! by FooBarWidget · · Score: 2, Informative

      "There's not much else that can compare to the RAD capabilities of VB."

      Oh yes there is. It's called Delphi. Delphi beats VB in every way: language, speed, price, etc. And Delphi is available for Linux too (Kylix).

    15. Re:You can't beat free! by caffeineHacker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The analogy really doesn't fit, since we're talking about Software Development. Developers should know basic operating system principles and have some knowledge of how to use Unix(Unless the college they went to was brain-dead). *nix systems aren't anything dramatically different either(Like laser controlled what-not), the details just aren't hidden as much. Granted GUI on *nix systems is frustrating since GTK on one system won't always work on another. But you can either do Java GUI, or just make a Perl, etc. front-end. Not a big deal...not nearly half the trouble as many of the MS advocates are making it out to be. And for individual users who use the software that was developed there doesn't have to be a learning curb at all. KDE is almost exactly like Windows, just point and click.

    16. Re:You can't beat free! by rifter · · Score: 2, Funny

      Developers should know basic operating system principles and have some knowledge of how to use Unix(Unless the college they went to was brain-dead).

      e.g. their cs department was funded by Microsoft.

  2. Cheaper when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    SCO charges apply...

  3. Taking aim at the server end. by grub · · Score: 5, Insightful


    (from the article:)
    The study compared applications built to run over the Internet on Microsoft's .NET platform to applications developed with J2EE, a development platform backed by Sun Microsystems Inc. favored by the Linux community.

    That speaks volumes: the study is aiming at J2EE and Sun. Granted these are the "certain circumstances" mentioned but MS is taking direct aim at its diminishing server market share with this. They know the desktop is still pretty much a lock-in for the time being.

    Here's a clue: don't trust studies. They are generally paid for by people with agendas.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:Taking aim at the server end. by Dog+and+Pony · · Score: 2, Insightful

      J2EE, a development platform backed by Sun Microsystems Inc. favored by the Linux community.

      Says who?

      If they mean favored over .NET, then well duh. I wish I could get money for telling people the obvious.

      OTOH, maybe Mono and DotGNU can change that - if it is good enough, there isn't much reason to not choose the better proprietry platform apart from kneejerk anti-MS. But that is just between those two - I sincerely hope that none of those are actually going to be the favored one.

    2. Re:Taking aim at the server end. by rsmith-mac · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Here's a clue: don't trust studies. They are generally paid for by people with agendas.

      But on the contrary, don't balk at any study just because someone paid to have it done. As odd as it sounds, companies that do studies don't just pull "statistics" out of their ass, they are by and large sizable companies with good reputations doing honest work. The reason why studies seem to agree with the organization funding them is that often, the organization sets the parameters, creating a situation where things would look good for the company that funded the study. Looking at the numbers, I believe that Giga is right; in their subject pool, Windows was cheaper. The study should only be distrusted when the parameters used don't fit a situation you're trying to use it as proof in; for a company similar to the subject pool, this study would seem to be an accurate comparison.

    3. Re:Taking aim at the server end. by grub · · Score: 3, Interesting


      Says who?

      Says Microsoft. :) These types of sandbag-studies are directed at PHBs with a bit of technical knowledge, even if that knowledge is just having heard the word "Linux". Mindshare is a valuable commodity and by creating a slanted study such as this they take a shot at Sun and Linux in one fell swoop.

      MS knows they haven't a chance at swaying anyone with half a clue, but unfortunately most of the people that sign the cheques don't.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    4. Re:Taking aim at the server end. by thammoud · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Says the business community. In my second consulting gig for the past two years, the trend has been to deploy Linux in order to run J2EE applications. Spefically JBOSS. They would not have deployed Linux if there was no Java. HomeDepot deployed linux but run Java on top of it.

      Java + Linux is a combination that scares the crap out MS, thus the study.

    5. Re:Taking aim at the server end. by WNight · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, companies don't pull statistics out of their ass. They pull circumstances out of their ass to justify the statistics you want.

      Microsoft didn't say, "Make J2EE look bad compared to us", they said "Make us look good in one of these (a, b, c) areas." The company then looked around for a competing product that overlapped one of those and didn't perform as well as the MS product in at least one aspect. That's how these paid-for studies work.

  4. Wait a minute... by turbine216 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    how come when MS sponsors a comparison, and the results favor their OS and/or software over linux, it's just GOT to be a big conspiracy? Why doesn't the same criticism hold true for the supposedly "unbiased" comparisons that are done by linux-friendly companies like IBM and Red Hat?

    Oh wait, i forgot...this is slashdot.

    1. Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      By accepting open ideals, linux-friendly companies tend to be more open and include more detail. We like detail, it means more information and reproducability. With enough information, we can make our own conclusions. Of course, some 'studies' do resort to petty name-calling, but there are good ones too. The key is to ignore /. editor comments and make up your own mind.

    2. Re:Wait a minute... by brlewis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Where's the post calling this a big conspiracy? A research firm finding results that its sponsor will like is not a big conspiracy. Where's the article where nobody criticizes an IBM or RedHat study as biased?

      Insightful my foot. Imaginative, maybe.

  5. gotta love this... by ih8apple · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "The study compared applications built to run over the Internet on Microsoft's .NET platform to applications developed with J2EE, a development platform backed by Sun Microsystems Inc. (Nasdaq:SUNW - news) favored by the Linux community. "

    So, they compared .NET to J2EE development and called it a comparison between Windows and Linux?

    "favored by the Linux community"? Last time I checked, .NET didn't run on Linux!

    --


    Why do I h8 apple?
    1. Re:gotta love this... by Vengie · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hi.
      I'm Mono.
      The Open Source .Net Framework championed about a trillion times on slashdot.
      I will now beat you with a cluestick ;)

      --
      When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
  6. I was almost convinced until... by agwis · · Score: 2, Troll

    Although I'm not a Windows fan, I actually could believe this, until I read this part:

    "Last December, Microsoft released a study that showed that Windows-based servers were cheaper to run than those on Linux in four out of five common server tasks."

    You just got to love studies funded by non-biased companies!

  7. some quotes by rokzy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "The world's largest software maker, which is facing increased competition from Linux -- the open-source software standard that can be copied and modified freely -- hired Giga Research, which found that licensing, associated software, maintenance, labor, and training was 25 percent to 28 percent cheaper on Windows for certain types of applications."

    and

    "Last December, Microsoft released a study that showed that Windows-based servers were cheaper to run than those on Linux in four out of five common server tasks."

    how can anyone trust crap like this? WHAT TYPE OF APPLICATIONS? WHAT SERVER TASKS?

    1. Re:some quotes by gl4ss · · Score: 4, Funny

      Apps: blaster, sobig
      server: mirc-slave, open mail relay

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:some quotes by _xeno_ · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Do we have to go for the cheap shots? Be a little more creative! I'll just give a possibly correct list which I assure you is possible on both platforms.
      1. Deploying a web application using Microsoft's Active Server Page technology.
      2. Integrating into a Microsoft Windows Active Directory domain.
      3. Setting up a file server within a Microsoft Windows Active Directory domain.
      4. Setting up a print server using Microsoft's printer sharing technology.
      5. Serving static web pages.

      Much nicer. Still unbalanced, still gives us the stab at the study being unfairly weighted towards Windows, but doesn't try and attack the same old things that Windows always gets attacked for. And for an added bonus, all are plausible...

      (Besides, the BSOD is obsolete as of Windows XP. By default, it instantly reboots and then displays a dialog informing you that the compter has "recovered from a serious error" after it restarts. Apparently the computer randomly rebooting with no explanation until after it's come back up is considered more user friendly than the BSOD. Or at the very least, it makes the user take the blame by thinking they did something to make the computer restart like hitting the power cord or something...)

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    3. Re:some quotes by cascadefx · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well 2000 does come with 4 games.
      They are Solitaire (which is pretty good compared to the Open Source versions), Minesweeper, Pinball, and Freecell.

      Lets break it down:

      1. There are not as many decks in the windows version of Solataire to choose from, so that would definitely speed things up. ADVANTAGE: Microsoft

      2. Minsweeper is small. You can't even resize the window. That's got to cut down on the number of CPU cycles that it uses. Of course you know they only tested it on the easy levels. My suspicion is that it would have only performed better on 3 out of 5 if they cranked Minesweeper up to Expert. ADVANTAGE: Microsoft (despite possible performance rigging).

      3. Pinball. That's just unfair. There isn't a version in linux that has the same kicking music. (easy) ADVANTAGE: Microsoft

      4. Freecell. Need I say more. That game screams. After all, they've had 10 years to perfect it. (another easy) ADVANTAGE: Microsoft.

      I don't know what you guys are whining about... the evidence is there.

  8. In other news ... by hotchai · · Score: 2, Funny

    A woman who recently had a baby claimed that her child was the cutest one on the planet!

  9. .NET on linux by unixmaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

    .NET works on Linux too with Mono. Why not compare Mono/Linux to .NET/Windows so we wont compare apples and oranges.

    --
    Never learn by your mistakes, if you do you may never dare to try again
    1. Re:.NET on linux by pmz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why not compare Mono/Linux to .NET/Windows so we wont compare apples and oranges.

      Because .NET really does not work on Linux. Only a small subset does, and that is with Microsoft's toleration (for now).

      Conversely, there are full-blown fully-sanctioned-and-supported J2EE implementations for Linux distributions. In fact, there are several full-blown J2EE implementations available. From different and competing vendors.

      Funny how proprietary lock-in isn't a criteria in these "studies".

      --
      Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
  10. Misfit Analysts? by Ambush · · Score: 2, Funny
    The first thing my wife said when she saw the title of this story was that she thought it was 'Windows Cheaper When Studied By MISFIT Analysts'.

    What could I say? When you're right, you're right!

    ;-)

    --
    There are 10 kinds of people; those who know ternary, those who don't, and those now hunting for a dictionary.
  11. Time Spent by kannibal_klown · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While I agree with previous posts that Linux is cheaper than Windows in just about every respect, I'm glad that his article touches on something.

    With the current development tools available for Windows, as well as all third-party utilities/db drivers/etc, development on Windows goes by much quicker.

    I'm not talking about little apps that could be banged out as a perl script in a few minutes, but more robust applications that companies need internally.

    However, this is just for the present. If/when more people adopt Linux as desktops then more people will learn how to develop for it and more/better tools will become available. Say what you will about Visual Studio, but the recent incarnations work exceptionally well, and they have a large user base. If we could see 1 or 2 similar development IDE's for linux that are HIGHLY ADOPTED (I know there are some nice ones out there, but the use-rate is still rather low), then things could change.

    1. Re:Time Spent by jatsrt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have to disagree strongly. I currently work in a shoop that develops applications in .NET and J2EE and we are always comparing and contrasting.

      The real conclusion that we find is that Eclipse, ANT, XDoclet and JBoss make a much more usable and more powerful deveopment environment than anything available for Windows.

      Our J2EE applications usually have a shorter time to market and a much happier customer when they don't feel like they have been taken avantage of in licensing fees.

      However this holds true for J2EE in itself, there overall cost is greatly impacted by using JBoss and MySQL instead of Weblogix and Oracle(for example). It is all in how and what you are comparing.

  12. Full text of the Giga Group report? by mforbes · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Yahoo article doesn't link to it; without seeing the details I'm hesitant to fully swallow any synopsis.

    I don't find it unbelievable that some tasks are less expensive to produce under MS products than under Linux, but unless the report indicates other reasons, I'm inclined to believe the difference is due to the trained user-base.

    The article does say they interviewed twelve firms (hardly a statistically significant amount), seven of which use Windows & five of which use *nix. I'd be curious to know the sizes of the firms involved and the level of training of the personnel in each of them.

    In other words, my question is: Is all else equal? I suspect not.

    --

    Allegedly real newspaper headline from 1998:
    Man Struck by Lightning Faces Battery Charge

    1. Re:Full text of the Giga Group report? by Geek+of+Tech · · Score: 3, Funny
      And in other news, a recent study has shown that end-users can play solitare more efficently on Windows XP with .NET.

      A survey was conducted with 6 people, 5 Windows users and 1 Linux user, who only knew how to play blackjack. The MS users won more games, all totaled. Proof of MS credibility.

      --
      Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
  13. Long term costs of windows by CastrTroy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When analysing the cost differences of Windows and Linux, the main advantage to windows always seems to be that little to no training is required, while on the other hand, Linux requires lots of training, with Expensive Admins. However, In the long term, if many companies and schools started using Linux, these cost would come down, as many more people would have experience and require less training. Also the number of qualified people would increase, making the salaries of qualified Linux admins go down.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    1. Re: Long term costs of windows by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Funny


      > When analysing the cost differences of Windows and Linux, the main advantage to windows always seems to be that little to no training is required ...until the next version comes out, at which point you pack your entire stff off to week-long training seminars.

      > while on the other hand, Linux requires lots of training, with Expensive Admins.

      Do you include the price of cleaning up SoBig.[FGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ] in that expense?

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  14. Possibly true, if they are comparing RAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
    to a well organized J2EE framework and good development practices. My guess is they compared a development process that has no formal design phase and everthing is designed on the fly without any real thought to extensibility or maitainability. Absolutely .NET will be cheaper, but it also means you have to rebuild 85% of it the next time you need to add a significant feature.

    There needs to be an organization that establishes a set of standards about how these kinds of comparisons are made with a detailed list of what needs to be disclosed in the report. Similar to how TPC defines what has to be disclosed for a benchmark to be valid. It's about time the industry come up with a solid set of standards on how these things are measured.

  15. maybe it is cheaper to develop M$ apps by jlemmerer · · Score: 2

    ... in the beginning, since the linux sourcebase is huuuuuuuge, and imho it is easier to use just a few predefined interfaces that to understand the code and to actually interface with it. but in the end, i think linux si more desireable for

    a. they don't switch interfaces and so on a routine basis, linux evolves but largely keeps its backward compability, whereas microsoft sometimes changed their interfaces at will and even dropped support for them
    and

    b. it is better to understand the whole foundation you build on (or the part of the foundation) instead of blindly trusting foreign interfaces.

    isn't that the main reason so many security bugs are found in windows applications? how can i program a secure app when i don't know what the underlying classes do (i don't get to see their source). What do you think of that?

    --
    ".Sig Stealer" was here
  16. Apples to Oranges But It is a real fact by codepunk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    J2EE development is slow and cumbersome and it is no suprise to me that .NET whatever that is beat the pants off of it for development efficiency. But considering that the .NET stuff will not run on anything other than windows it is a dead end road. Now do the same study using php against .NET and the tables get tipped drastically.

    --


    Got Code?
    1. Re:Apples to Oranges But It is a real fact by asb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Duh, did all the PHP fanboys just moderate the parent up to +4 Insightful? Get a life...

      .NET and J2EE are more than just ASP and JSP. Comparing PHP to them is way more stupid than what Giga Research group had to do in order make the /. front page...

      --
      Antti S. Brax - Old school - http://www.iki.fi/asb/
    2. Re:Apples to Oranges But It is a real fact by Decaff · · Score: 3, Insightful

      J2EE development may seem slow, but this is because you are expected to do some serious analysis of a project and write scalable portable code: The time spent is a worthwhile investment. Comparing MS products with something like J2EE is rather like comparing Access to Oracle - you can write apps very quickly with the former, but you would not want to run a business with it.

    3. Re:Apples to Oranges But It is a real fact by BFKrew · · Score: 2, Informative

      I used to develop on J2EE and now develop for C# and ASP.NET and think both are very impressive patforms. Apart from one only running on Windows, there's little to choose between them and the only reason I prefer .Net is simply becuase I prefer the development tools for it but I certainly cannot say a bad word about Java. I am amazed you think it's slow and cumbersome, but that is more likely that you do not like or understand OOP.

      However, what both J2EE and .NET are able to do far, far outstrips what you can do with PHP. We can argue the details, but with J2EE/.NET you are able to scale from small websites with limited functionality right up to sites running on many app servers, database servers, you name it - they are both Enterprise level systems.

      What you can also do with both J2EE and .NET is cross train far more easily between making web and desktop based apps - again something you cannot do in PHP. For example, load up Visual Studio.NET and I guarantee that ANY ASP.NET programmer will be able to make desktop apps very quick, and the same for Java.

      I will be very surprised if .NET doesn't end up on most desktops, to say it's a dead end is frankly plain stupid. I guess you've never done a stroke or work on the framework otherwise you'd be able to understand why those who have used it think it is probably the best thing MS have done for a long while.

      I don't dislike PHP at all, it has it's uses, but put simply, it's not in the same league as .NET or J2EE. I really suggest you have a look at both products, get hold of Visual Age for Java or Visual Studio, get a book on OOP and don't look back! :)

  17. what were the projects? by Dan+Ost · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Has anyone seen the report?

    I'd like to know what the 12 projects were that were being compared to
    see if the comparisons make sense.

    Is there any chance at all that this is an actual apples to apples
    comparison?

    --

    *sigh* back to work...
  18. Devil's advocate. by Ride-My-Rocket · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ok, let's assume that within this select subset of applications, developing for Windows is 25-28% cheaper than for Linux per application. There's also the underlying operating system to consider. Windows, for whatever reason -- inherent security flaws or merely higher visibility / threat risk, I don't care -- is more likely to be attacked and infected by worms and viruses. As a result, the cost of maintaining applications and the operating system is higher. I'm fairly certain such a cost isn't factored into the study, and I'm fairly certain it's a considerable amount -- trying to keep things secured in my company's 250-user environment is hard enough.

  19. Re:This has to be by wazzzup · · Score: 2, Funny

    Actually, this is the worst news ever.

    10.3 Beats 10.2 In Head To Head Competition
  20. This isn't totally off base by rnd() · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you consider the productivity gained by using an IDE such as Visual Studio .NET 2003.

    You have intellesense statement completion, automatic code formatting and highlighting, and intelligent help that will pull full documentation on any statement you are typing with one click.

    You also benefit from languages like VB.NET and C#, which are very high level and make it easy to write conceptually clear and error-free code.

    It makes it possible to become comfortable with a new object model without having to flip though documentation or constantly search the web. You'd be surprised how fast and simple it is to create relatively sophisticated apps that perform pretty darn well.

    --

    Amazing magic tricks

    1. Re:This isn't totally off base by javatips · · Score: 3, Informative
      If you consider the productivity gained by using an IDE such as Visual Studio .NET 2003.

      You have intellesense statement completion, automatic code formatting and highlighting, and intelligent help that will pull full documentation on any statement you are typing with one click.


      You have the same thing with Java IDE such as Eclipse (free) or WSAD ($$$) or JBuilder ($$$). The Java IDE that cost $$$ will have the additional benefit of having wizards and views that speed up the creation and configuration of EJBs and other J2EE stuff (Eclipse has some of these too, but they still have a some way to go).

    2. Re:This isn't totally off base by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 2, Funny

      [re: Visual Studio] You have intellesense statement completion, automatic code formatting and highlighting, and intelligent help that will pull full documentation on any statement you are typing with one click.

      So?

      EMACS has all these things too, plus it will make coffee for you!

  21. Re:How can it be cheaper? by Zamfir · · Score: 2, Insightful

    its really not that complicated. you can get a subscription to ms dev tools for around $1000/year per developer. if a developer can gain a weeks more productivity in VS.NET than a competitive suite of products, the productivity pays for the software. if 2 weeks productivity is gained, then VOILA! your .NET solution is now cheaper to develop. /.ers seem to forget that peoples time more often than not costs way more in the long run than actual software licenses.

  22. It's J2EE, not Linux by consumer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This article really has nothing to do with Linux. It's about J2EE vs. .NET. No surprise that J2EE is expensive. The best Java developers on Linux use much better tools than J2EE and EJBs. A good open source stack with Struts, Velocity, and Hibernate will beat the stuffing out of straight J2EE for productivity. Of course there is also the fact that lots of web development on Linux is done in much more productive languages, like Perl, Python, and PHP. Amazon and Yahoo (on FreeBSD) do it, so it's probably good enough for your lame little site too.

    1. Re:It's J2EE, not Linux by Decaff · · Score: 2, Informative
      You are confusing J2EE and EJBs (Entity Java Beans). Struts, Velocity and Hibernate are J2EE. Anyone who uses JSP or servlets is using J2EE - EJBs are only one aspect of J2EE. Many of the features of EJBs are now superceded by JDO (Java Data Objects) - an object/relational layer that makes database interfacing hugely faster and more scalable and more portable than with PHP/Perl etc.

      A better test would be .Net vs J2EE/JDO.


    2. Re:It's J2EE, not Linux by LarsWestergren · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Of course there is also the fact that lots of web development on Linux is done in much more productive languages, like Perl, Python, and PHP. Amazon and Yahoo (on FreeBSD) do it, so it's probably good enough for your lame little site too.

      I can't find the post now, but on a recent thread on Slashdot someone made a pretty convincing argument that the oft repeated claim that Amazon have built their site on Perl/PHP is a misunderstanding based on someone seeing that Amazon were looking for Perl programmers. A small part of their site uses scripts, but most of the content and presentation is actually managed by JSP/Servlets/EJB.

      I believe you are right when it comes to Yahoo though, they had a big power point-ish presentation somewhere explaining the different choices they had, why they went with PHP and the problems and benefits they had come up with.

      Me, I like Java best, but as long as I'm not forced to use .Net... I'm sure its easy and powerful, but its a complete ripoff of J2EE. Plus, I hated being locked into Windows with no alternative, I don't want it repeated with .Net.

      --

      Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die

  23. They could be right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I know I'll get modded down for saying anything positive about MS but here goes:

    It's not absolutely damning that MS paid for the study. After all who else would pay. But of course the study would not have been released if it were not positive for MS. Still neither of these makes neccessarily untrue or biased.

    And its not unreasonable to believe it could be true. MS does make good development tools. And even just a few days ago there was a slashdot post lamenting the sad state of Java. It really could use a third re-do to streamiline it to a sensible coherent set. After all JAVA or as it was called "OAK" was developed to be an embedded OS for appliances. It of course became much more. And it its underlying fundmentlas and syntax were a much needed re-write of C++ (no damn *pointers and &other crap, garbage collection, better OO tools at a lower level). .NET is infact an even fresher page, intedned form the start to be an internet enabled approach to the net that embraces many different languages as well, including the java reduc C#.

    MS visula studio series may noit be the best tools but they are good tools and present a multi-language interface to programming.

    Finally, it is quite obvious that stupid people find it easier to program in Windows. This is not true on linux. Linux requires knowing a lot of intricate details and knowledge of unstable APIs written by other people and not maintained in a consistent or even perfectly protable format.

    1. Re:They could be right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Finally, it is quite obvious that stupid people find it easier to program in Windows. This is not true on linux.

      Wow. I guess ignorant, inconsiderate jerks are on both sides though.

    2. Re:They could be right. by molarmass192 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Finally, it is quite obvious that stupid people find it easier to program in Windows. This is not true on linux. Linux requires knowing a lot of intricate details and knowledge of ...

      Right, but this is irrelevant in Java. Also, Java suffers from history hangover. It had some growing pains but most of those have long since been corrected. Also, MS seems to have a penchant for comparing unoptimized Java code with highly optimized C# code, hardly unbiased. Finally, with Java 1.5 due out in early 2004, current comparisons between .NET and Java will all become dated. I'm not particularly worried about .NET but Microsoft appears to be particularly worried about Java.

      --

      Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
  24. The catch! by agwis · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Here is a study done by an independent research firm which claims that under certain circumstances, it is cheaper to develop applications and enterprise solutions for Windows than for Linux."

    I had to go back and read this. What do you suppose are the certain cirucumstances? Is it when you have a room full of developers all clinging onto their copy of Visual Studio and sitting in front of a linux box?

    I wish they had elaborated on this somewhat. I've been seriously trying to figure out for the last few minutes how I could develop cheaper on Windows and I cannot come up with one idea!

  25. Not hard for me to believe. by chrysrobyn · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Here is a study done by an independent research firm which claims that under certain circumstances, it is cheaper to develop applications and enterprise solutions for Windows than for Linux.

    My initial instinct was that this was a combination of "absurd" and "special case so specific it's mostly useless". But then I started to think of a Slashdot thread from just a few weeks ago about the big worms that started recently...

    The thread discussed how much cheaper it was to hire just any person and have [him|her] maintain the "Windows Server". Of course, an affordable admin in many small business cases would be unable to keep such a server patched well enough to fend off all the attacks and the machine would be compromised. The thread continued to say that if you compare a competant Windows admin with a competant *nix admin, not only are the costs similar but so is the security-- but you could have a Windows box up, running and making money with an incompetant admin.

    No offense is intended, by the way, in calling such a person an incompetant admin, just that many small businesses can afford neither a service contract nor a full time "real admin", so someone who does not specialize in such tasks part-times it. This is a rare situation with *nix, where the barrier to entry of a steep learning curve usually causes entry admins to be better than Windows (I have no real evidence to back up this assertion, only personal observation). The theory is that a small business can't afford to keep 100% uptime, but can afford to go down for 12-24 hours.

    This makes me wonder about programming on Windows in a general case. I can understand how someone can develop a Visual Basic program for cheaper than a C (or whatever) equivalent on Linux. Instead of comparing .NET to J2EE, as the article does, I'd be interested in seeing a problem solved by a beginning application developer in Windows (would (s)he choose Visual Basic?), another in Linux (C/C++ plus GTK or similar?), and then someone experienced on the two platforms solve the same problem and find out where the added costs present benefits. Can we tell the difference in benefits between the two skilled solutions or the two unskilled solutions? What benefits are gained by keeping one platform but redeveloping with a skilled developer?

  26. Cost of _developing_ applications by Woodie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    OK -

    First, RTFA. It talks about _developing_ applications. It wouldn't really suprise me if it were cheaper to develop applications on Windows.

    Visual Studio .NET is a kick-ass development environment. Even the older non-.NET edition is a lot better than most dev tools out there. Sure, it's pretty expensive - but say you're paying programmers $40/hour (ignore benefits, etc) - the fact you just spent $1200 on a development environment is no big deal: less than a 40 hour week of paying said programmer. And, I'm willing to bet he'll save a lot more than a week of effort by using a better tool.

    Say what you will about the quality of MS, and how buggy/bloated their software is. It seems to work well enough for a bunch of people out there. Their developer programs are excelent (maybe they need to be to cover up their crappy underpinnings).

    In the open source area you might be able to download some open source code, and cobble a system together to do what you want... But I think I remember reading a statistic that said something like 85% of all software written is custom, internal, business software. So you might have a tough time finding something that solves your problem exactly... But since it's open source you can modify it to fit - sometimes; sometimes it's more trouble than it's worth.

    With things like Eclipse for Java development in the open source arena the gap should close up in that area too (dev tools) - but don't kid yourself; we've still got a long ways to go.

    1. Re:Cost of _developing_ applications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      As someone who codes every day in version 6 of Visual Studio, I'd just like to say...
      Damn Bill Gates and his buggy, unstable, unpredictable, bloated, non-ANSI IDE to hell!

      And spending half the day accounting for Visual Studio's antics isn't my idea of productivity. But then, browsing /. isn't either. So there goes the other half of the day.

  27. That which works by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 3, Interesting
    buying something which works can often be a lot cheaper
    Yes, going with something that works reduces the TCO. That's why there is a market for OS X, QNX, and Netware.

    From my past few years, I've found that RedHat and SuSe are much easier to maintain than the MS offerings, and installation seems easier and faster. Debian and OS X still lead on ease of maintenance.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
  28. .NET vs J2EE, not Win vs. Linux by mystran · · Score: 3, Redundant
    This studies the costs between .NET and J2EE, not really Windows and Linux.

    One could also say that it compares native Windows and J2EE, but Java is by no means a native system to Linux, which is to say that this is like comparing apples with oranges.

    Having supported a largish J2EE application, I can tell that the it's equally awful platform, whether it runs on Windows or UNIX. I'd suggest that if one compared J2EE on Windows to J2EE on UNIX, UNIX would probably win.

    --
    Software should be free as in speech, but if we also get some free beer, all the better.
  29. Linux cheaper when studied by Slashdot drones by essdodson · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We should be aware by now that any company can manufacture a TCO, even those behind Linux. The only valuable TCO is the one that your company produces and uses to make its decisions.

    --
    scott
  30. The Netcraft Study by cyber_rigger · · Score: 2, Redundant



    Of course the Netcraft study shows that

    only Microsoft can afford the more EXPENSIVE

    Linux based server caching     (Akamai)

    http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=www.micr osoft.com



  31. independent? by LMCBoy · · Score: 4, Funny

    "...a study done by an independent research firm...funded and commissioned by Microsoft..."

    You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means...

    --
    Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
  32. This is a bad thing? by Snarfy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Of course, the story is quick to state that the whole study was funded and commissioned by our favorite Redmond, WA based software giant." Uh... You sound like its a bad thing they pointed this out? The whole /. community would be up-in-arms if they didn't point it out right off the bat. While true that there is possible bias because Microsoft performed the study, it does not mean there was definite bias.

  33. Not at my university. by willy134 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I just finished school and by the time I left almost all of the computer science classes were using linux (red hat to be specific) all the electrical engineering classes were using hpux and linux (debian --old debian) all the programs we made were designed to run on *nix. That implies the cost of educating people to develop on *nix is dropping dramatically.

    There is also a large microsoft group called dev hood. They give away free msft products so there is large support for it. But the actuall classes that require msft are all those with minor programming. Most of them use VB.

    --
    Can you ping me now?... Good!
  34. Why is this story 'Windows vs. Linux'? by laird · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's really .Net vs. J2EE. I'm not sure that .Net is cheaper to develop on than J2EE, but I am sure that there are less expensive ways to engineer software than J2EE. If price is the critical factor (which it must be, since it's the only actual information in the press release) you'd think that they'd compare to PHP/MySQL.

    The lack of details makes me suspicions. Did they choose projects based on very expensive application servers and databases, rather than free alternatives, in order to offset the cost of Windows and .Net? Did they choose projects that weren't deployed on a large scale in order to minimize the per-server costs of .Net/NT (which are extremely high)? Depending on the details, the report may really be saying '.Net Server and SQL Server is cheaper than WebLogic and Oracle', which really has nothing to do with Windows or Linux.

    --
    Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
  35. Whats the Cost With Viruses? by MoronBob · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What is the cost when your developers are interupted by worm and virus outbreaks? Is that considered in the study?

    --
    Telecommuting! What about socialization?
  36. Questionable Methodology by Wymanator · · Score: 2, Interesting

    For medium-sized companies, costs for .NET-based applications totaled $661,012, compared with $881,445 for J2EE/Linux.

    One has to question the study's methodology when it quotes costs to the nearest dollar. The study was based on phone interviews. The margin of error in these cost estimates must be at least +/- 10% (or $80,000 on the $881K figure).

  37. Windows programming cheaper by totallygeek · · Score: 2, Informative
    If it is cheaper; you get what you pay for!


    Seriously, I developed programs under many Unix flavors, and enjoyed developing solutions with Linux. But, when we needed to interface our software with Word for mail merges, or Excel for spreadsheet drop-ins, then (at least at the time) Windows programming was a necessary evil. Development of databases was done on Unix for stability, web applications using PostgreSQL and Perl, but front ends were usually Access or some VB application.


    There was also a problem hiring programmers. Salaries asked for by experienced programmers were much higher (IMHO rightfully so) than salaries demanded by Windows programmers. While the Windows programmers in general were less flexable to learn new languages or stray from mainstream programming, they were quite efficient. And, the tools they were using allowed them to create and alter code quicker than us Unix-folk. That having been said, we never had to cuss-out our monitors because of a blue screen...


    If I were a shop doing custom programming, it would be a mix of Windows and Unix, and Windows programmers would be about 2/3 or 3/4 of the programming population in the office. It is simply good business to sell a comfortable solution, and businesses are comfortable with Microsoft. Now, you don't have to disclose that MS-SQL will not be on the back end of that Access application...

    --
    Click here or here.
  38. No Doubt by Multiple+Sanchez · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I hate this. This is business. This is what business is. This is all it takes. Just fund the study that says what you want. On its face it looks rediculous, but who'll see it on its face? What you're really buying is the references to the study. The argument that "independent studies show..." All you need is that little bit of doubt, and you'll get sales.

    We need stricter rules! This is how businesses succeed, and it's awful! I hate the SCO lawsh^Huit, I hate the RIAA lawsh^Hit, I can't stand these false studies and it's just infuriating.

    Any reference to this study down the line should be required BY LAW to be labeled as "funded by Microsoft." Then there would be no manufactured doubt, and the study wouldn't happen in the first place, and businesses would have all these extra resources to spend on things like research and development, instead of things like fake false lying lies that confuse people and make it impossible to know what's really real and gee while they're scratching their heads let's just reach over and take the money out of their pockets. Monsters.

    Let's get rid of the "D" and just tell businesses like Microsoft, "F U."

    Monsters.

  39. Refine the Questions by Carcass666 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It may indeed be easier cheaper to develop apps under Windows when the shop is all Windows; but is it cheaper to build cross-platform, interoperable applications that can communicate and run across the multiple platforms that may be encountered within (and outside) an enterprise? I would argue that J2EE development platform is a far more cost-effective, scalable and portable approach than .NET/COM +/DCOM/etc. Microsoft can put on all of the XML window-dressing it wants, it doesn't change the Windows-centric underpinnings.

  40. Re:J2EE? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just FYI, C# is pronounced "see sharp"

    That's what Microsoft says, but any musician will tell you that a sharp sign has upright verticals and slanted horizontals - a pound sign has slanted verticals and level horizontals. There's a separate unicode and HTML character for sharp, but Microsoft uses pound.

    As an aside, why do some people say "pound" to refer to "#"?

    It's a grocer's pound, not a pound-stirling, as in :
    banannas 5 #
    oranges 2 #

    I guess it was faster than writing 'lbs' - never been a grocer, but I've seen the old guys write orders on a paper bag.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  41. Sorry - have to agree. by cheeseflan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I realise this will gain the hate of the majority of Slashdot's posters, but I have to make the point that my company (i.e. the R&D dept - i.e. me and a couple of other geeks) has done a fairly in-depth study into moving our internal apps to Linux. Or rather to start developing onto Linux rather than continuing on the MS treadmill.

    The fact is that at the moment costs for obtaining Linux skills so far outweigh the licencing costs of using MS that it is still worth using MS. This INCLUDES all the licencing costs of both the new servers and the cost of the commercial closed-source app when applied to an open-source app...

    The important point here is that just about all of our IT function is outsourced - so we see costs directly rather than by using internal staff (who are "free" ).

    I realise you are probably spluttering by now, but just think... You can hire a low-IQ MCSE to follow the wizards and work through the install routines for a heck of a lot less time than an expert is required to configure and set up a Linux server and add an open source platform, and then configure and sort it out.

    Please remember that outside of IT firms, the driving attitude is to get the system working now, rather than working right. Apart from financial systems (e.g. payroll) you can always backfill later to fix issues - so the up-front costs really do become meaningful.

    MS really do know this - and know just how far they can push us. Linux will get better - and the skilled staff required will get cheaper. That will simply drive down MS's prices. At the moment - it is cheaper to have a wizard-driver and pay the licence fees. Linux-skilled staff just cost too much and take too long.

    --

    Pimping my Karma Whore since 1847.

  42. Eclipse does all this by Decaff · · Score: 3, Informative

    All of these features are present in eclipse (www.eclipse.org) with Java.

  43. Re:Bad comparison by laird · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You can certainly compare PHP/MySQP and .Net (and J2EE), as they're all technologies that can be used to implement web applications. I'd agree that they are significantly different (.Net is immature and only runs on NT, J2EE is very complex and runs everywhere, PHP/MySQL is simple), but you can certainly compare them in terms of the overall cost of the project. You could argue that one or the other is a more appropriate approach for a particular application (I don't envy anyone trying to implement robust transaction processing in PHP/MySQL, for example) but that doesn't mean that they can't be compared...

    --
    Enable 3D printed prosthetics!