Slashdot Mirror
Australian TCO Study: Linux Wins Again
An anonymous reader writes "An updated Linux vs Windows TCO study has found that a 250-seat company can end up saving 36 percent if it were to equip its users with the open source operating system and applications that run on it."
You say that you want a study with "a much larger number of employees", yet you suggest 10.000 as an example? And what's with the floating point number?
I would prefer a study with 10,000 employees.
Geez, man. Get a grip!
This is like the 400th time the editors have posted the same boring news this week. It's all basically the same concept rehashed. Yes, Linux will save you $100,000,000. We get the point.
Costs which arose when systems need to be pre-emptively rebooted or crashed, resulting in unscheduled downtime, were not taken into account.
Maybe they were not taken into account (and thus in Microsoft's favor) because the group wasn't able to use older MS operating systems in their study when comparing MS to Linux. When you think about it, their newer operating systems (XP/2000/2003) are very stable and you will never see a crash with the exception of hardware errors or very stupid user errors.
I know how to tell facts from marketing fluff. Now, here are the facts as they're found by SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INSTITUTES:
Expenses for file-server workloads under Windows, compared to LinuxOS:
They compared Microsofts IIS to the Linux 7.0 webserver. For Windows, the cost was only:
Application development and support costs for Windows compared to an opensores solution like J2EE:
A full Windows installation, compared to installing Linux, on an Enterprise Server boxen:
Compared to the best known opensores webserver "Red Hat", Microsoft IIS:
These are hard numbers and 100% FACTS! There are several more where these came from.
Who do you think we professionals trust more?
Reliable companies with tried and tested products, or that bedroom coder Thorwaldes who publicly admits that he is in fact A HACKER???
--
Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan, Amiga community representative
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover
Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU
Free Documentation License".
Copyright (c) 2006 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan
I agree with both of you. It's a shame that Linux proponents have to result to fear related to factors that were only prominent before 1998. This is a sad set of people who are under the impression that they're doing something to help people. I think that they should just stop running stories such as "Linux dominates the desktop n 2005, 2006, etc." because Linux is shit at the desktop and always will be. Why else would there be Wine, why else do the desktops try to be Windows like (and please don't say they're trying to be Mac-like like Windows ... because 95 crushed Mac OS 9 usability ... I know having used Mac OS since the XL). This is a case of the wrong people with the power to print misinformation. Hilter always said the bigger the lie the more people will believe it. I guess that's how some people have actually been led to believe the TCO of Linux is lower than MS.
Wow, what bullshit.
The cost of running Linux may be smaller at the beginning, but anyone worth their salt (i.e. not a Linux fanatic) can attest that long term TCO is cheaper with ANY corporate UNIX.