Slashdot Mirror
Ret. World Bank CTO on Desktop Linux TCO Facts
comforteagle writes "W. McDonald Buck, retired CTO of World Bank, believes we need to take a more honest and frank look at the Cost Analyses it will take to put Linux on the corporate desktop. In Part I of Corporate Desktop Linux - The Hard Truth he begins with one of the most common misconceptions... that a business can buy a computer without Windows and save money in the transaction."
When you buy into the Microsoft platform, you are buying endless upgrades for years on end.
When a user bought Windows 3.1, they also unwittingly bought Windows 98, Windows 98SE, Windows ME, and Windows XP. This is planned obsolescense for no other reason except to keep Micorsoft shareholders happy.
With Linux, you avoid that ridiculous problem.
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
And you seem to be ignoring the fact that no corporation in existence is going to start building their own computers from components. The added labour costs make this the least cost effective alternative.
Why doesn't Slashdot ever get slashdotted?
We're talking about TCO - Total Cost of Ownership. It takes time and effort to create an install and then mirror it to a hundred systems. The business pays for that time and effort. Even if it's an in house tech doing the job, at the very least his salary for the time spent doing the install should be factored into the cost.
And it's hardly a win for Linux to say that Linux is not more expensive than Windows. If we can't show a cost savings for Linux, it's a win for Redmond.
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
Actually, I think it's you who's missing the point. First off, to get it out of the way, I hate MS, I use Linux at home, blah blah blah.
Anyway... have you ever worked for a large company, say, a bank or large corporate office, with procurement policies? I think you haven't, otherwise you would know that just telling them "Just buy a couple hundred motherboards, HDD's, CPU's, RAM sticks, cases, monitors, keyboards and mice and have your techie guy working in the basement put them together for you over your lunch break and install Linux on them." just ain't gonna fly. They are large companies, they do business, their business is not computers, but they need computers to run their business, so they look for other large companies that assure them that they are getting solid computers that will get the job done. They're going to buy Dell, or HP, or IBM. They are *not* going to show up at Bob's Discount Linux Shop and order a couple hundred desktops. And they are not going to give their one IT guy back in the server room a pile of components. They are going to go with a large supplier who will deliver a bunch of pre-built, pr-econfigured machines that they can plug into their network, put their username and password in, and get to work.
As for mom and dad and grandma, you try telling them to buy the components and build it themselves. Or telling them to go to Bob's Discount Linux Shop when they can get the same computer with an OS they allready know, and often for a couple hundred dollars less thanks to the discounts the big companies offer that small shops just can't match. They want a computer thay can buy, plug in, and start sharing pictures. They don't know, or care, about Linux or wether it's better/cheaper/sexier. They didn't buy a windows machine. They bought a Dell.
The point the guy makes in the article is completely valid: Unless and until large suppliers like Dell/HP/IBM make computers preconfigured with some flavour of Linux available, and make them cheaper than a comparable Windows box, then Linux will never be 'cheaper' or 'free' to the 99% of people out there who aren't geeks like us.
As a bit of background on me, I also work with Windows 2000-2003 *and* Linux servers for a living, in an environment where we have all our outward-facing machines running Linux and acting as webservers/webapp servers/firewalls/VPN server, and inside the network itself we've got several Windows 2000 and 2003 servers running Active Directory, Exchange, and several proprietary apps that require a server component running on a Windows NT-variant, and a client component running on a Windows desktop. Point is, I work with both Windows and Linux servers and desktops on a daily basis, I have some idea what I'm talking about.
"Two things are infinite: the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the first one." - Albert Einstein
no you are wrong.
a VERY large company can get much better pricing without windows and from DELL.
He may be a smart guy but he is making some really DUMB mistakes trying to get TCO information.
NO corperation on this planet goes to Dell's website and configures up a computer, and presses the "order 10,000" button. you call a personal Sales Associate.
That is what I did, his first quote was in line with the article until I threw the quote back at them saying, "not good enough, HP is mre than willing to do what it takes to get our business, that includes not charging us for windows."
The quote came back over $250.00 per machine lower and the line that mentioned XP pro was actually removed from the quotation.
The machines arrived with no OS.
Maybe when the author of the article starts thinking and acting like how a company will get their PC's then we will get a fail TCO.
Until then he is acting like joe-blow off the street looking for 1 pc, and this is not the way to get a fair TCO.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.