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.
"The boxes with Windows are less expensive than the boxes without."
This is common sense, they're paying us to help dispose of their rubbish.
Too bad this kind of analysis didn't make it into the anti-trust cases....
We rely HEAVILY on vendor software...and I'm not talking about office and that crap. I'm talking about MANY different systems, almost all of which have some kind of desktop component. Guess which OS all these desktop components are made for?
Sure, all the Linux Gurus can point to software that does the same thing...the only problem is big banks don't like writing/customizing/modifying/maintaining software. They're not in the software business. They want a vendor to do that and for most Linux desktop apps, that's not an option. They MUST have a contract with a well established vendor that can fix an application when it stops working. I wish it wasn't that way....hey I'm a programmer....but I can't blame them either.
$7.95/mo, 200 GB disk, 2TBxfer, MySQL, PHP, RoR.
ok.. so linux is not cheaper because windows is "free" as well.
i think he should take a good look at his support contracts and then figure out just what's wrong with his reasoning here. that's right, his reasoning would be ok IF he was arguing about home desktopts - but he isn't, so what does the initial ten or twenty bucks mean?
of course, maybe the final chapter will be "linux just can't compete.. because linux can't give me huge discounts if i would have said that ms sucks".
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
This guy is trying to make a fair TCO analysis of Linux Vs. WIndows and part 1 doesn't look good for Linux. Now it is time for slashdotters to say that businesses should Install all their systems from scratch or Buy the Walmart systems.
Well it might not look good to start when you can buy a windows dell for $400 but the same Linux dell costs $420
But DUH you can buy the Windows dell for $400 and install linux FOR FREE ON IT
Even then if you needed to deploy a hundred of them through all a company then you can make one main install of linux and mirror it everywhere.
So Linux actually can never be more expensive than windows even if windows is the 'cheapest' to buy from the store.
The best mac support on the wed
A fair assessment of what they do pay is the difference between otherwise identical configurations with and without Windows. That is what I wanted to find, and so I went shopping. I thought this would be a relatively straightforward number to get. Silly me.
It is a relatively straightforward number to get: 100 EUR. source: http://siggelkow.de/ (just an example)
IDIOT!
He's talking about corporate purchases; where the company buys off the shelf, simply re-buying "their standard configuration" each time another cubicle needs filling. These kinds of customers don't build their PC from bits, you fool!
And they DO worry about tiny differences in price; because they get multiplied out by the hundreds of boxes getting bought by the whole company.
Get a brain before using your keyboard, FFS.
I just bought a gray-box computer for my Dad. After all the negotiations, the vendor reduced the price by $65 when I deleted Windows XP Home from the package. A significant chunk of a $515 (CAN) box.
The guy I brought it from was pretty impressed when I slapped in a MEPIS CD and checked out everything - RAM, CPU, Ethernet, Multimedia - in a few minutes in the storefront. I left a copy with him.
He is right that if you wish to purchase a PC from a major distributor you will likely get no break for not having windows. But for a moment lets say that one where to simply buy Windows boxes and then reinstall them when they arrive.
I know that to some, this might sound silly, but it is common practice in many medium to large business anyway. They will simply overwrite the OS that comes on the box with the version that they want configured in the manner that they want it for their IT department.
Now lets look MS office that is installed on the image that is deployed on almost every corporate system across the country. Now if you are a company of any size you will likely get a very nice discount of the retail price, although if you are talking 1,000 PC or more, unless you wish to risk ripping of MS, the price will still add up to a pretty penny.
Then we have things such as Exchange, which at first everyone will swear that they need because it has integrated scheduling functions, despite the fact that most corporations hardly ever use the functionality, except for one or two very annoying people who are quickly ignored by everyone else (if you are one of those people, think of that statement as humor). Here is where the price starts getting steep.
But he does make a fair point, that when we discuss this matters it is only fair that we make an effort to be fair with ourselves and others on the subject.
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?
The world's largest Linux migration is speeding ahead, with the German national railway announcing today it has successfully moved all of its 55,000 Lotus Notes users onto the open-source operating system.
1 817&e=10&u=/pcworld/20050202/tc_pcworld/119537&sid =96120756
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=
... after the whole series will be that Linux does not save money for an average company. This first part gives a major point why a company won't save money. Another major point, I think, will be the time spent in helping users using Linux. The average company will have employees who are used to Windows and they will thus need help to get on track using Linux regulary. This time will probably cost a company much more than the licenses for the applications needed if they ran Windows. Another point I see coming up is the time for installing software. I'm a very experienced Linux user, and a less so Windows user, but I'm finding it quite alot easier to install software on a Windows system. And then I'm not talking simple software such as firefox, I'm talking complicated applications such as j2ee application servers (for sandbox development), advanced IDEs and so on.
:).
My two cents
I think you are ignoring who the article author is.
For techies, building your own or going with not so mainstream manufacturers isn't a problem.
But for W. McDonald Buck, retired CTO of World Bank, he wants a big name, 1st tier manufacturer to supply his PC, not Joe Bobs PC Hardware Shack.
The point Buck makes is:
The boxes with Windows are less expensive than the boxes without.
Or to be more accurate:
It looks to me, however, like the Microsoft monopoly has such a stranglehold on the tier 1 manufacturers that it is now not possible for a corporate shopper to save money by avoiding Windows unless they are prepared to go outside the first tier...... Small businesses may buy computers this way if they have or hire somebody tech savvy to help them, but I don't think this is how your average homeowner buys, and I know it isn't how large companies buy.
Which is the main point he makes. The big players, including IBM, are still shills for the Microsoft tax.
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.
The title of the article is Corporate Desktop Linux. Corporations don't piece their systems together.
So he purposely misstates any facts and says that windows is cheaper because some pricey manufacturers choose to sell windows for less than linux installed machines. This is silly too because you can just buy the chjeaper windows default install and put linux on it with a burned CD you downloaded for no cost. And then throw away the Windows CD!
No, he's stating the facts correctly. Theoretically, buying an N-series from Dell should be cheaper, because they are not including a Windows license in that price. But it's not.
If you want it without a particular option, the price should be less than an identical system that includes that option.
Just like buying a car without a radio. It should cost less than an identical car with a radio. Not more.
Many, perhaps the majority of our local (Perth, WestOz) wholesalers will sell you a "naked" system for AUD$50-150 apiece less than an XP-burdened system. Many of them have been offering this for over a year.
Forex, one wholesaler is offering 2.4GHz Celery, 256MB, 40GB, CD, Floppy for AUD$399exGST. With XP Home OEM, AUD$514; with XP Pro OEM, AUD$584; with 98SE OEM, AUD$578. Their home page proudly displays the Microsoft logo, too, and until recently had a direct link to their "piracy" (as in, "We're going to copy down all of your sea shanties and not pay you any money for them!") page.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
OK you are IT Manager of a large company. You have 1000 systems to install. What are you going to do. Buy from Dell/HP/IBM who you know can deliver, Try to organize all the parts you will need bargin shop for all of them Then have your IT Staff build 1000 boxen, Or call Mr. Noname running from the basement and ask him to build 1000boxes for you.
I would probably go with Dell/HP/IBM because it is actually a better value because your time and the staffs time costs money too and you also need to save your butt from management if something goes wrong.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Mr. Buck tried to take the cost of a box without Windows installed, and compare it to a box that does have windows installed.
.doc files perfectly, but that is hardly the fault of the developers. They have done a great job reverse-engineering the format as best they can so that it renders well in OO.
What he forgot to mention is that any serious business trying to get some work done "the Microsoft way" must own a copy of MS office for each computer in their workspace. So for a small business who can't afford huge site licenses, that's going to add another $379.00 to the cost of each workstation. Even if the bundled windoze works out to only $20 a machine, you are still out $400 per worksation just to open and read your doc and xls files.
Another consideration is that in the Windoze world, you pretty much have to have a full-blown installation for each user. Yes, I know you can do thin-clients with windows too, but there isn't an easy and inexpensive way to do this for small businesses.
Also take into account that once a business reaches a certain size they are going to need dedicated backup servers, mail server, exchange server, etc. All this stuff costs $$$ to implement, and is usually more expensive than the linux alternative.
We run a small business and power our entire sales and support department on LTSP-based thin-client terminals. The cost of each workstation? Well let's do the math:
* Pentium II computers, bought from an auction, by the pallet. About $3.00 per workstation.
* 17" CRT monitor - brand new $89.00
* Fedora Core Linux - FREE as in freedom AND as in beer. w00t!
* OpenOffice - Free.
I am not going to include the cost of my time as a sysadmin, because I'm going to get paid to do my job whether the end-users are on windows or linux. I probably spend less time troubleshooting things now that we are using linux so ostensibly the cost of tech support is *less* but I don't have the empirical evidence to back it up.
The server running LTSP has 4 gigs of memory and a Pentium 4 processor and handles up to 20 users quite nicely without even getting close to dipping into the swap file. They are all running web browser, Open Office, and Evolution pretty much all day long. I expect that this particular server could support up to 30-35 users before we saw a big performance hit. This server cost less than $2000 to configure.
My LTSP workstations are so cheap they are nearly disposable. Oh, dropped your computer on the floor? Power supply burned out? Let me pull another one out of storage, plug it in, and off you go. Try that with your windows boxen.
Yes, I'm aware that you can put openoffice on a windows box and use that, but why would you do that when OO, Firefox, and Evolution are available for linux?
The only groups that I would *not* recommend this solution to would be companies that use and depend on a lot of doc and xls files that are heavily formatted and full of macros. Open Office still can't quite render all
All in all, Linux is easier to use, and less expensive but to really find that out you have to take more into account than just the difference between an off-the-shelf computer from IBM or Dell, and the similar no-os computer.
> 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.
Well then you can buy 99 Windows PC's for $400 and one Linux PC in the same configuration and mirror the linux PC configuration and put it on all the Windows PCs then. So then you save $99 times $20 or $1980 doing this. And you didn't have to spend on creating an install!. And when in the article he says Windows boxes cost up to $230 LESS with dell and 100 to 150 LESS with HP then over 99 computers that is a saving of $1450 to $2270.
That is latteral thinking!
The best mac support on the web
Well to be fair on the other side. A lot of companies do re image their systems anyways. Even if it comes with the OS they are using. Just because they want to install all there common 3rd party applications in one swoop.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Funny, they are using a different url for slashdot,
here is a link to the one where everyone shoots down
his unqualified opinions.
http://osdir.com/Article3992.phtml
You buy a machine it does not matter what comes on it since every single corporate environment images machines when the come in the door anyhow, so the price is still the same.
Besides no Linux administrator worth a grain of salt is gonna install linux on anything anyhow. Everyone I know that runs real desktop installations does so using thin client.
Got Code?
I don't understand why American (and probably European) companies buy branded PCs. Most companies and people here, in India, just buy assembled PCs which are much cheaper. I'm not sure if you use the same terminologies over there so: A branded PC is a PC by some big company like Compaq (HP) or Dell. An assembled PC is one put together by a small shop owner or a small company. Assembled PCs are usually completely customisable. [Branded PCs here cost more or less the same as in the west.] Therefore, in most situations, PCs with Linux are much cheaper than PCs with Windows.
While the writer is making a fair point, one counter-argument is that a Linux corporate desktop installation would quite likely use thin clients like they did in Largo in order to make the system easier to manage for system administrators.
Parts break down and need to be replaced but, d'oh!, that line has been discontinued. Please upgrade your [[insert item here]]. That means buy a new(ew) car or new vacuum.
I've got an old eMachine P3 500Mhz happily running Linux and I believe this box is still capable of doing real work. Sadly, the mindset we all seem to share is that that old box is too, well, old and too slow. So corporate environments buy newer and bigger machines. Why? So our little automation tasks can running a little faster?
I don't know much of the specifics about Google's server farm, but from what little I understand, many of their machines would be considered old and obsolete. Meanwhile, they have those machines performing real work.
My old eMachine might be old, but damn if it can't crank out thousands of our little automation tasks per day. But people still want to have the latest and greatest. Maybe it's marketing that won us over, but if I were a business leader looking to keep costs down, I'd get as much value from these old machines as I could. But that's just me.
-cost of Anti-Virus software (that slows the system down)
-cost of anti-spyware solutions. Typically you need two or more cleaners to get the most common ones.
-cost of downtime. Typical desktop PC in a business is down for most of a day many times a year.
-cost of the forced upgrade cycle.
-On top of that, Windows comes with NOTHING bundled. Everything costs extra. Just managing the licenses in a corporate environment is pain!
Add to this the much bigger probability of data loss and theft, and the Windoze solution does not seem like a solution at all.
Bandaid over duct tape. Legacy crap is what keeps people using Win32, there are no other sane reasons.
'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
That was just part 1, and didn't conclude what you seem to think it did. But hey, don't let that stop your inane ranting.
I got those numbers wrong. I meant when in the article he says Windows boxes cost up to $230 LESS with dell and 100 to 150 LESS with HP then over 99 computers that is a saving of $14,850 to $22,770.
so twenty two thousand dollars saved by going with linux.
The best mac support on the web
Good point, but... Most businesses actually do make their own image of Windows and deploy it throughout the company (at least this has been the case for all the large companies I've been involved with). Usually it's easier to just reimage the hard drive than to install all the company's software on the default windows install (besides that, the image is updated with all the latest service packs and the version that came with the machine may not be).
So, Linux and Windows are dead even in this area.
I think the real problem is that hardware companies (Dell, Gateway, even IBM) don't have the guts to stand up to Microsoft and offer a real alternative.
Unfortunately, the article is very true.
It can be difficult to get pre-installed Linux desktop.
Servers, though, a totally different matter. Here you can make really large savings. Especially when you consider that you don't need all those CALs. Compare a Windows Server 2003 running Windows Terminal Server and having 20 Windows XP desktops connecting to it, to a completely Linux Desktop OS and Linux Server OS solution, and you're biggest saving is in the server area. Heck, according to this article the Linux Server / Windows Desktop would be the cheapest solution!
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
W. McDonald Buck sounded like a made up name to me. How about G. Penny Cash, or Exxon Starbucks? W. McDonald Buck as a CTO of World Bank? If you google for that name, you don't find a mention of that name anywhere except at a university. If you search on worldbank.org, that name doesn't come up there either.
I think you all have been hacked, because the article tells you what you wanted to talk about.
Looking at worldbank.org and searching for CTO, I haven't found a reference to a CTO for themselves, only references to CTO's elsewhere. I don't beleive they even have a CTO, honestly.
Just sayin'.
If you buy all Linux systems then you will have to train your employees on linux. Just about everybody who knows how to turn a computer on knows Windows. Not to mention getting administrators with a more rare skillset is usually more expensive. I haven't checked the salaries Linux admins command but I know MCSEs are a dime a dozen. Even if they make the same you'd have to at the very least hire trainers for every single department that will be using linux.
Hey, if you can sell the idea to the bean counters more power to you but I don't think Linux will be cost effective for enterprise any time soon.
In most organizations, the most expensive aspect of a F/OSS migration is resistance to change:
WHAAAAAT?!! YOU'RE TAKING AWAY MY POWERPOINT?!!
People grow up with these programs. They devote time and personal resources becoming proficient with them. They don't want that background to become obviated. They don't want to start over. We who work in technology are just the opposite by our very nature. We like change. We like the challenge and adventure of learning new (and better) things. That nature is one of the things that drove is into a technical field.
I personally think the only practical migration is to first migrate to F/OSS apps on Windows, gradually. Then, migrate all those apps to Linux. So that, to the user, Linux is just another application migration.
Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
You are claiming stuff about what a "corporate shopper" would experience by going around public web sites? Oo I'm sorry, but that is so fucking clueless I don't know where to start. When the place I work at was about to move away from Sun hardware their sales rep suddenly dropped their price quote something like 50%.
Of course we were buying some serious hardware and they knew we were going to be getting support for it as well for a long time. But even less serious corporate buyers will never be buying a single workstation and will never paying what joe sixpack pays either. Websites targeted at consumers have absolutely nothing to do with what corporate people pay.
We're talking about TCO - Total Cost of Ownership.
You mispronounced 0wnership.
I guess there are a couple of points that have to be considered in all this.
First : If the cost of a PC with windows is $400 and the same PC with Linux is $420, you have to realize that actually a PC with either Windows or Linux or BSD costs $400, because you can install whatever you feel like on that PC. After that, the cost of additional software for basic things also has to be considered. Windows is an obvious loser in that area (consider antivirus/basic editors/remote mgmt/whatever and the bill starts to grow).
Second: If you really think that for medium-large companies it's a hassle to have to re-install the machines with Linux if they have shipped with Linux, I guess that's not a problem. Actually, PCs where I work are being reinstalled anyway with the corporate image, so that time of reinstalling has to be counted on the TCO for both Linux and Windows.Then again, those images are more expensive for similar functionality with windows, than a similar image based on linux (and we have both where I work). Of course, maintenance of windows machines tend to be a little, well, harder and problematic, so it all adds on the TCO. \P>
Any IT worker with half a brain knows that you can deal with your primary reseller. I can get really good HP business desktops sans Windows XP or a Windows XP license for about $500 (dx2000's fully loaded, $400 not). That should be the starting point of pricing for the desktop itself. This guy is spending too much money any way you look at it. Has he never heard of a reseller?
Next you look at the cost of licensing. If you want Microsoft's "Assurance", or whatever they call it these days (in which you can upgrade without fee the next time around), a company my size would have to spend about $300,000. The other option is buy each individual XP license at $176 a pop. Neither of these options include any kind of support. Going with Linux, lets say Novell's Desktop Linux (Suse 9.2 Pro with the LDAP client preinstalled and a shiny Gnome configuration), I'm looking at $80 a license. This includes a little bit of support, and an active community on Novell's official forums.
Anyways, from here you have to figure out how to get around the Microsoft Office lock-in, and decide whether you want to go with Citrix or Codeweavers. But that's an entirely different discussion.
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.
Forget that the upfront cost of Windows or Linux. Focusing on that is like looking and one pebble and using it to describe all the rocks in world.
If you want to look at the cost of any software, Linux or others, in the corporate envrionment you have to considered three main points; managed support costs, unmananged support costs, investment costs. Before you get your undies in a bunch, yes there are other costs but if you slice up all the costs these three can average nearly 75% of the pie.
Managed Support Costs are the things budgeted for. Help Desk technicians, maintenance contracts and such. The cost of a Windows based support person is less than a Linux based support person. There are more Windows people (greater supply). Umanaged Support Costs are those things that are costs generated by unplanned/budgeted items. For example, I sit at my desk and monkey around with getting something to work for an hour. That is a cost to the company both from a resource time spent perspective and from a loss of productivity perspective. THESE COSTS ARE HUGE!
Finally there are investment costs which are things the business will have to do to switch. Imagine a business with a 10 person support desk that is primarily Windows. There are documents, procedures, how-tos, along with the expertise the individuals have built up. Now you come in and say switch to Linux. The business will have to throw away a lot of that list and then spend even more money re-building it for Linux.
Even if Windows and Linux cost exactly the same to support/manage it is a tough sell to a CIO on the topic of Investment Costs. It will cost to much money to switch and for a period of time 1-2 years it puts the infrastructure at risk (new software, unknown problems, etc).
I'm a huge fan of Linux! I have to CPUs at work one is pure SuSE 9.2 and the other is W2K. Even on the W2K I spend my time in SuSE inside of VMware. I am very anti-MS but this is not about MS vs. Linux, this is about costs and risks to switching.
Q: I am short, useless and provide no value. What am I? A: a sig
Nonsense.
We just have to point out the fact that most larger businesses throw away the bundled OEM-XP-home licenses anyway because they have their own licenses (which of course would no longer be needed if you have Linux).
And of course smaller businesses tend to buy whitebox or cheap systems which can be often had without Linux.
Yeah, it's a bit of a joke that the guy is using Dell's Windows discounts (or "bias", as I like to call it) as the entire underpinning of a TCO calculation. Maybe he should start noticing computer shops which aren't Dell.
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
Well, you are very lucky. I can go and install games that are released and available today from places like Garage Games and they will crash or hang because of things like NPTL which did break software on a seriously large scale. There are other examples as well: currently the X compositing extension is known to break some programs, for instance. Likewise the Linux kernel sometimes has regressions, lately in the ptrace handling.
But when I negotiate for big customers they're putting our gold disk image on our machines. We pay for our site licenses through MSFT, not the PC vendor. And we have a disk image for some servers that's not Winblows and we're not paying MSFT for those. We spec the components and configuation. The only company left out of that loop on some of the servers is MSFT. Our unit machine cost doesn't change.
For a real TCO study the author isn't going to be buying machines retail. But he still has a point. Most companies aren't going to be buying enough machines to be able to supply the image like we do. Interesting. I build my own machines at home so I had no idea you couldn't buy a machine without Windows from the big players.
As long as MSFT can keep a grip on that pipeline and make it a huge pain in the ass for someone running Linux to get a rebate for the Windows they don't use, then that sort of anwsers that thread yesterday about why when Windows sucks so bad does it stay so popular. Consumers don't have enough choices.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
It seems like the perfect computer to introduce kids to computing
Dude, the average mom doesn't know this stuff.
Plus it's cheap so it's not that big of a deal if the kids break it.
If you're shopping at Wal Mart for a computer, you don't have hundreds of dollars to just say "well, kids broke that computer, time to buy another!"
And as far as why a mother of three wouldn't buy Linux, one word: Games.
Kids want games, and Linux doesn't provide them. My little sister wants to play Roller Coaster Tycoon and Zoo Tycoon and The Sims. Not to mention Warcraft, Halo and HL2.
Kids don't want to play Frozen Bubble and Tux Racer -- I should know, I tried to get my kid sister to play them, and she was like "these are boring, I want to play Zoo Tycoon now!"
You may want to check out EmperorLinux. They specialize in selling Linux-powered laptops and provide support them as well. They have been around for a while now and make buying laptops for work a lot easier.
L-ViS
The trouble is as a not-very-large company ordering 70 workstations, this just doesn't happen. We have to pay for Windows.
However, since we have a corporate volume license from $PARENT, and we have an image we've built with our software load, we essentially pay for Windows TWICE - once on the pre-install which we don't use, then software rental on the corporate install.
The other TCO problem with Windows is in imaging. With a Windows image, all the machines have to be identical for the image to work or you get all sorts of interesting driver issues. Manufacturers keep changing their specs. You can get the same model of PC from HP and find it has a different NIC and a different chipset and a different video card even though it's apparently the same. With a Linux image, it seems so long as you've got the module, it just works without complaining. With a Windows image, the best you get is many "Found new hardware" dialogues (and the driver install may or may not work, and you have to sometimes feed it disks which is kind of missing the point of a hard disk image). Sometimes you get a machine that won't even boot. Windows is a royal pain for machines built from hard disk images unless you can make sure all your machines are identical.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Let's be entirely fair on the other side.
I worked for a company that regularly ordered Dell's. After 4 years of it, I finally adopted the practice of completely reloading the systems from a clean hard disk with a standard Windows install CD before using. Why? Because of all the "crapware" that Dell installs! The machines were routinely more stable (and, yes, we are talking win2k and XP here) and more responsive without Dell's custom software on them. From talking with others in similar situations at other companies, HP/Compaq's have the same problem.
Now, ostensibly, the reason for all this extra software is to make diagnosing problems easier for techs when you call in for service. Realistically, the only solution they really offer when you call in is to reload with the "restore" CD. This, of course, wipes out any custom settings or software installed after the machine was delivered. Add to this the fact that the last 2 systems we ordered had the video drivers borked and would not even display correctly after registering (and I had to reload the "restore" CD twice to prove this to them) but worked fine after I installed from the vanilla Windows install CD and you gotta assume that Dell doesn't always ship working software!
There isn't any real bargain in getting systems preloaded.
Dell is also a good company for this. You're probably thinking, why should I buy an agreement like this from Microsoft when I have no choice but to pay for the Windows license from Dell? Dell will work with you. Once they verify you have a VLA with Microsoft, they will deduct the cost of the Windows license(s) form your order.
Now speaking from experience, all preloaded machines are CRAP! Dell loads all kinds of "tools" on their default install (this also means never use their restore cd's either). Take 2 machines, load one by hand with a vanilla XP cd and load the other with the Dell XP cd. Once in Windows check out the Services list. Surprised? There's a lot of unnecessary services and also programs preinstalled, which over time, will make the system unstable. I learned the hard way. I started off using the Dell loads until I noticed a pattern in BSOD's and crashes. Then I started a standardized imaging system with the base images being done by hand with a vanilla XP cd. No more random crashes...
I have noticed, however, that sometimes the DellTech will ask you to boot to the Diag partition (a supersmall FAT partiton they put at the beginning of the hard drive with diagnostic utilities) for error codes and such. Blow that partition away. You don't need it. I've made it a habit that before I call a DellTech, I boot to the Diagnostic cd for that system (each system has it's own (GX260, GX270, Latitude D600, etc.)) and write down every error code it spits out. This will greatly speed up your call time and get your machine fixed very quickly.
If nothing else, I hope people who have to work with such machines have learned 2 things:
Wow, that brings back memories of a lifetime ago. About 18 years ago I worked a few levels under Buck in the telecommunications division at the World Bank.
I have to say, the World Bank is not your model of intelligent spending when it comes to this kind of stuff, though. I don't think he was CTO at the time I was there, though he may have been.
You have to understand, the World Bank operates much like a government. Everything is very political, much more than most offices. Advances happen more from a buddy network than from actual accomplishment and the quality of one's work is seldom appreciated as much as the quantity.
For example, if you're a in charge of making loans, the volume of loans you make, and not the security of those loans, is what gets you noticed. Everything in the WB operates that way (or it did when I was there).
Money is pissed away in almost every way. For example, a number of years after working there the first time, I was hired as a contractor to write a very basic time tracking package to keep track of billable ours by employees (departments bill each other for various services provided). They spent about $40,000 for me to write this fairly basic software. Instead, they could have spent a few hundred dollars and bought a much more feature rich shrink-wrapped package. My software, while customized, was largely a matter of customized look and not customized features.
Anyway, I'll have to take any spending advice coming out the World Bank with a brick of salt.
With that said, I don't really see Linux becoming all that big on the desktop. Because most of the office users won't start using it at home, simply because 8/10 users plays with their computers in a very different way of what the more geeky types does.
I know plenty of office workers who only know as much about computers as they need to for work. They only have windows with office because that is what they use at work. If businesses started installing linux, then new employees would most likely use it at home, to help be familiar and compatible with work. There are also those people I know who know only the keystrokes and mouse clicks they need to run 1 application, who call the help desk if a window pops up in the way, and they cant close it.
could all of you be patient? I think this guy knows all of this. But this is 4 parts, and he is only doing what everyone would consider part one. small to medium sized business need to look at everything, but this is always the first step, how much do I need to spend up front to get my systems. I just hope you all read the other 3 parts just to see where he goes with it.
Guess what. Large businesses do install their systems from scratch. It's called imagining. Did you really think they drop, for example, an HP system with all those additional HP OS 'enhancements' cold onto the network, or sit in front of each box in a 1000 computer shipment with install discs? All Buck demonstrated was that he didn't spend any time talking to IT departments, which is hardly 'trying' to do a fair analysis in my book. In fact his article was so slovenly I question if he's really a Linux devote at all.
Although the previous poster is currently mod'ed as "Flamebait", the post has a very good point...
If I'm a corporation and I am going to buy, say, 100 desktops, I don't go to the website for the purchase. I call Dell or IBM or HP or Gateway directly and get a sales rep for pricing and options.
After the options and prices are set, I would ask how much does the price drop if no Windows licenses are included. I'd probably have a much better chance of getting what I want at that point.
It's one thing to turn down $500. It's another to turn away $25,000.
- Tony
The other thing to watch in TCO calculations is how cost tradeoffs are measured. If you're not tracking actual costs through the entire life cycle, the numbers are bullshit. And both training costs and estimates of improved or lost productivity are notoriously imprecise and sensitive to initial assumptions.
In fact, when I consult, I advise my clients to be wary of TCO calculations. The main reason is that the number that matters most to business is not TCO but return on investment (ROI). That's benefits minus costs. TCO comparisons assume equal benefits for the alternative approaches. But the goal of IT in a business is not just to reduce costs: if that were true, you could save a lot of money by ripping all your computers out. The goal is to maximize productivity. So ease of integration, stability of systems, ability to deploy new solutions in a controlled manner, all add to operational flexibility and are benefits. It's fallacious to look at IT solely as a cost center, and by allowing the debate to shift in that direction you're giving up a lot of winning arguments for Linux.
Get your teeth into a small slice: the cake of liberty
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.
Just like no one installs windows from raw OEM media, if you roll out Linux to many machines you image it just like Windows. And if your tech staff can't install Linux, I pitty you.
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.
Especially for companies, Linux TCO is cheaper. Most CEOs couldn't tell you how much they spend on Windows but do bet it is more that they realize. Linux comes with alot of stuff that in Windows is extra. Lets list a few I have never seen in TCO analysis:
Complete and full development environment including vetted source code
Secure terminal emulation such as secure shell
File distribution software and package management including remote install
Remote administration (securely)
Backup and recovery software (that works without an OS install!)
Proxy software (squid)
IMAP/POP3 servers including SSL versions
Firewall that works and is stateful.
VPN software
GRID and distrubuted computing that is tried and true
SQL servers
DNS, LDAP, sendmail and other servers included 0 best of all they even work with Windows.
Open Office
All the above (and likely more) is included and no CAL nickel and diming. Best of all, many functions can be shared!! That is the secretaries PC might also be the local mail server and no need for the extra system to support local mail or DNS.
If your like most corps, the same problems, and the same solutions exist to roll out linux as Windows XP. Not a whole lot of differences.
Mind you if your CEO/CIO/CFO and others spend more time playing games and watching videos, and like loading spyware instead of financial and business management and order input -- then Windows is your answer.
Alternatively, you can buy one machine, configure it the way you want it, then send Dell the disk drive and tell them to load that on *all* your machines - try getting HP to do that...
You can certainly talk to a Dell sales rep about 70 PCs, you can even talk to a Dell sales rep about 5 PCs - I haven't tried talking to them about 1 PC yet though.
Oh well, what the hell...
I don't see what all the fuss is about. Microsoft is paying the vendor to make computers cheaper with windows. It is just part of the packaging like the styrofoam padding, plastic bags and box. Just throw away windows with the rest of the packaging.
When I was young, I had to rub sticks together to compute.
Okay, you can't buy a PC without Windows, at least not from one of the big-name vendors. So if you wanted to run Linux you would need to wipe the hard disk and reinstall from scratch.
But isn't that what most big companies do anyway? Even if you run Windows, you never want the stock installation that Dell put on there. You reinstall the machine with the corporate standard version of Windows (if your IT people have any clue, this will be fully automated).
So I don't see that inability to get Linux preinstalled is a big deal. The main reason to buy a machine which comes with Linux is as a guarantee that all the components have Linux drivers - but you can check that separately.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
First, the "Microsoft tax" is not just on the purchase price of the first year's license, it's on the all the years following.
Second, if corporations are too stupid to figure out how to save money, they should be out of business.
And everybody knows MOST corporations - the bigger the better - are LOUSY at figuring out how to save money. Which is why they spend most of their time raising prices, cutting customer service and having their accountants nickle and dime the IRS.
Because management are morons.
As this "World Bank CTO" clearly demonstrates.
If this idiot wants to demonstrate "hard truth", he's started off really badly.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Since it's a day off and I also have too much time on my hands...
.dll, msvcrt, .net
1. Windows has more security flaws than Linux - anyone who says differently is counting all the software that runs on linux also (but not all windows software). Linux also releases patches for critical vulns MUCH faster than MS. For instance, take the discovery a few years ago that SSL didn't work (on any platform). MS took over three months to come up with a fix, Linux to just over 30 minutes. MS still has unpatched critical vulns in IE dating back to August of 2003!
2. No, I don't.
3. Sure, hardware vendor support for Linux would be nice, but it's starting to happen. And Linux runs on more different hardware platforms than Windows.
4. No Windows Emu here - just Wine (free) so I can run a couple windows-only apps.
5. Funny, how many city and national governments - not to mention major corporations like HP and IBM - are switching to Linux on the desktop?
6. While that may have been true a year or two ago, now they ask me how it's different from Windows.
7. My printer works just as well on Linux as Windows. I am a musician and there is NO windows software that can create a manuscript as well as Lilypond.
8. I never play with scripts - Linux already has the functionality I need. At least I could script if I needed to - Windows scripting is a joke. As to recompiling - what's easier:
A) typing emerge openoffice then being able to use my computer while the software builds and installs itself.
B) driving to the store, spending $400 on MS Office, driving home, inserting disc, having to close ALL other programs, reading a 10,000 word EULA, then waiting, unable to use my computer, while the software installs.
9. You can't admit professional desktop publishing is mostly done on Macintosh.
10. Video editing is still a little rough, Cinellera is pretty much the only pro quality editor out there. However - when it comes to effects and post processing Linux rules. The post processing software of choice in Hollywood is Cinepaint, used on Perfect Storm, Harry Potter, Star Wars (the new ones), etc. Maya runs very well on Linux, and Massive (written for LOTR) only runs on Linux. The major effects houses (Weta Digital, ILM and Pixar) are all Linux shops.
11. Less games are available now, but that is changing. Doom 3 and Medal of Honor are out for Linux, just to name a couple. With Cedega even more are available, including GTA Vice City. As for education, there are actually more rescources available since most Universities software was written for Unix and is easily ported to Linux. As far as Entertainment, I only need two players (one for music, one for video) to play ANYTHING. Windows needs a different player for almost every format. And try playing music compressed with Shorten (a lossless codec) without first decompressing on Windows.
12. I understand Windows very well, and make good money fixing it for people. I hope MS never gets any better or I'll lose a lot of income.
13. I point and click just fine - ever heard of Gnome, or KDE?
14. Right back at ya!
15. You can't admit that naming of windows components, packages, and others are weird and fits profiles of troubled teenagers.
16. I'd rather not have MS's DRM crippled crap media on my PC, thank you very much. I can already play MPEG, AVI, WMV, MOV, RM, WAV, MP3, OGG, etc.
17. There are several front-ends to MySQL that are as easy and powerfull as Access. They just aren't as exploitable, so I guess they are harder - for criminals to crack.
18. Which is why HP, IBM, and countless other corporations, cities, and national governments are switching to Open Office?
19. K3b (frontend for mkisofs and cdrecord) has the same features as Nero (and can handle more different types of image files) and has never made a coaster for me.
20. Yes it does - see above.
21. Th
Open Source for Open Minds
In any case, I second the note. No large-compamny CEO in his right mind is going to pay the stock prices at dell.com or ibm.com. They're going to call up their personal sales rep and say "I'm buying 4000 machines next month. What's the price without Windows?".
The people who have little choice but to pay stock price at the tier-1 manufacturers are also the same ones who have half a dozen friends who can point them to a local grey-box manufacturer who can give them a much better price with better local support. (i.e. they won't go: "Your CD died?? Well, first you have to load Windows on your box, then you have to reinstall it.").
For me, it's literally the computer store next door (OK: 2 doors down). He'll sell me a cheap box for $285CDN (about $230US) without windows, and another $100 ($80USD) for XP home.
The reason why Microsoft makes it so hard to get boxes without Windows at places like DEL and IBM is that they know that if home users can get easy access to Linux, they'll talk about how well it works when they get to work, and that'll infiltrate to the CEO who'll start a pilot project on the corporate desktop.
They also don't want corporate CEOs to just buy their $3000 home box with Linux installed on it 'on a lark' and (once again) find out just how much functionality and security they get (see previous paragraph).
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
this guy isn't making a fair TCO analysis though. Windows and Linux have different strengths and different weaknesses. If I were going to install a linux network, I would use terminals. they can be built for less than $500/unit, and should last 10 years or more. In addition, you only have to really maintain a server, not 10 or 20 or 30 desktops *AND* a server.
For example.
If I were going to build a 30 computer lap for a school, and I was looking at windows. I would spend anywhere from $500 to $1500 per seat for the clients, then another $2000 - $3000 for the server, then maybe $2000 for a pair of networked color laser printers. This adds up to $19,000 - $50,000, and I've seen schools drop $50k on 20 seat labs.
If I was looking at Linux however, I would use LTSP, with a cost of $300 - $700 per seat for the clients, then another $3000 - $4000 for the server, and $2000 for a pair of networked color laser printers. This adds up to $14,000 - $27,000 for thirty seats.
The linux network costs between three fourths to half of what the windows network costs. and I don't have to worry about maintaining 30 machines, just one. in five years when it's time to upgrade, I replace the server for another $4,000, get a few more terminals to replace any that may have died.
Sure I may cost 10k/year more than a windows admin, but at the high end, after ten years(initial purchase and five year upgrade)
I've more than paid for myself. not to mention the fact that as you add more seats/labs, the cost goes up.
...piles and piles of OSS deployments that have saved companies millions, and about which they've written (just search Slashdot for the papers/articles).
Seems like this has been happening to OSS from the beginning of time.
OSS User: "I love OSS. It works for me."
Anti-OSS: "No you don't. You just think you love OSS, and you just think it works for you. In reality, you're wasting all of your time fiddling and nothing on your desktop works at all!"
OSS Business: "I saved big money with OSS. My books are balanced! Woohoo!"
Anti-OSS: "No you didn't. You just think you saved money because the numbers in your ledger tell you you did. In reality, it's not possible to save money with OSS, so you must have lost somewhere."
As far as I'm concerned, if you think you're very happy with a product, and your bankbook numbers tell you that you're saving money, then who cares what's "really" happening in the underlying "reality" of the OSS-doesn't-work-at-all universe?
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
While $299 as the cost of Windows might not be completely accurate, you also can't discount double-paying for Windows licenses
For example, I work at a University, and essentially every PC we buy comes with Windows. However, it would be a aweful to work with those images, which are essentially controlled from outside us. More importantly, license management is a nightmare. So we pay a (large) fee to license our MS operating systems and applications again with more liberal license conditions.
Add to that the other more obscure places we pay for licenses. For example Computer Science is a Academic Alliance member. For a token fee, they essentially buy licenses again (and they don't use that many, so a token fee is actually non-negligable).
That means that any copy of Windows I personally use for work has been paid for 3 times, and those are just the payments I am aware of. Add to that the cost of the labor of the people whose job it is to ensure that we don't violate our licenses, because people get paid for that too.
By comparison, a piece of free software (with the 4 freedoms) is a dream. No fee. No need to pay someone to track licenses or maintain a license server. Use the software for whatever you like.
It might not be $299, but there is definitely a savings, but it's a sight more that $9.
So: Linux TCO sucks because monopoly practices mean you're forced to buy Microsoft anyway.
If that's a correct summary, then he's urging acceptance of what is likely to be a highly volatile status quo. That seems simultaneously fatalistic and a bit silly.
Get your teeth into a small slice: the cake of liberty
The author is a former CTO for the world bank: an international organization with about ten thousand employees spread around the world, not including on-site consultants. He has looked at the TCO question and provided a part one of a TCO comparison. The Organization will not be purchasing 2K computers from Bob's bargain hut, or me. They will be purchasing them from a top tier manufacturer. As a Former TCO, he does not have the clout to get a rep on the line to order 2K machines and is doing a summary closer to a small business. As that, he is checking out the web prices for computers which have a windows tax on them. Saying that he should create 2K computers from parts is not reasonable. I am personally curious to see what he looks for in parts to follow. Especially knowing that the help monkies at the bank are not that helpful.