Slashdot Mirror
Part II: Corp. Desktop Linux - The Hard Truth
comforteagle writes "I've published Part II of W. McDonald Buck's essay on Linux TCO. In it he looks at the scenario of a company having already moved to Linux in the server room and also to open source software on Windows desktops, but "...now wants to know, how much extra can be saved by the final step of changing the operating system itself? And, what are the other costs, risks and benefits of doing that. To keep the scenario simple, we're assuming too that this will be done at a time when the desktop equipment is also being replaced. The news is good, but not as good as we like to believe." Part I was discussed previously on Slashdot."
Article text, in case of slashdotting:
Part II: Corporate Desktop Linux - The Hard Truth
Enterprise Linux / Article
Date: Feb 11, 2005 - 06:39 AM
by W. McDonald Buck (slashdotting-resistant version)
In Part I (of IV) of Corporate Desktop Linux: The CTO's Hard Truth retired CTO of World Bank W. McDonald Buck wrote about the difficulty of making accurate real world assessments of Linux vs Windows TCO analyses: If Windows laden computers are less expensive or equal vs. no OS in cost for Joe Hacker.. where's the savings for a large buyer who gets a volume discount? In this, Part II, he addresses the hard cost savings for companies of switching the desktop operating system, as distinct from the applications, as he sees it.
Part II: The Hard Cost Savings of Corporate Desktop Linux
A number of cost studies have been published. In addition to their biases and their other flaws, they generally evaluate replacing both servers and desktops with Linux. There is no question that Linux is successful in the server market, where almost any fair analysis concludes it will save money. This article focuses exclusively on the desktop side of the equation, since for a decision maker, these can easily be separated into separate business decisions.
A different way of framing the question will help get at this. Say a smart company makes the decision to save a lot of money by moving all its servers to Linux. Many have begun doing so. And of course you don't have to change operating systems to save money on applications. The press is full of reports of people dumping Internet Explorer for Firefox. Switching from Office to OpenOffice for all but the most demanding users is a smart move with a high payoff. Having done those things, the company now wants to know, how much extra can be saved by the final step of changing the operating system itself? And, what are the other costs, risks and benefits of doing that. To keep the scenario simple, we're assuming too that this will be done at a time when the desktop equipment is also being replaced.
The news is good, but not as good as we like to believe.
We know that Windows costs money, and we believe that overall, a Linux desktop must cost less. If this is so, why is the cost benefit analysis unable to sway more migration on the desktop? Part of the reason is that switching the operating system is a more drastic step, precisely because it forces the migration of all the applications at the same time, increasing the switching costs. The hard truth is that for the majority of the desktop market, the capturable, present value cost advantage to the operating system change (as distinguished from the other changes) doesn't seem to outweigh the costs and risks of doing it, unless you put a high value on the benefits of Linux. Those benefits, which are so compelling to us, are not compelling to the target audience. This article explores the hard dollar cost side of this heretical assertion. A follow-up article looks at the benefit side.
Before getting to the analysis, I want to also briefly pay homage to the idea of changing the whole computing model, as many suggest, to more of a thin-client central server architecture. I think companies will increasingly do this, but corporate environments change slowly, and for many of them this is a big change. In large part this whole series is about pressing for the winnable victories first, rather than the more radical changes. Since thin-client looks like a more radical change to the corporate world, I'm going to stick with analyzing the less radical move, acknowledging that the other may be a big win if it can be sold.
As a point of reference I'll use the 2004 update of the TCO analysis done by Cybersource Pty. Ltd, entitled Linux vs. Windows, Total Cost of Ownership Comparison (.pdf). This is a very pro-Linux report (egregiously so in my view). Unfortunately, I found a number of errors (11), including 5 pretty obvious arithmetic or transcription errors. Still it has the virtues of trying t
I know that #2 is certainly false. Freetype2 uses autohinting by default, which is not covered by the Apple(?) TrueType patent.
Yes, but violation of patents has NOTHING to do with what platform you are on...
Eg. MP3 usage. Patent is "free", even for commercial programs, until you sell 10,000 units a year. At that point, it will cost you. Doesn't matter whether is Windows or Linux, or XXX.
Ratboy
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
Are you implying that Richard Stallman has said that intellectual property should be abolished? I doubt he would say that, considering that he doesn't even think "intellectual property" is a useful term, since copyright, patents, trademarks, trade secrets, etc. are all separate concepts governed by separate laws and having varying effects on an individual's freedom.
Perhaps this is not what you meant, but I wouldn't be surprised. It seems that every day here on /. someone inaccurately attributes all sorts of loony beliefs to Stallman. Most of his opinions are fairly cogent and reasonable. Of course, he doesn't help himself, with his unorthodox appearance and behavior, lack of social skills, and pedantry regarding unimportant topics like the whole GNU/Linux thing. Still, unlike Joe Sixpack, I would think that the typical geek would be more tolerant of such things.
Anyway, to keep this post on topic:"Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it."
--Henry David Thoreau
We're about 80 machines including 10-ish servers, almost all MS except the firewall thats OpenBSD, and a specialized Unixware box that cant be touched. Two apps are really keeping us from a 100% Linux rollout, Lotus Notes and the ERP software. The ERP company has promised linux binaries, and we've seen some test cases, but thats about it. Please dont ask us about iNotes, we use Notes far too heavily to attempt that (and we have).
So we're just keeping a hopeful eye out, especially on Lotus Notes, and the desktop distros. The server bases are covered, between SuSE, samba and sybase, a majority of our operations can be moved. What we want from the desktop distros is that it should look and feel a LOT like the windows NT/2000/XP interface. Notes shouldnt be hard to port at all, its all java based anyway, IBM is dragging its feet for linux there, despite some customers asking for it.
We'll probably not be the first to go all Linux (or FreeBSD, or BeOS, or SkyOS, or ReactOS etc), but its interesting to know how far in the future we can expect it.
Complaints:
(1) Theres no single Linux distro that really looks and feels like win32. Training dozens of people to use a different interface from what theyve been using for 10 years, is something we cant stomach. Tried Fedora3 and Xandros, will try Linspire soon.
(2) Application seriousness. Everything is made for win32 first, betas appear for linux and stay beta. That doesnt fly with corporate networks. We need a FEW critical app vendors to really support Linux, once the market floats, the rest will follow suit.
(3) $$$ and energy. It takes a LOT to switch ERP systems. Takes a LOT to replace network system. Takes far more to replace everything. Sure we can do it in steps, but collectively the steps are all manhours to attain OSS nirvana, but not profit in the short term. We cant just aim for everything free, somehow, in some ways, theres still a difference between debian and readhat. things get patched in redhat and developers have to listen and work. With debian, the design and philosophy is awesome, but you cant really ASK a developer to fix that bug that is stopping your company. He'll just say fix it yourself.
(4) Assurance. Not an issue since our mgmnt hates MS, have hated it since the DEC days (which is why we ended up with lotus instead of exchange).
So we're all getting closer to the 'threshold', still not there yet.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
Gnome have a "subpixel antialias" or somthing like that in the fonts preferences.
this post contain no useful information, no need to mod it down