A New Look at Linux vs. Windows TCO

An anonymous reader writes "Laura DiDio, research fellow at the Yankee Group, published a column this morning in which she discusses key findings from a new survey on the total cost of ownership of Windows vs. Linux. DiDio often is written off by the Linux camp as being pro-Microsoft, but she offers excellent, neutral advice for any IT department considering a fundamental systems switch: 'If you do not know what is on your network, if you cannot at least estimate the hourly, monthly or yearly cost of downtime, if you do not know how long it takes to recover from a security outage, if you cannot answer questions about the extent of your company's license compliance, then you cannot truly evaluate whether Linux, Windows or Unix is right for your business. Chances are, if you cannot answer most or all of those questions, it does not matter what operating system you have because ignorance of the core TCO tenets means that your business is not getting the most out of its networks.' "

Comments

Unobjectionable but meaningless

[Mostly a lurker]

I am one of those the author referred to who does not rate Laura DiDio's writing highly. Her latest article has no material I really take objection to. Actually, the latest article has no material. What does she say: a Yankee study revealed that no good data on the relative TCO of Windows and Linux servers was available; the TCO will vary from organisation to organisation; without knowing the TCO, it is hard to make an informed decision.

Has anyone succeeded in resolving their problem of which OS to use based on this insightful article?

Neutral?

[polysylabic psudonym]

That doesn't sound neutral to me, it sounds more like:
"We know that you, and everyone else on the planet, can see that Linux is cheaper so I'll try to convince you that you don't know enough to judge the TCO in the hope that you'll then take the easy option of sticking with M$"

Re:Ignorance

[SgtChaireBourne]

In some cases their support costs look lower than they are ...

Here is an example of that, a unix guy spending hours cleaning up after M$.

A friend of mine hired a linux guy to handle machines for several sites. About 100% of his time spent doing any kind of technical work (maintenance or repair) is spent on repairing the MS-Windows machines, which another group is actually contracted to maintain and repair. However, if he doesn't do it, then it doesn't get done. The linux machines, fortunately outnumber the MS-Windows machines significantly at those sites and he only has to touch them when he wants to try a new distro. He's always got one machine for 'experiments' at each site, to get feedback from customers on new programs, distros, or configurations.

Fortunately for my friend this fellow doesn't mind too much and has nerves of steel, a necessity since he rose up from a MS-Windows background.

Re:Well, no.

[SoloFlyer2]

I think it was summed up best by Noel on Linux Today:

"[Laura DiDio] has no clue about writing code. Not a single bit at all... For goodness sake this person has only a B.A. in communication degree. She writes magazine articles not code..."

That one line sums up Laura DiDio perfectly, she doesnt have any qualifications in IT, she should go do what she has the training and abilities to do... Write reports on supernatural occurances and alien abductions for supermarket tabloids...