Slashdot Mirror
IBM Reports Indicate Linux TCO Is Lower
Tontoman writes "Information Week reports that
two research reports sponsored by IBM argue that Linux is less expensive to buy and operate than Windows or Unix. The first, a Robert Frances Group study, concluded: 'Linux is 40% less expensive than a comparable x86-based Windows server and 54% less than a comparable Sparc-based Solaris server. The Linux server's costs were $40,149, compared with $67,559 for Windows and $86,478 for Solaris.' The second, a Pund-IT report, titled 'Beyond TCO--The Unanticipated Second Stage Benefits Of Linux,' indicates that 'Linux is enormously popular among IT staff members, many of whom are at the beginning of their careers, as well as with IT educators in universities and technical institutions worldwide.' This has resulted in Linux playing a significant role in the recruitment and retention of IT staff and managers."
But I just read a report sponsored by Microsoft saying that Windows had a lower TCO. Who should I believe? Oh, and FP!
IBM cited one reason behind Windows higher TCO: medical bills incurred from employees banging their head on their desk.
Next you'll be telling me that Microsoft have found that the TCO of Windows is lower!
From the article:
I am not surprised at linux's lower cost, I am surprised Solaris was so high. Other than Sun's high licensing costs I'm at a loss on why Solaris would be so much higher. I've read other studies and I tend to find them credible that one of the biggest cost-savings in TCO is the manageability of a unix-like system vs the Windows GUI approach. I've seen narratives where good unix administrators can sometimes manage at least twice as many systems as good Windows administrators, sometimes more. This is largely because of the simplicity embedded in the unix complexity (one of the biggest complaints I see about unix is its "too-hard" nature, but when mastered my experience has been you can script and automate so many unexpected scenarios easily, something not so readily available in Windows).
The second surprise for me, also from the article:
It's encouraging to note linux is enormously popular among IT staff. Maybe unix and linux have more purchase on the IT world than we thought. I'd resigned my professional life to watching the MS juggernaut conquer the technology world but maybe the unix paradigm has legs! (There are other equally interesting "better" architectures, (Be, Plan 9) but probably are in the wrong place at the wrong time to gain much mindshare.)
(As an aside, have you ever noticed, the admin energies for Windows' environments goes to keeping the system running in as stable a manner as possible, while admin energies for unix's go to extending and enhancing the systems' performance, sometimes in elegantly exotic ways? Just my $.02)
Yet more IBM FUD. When will those monopolists ever learn?
given their healthy business relationships with Microsoft, SCO, and other competitors. /sarcasm off
If it were done when 'tis done, then t'were well it were done quickly... MacBeth
The article says that the study shows Linux to be cheaper than either Microsoft or Sun. Gee, I wonder why AIX wasn't included as a Unix variant?
"It's too bad stupidity isn't painful." - A. S. LaVey
Actual .pdf of the study here.
#
#\ @ ? Colonize Mars
#
But Linux's licensing-cost edge is likely to wane as Microsoft and some Unix vendors, notably Sun Microsystems, lower their prices.
Competition drives prices down...who'd of thought...
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
...the SCO 'license' fee?
I kid, I kid...
I'm surprised the IBM report didn't put any emphasis on reduced security breach costs. Maybe it's a difficult intangible to calculate. Microsoft made a point of including it in their study. I would have thought Linux would have come out on top in that department.
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.--Carl Sagan http://yourmindshare.com http://www.quake4cash.net
It's about time the pragmatic father of Linux today chimed in on Lixus TCO. I wonder what the Redmond folks will have to say about this study. The findings are so different than Microsoft's, I think I will take some time to exploit the different ways in which each company came up with two totally different TCO's. I would guess it has something to do with IBM being the current offshoring leader in Todays' IT department.
What I really want to see, though, is an item-by-item document included for download which shows what they included in their TCO estimate. Statistics and numbers are fine, if you can read the whole dataset for yourself.
I don't get it.
While, like most of Slashdot, I have my own preferences that make me happy to see Linux come out ahead, is an IBM sponsored study that shows Linux on top really any more credible than a Microsoft study that favors Windows, or an Apple study that favors OS X?
I think people need to work out for themselves what will be least expensive for any given deployment, rather than relying on such sources for objective information.
Per-OS TCO does not exist in a vacuum. Organizational direction, sunk costs from previous IT investments, interoperability with business partners / clients / vendors... each of these is a factor that will be different for EVERY business making the Linux/Windows/etc. choice.
IMO a well-run organization will have a hybrid environment.
That being said, it is useful for planning purposes to know in which situations Linux TCO beats Windows and vice versa.
The president has been kidnapped by ninjas!
Are you a bad enough dude to rescue the president?
(a) Maintenance costs
(b) Support and systems administration costs
(c) Application-server support and system administration costs.
Are these really fixed costs ?
remember that IBM has a substantial interest in Linux. If it was the other way around we'd be crying foul about how studies will always find in favour of whoever's funding them. Anyone know if there's ever been a truly independent comparison
I am trolling
Tm
Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
The article should put more emphasis on it being a server replacement; not a desktop replacement.
And the article misses that Linux only does 80% of what real Unix (like Solaris) implementations do (posix compliance for one, especially about shared memory and timing.)
It would be interesting one day to see a feature [complete] chart comparing "free" Unix implementations like FreeBSD, OpenBSD, OpenSolaris, and Linux. I have a suspicion that OpenSolaris would win a feature race.
/\/\icro/\/\uncher
My guess would be:
Here's one for the conspiracy theorists. IBM sells consulting services - it may just be that the cost of linux is higher, much higher once you throw in the cost of IBM's specialists. May be it's more unstable, needs more attention, is harder to maintain than the BSDs, OS X, or even Windows. Oh wait a minute, no it's Slashdot, Linux is perfect...
Hmmm... I wonder who Novell would side with?
I don't need to RTFA to know that IBM is making pretty good money of Linux. No wonder the "research" says Linux is cheaper.
It's the same as Microsoft "research"; 100% pure marketing drivel.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
that an IBM-funded report favoring Linux won't get treated with the same healthy scepticism that a Microsoft-funded report favoring Window.
Folks : if you treat any of these studies as anything other than another form of advertising, you're a fool.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
An important point to bring up: How can we, with a straight face, toot our horns about the IBM funded report, while discounting Microsoft funded reports as biased because they are not funded by an independant group?
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Another study done by every Mac user ever has proven definitively that nobody who actually purchases computers cares about TCO and never will.
http://shipit.ubuntu.com/
My first thought at why it would be more expensive for Solaris would be that an experienced Solaris Admin can command a much higher salary. Although we would like to believe that a good Linux Admin can work with all kinds of Unix/Linux varients, there are enough differences between them that an admin with home or small business Linux experience might have a little difficulty on a larger Unix system.
It could also be that because Unix is perceived to be a "big busness" operating system, companies are willing to pay more for someone who has actual Unix experience rather than Linux training.
Great civilizations have lived and died on false theories. Don't mess up mine with a few facts.
But IBM is credible for Linux? And you people call yourselves intelligent.
We built 8 gentoo linux boxes in the span of two weeks here at my office.
Cost of parts: 10K
Cost of labour: two people x two weeks x 900/week = 3600$
Other costs [power/netaccess]: trivial
So for [round up] 15K we bought, assembled, built, installed and setup 8 boxes. that's a cost of roughly 2K each.
Whoopy doo.
Where the hell does 43K/yr come from? Is that the cost of the employee as well?
Well the guy we did hire to manage this, had we planned on keeping him would cost ~60K/yr which when you split over the 32 boxes in the office is trivial.
And we don't have to buy server license upgrades or what not. So really the cost of ownership above the staffer we would have had to have anyways is ZERO. Not 43K/yr.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
I agree that Windows' scriptability is nowhere near Linux's, but I've found that if you combine Python, a few ported Linux command line tools and the windows task scheduler, you can do quite a few things. For example, I've written a script to check my DSL connection and reconnect if it's unresponsive. Now if only I could find a way to close that "server did not respond" window :(
Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
They need to hire an IT consultancy, call them The Dixie Group, to issue the report on their behalf.
1/2:)
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
That is excatly what i was going to say. Too bad I have no mod points.
What about AIX on Power?
What about Linux on Power?
What about Linux on IBMs mainframe?
What about Solaris 10 on x86?
What about the various BSD's on x86?
Finally we have an objective TCO study from an impartial... err, yeah... IBM.
Game... blouses.
It would be very easy for someone to say one "solution" is more expensive than another, especially when they don't specify what hardware they used for the comparison. What about SunFire V20 and V40z's, they can compete in the same space as x86 machines running Linux. If IBM is really serious they should release the full study and not a 9 page "Executive Summary".
I'm pretty sure that the initial guidelines from Gartner, which I see as the inventor of TCO, cannot be applied today, ten years later.
Even so, wouldn't it be safe to say that the criteria for this calculation are quite subjective? And even if they weren't, can we safely assume that the numbers for TCO will be the same in any part of the world?
I would say not.
Anybody willing to enlighten me on that subject? It really looks like you can make TCO say whatever you want.
PS: Linux user since '97, Windows-Free since y2k at my office. So that you don't mod this down to oblivion, 'cause I'm really looking for an answer.
This is the major difference. Apparently Linux people are cheap. Hardware cost for linux=$13,191. Solaris=$26,816, Windows=$23,242. So, really there is not much difference in TCO. Just that larger companies that use Solaris/Windows buy better servers.
lol what?
Actually, I know that's an exaggeration; however (in my experience), I see more CEO's screaming ROI, than I do TCO.
To them, I suppose they see everything as similar, and "What's going to make my company stand out?".
IGB: More fun than eating oatmeal!
None of these TCO studies seem to make any reference to the capabilities of your people.
It is well known amongst software engineering disciplines that 2 programmers of equal education and experience can vary in performance by as much as a factor of 10, and I'm sure a similar differential applies amongst sysadmin staff.
Therefore, I'd argue that people are perhaps the most significant contributing factor towards the TCO of any chosen vendor's platform. A Linux server farm managed by idiots is going to have a TCO far greater than a Windows farm managed by seasoned and competent Windows sysadmins, with licensing costs rendered as a negligable factor.
These "studies" are only read by the same people who read Gartner as their bible. It's probably almost or as biased as the MS studies, but it could do wonders to counteract the "get the 'facts'" propaganda in the eyes of those with the money.
That statement is so true. Back in college, we all developed on Linux environment because: 1. Our professors were old school and know Unix and C. 2. More importantly, we can get down into the nuts and bolts of the OS. It really helps when you're taking a class on OS. My friend and I wrote a 2 line Perl script to create and kill process one after another just to see how Linux will handle process IDs wrapping around and basing our design decision on that (part of it is also the Geek factor to see what happens). 3. Linux and open source tools are freely available.
Now at work, most of the younger developers and IT staffers are also Linux users. MS haven't done so well in winning the hearts and minds of the next generation.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
This has resulted in Linux playing a significant role in the recruitment and retention of IT staff and managers."
I don't know about elsewhere, but the IT staff here are plenty retentive already.
And it's not even the up-front hardware costs that can kill you (Solaris 10 on an opteron is actually pretty damned price-competitive), it is the relative rarity of the applicable skillsets (and there can be a world of difference between a high-end Solaris, AIX, etc. machine and your common linux server on Dell hardware or whatever) which leads to increased salaries for the in-house administrative staff and the cost of vendor maintenance contracts which tend to be much higher than you might expect coming from the windows/x86/etc. world. (On the other hand, with proprietary Unix you do sometimes get what you pay for. High-end support from a single vendor who provided both the hardware and software in a system can be pretty reassuring if you have a business-critical system, and proprietary Unix runs on hardware that in some cases can do things that your common x86 stuff just does not scale to, both in terms of reliability and in terms of capability. As with all things, tools have jobs they are better suited to than others.)
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
"Robert Frances Group interviewed IT executives involved with operating-system selection and purchase decisions at more than 20 midsize to large companies that have 250 or more employees." (emphasis mine)
"Pund-IT's conclusions are based on lengthy research with three companies: Alliance UniChem, Boscov's Department Stores, and Zahid Tractor & Heavy Machinery." (emphasis also mine)
This is great news and will hopefully spur further research.
However, the methodology of the first study bothers me. Interviewing IT execs does not seem a very valid way of studying costs, I'd rather see auditable cost studies based upon hard documents.
The second study only samples three companies; while the case studies were "lengthy," I'd still be wary that their specific situations may have lent Linux a hand in TCO calculations. For that matter, this research group ONLY studied companies that chose to convert to Linux.
The last paragraph of the article sums it up the best:
"The lesson to be learned from these Linux and Windows TCO comparisons is that companies need to conduct a little research of their own before making any IT platform decisions. Actual costs are bound to be very specific to each company's needs. "
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
every week we see a report claiming one or the other is "Lower TCO!!11one"... I'm pretty much numb to it now and don't pay attention to them anymore. I/we use what we need to get our job done efficiently and move on. Besides, I haven't seen a "study" yet that comes close to what we need to do here so they are largely irrelevant to us anyway.
All these "studies" are just hot air now.
... I mean you can only fight PR with PR. It was abotu time that after the some dozen MS-sponsored "objetive" tco campaigns a big player stands up and makes a campaign in favour of Linux.
Don't get me wrong, I would never blindly trust any campaign's result which is payed by the winner. Still, for the masses it is important that a big player says Linux tco is lower. It really matters.
IBM, thumbsup.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
Every time MS puts out a report that Windows TCO is lower, everyone here dismisses it as propaganda. What about this time? IBM has a substantial investment in Linux and I noticed that their own AIX wasn't used as an example. It's just another case of manipulating the facts to fit one particular view. To call it anything else is intellectually dishonest.
Another TCO report? Sheesh. Since we seem to have one of these on /. at least once a week now, here's a template to help submitters jump the queue:
$SOURCE reports that a new report sponsored by {PRO_LINUX_CORP|ANTI_LINUX_CORP} argue that Linux is {LESS|MORE} expensive to buy and operate than Windows. The report claims that $QUOTE_AGAINST_COMPETING_OS, and concludes that $QUOTE_FOR_OS_OF_CHOICE. This amounts to savings of up to $RANDOM_MONETARY_FIGURE per system. {PRO_LINUX_CORP|ANTI_LINUX_CORP} CEO says $RANDOM_CEO_QUOTE. $TYPICAL_SLASHDOT_MS_BASHING_QUOTE.
..Microsoft releasing a report that Linux has lower TCO or IBM saying Linux is more expensive to run. I mean, just because it's a "research report" makes it no less an advertisment by the company that sponsered it. All this shows is these reports are kinda pointless because you can "prove" whatever you want to believe.
Second, the other case study in the report deals with Boscov's migration to Linux on an IBM zSeries z900. Are you really arguing that IBM mainframe kit is inferior hardware compared to your typical Windows server?
You have to take what IBM says about linux with a grain of salt. Its no different than Microsoft touting Windows. They are both in it for profit and nothing else.
http://weblog.infoworld.com/techwatch/archives/003 900.html
How is a study done by IBM that touts the virtues of Linux any more credible than a study done by MS showing MS products are better?
IBM is basing it's future (in large part) on Linux. I wouldn't be surprised if they said Linux can resurrect the dead, just to improve marketshare. And if you honestly believe they're above such things, well...
One of the case studies in the article is about Linux running on IBM's zSeries mainframes. Given that memory and timing issues on the zSeries is abstracted out of the OS that is running in a virtual partition, I'd say that these puppies will trounce Solaris with regards to scheduling, timing, throughput and memory issues.
You are correct about POSIX compliance, though.
They compare x86 Linux and Windows to Solaris SPARC. To be fare they should have used Solaris x86.
Secondly since they're comparing with Solaris SPARC, where is AIX solution? Come on IBM lets disclose the TCO of AIX in relation to Solaris.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
The good news about the GUI-based environment is that it's typically fairly easy to pick up a new Windows tool and figure it out. For the semi-casual administrator/developer, that can be immensely useful.
The problem is that after a certain point, it becomes difficult to figure out complex issues. When bugs pop up, it's hard to know whether it's the software's fault or your own, with no good way to peek under the hood.
Exactly my experience, and I'd like to add that Microsoft online help tends to be similar:
Basic tasks are well explained, but once you need help with complex issues, the approach of "open this window and click that button" breaks down. At this point you need information about how the application works, and that is usually absent in the help files. If you are lucky, you can find it online in the MSDN, but even that tends towards pre-formulated solutions.
C - the footgun of programming languages
in the real world, people need to make decisions that will make or break their businesses/bank accounts.
People should use whatever will work best for their particular situation.
Having said this, I firmly believe that you (as a business owner/leader) should decide what OS, etc. should be used with your geek staff, not based on what some overpriced consultant with a sales agenda says you should use.
AppActivate to set the current application to the app that is generating the server did not respond window. Do this before the error gets generated.
Then use SendKeys to send the appropriate key strokes to close the error box.
And you should be using the Python plugin for WSH rather than a stand alone python install.
Yeah, and IBM has no interest in Linux having a lower TCO. :)
That's true. Even if my own experience in the past company I worked for showed that TCO was much lower using Linux as opposed to Windows, the IBM-funded research should be taken with a grain of NaCl.
There is one slight difference with IBM, though, and that's that IBM sells BOTH Linux and Windows-based solutions.
Linux has a cheaper TCO for some companies, Windows, Unix, etc. for other companies. You need to have as many companies as possible figure out how much they spend per server and what the OS is. Then compile all the data together, maybe even sort it by industry. These reports are all just bull crap.
Yep, IBM. But no slashdotters are pointing that for some strange reason. In any "MS has better TCO" study it doesn't matter who did the study - it is ALWAYS unfair, overly biased, and incorrectly performed.
/.ers just elaborate on why they are correct. I'd be a proud /.er if the typical /.er was known for being truely open minded and questioning everything not just pro-MS stuff.
IBM does a study and the
Aren't achieved through the results of studies such as these--in all fairness they're just about as impartial as the paid research M$ does.
The real win comes from the fact that we (ok, TINW) have Microsoft on the run, competing with an operating system that is free.
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
Novell Netware is pretty much dead in marketing terms (I guess some big installations are still around), but Novell has bought SuSE and is promoting that Linux version now. So they have an interest in making Linux look good.
C - the footgun of programming languages
How much would it cost if you'd use Macs?
Circumcision is child abuse.
Windows Software +299 for Windows OS
Plus Several Thousand for Apps.
Games are equal cost on both systems. More Games on Linux for same price.
Linux Software = $5 month Cedega + $50 UT2K4
Most Everything else is apt-got.
My Admin time is the same on both, I just enjoy the linux stuff alot more.
This study was funded by me. I am biased because it was my money, I'm biased toward the cheaper solution. Solution is the Key, Has to work.
I choose Linux cause it works first and is cheaper second. I switched from Windows because it didn't work first and was expensive second.
IBM has a very long memory Bill. And pretty Deep Pockets. They are releasing anti Windows Pro Linux papers by the truckloads.(Check http://www.linuxdevices.com/) And I thank them.
My Son asked why I dislike MS so much. My answer was that Microsoft is responsible for quite a few things I like about computing and IT. However, they are also responsible for EVERYTHING that turns my stomache about our chosen field.
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
You're correct on these, but AppActivate and SendKeys are VBScript, not Python. Also, I don't think python can kill a process but I'll look into it, it's not unlikely. And the WM_CLICK messages should work, but I don't think Python can do it (then again, it might, I've seen a Win32 API section in the helpfile). Come to think of it, the best alternative would be to make Python launch a small program that would close the window.
Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
TCO studies are frequently misleading.
They can also be molded to fit *any* conclusion since the creator of the study controls and defines the conditions from which he basis his conclusions. These initial conditions are very subjective.
TCO studies looking at Windows vs. Linux vs. Mac vs. Unix are especially bad because of the zealotry involved. Besides this, their results only apply to scenarios (like every TCO study), "If I have setup A, these people working for me, and I want to accomplish B, C and D then X is the best OS for me". The conclusion you extracted from this might be right, however it is right only for this particular scenario. Its impossible to generalize it over a range of scenarios.
Truth is, sometimes Windows TCO is lower, and sometimes Linux TCO is lower.
Q: What's better C++, Java, Perl, C, PHP or C#?
A: What do you want to do?
Why is it that Slashdot doesn't mention IBM's ties to Linux in the post? They try to make it sound like this is an unbiased report, but it isn't (although I am sure it is a lot less biased than the crap Microsoft sponsers) Every time I see a study that was in any way partly related to Microsoft they make sure to throw that in there. The scary part is that I am a Linux guy at heart, but come on let's be consistant here.
You know, I'm seeing a lot of posts saying things along the lines of "If this were a Microsoft study, everyone would be calling foul, but since it's IBM and it's pro-Linux, everyone's going to accept it unquestioningly!"
I have not actually seen any posts accepting it unquestioningly. At least none getting significantly modded up.
So, you know. Calm down. Talk about the actual article, don't just complain about Slashdot.
(Yes, I know this post is hypocritcal)
These TCO stories are baffling to me. With the cost of hardware remaining the same, Linux is the clear winner:
Linux: $0
Windows: $129
They're methods of the WSH object. Any language that can make a call to the WSH Active X control can create a WSH object. After invoking something like:
... you should have access to all of the methods of the WSH.
var wshObj = new ActiveXObject("WScript.Shell");
The third, a study by some guy between a Naan & Curry and a massage parlor on O'Farrel St in San Francisco, concluded: 'Linux is 98% less expensive than a comparable x86-based Windows server and 99% less than a comparable Sparc-based Solaris server. The Linux server's costs were $1275, compared with $67,559 for Windows and $86,478 for Solaris. He bought parts at a local Fry's and built it himself. He installed the system, manages it on his own, and developed a passable ecommerce site running under Apache/mod_perl/Mason, where he sells specialty photographs and videos.'
Two men say they're Jesus. One of 'em must be wrong.
That which does not kill her only prolongs my agony.
You factor in the $600/hour(+) IBM consultant costs?
I see, in pretty much every thread and with eye-rolling predictability, posts saying: "This post is in a no way pro-Linux so it will be doubtless modded through the floor, snark snark". But you know what? I've seen many, *many* posts criticising Linux and Open Source, and whenever the posts are lucid, well-informed, well-presented, and above all well-reasoned, I've almost invariably seen them at +5. Of course, mixed in with those +5 points are a handful of cowardly "overrated"'s, but based on the majority vote (and often the majority of the replies) the conclusion is inescapable - a post that has the qualities I described and is not obscured by a dozen other posts will be lauded, not flamed. Likewise, I'm gratified to see that FUD from the pro-OSS camp - something that I find infinitely more execrable than that spewed from Mount Redmond (previous sentence inspired by that "M$" Penny Arcade cartoon :)) due to the fact that OSS should hold itself to more noble goals and not resort to such low tactics as lies and misinformation - is very often challenged nowadays - gone are the days when one could simply parrot an unexamined assertion (like "Linux is always cheaper as it is free!", for example - in Big Business, the truth is far more complex and nuanced than this, and such facile treatments should rightly not be left unchallenged) and get an instant +5. I myself have (anonymously, but no longer for fear of stripping of karma) tried to challenge some of the conventional wisdom, and almost always obtained high ratings, agreements, or thought-provoking rebuttals.
In short, I think that for whatever reason, the comments section is growing up. This is partly due, I think, to the gradual erosion of some cherished beliefs - even the most die-hard zealot will have trouble parrotting the conventional dogma before nagging doubts and the possible gulf between this dogma and reality force them to step back and re-examine. If their faith is shaken, they will try to force others to reassess and slowly, gradually, this challenge to one aspect of the prevailing dogma will spread through the community, until a taboo (like saying that OSS is not some magical solution to everything, as some people still believe) becomes commonplace. The effect snowballs; if Conventional Wisdom A is perhaps not as rock-solid as we had supposed, then perhaps the same can be said of Conventional Wisdom B?
"slashthink", if it ever existed at all in any significant degree (I've visited the boards for less than a year, so I can't comment), is dying, I think. Of course, there are still the ridiculous people on all sides of every debate that post hilariously blinkered comments, but I see posts rife with stupidity modded down (and moreover, regardless of the direction of their bias) with satisfying regularity. Debates are no longer horribly one-sided circle-jerks; a corrective force to the fabled pro-OSS ethos of slashdot has sprung up, and even when that corrective force itself is ugly and horribly biased, the initial clash of sides very often mellows and as the thread progresses rises to a level of informed, balanced, illuminating debate that slashdot's detractors would deem impossible. I find myself reading the comments nowadays less for examples of comedic short-sightedness and more for information and interesting points well made. Who ever would have thought it?
Keep it up, people - lets make slashdot great again!
Microsoft funds a study that shows it's systems have the lowest TCO.
IBM funds a study that shows Linux is cheaper then it's competitors.
Next month Sun will release yet another TCO report showing Unix to be the best bargin.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
And use whichever one you feel most comfortable with, because in the long run, the cost of having the box sitting there is going to be about the same. I'd bet that most of the cost difference just depends on the IT staff. I'm sure that there are experienced Windows and Linux IT guys that can keep their respective boxes running well for little cost. It's when you get bumbletards running around trying to be IT that causes the TCO to rise.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
It's good to see "Get the Facts" finally getting opposition from the commercial houses profitting from GNU/Linux. Since IBM won around 3/4 billion dollars from Microsoft, because of its efforts to kill OS/2 and Lotus, I was hoping that IBM would put that "extra" cash to good use.
Luckily, IBM won't have to go out and pay off any companies to by part of its pro-Linux marketing. And I surely hope that they make sure the research methods are solid enough to stand up to the GNU/Linux geeks AND Microsofts marketing army.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
The AppActivate() and SendKeys() methods of the WScript object will do everything he needs to do.
I won't quibble that WSH is sadly lacking in some aspects of working with a GUI, but it's quite trivial to use WSH to dismiss an error box.
Slashdot needs to stop publishing this PR tripe everytime some OS vendor releases it.
The total cost of ownership varies wildly based on who will be using the OS, adminstering it, and how it will be used. Will the users be exchanging documents, spreadsheets, databases, and files with a firm running a proprietary OS? Will they be running a handful of custom applications internally? Are the users engineers or are they a sales team? Are the already experts on one OS and will be moving to the other -- or do they have equal experience in both?
When Microsoft wants to show a lower TCO for Windows/Office, they tweak the scenario to get that result. When IBM wants to show a lower TCO for Linux, they do adjustments to make Linux come out the winner. What if IBM funds a study that ends up showing Windows to have the lower TCO? Do you think that they are going to publicize those results? Of course not. And Microsoft wouldn't publicize one of their studies if Linux was the winner.
This kind of "study" is as valuable as a McDonalds' funded study on the health benefits of eating fried foods.
It's funny how Microsoft funds a TCO study that shows Windows to be lower in cost, and the Slashbots rise up and flood the comments with "well of COURSE that's what a MICROSOFT funded study will show." Yet when IBM does the same thing, there is a distinct lack of comments of the same sort. Newsflash: corporation funds a study and the results miraculously serve its interests!
"Wow, you're like some kind of superhero able to ward off happiness and success at every turn."
-- Ryan Stiles
It's no surprise that Linux TCO is lowest for servers, since Windows server software is expensive. Also no surprise that Sun is even higher, given what they charge for their hardware. So what about the desktop, and what ever happened with IBM's plan to dump Windows on desktops in-house?
Vote for Pedro
IBM announced the world is, in fact, ROUND.
Remember folks, slashdot doesn't have a -1 "disagree" moderation!
They're both wrong. SOLARIS is jebus
but no one ever askse me these things. m
$ whatis msft msft: nothing appropriate
I am not sure how people get such a huge difference in the cost of each of the OS solutions. Our Unix admins here don't manage any more servers than our Intel (read:Windows) admins. I know that the intel admin on the web team run about 150 servers each. And I am pretty sure that they don't eat any more or less power or heat. The cost of the servers are the same until you put the OS on them and then we are only talking like a 1/2% of the total cost. Each of these guys has a place in the world and it just seems like FUD from both sides that they keep telling how much money a company will save on there OS. It's crap and as much as we like to blame MS for starting the FUD, it was linux users like us that started with the 'why pay so much for MS when you can have our stuff for free' bit.
But they tend to work. One of my present projects is using the WSH engine to automate Crystal Reports.
Oh, the things I do for money!
Somehow this reminds me how skewed perspective can be , or even if there is a common ground to looking at this . Just look at this story in the inquirer
:0 1530
0 50830071810_shxwaoma_photo1
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25836
Looting Food
http://news.yahoo.com/photo/050830/480/ladm102083
Finding Food :
http://news.yahoo.com/photo/050830/photos_ts_afp/
Both are on yahoo news obviously reported by different folks Has to do with the devastation from Katrina but i think it applies to the "eyes of the beholder part"
MS will be all over this report. Even if it was accurate, MS will still be all over it or will have something on their site about it.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I agree to a point. But, when it comes to administering a larger number of mission-critical servers, there is no comparison. Automation is much easier and more powerful on Linux than on Windows (sure you have ADSI and VBScript, but now you want the admin to also be an ADSI developer and still argue that WIndows requires less expertise to administer).
Typical UNIX/Linux admins are paid more because they are more valuable. A single admin can administer a larger number of servers than with Windows, and troubleshooting often is easier because the system is more transparent (not really a matter of open v. closed source but a matter of user abstraction). Sure easy things are harder with UNIX/Linux. But harder things are easy enough to more than make up for it. And Linux is *much* easier to administer than any UNIX varient I have ever worked with.
To carry this metaphore further, how many people here have had to troubleshoot Mac OS 9 software? It is not that it is technically difficult (it is extremely technically easy-- you could train a monkey to do it). But it is time consuming because of all those reboots while disabling/re-enabling extensions) if deleting the preferences file doesn't work. So the conceptual nightmare arugment only gets you so far.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I have read some of the earlier TCO studies by the Robert Francis Group. They are not marketing drivel. TCO studies are difficult to compare and you do need to read the fine print. But is isn't that hard to see how RFG & MS make different assumptions and these lead to different results. I fould that the RFG reports made better supported assumptions. For example, they observed that a single admin can manage significantly more Linux (or Solaris) boxes that a typical Windows Admin. So, they took this and the salary differences into account to determine the cost of administration. (This is more significant than the cost of OS licensing, by the way). The MS-funded studies took into account the higher cost of *nix admins, but assumed that all admins can administer the same number of machines. Of the two assumptions, I believe that the RFG assumptions are the more realistic. Some people are bullshitters, but that doesn't mean that everyone in the same business is also a bullshitter. Read and make up you own mind as to who belongs in each that catagory.
Think global, act loco
I absoulty love it when companies do 'research' and 'papers' that 'prove' they are better than their competitors.
This just in. APPLE has produced a ground breaking paper that proves without a doubt that their TCO is 6 times cheaper than that of LINIX or WINDOWS.
This information was release just weeks after discovering that their Mac G5 is the fastest desktop computer on the planet (I actually really saw that paper compaired it to current AMD and Intel products, was a complete and utter farce, and by farce, I mean a big fat lie)
Now dn't get me wrong I am not bshing APPLE or Mac's or anything like that, in fact they hold a special place in my heart.
However I AM trying to point out that these sort of 'break throughs' and 'scientific' discoveries are so much bullshit, hype, marketing, spin, and advertising...
Let me know when a TRUE independant (not a study bought and paid for as Microsoft is wont to do), study is done, perhaps by a respected university or group that does not have a vested interest in the outcome.
When that time comes, I will then read it and maybe give it some creadance. Until then, whatever...
You will note a number of interesting points.
The RFG study (on IBM's site) does not contradict any MS TCO study. The IDC study at the MS site pretty much admits that Linux is cheaper on web servers. The differences may be an issue of degree, and here is where it gets interesting.
The IDC study, in particular, attempts to tally all administrative costs regarding servers without regard to whether they are needed for the job at hand. The RFG study seems much more focused on the job at hand (how much will you pay to serve x number of web pages). So why the discrepancy?
The biggest issue is that companies pay more consultants more money to impliment Linux systems than with Windows. Why? If you cannot impliment a file and print server inhouse with Samba and CUPS, why not just go with Windows (it isn't that expensive)? While Microsoft tries to spin this into the argument that Windows users have fewer problems, I think we know that that is unlikely to be the case.
Instead, I read it as validation of my experience that when customers get a flexible platform like Linux, they may pay consultants to squeeze ever bit of enhanced productivity out of it. It is less expensive to do this with Linux and UNIX because of design considerations, so people are willing to spend a bit more because they get better value.
Far short of predicting that Linux will cost businesses money, this may actually indicate that it is making businesses money. People are getting better values and so are paying more to get even more.
The exceptions are likely to be developer platforms like open databases (where there are investor relations considerations to adoption) and web servers (where they are already mainstream). In both of these cases, the platform is a developer platform, and usually so you can expect similar consulting expenses on either side.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I counted at least half a dozen (modded up, mind you) posts before I even got to yours that cried "this study is just FUD/marketing". You seem to so desparately want to "prove" that slashdot is "unfairly biased" that you just ignored the facts (hmm .. how ironic - that's the very definition of "biased", isn't it?)
While Microsoft offers a competing application server technology in .NET, the focus of this study was on the operating system, not the application server. To avoid confusion, RFG only evaluated cases where a J2EE product was deployed.
.NET apps on linux. I bet the Linux TCO quickly looks bad though.
There were two areas of savings:
1. the cost of a J2EE server for Windows? They used an open source one on Linux but priced a commercial one for Windows! Why? Cuz thats what survey respondents did.
2. Admin savings. One admin can administer the OS AND the app server. This is really only valid in a J2EE environment. I think its safe to say that anyone who administers a windows box also administers the built in application server.
I hear you can run
They should have picked a cross platform function like database or webserver instead of J2EE.
The narrow focus on J2EE app servers only is what gives the TCO advantage.
And where did they find people for this survey running J2EE apps on Windows?
In the news today: world shocked as cost of system critcal software, that needs to be supported by real people, is not just the ticket price!
/.ers all know this to be a fact, it no doubt alludes the other 99.9% of the computer buying populous, so it getting into the news is probably a good thing.
Seriously. The only reason this article is even remotely interesting is because a big company (admittedly with a vested interest) has taken time out from its busy schedule of taking over the world, to point out the fact the the real cost of an OS is the support and not the retail price. Now this is important, as although we as
Thats not to say that saving the site licence for Windows isn't a big saving, its just that Linux admins know that because people think they're saving 10 large, that they can charge more than the market rate for Windows admins. As is always the case, the market will eventually catch up, supply of admins will begin to saturate the market and linux TCO will begin to slide, as will Windows as they pull out all the stops to stay ahead.
Scared of flying, pointy things snce 1979!
To developers, an open source system will always gaurantee more power and control - proprietary code by definition will hide information - sometimes exactly that which is crucial to your project.
Proprietary software often chooses unnecessary obscurity - by design. On most open source *nix systems human-readable scripts do powerful tasks simply - and are easily understood and modified.
So whilst I agree with your point that you need expertise to do anything well, there may well come a point where the business model of the OS distributor makes things unnecessary difficult.
Doesn't IBM ultimately have to actually *eat* what it recommends? Isn't IBM Global Services the biggest moneymaker in IBM? In this space, Everything IBM talks about is to implement something.
Is the same of MS? I recall clearly MS recommended Windows as a large-scale solution when there were no tools to actually do the job, efficiently or effectively. And, I don't just mean by just the already pious.
This doesn't give creds to either, but an observation.
InfoWorld's Tom Sullivan has a blog post up that questions some of the findings in the study. Among other things, he notes that Solaris support was found to cost less than that of either Windows or Linux, and that the same study found Windows to be cheaper when studied over a three-year period. Most importantly, though, he points out that only 20 companies were surveyed to come up with this study, and with those kind of odds you can pretty much make the numbers say anything you want.
Breakfast served all day!
"This just in, PowerSauce is amazing!"
The idea there is some perpetual upgrade path we all must walk is a myth created by the IT industry to keep sales figures high, and sustained in part by bad software engineering.
So what you're saying is that I could have stayed with the good old terminal and not purchased a new pc to emulate a terminal? No, I'm making this up.
I know for a fact that 1 Windows TOC report from a client site I worked for was based on $15/seat copies of XP. They got a huge site discount on Office and other stuff too. So if MS is willing to take a loss the TOC can beat Linux.
Really the only way they beat it was because they factored in the cost of retraining all IT staff, and other stuff.
Then your salary comes under the TCO.
Any administration costs come under TCO.
Part of Microsoft's arguments are that you need a unix guru around to run your linux servers. I would agree.
However, if you want to run a good MS system, you should have a Windows guru on staff too. So I'm not sure how I see that Windows TCO should be lower.
But I'm sure I could be made to see it that way if someone funded me to make a study. Prospective clients, you can contact me at...
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
IBM Reports Indicate Linux TCO Is Lower
Um.. you expected something else?
I'm not saying TCO is not lower, it probably is. What I'm saying is, if IBM figured out that Windows actually had a lower TCO, they sure as hell wouldn't be writing a report about it. That's like holding your breath waiting for Microsoft to release a study that said Linux has a lower TCO than Windows. Even if it's true, they'll never publish the report.
I was told that I could listen to the radio at a reasonable volume from nine to eleven...
Actually, I probably have touched millions of dollars worth of hardware and software in my time. The catch is that nearly every application requires a learning curve. SMS, Exchange, IIS, ActiveDirectory, and so on each have massive complexity behind them and I can appreciate the simplicity of things like the Active Directory browser. Over time, I've had to get nitty-gritty and write to the ADSI interface and use tools that expose the raw LDAP data.
Such things aren't for the faint of heart, and it takes time to become an expert in such things. Me, I'm primarily a generalist and an integrator. When people want distribution lists created based on HR records, Active Directory entries, Exchange status, and so on, I'm the one to do it. Having the nice GUI tools to do so is very handy at the beginning.
$40/per month--Broadband connection for downloading
$0--setting it up myself
$100--Linux friendly peripherals off of ebay
Technically, the broadband I would have anyway, so I'm not sure how much of that should count. Additionally, I was able to download distros at work before I sprung for my own broadband. I suppose that both Linux and Windows need the broadband connection to download updates, so that would be a wash anyway. I did not buy a preloaded PC, so if I add up the extra leaving out what Windows also needs:
$120 for parts and CD's.
Compare that to, what, $300+ for Windows XP Pro? I refuse to compare it to a less secure Windows version because the Linux install gives me built in security that only XP Pro can compare to, if you know how to set it up that way. I don't know how to set up XP as well as Linux, so I would need to pay for a class. The internals of Linux are so much easier to understand.
Ops, I shuld have usd the prevuwe but in.