IBM Reports Indicate Linux TCO Is Lower

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IBM Reports Indicate Linux TCO Is Lower

Posted by Zonk on Thursday September 1, 2005 @02:58AM from the total-cost-of-ownership-rules dept.

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."

8 of 334 comments (clear)

but but by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-01 02:59 · Score: 2, Funny

But I just read a report sponsored by Microsoft saying that Windows had a lower TCO. Who should I believe? Oh, and FP!
1. Re:but but by MightyMartian · 2005-09-01 04:40 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Torvald's Heroes
  Colonel Gates: No vone escapes from Stalag XP!
  Torvald: Hah! We have a far lower TCO. We don't need your virus-laden operating system.
  Colonel Gates: Tell him, Ballmer!
  Major Ballmer: I know nothink!
  Colonel Gates: Torvald! Nothing can stop Vindows now! Ve have unstoppable software!
  Torvald: You'll have to hold on a second, I think Major Ballmer thinks your desk is apple strudel.
  Colonel Gates: Relax, Torvald, Major Ballmer is simply practicing for ze next trade show. He's hoping to injest ze vile Steve Jobs. NOw, back to your Linux. It is bad, and smelly, and costly, and is made by Communists!
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
TCO vs. HMO by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-01 02:59 · Score: 5, Funny

IBM cited one reason behind Windows higher TCO: medical bills incurred from employees banging their head on their desk.
1. Re:TCO vs. HMO by justsomebody · 2005-09-01 05:13 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  IBM cited one reason behind Windows higher TCO: medical bills incurred from employees banging their head on their desk.
  
  Except that it seems report doesn't cover this topic in its full extension. They forgot to calculate desk damage
  
  --
  Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
No way! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-01 02:59 · Score: 1, Funny

Next you'll be telling me that Microsoft have found that the TCO of Windows is lower!
More FUD by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-01 03:00 · Score: 1, Funny

Yet more IBM FUD. When will those monopolists ever learn?
Re:Whilst I agree with this... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-09-01 03:14 · Score: 1, Funny

Please stop using the word "whilst".
Great, just what we need... by gardyloo · 2005-09-01 03:19 · Score: 2, Funny

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.