Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IBM Reports Indicate Linux TCO Is Lower

Posted by Zonk on 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."

3 of 334 comments (clear)

  1. Why do I get the feeling... by gowen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  2. Re:Nice Result, But... by drnlm · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Is it any more credible than MS studies, no. However, in certain management circles, the MS studies are considered very credible precisley because they're backed by MS.

    This study will be very useful as a counterbalance to the MS-funded studies, andgiven that it's backed by IBM, it can't be as easily ignored by management as some of the other, recent refutations of MS's results.

    News, no. Good PR, most definately.

  3. Re:My guess is by 51mon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "I don't care what it's doing, a fifteen-year-old machine is obsolete NOW."

    The hardware may be obselete, but if it is still doing the job you replace it when it fails (or ideally just before). Not having a replacement plan could be an issue, and I suspect these people don't.

    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.

    It isn't even obvious they have a management issue, just because they get outside help to sort problems on the boxes, if they only have an issue every few years it is cheaper not to employ the expertise.

    I've had 10 year old systems fail whilst still under vendor support contracts, fixed and returned to service inside 24 hours, why should we have replaced them if the economics didn't justify it?