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."

Comments

TCO vs. HMO

[Anonymous Coward]

IBM cited one reason behind Windows higher TCO: medical bills incurred from employees banging their head on their desk.

a couple of surprises in article

[yagu]

From the article:

it found that 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.

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:

"second-stage" benefits that some companies are experiencing by implementing Linux. Second-stage benefits expand upon initial benefits such as lower hardware and licensing costs to include the ability to consolidate server workloads, reduce IT hardware upgrade costs, and attract new IT workers interested in open source. The 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."

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)

Re:a couple of surprises in article

[PIPBoy3000]

I'm admittedly a Windows person for the most part, as that's the environment I live in at work. 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. When trying to extend beyond an application's capabilities, you start running into hard-coded issues that make it difficult or impossible.

We're currently migrating to ASP.Net and having internal struggles about whether or not to use Visual Studio, for example. I personally dislike being hampered by the interface, though it makes certain things much easier. The catch is that you need this bulky environment in order to work with what you create, you can't easily edit things outside of the environment, and often the application creates code for you that isn't quite what you want.

So, I'm not sure there's a clear TCO value for these sort of things. Each OS and application probably needs to be evaluated for what you're trying to do. My guess is that there will be a mix of the two systems for a long time into the future. Competition is good.

see .pdf

[Janek Kozicki]

Actual .pdf of the study here.

My guess is

[Anonymous Coward]

Other than Sun's high licensing costs I'm at a loss on why Solaris would be so much higher.

My guess would be:

1. Nobody knows how to use it, everybody coming out of school these days is used to using Linux and/or BSD, from this perspective Solaris does a lot of weird things for no reason.
2. Much as Sun's pushing Solaris/x86, if you're using Solaris, you're still pretty much going to be using expensive, locked-in Sun hardware. (Of course that hardware is probably more reliable, but sometimes lower TCO means you get what you pay for).
3. Sun is a competitor to IBM who commissioned the study, maybe the study misrepresents Sun TCO in some way.

Re:My guess is

[51mon]

"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?

Why do I get the feeling...

[gowen]

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.

Re:Nice Result, But...

[drnlm]

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.

Re:but but

[MightyMartian]

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!