Slashdot Mirror
Novell Assents To "Windows Is Cheaper Than Linux"
dyous87 points out a ZDNet article reporting that Novell has endorsed a customer's comment claiming that the total cost of ownership of Linux is higher then that of Windows. Novell and Microsoft jointly issued a press release quoting an IT guy for a UK-based bank, HSBC: "Some will be surprised to learn that our Windows environment has a lower total cost of ownership than our current Linux environment." The context of the comment makes it clear that HSBC's Linux environment has a mix of distros, and that a move to centralize around one distro — Novell's — will save money. Nevertheless, Novell's connection to this assertion is not likely to improve their reputation in the open source community.
This is coming from a bank. They probably spent ridiculous amounts of money verifying linux is secure. They probably take microsofts word for it.
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
If all you want is a machine to look at spreadsheets on, there's nothing wrong with windows. Hell, for a lot of people it's fine - if you're behind a firewall, who cares? The computer is just a tool to get the job done.
When you're looking at managing systems en masse, it's different, and it gets really different with servers - that's where microsoft's liscencing comes back to hurt them.
..don't panic
... it must be true!!
Of course Novell wouldn't want to poo-poo it's "partner's" product.
root@allevil:~#
What's the story about someone selling their birthright for a bowl of porridge?
They knew how to deal with traitors back in the day .... "The Pear" being a personal favourite...
I'm surprised Microsoft and Novell waited this long for their first anecdotal PR coup. I'm not surprised it's happened. It certainly has tainted even more my opinion of Novell, long the staunch enemy of Microsoft because of hardball MS tactics against them. It seems desperate or stupid.
In the release, Matthew O'Neill, group head of distributed systems for HSBC Global IT operations, states that the bank's existing Linux environment is more expensive to maintain than its Windows environment. "Some will be surprised to learn that our Windows environment has a lower total cost of ownership than our current Linux environment." - they forgot to mention that the GNU/Linux environment consisted of 10,000 boxes and the Windows environment was only 3 boxes and 2 of them were down most of the time.
Ok, I just came up with this, but it's not different than what the 'article' is saying, there are no details at all, it's all just hand-waving and no facts.
You can't handle the truth.
I think this has to do with the SAs. Shops running mostly windows servers will have windows-saavy SAs. I say if you have a good linux SA, the TCO will be less for linux. If you have windows SAs doing linux, then of course TCO for windows will be less.
Where I work, we have had many more problems with our linux web servers than with our windows servers. I chalk it up to the fact that the team that manages our servers has WinTel in their group's name. Windows and Linux administration are two different skill sets. But somewhere along the line, someone decided that they'd rebadge a few windows SAs as linux SAs, which in my estimation, is a mistake.
blah blah blah
In the article he is comparing the cost of a varied and diverse *nix mashup with a comparatively homogeneous Windows world. Sure, support a couple of versions of Windows versus 12 variants of Linux? Yep, cheaper. Fine. But the POINT is that standardizing on one Linux Will Save Money, compared to many versions, OR compared to Windows.
On the one hand, we OSS advocates can't afford to live in a dream world. If Windows is cheaper than Linux, we need to know about it, know why, and fix it. So from that angle I'm glad MicroNovell assented to it.
But we also know that statements like this are typically used out of context, especially by the professional liars who do advertisting for a living. Somehow, when MS runs ads talking about TCO, they'll forget to mention all of the qualifications that accompany this case study, such as the fact that it had a mixed Linux environment. So from this angle, I almost wish that MicroNovell hadn't assented at all, since it's likely to be used to mislead the general public rather than make them wiser.
Anyways TFA said that the bank was running a bunch of different Linux distros. I would tend to think that running a bunch of different flavors of Linux would cause compatibility problems that raise their TCO...hence the reason why moving to Novell/MS would be cheaper.
The only reasons I can think of are that
We have one Windows machine here used for testing. The rest are Linux. Technically all of these Linux machines cost more than that one Windows machine. So I suppose I too could say my Windows environment costs less than my Linux environment.
A unique way to learn a language: http://languageloom.com
Hongkong and Shanghai are no longer part of the UK. You need to update your map (I hear Google has good maps).
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
in some environments, windows makes more sense than linux
in other environments, linux makes more sense than windows
the truth is bland and unexciting
linux zealots and microsoft ad execs may have more exciting things to say on the subject, but they're just deluded or lying
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The word you're looking for is "than". Dammit.
Never argue with a man carrying a water buffalo
How the open source community views Novell is reminiscent of the madonna-whore complex.
1. We can only love a perfect(technically) and chaste(doesn't screw msft behind our backs) woman
2. However we want her to be sexy(successful) and do the nasty(make money).
In essence we can never be satisfied with a company's performance and also love them at the same time. We are doomed to hate Novell and yet we desperately want her.
HSBC's long term TCO decision making strategies of late may be deemed... well... questionable.
It's not hard to find specific cases where Windows is cheaper. The problem is when people use specific instances of cheaper TCO using linux or Windows to generalize which one is cheaper for other cases. It is easy to find specific cases where linux is the better option and others where Windows makes more sense. Finding examples however does not answer the question of which is more cost effective in general. I'm not sure there is a good way to answer that other than to assume that companies are rational enterprises and that they will gravitate over time towards to most cost effective solution. Installed base size might be the best available (albeit highly imperfect) measure if you accept the above premise. If linux is growing in market share, that might be rationally construed as evidence that companies are finding the TCO of linux to be lower. It's not the only factor of course but I think it is a reasonable inference.
For the desktop machines in my company which was cheaper depended entirely upon how we used the machines. We ran our servers on SuSE linux but for the desktop machines we needed specific applications where the linux alternatives were sufficiently inferior as to make them not cost effective. For our server needs there was no comparison, linux was vastly more cost effective. TCO is specific to the needs of the organization and/or individuals using the product. Its going to differ on a case by case basis and we would be foolish to generalize our needs to that of the IT community at large.
I wonder if Novel fairily included the higher cost to make a Windows system as secure as a Linux is.
Now, please note that much of that security is based on "security by unpopularity". However, if Linux were to become more popular, then the costs to find trained people and to pay them to support Linux would drop, probably just as much as the security costs went up.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
a statement.
/.ers, it's not Windows).
TCO of Linux being higher than Windows wouldn't completely surprise me given my own personal experience with the OS, though hearing other people's experiences, I would not bet on either outcome. It, in several of it's incarnations, has given me more grief than almost any other OS I've used/administrated (there's only one worse I can think of, sorry
That being said, I'd still like to know -
is this weighted per machine on comparison, or per desktop in one set, per server in another, or is it just overall -
- If it's the latter, than TCO will be best on whatever system is used least.
- If it's the per server/per desktop, then it's a good measure
- If it's per machine, whichever has the highest desktop:server would probably win, so it's again unfair/biased.
Also, as it's stated, there are multiple distros; with how differently things are done, I wouldn't except a low TCO for multiple distros. My experience stems from 4 major distributions, totalling maybe 10-12 versions, the administration of different distros seems to be quite high, making multi-distro administration also a challange. That right there tells me this is biased against Linux.
Finally, learning cost: Learning is a sunk cost, and not an over-time cost. Was this TCO over the first year, or was it over a longer time? Did it involve a time-related cost projection? This is relevant because most of the users would have come in knowing how things were done in Windows, but not Linux, some of the admins may have even come in that way. The initial training cost would have been comparatively high compared to the new employee training cost - another VERY important factor that most likely biased this report against Linux. Anyone know if they actually put up facts about this?
A lot of words said and conclusions made in TFA, but at the end of the day, I don't feel any more educated than before - they just gave no useful or novel (/new/ not book or corporation) data.
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
Of course, this depends on a number of factors. The TCO of my Linux box is £0.
How dare you be so modest!! You conceited bastard!!
As with many things, when you save money it doesn't necessarily mean you've got more "money in the bank" it just means you have more to spend on other things. Where I work we're a mixed windows/linux shop, and moving more towards the linux/FOSS route all the time.
Does that mean money saved overall, no. What it does mean is that money that would have been spent on X (software licenses, etc), is now spend on other stuff (aging infrastructure, upgraded network, etc and lots of other things that would have otherwise stay or been delayed in upgrading). There will always be places to dump cash, and what most of these studies don't seem to incorporate into the "studies" is that dollar for dollar, the spending might be the same or more for FOSS, but the results might not be the same nor what the money was spend on.
The point being?
Who sold his birthright to Isaac.
And the New Testament says of him "that afterward, when he wanted to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought it dilligently with tears."
Maybe there is a warning for Novell on a business, non-spiritual level.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Smartass, HSBC is currently headquartered in the UK. Plus, HSBC ceased to stand for "Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation" LONG ago - it was just where the name *originally* came from.
The assimilation has begun. Resistance is, apparently, futile.
HSBC is the very same bank that is most heavily exposed to the subprime market right now, which is under a lot of stress, needless to say. When I read the summary, I was thinking, "Yeah, HSBC sure knows how to save money..."
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
It's hard to take anything novl claims about msft seriously. This seems like more bought-and-paid-for msft brown-nosing. Very similar to the all the bogus "think tanks" that msft bought, or all of silly msft sponsored astro-turfing, or all the phoney-baloney msft sponsored TCO studies, or all the msft paid analysts that gush over msft. And doesn't msft pay bloggers, and message board posters?
Frankly, I don't see how any reasonably well informed person can believe anything positive published about msft. Msft pays for good PR in every way imaginable.
"The pear? Pffth. Bring me.... the COMFY CHAIR!!"
Well, I certainly didn't expect that.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Great, now we know that the TCO for a mixed Linux environment is higher than for Windows. And what does it mean?
3 0215)?
Did they calculated the costs by taking the productivity of their personal into account, the increased security risks and possible costs for disaster recovery ( like an employee responsible for account creation, who had a keylogger installed, yesterday news http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/14/13
What does it really mean, if you don't get the details of the entire installation and their calculation? Training people on new software is certainly the biggest costs, training people on a closed source system just means that security is controlled somewhere else and that users will not understand, can not understand and will make errors, which put your business at risk.
Sure, Linux can be attacked as well, but once there is a critical bug known, you can react by getting a patch, disable that part or write your patch yourself (not that I could do it, but a programmer employed by a bank...)
Much better than a "patch/nopatch tuesday".
"People who are willing to sacrifice essential freedoms for security deserve neither freedom nor security."
B F
Those are two more valid possibilities.
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
If I am capable of installing Linux on an existing computer that is longer capable of running Windows because it is so bulky, how can it be more expensive?
The answer is: Running Linux isn't more expensive. In fact, it is less expensive. This does not prevent people from making the flawed and misleading argument that on a corporate level it is more expensive because people need to be trained to use Linux, whereas they are already familiar with Windows.
This is a logical fallacy at best, and deliberate misdirection at worst. The fact is, there are a lot of people who are very skilled with Linux who can provide excellent support for a corporate infrasrtucture. In reality, people generally need to be trained with Windows as well. The honest truth is the cost is about the same on the support side, and less expensive when it comes to software and equipment.
Of course, that's just my 2
I am open source, and Linux baby!
I wouldn't put much faith in the ability of HSBC to manage anything IT related. I work for a company selling trading software to top tier banks, many of them based in the UK. Overall, their IT staff are useless. Their seems to be two type of bank IT staffer - the permanent staff hired straight out of college, with no real world experience and no chance of acquiring any because the second kind of staffer, the contractors, do as little as possible but ensure their own job security by keeping the permies as ill-informed as possible.
This may sound cynical, but it is all too true. As an example, we had an IT person from one bank try to apply an update to their system by first untarring it on Windows and FTP'ing each file in turn to the Unix box. In the process they managed to change the case of all the files. This was despite the release notes (complete with cut 'n' paste, step by step instructions) telling them to apply the patch by untarring it on the Unix box.
Another example is a client who has switched from HP-UX to Solaris and now to Linux within the space of a year. With that kind of regular platform jumping it's no wonder this clients Windows TCO is lower than the one for Unix.
Suse is NOT free. RedHat is NOT free.
I'm quite sure it would be a different story if they had used a non-parasitic distribution. Novell will NEVER save you money.
Slackware or FreeBSD, is another matter entirely.
(TFA is slashdotted, or incompatible with dial-up. I could not view it. I am assuming they are using non-free Linux distributions. Oh, no wait, there it is 5 minutes later... 6 minutes total for the page to download.)
Well now that I can see TFA, they do not say what distributions they are curretnly using, but I can pretty much guarantee that they are not using FOSS given the statement made that 'Windows cheaper than Linux'.
Stupidity is its own punishment.
'In 2004, financial group HSBC launched an initiative to reduce the cost of supporting 300,000 desktop computers by 20 percent through rigorous standardization. To help achieve this goal, the company deployed Microsoft ® System Center solutions as an integral part of its new environment. Microsoft Systems Management Server 2003 facilitates centralized software deployment, roaming user desktops, and the ability to track software usage to the individual user'
'To date, HSBC has realized an estimated U.S.$50 million to $75 million reduction in annual costs--expected to increase to $100 million by the time deployment of the new desktop standard is finished at the end of 2007
How can you save money by spending it on another system to help you manage a system that is supposed to be easily managed in the first place - Active Directory.
How does the Windows environment have a lower TCO than Linux. Do they have keep the Linux admins in a separate part of the building. Aren't they allowed to admin the Windows boxes. Do they cost more. Do the Linux updates take longer.
davecb5620@gmail.com
the administration of different distros seems to be quite high
TO:
the administration of different distros seems to be quite different
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
I'm a Linux fan myself, but your reasoning here doesn't make sense. TCO means Total Cost of Ownership. It should take into account monetary benefits. How do you think it could be "worth it" if TCO is higher? A warm feeling in your tummy?
That said, the only way to really interpret the article is that HSBC finds that running a mix of various distros to be more costly than a homogeneous Windows, and that standardizing Linux on Novell will bring the TCO in line with - or perhaps below - the TCO of Windows.
"A little misunderstanding? Galileo and the Pope had a little misunderstanding."
I have to disagree. After you purchase Windows then start adding on all of the other necessary software to run a enterprise Windows environment such as Ghost, Backup Exec, Disk keeper etc. and then tell me if it is cheaper than Linux.
IT services for open-source software represent 1.2% or $2.3 billion of the addressable 2006 North American IT services market. - Report Highlight for Dataquest Insight: Open-Source Software IT Services, North America, 2005-2010
Across all organizations, one-fifth say they use OSS. As few as 17 percent of midsize and large respondent organizations say they use OSS, and 28 percent of organizations of 500 to 2,499 employees claim they use OSS. - User Survey Report: Open-Source and Linux Software Support Services, North America, 2006
OSS services account for 1.2% of the IT budget, yet 20% of larger companies use OSS? So worst case, if less than 6% of the average company's software is OSS, then MS/NV are correct. If greater than 6% is OSS, then they are obviously wrong - due to OSS's relatively small market share.
Whore Yourself... @ http://whorapedia.com/
A Athlon 4000 Dual Core with Linux: $600
Same PC with Vista Ultimate: $900 (Since vista IS $300 or so)
User Lessons Linux: $40
User Lessons Win32: $80
OpenOffice for Linux: $0
MS Office 2007 for Win32: $500 - $600
AV For Win32: $50
It depends on what you charge.... And what type of software you use.
If you get me to work on it, your TCO of windows is higher than Linux.
And if you get spyware on that windows machine, thats $80 to clean it off.
If it fubar's Windows, and have to call M$ to reactivate it, thats $5 a minute.
Do the math.
There is a real accounting procedure used by corporate accounts that could provide a comparison and that is Return on Investment (ROI).
Proof by very large bribes. QED.
Computers have a higher TCO than empty boxes. Computers consume electricity, while empty boxes consume none. Computers require staffing and software in order to be useful. Empty boxes require no software or staff. While it's true that employees are unable to do any work with empty boxes, this can save companies billions of dollars a year in payroll, as they do not have to hire employees. Also, there are significant savings because it is difficult to commit accounting fraud, or other white collar crimes with an empty box.
Leave the gun, take the cannoli -- Clemenza, The Godfather
community. The open source community is pretty much the enemy of any for profit software company. Even if you build your product from open source.. the community is giant threat to the profitability of a product. They will copy and steal you work the instant they think you aren't taking the project in the right direction. It happens constantly in open source and many times the innovative programmers are displaced by the more business savy ones. That is why many of the latest projects are switching to a close/open source model where they take the open source buy close their other contributions so that they actually own their own work instead of doing it so some investment group with more money than the programmers can steal the product.
Open source is a great way to combat the corporate evil, but ultimately without the corporate evil open source would never be even remotely as popular as it is today. The open source effort is more of a result of overly strict business practices. If software was cheap for instance open source would have infinitely less reason to exist. People go for open source for one main reason, because it's free and all other reasons are a distant second. That is not a strong model for long term survivability. While open source projects are cool the vast majority of them are dead ends and few of them even make it to useful products when compared to how many open source cluster fuck projects there are out there.
I don't respect the idea that the driving force behind open force is simply peoples natural desire to get everything as cheap as they possible can. It's bad for the software industry that free crappy software is taking development money away from legitimate programmers. It's good they have competition, but open source is not REAL competition because they are not driven by the standard model of success and failure that works so well with capitalism. That is the natural evolution of a business is that if their product cannot compete with the mainstream products it's supposed to go out of business. However, if the project is open source it will be artificially by the fact the people are more cheap than they are smart. The good aspect is that the work done can be picked up by other programmers and thats one major problem in the profitable sector of computer programming that contrasts against open source. If a project gets killed in the corporate sector the work could be archived and lost forever. Companies can kill and shelve great products because marketing numbers of BS consultants pressure them. Look are Xerox they gave apple the secrets behind the GUI and made no attempt to patent the idea or even the mouse. Usually though, companies don't even share this type of development information (and after that xerox probably never will again either). So open source is great for that fact, though many times a dead project is best left dead and started over or forgotten about.
If open source companies become profitable all they are going to do is close their business model as soon as they can. They will turn that model on it's heads as soon as the profit numbers say they can and become a proprietary solution. Just because they started out as open source an used the community as free developers and testers doesn't mean they won't turn around and created a close, for profit, branch of the project, which will ultimately take over the project since it's for profit and almost EVERYONE wants more money.
Open source is plagued by this problem and it's getting much worse, much faster and there is no solution other than the member who contribute do so under strict contract, but this is completely against the free open source feel. However, business is business and companies with money could corrupt open source efforts so easily it's not even funny. In the end open source can stick around longer than any one company, but the simplified model of everything I do belong to the project that being run by some guy I never met is stupid and it's a waste of your time to contribute development
I have found depending on what you are trying to do, the cost and support level vary considerably between the systems.
On the other side of the coin is many data recovery applications where the TCO is much less on Linux.
A prime example I had a friend bring be a dead laptop.. Won't even boot into the BIOS. Please recover my documents..
In Windows it requires finding an adaptor so you can put in both hard drives in one laptop at the same time and configure the drive as a second drive, etc..
In my case I put the drive in my laptop, booted Ubuntu off the CD. Mounted the drive and copied the My_Documents folder to a network share. Zero extra cost, no configuration (auto found my network and got an address).
I needed to burn an ISO to make a Ubuntu CD. In Windows the aparant choice is to upgrade the limited function CD burning software bundled with the machine or search online for free software (possibly trojan), scan it for viruses (purchased subscription application) and then burn a CD. On a Ubuntu machine, simply right click on the ISO and chose burn to CD.
To be fair, on the flip side of the coin, I do some MIDI stuff and DMX512 lighting. There are tons of free applications for Windows and only limited support on Linux. So the TCO study to be unbiased would point out there are applications where both have their high points. That is why I have a Windows machine and a Ubuntu machine and Live CD's for laptop data recovery.
In the enterprise where I work, It's a Windows environment because of the platform the vendors write for for our customised applications and embedded control and for hardware support of the same. I don't see any easy migration path away from the entrenched environment any time soon.
At home and on the desktop and on some fileservers and network appliances, it's a mixed environment is the lowest TCO. My Router and my Fileserver and my Printservers are all Linux based.
The truth shall set you free!
In the case of my present client, we spent quite some time in analyzing whether it makes sense for us to move some of our desktop to different OS other than MS windows. We did consider Apple and Linux. Since the company needed some reputable company giving them service we decided to go with Novell (decision makers decided against RH) and from our analysis we found using Novell would cut costs by 23% compared to windows over 3 year period (Considered SA training and hiring new SA with Linux exp.) where as using Apple would increase costs by around 18% compared to Windows. But the gottachas were assuming all the applications were web based and were not created solely for IE. Only our call centers applications met the criteria and we moved neally about 1500 CSRs (who are about 12% of the workforce) to Suse. We also moved all the Call center apps (all J2EE based and required very minimal migration from Windows to Linux. All our Oracle DBs run on Linux) to Linux servers Are they considering moving everybody to Linux? May be not. But they are keeping the options open and where ever it makes sense we will move users to Linux.
I think each and every business needs to do their own analysis than blindly following somebody's PR BS.
The usual bugaboo in these studies is training. They usually assume no training costs for Windows vs. having to train every user on everything from scratch for Linux. This means things like assuming you'll need to train them on how to use OpenOffice before they can get any work done, even though they've been using MS Office for years and already know 80+% of what they need (and 99+% of the basic stuff like how to save files, change fonts, right-align text and the like). Basically the studies count initial set-up costs for Linux but omit them for Windows. That's like saying a Ford GT ($65K) costs less than a Focus ($15K) because this month's payment on the GT is only $500 while the Focus costs nearly $3000 to drive out of the show-room ($2K down-payment, $200 first month's payment, plus tax, license, registration, insurance, etc.).
Another bugaboo is in how they calculate system administration and maintenance costs. They usually calculate it assuming people administer Linux systems like they do Windows: by physically going to each computer that needs work and working on it. Good Unix admins don't do that, though, they set up SSH and rsync and the like so they can get into any box on the network and do their work without ever leaving their desks (which is a lot cheaper than having admins walking around to desks all day). Even the work that requires GUI tools, since X11 works as readily over the network as on the local console. That's also how you get arguments like "Linux doesn't have a standardized desktop, so the admins will have more work trying to figure out each different desktop.". Well, if the sysadmin's logging in to his own account, he'll get his desktop which'll be the same on every machine independent of what the user has picked. Desktop support needs to deal with the user's desktop to answer questions and help with configuration of that, but administrative work doesn't happen in the user's account.
The TCO of Using Windows can and often is lower then the TCO of using Linux. But Linux can have a lower TCO then windows too. It depends on how you use them, and what you use them for. If you are going to do work the same way as you done in the past with running application localy on your system. Then Windows is the best solution. If you are going to have mostly all web/terminal based application, Then Linux will Win. Windows wins in a distributed enviroment where people have greater atonomy over their Computers, Linux works best in a situation where there is a few experts maintainging the systems and and the users are stuck with what they have. Both have there Ups and Downs but if you have a different configuration then there is a lower TCO. A good Linux enviroment will be a better TCO then a Bad Windows enviroment and vice versa if a Well planned windows enviroment is set up vs a crummy Linux enviroment then Windows will win. The problem is when companies switch to Linux from windows or try to switch they normally do poorly because they work in a windows mindset. Unix companies who switch to Linux are normally much more successful and reap a large cost savings.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I did some consulting work for HSBC a few years ago when they were first installing Linux systems, and the problems they were having with Windows (unable to stay up and running for more than a few days at a time, instability while running critical Java apps, and some other major problems) was the reason they started switching servers over to Linux. Sounds to me that since I left, they have stopped updating their Linux systems (they used Redhat when I was there) and are now feeling the crunch of allowing stable systems to go unmanaged for too long.
People make money out of others ignorance. People make money by adding value to others. I guess Novell chose 1st option.
Slashdot = Sarcasm
Well Novell, you didn't really think you could jump in the sack with MS and keep your dignity did you?
From the article...
HSBC claims it will achieve cost savings by reducing the number of Linux distributions it uses and by improving the interoperability of its open-source operating system deployments with Windows.\
The true title of the article should be...
"Closed standards raise the cost of interoperability with Windows"
If they didn't need to converse with Windows, that cost would go away.
The truth shall set you free!
There are 3 degrees of the severity of lies:
Lies,
Damned Lies,
and TCO reports
-- Greywolf's Law of TCO
My blog
it's all the time spent by admins getting mp3s, wmvs and wmas to play for the managers; by the employees trying to figure out how to install weatherbug and webshots; how to install their favorite "free" game; and why won't mp3s play on this stupid os.... where is windows media player????
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
What about the user experience? How well the software works directly influences mood. I know that anytime I have to work with Real Audio apps on a Windows box, I'm sociopathic for at least four hours.
technical writing / development
They were paid over 400 Million dollars to get into bed with Microsoft. If I paid a whore that much money I'd expect a lot too.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
On the chance you were referring to my comment, I didn't say anything about the Linux Desktop thing, only about the administration tools.
:-)
Pretty much any desktop you can get working on Distro A you should be able to get working on Distros B-Z as well. Mileage may vary, but a good admin should be able to get that done either at install time or as a post install time.
So just to reiterate, I wasn't complaining about that
Heck, I run my favorite "Linux" desktop envronment on my FreeBSD box... I'd run it on windows too if it weren't too much of a hassle to set it up.
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
I have never understood the idea of Migration costs. When the software is free, you have community support and comparable Office suites the argument doesn't hold water.
In my opinion nothing is "as cheap as free"
My notebook is dual boot Linux/XP (although I rarely see the XP login screen), how do I calculate the TCO for both?
I use Linux most of the time, so Linux uses the most resources (power, wi-fi, CDs, etc.), does that mean the TCO for Linux is higher?
I lost my sig...
fail to address the issue that a Linux sysadmin although usually paid higher can perform a task that would take 15 minutes for a Windows sysadmin to perform. Try this Windows sysadmin at Novell: Searching for a *set* of strings through a set of files, archive and compress those matching files, delete the originals and upload the compressed archive, once that is done *successfully*, email the sysadmin with the result, all of that in the background without having to wait at any stage of the task. This is a very simple task that I come accross on a daily basis, this usually takes about 20 seconds to type up, I can even logoff my computer while this is running. For those Linux sysadmins out there, you know what I'm talking about. For those Windows sysadmins out there, dream on...
TOP DSLR Cameras Reviews of the top DSLRs
Well those of us who actually know how to make Linux cheep, know this is false.. trouble is we are going to be hearing this quote for a long time now.. :-(
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
Are you suggesting that Novell is parasitic in the Linux space?
How to lower your TCO? Encourage piracy, of course. Which is exactly what Microsoft has been doing for the past 15 years.
I would recommend that the guys at Novell read The Tragical History of Dr. Faustus. It'll prepare them for what's to come.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
How are they using windows? Did they not purchase the $4k DST 'patch' (yes, a patch) to fix Exchange's DST issue? Are they managing 1000s of workstations across an enterprise with something like ScriptLogic's Desktop Authority, which makes the hell of the broken Active Directory workable? There are un-foreseen costs attached. You pay one time for Windows, and then many times over for antivirus, directory services management, patch management, on and on. I honestly cannot believe Novell said this, especially when NDS was twice the directory service AD is today.
The costs to buy everything needed to actually make a Windows network, 'work' are exponential when factoring in all of the third party pieces that are ABSOLUTELY necessary to make an distributed network function well.
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
Does the concept of TCO exist in other industries? I mean...do they talk about it in the same way?
Do the 'food service' people say, "The TCO of this Gold Spoon is lower than the Silver Spoon because the gold spoon doesn't tarnish."
Is IT special in that regard? Is the whole concept of TCO just FUD made up by the makers of expensive systems?
--Welcome to the Realm of the Hawke--
Oh damn, I forgot what it is called. But it starts out:
First you are ignored
Then you are laughed at
Then..
etc..
We need to add the price babel to it as its obvious that as Linux gets better and better, this arguement will be an obvious line of bull too. Just like the former responces at earlier stages.
Lets face it, the nature of the development of GNU/Linux is that it is going to be hands down the best all around system.
As a product line, it'll alway be younger than MS product line.
There is no indication that the number of Microsoft Windows (Windows) based computers in the environment compares to the number of Linux based computers. There is no indication of how many different flavors of Linux the bank is using. There is no indication of how many different versions of Windows are in the environment. Without the details, the statement is not of any use.
Example, if I have an organization that has:
3 - Windows based Microsoft Exchange (Exchange) servers using only one flavor of Windows and Exchange.
30 - Linux based servers, using several flavors of Linux.
2000 - Linux based desktop computers, using several flavors of Linux, running Evolution and an Exchange connector.
It would likely cost more for the organization in total cost of ownership (TCO) for Linux than for Windows, in that environment.
Where as if I had an environment that used and equal number of Windows and Linux servers, and an equal numbers of Windows and Linux desktops, assuming the Linux servers had been consolidated to one flavor, and the Linux desktops were running one flavor, I would say it is possible to see a par TCO or a leaning in either direction.
My main point is that without quantifying numbers, it is all FUD / hearsay.
Regards,
Ryan Pritchard
Fun Extends All Basic Life Expectancies
How dare anyone say anything on Slashdot that even appears to favor Microsoft - and even worse - at the expense of our beloved Linux! SOB SOB SOB!
Now we know the price Novell has paid to Microsoft for their deal. Hope it includes knee-pads.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
TCO depends on the target use of the platform. For some companies/tasks Linux will have a cheaper TCO for others Windows. Its swings and roundabouts. TCO numbers are just more corporate buzz words/numbers to sound good to senior managers.
A lab I had with 16 iMacs and 4 Gateways.
Took my staff longer to babysit the 4 PCs than the 16 iMacs.
And only two of those PCs were reliable enough for the PC fans to deem actually useful.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Ever look at a piece of modern art and think, "my kid could do that in five minutes?" Ever think why theater is too out in left field for you? Well there is a strong connection between modern art and Open Source.
Open source works and is great, but lets face the facts people in the open source community are not willing to pay money for software, or even software support. They expect it for free. Look at the bottom line of Redhat vs any closed source company. Their bottom lines are massively different.
So Novell, like the modern art community is saying and doing the things that PAYING CUSTOMERS or PAYING PATRONS expect. Modern art is not for the benefit of the general community because the general community does not buy art. Hence artists when they hear, "oh my kid can do this in five minutes" will laugh in your face because you critique as a non-paying person is completely irrelevant. Your opinion does not matter in the least. Likewise I think with Novell and Open Source growing apart, I think Novell is saying, "hey you folks are not paying the bills thus we are going to do what is best for our clients."
I can't blame them...
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
"Novell will NEVER save you money."
I'm sorry, but this is completely wrong. I don't like Suse's SLES or the company, based on their recent stupidity, but to suggest there's never a case where this expensive distro is to forget how bad Windows is for administration. If you have a hundred Suse boxes, that's gonna run you something like $35k a year. After spending that, you can (in some cases) get by with one $75k admin running the whole show. Now if they're doing a bunch of things, you will probably need another admin, but if it's a homogeneous group of machines doing something simple, it can definitely fall out that way.
A Windows admin will usually be a bit cheaper, but A) you still have to pay for server licenses, and B) There is NO WAY a single guy can run all those boxes. I'll defer to people who have been in this situation, but I suspect you'd need three guys to keep a hundred windows server farm from imploding.
You can stump for free distros (I very much believe that's the way to go) but a blanket statement like "Novell will NEVER save you money." is nutty and undermines your entire message.
Meanwhile parasitic? Hardly. These guys spend money on R&D. The money comes from corporations. Yes, they skim money from that process, but both Novell and RedHat add value which we all benefit from. Think of it this way: they get a cut as middlemen, and the service they provide is getting Ford and Chase and Shell Oil (and whoever else has more money than you or me) to PAY FOR LINUX DEVELOPMENT. That's doing well while doing good, and you should be all for it.
TCO calculations here are not because they pay for their distros, it's because they have no CLUE what they're doing. They didn't hire good Linux admins, so they lose. Probably they handed Linux boxes to Windows admins, and they automated almost nothing. TCO for Linux can be WAY lower than Windows, but if you run Linux like windows, and deal with it like windows, it won't be lower.
Bringing us to your last line "Stupidity is its own punishment." -- I agree. Both for HSBC and Novell, here. But as they blunder forward, they step on everything we've planted. We suffer too.
Something tells me you've never heard of WSUS (or SMS). 15 minutes to patch your boxes is 15 more than I've spend updating mine. It's *FULLY AUTOMATED* using WSUS. Oh, also, pushing updates to your clients take just as much time (none at all). I can push hundreds of updates to 2000 boxes in all of 0 minutes of my time.
The only thing that might be time consuming is deciding which patches you want to push or not, which would take just as long on linux. Once they're approved by you, they'll get there automagically.
Also, this way patches are downloaded just once from MS. Then you can have your WSUS sync/replicate (across sites or what not), and your boxes update from that (you obviously don't want 2000 boxes to hit windows update at once across an expensive T3 - what a waste of expensive bandwidth would that be). It's a pretty good system overall. WSUS 3 is in beta, and it's quite nice.
We can also push apps to workstations (using GPO and what not) in no time at all either. Set it up once, and just let it happen.
Linux is nice for many things, but it's not better in every single way for everything...
I'm sure there's ways or perhaps equivalents to Active Directory (OpenLDAP?), Exchange, WSUS/SMS and all that (and things like Samba for serving files), but I doubt it's easy to get it all up and working. It's deceivingly simple to get all this working under windows (especially with Small Business Server).
I'm thinking "so... the total cost of ownership to run an application server or database under Linux is higher than it is to run one out of 10,000 desktop PCs with Windows?"
Unless the boxes are used for the same, a comparison like this is irrelevant at best.
As for saving money by switching distros, that's probably peanuts in the overall budget. The big money usually goes to middleware and databases, and, depending on the company, long distance networking (which is likely to be a big chunk for Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corp.). That won't change by switching distros.
Regards,
--
*Art
- You don't crap where you eat.
My humor is probably your flamebait
Discounting TFA, and reading the Press Release directly, this is *not* a case of Novell selling out or kissing up to Microsoft.
All you idiots with your whore, kneepad, and other irrelevant derisive appelations, should go back to school and learn how to do basic research.
The article was put out by ZDNet for christsake - that should have been a big enough cluestick that the article is going to be biased toward MS. There's a big history on why many people refer to ZDNet as MICROS~1.
Been there, Done that, Sold the t-shirt to the next idiot in line
They should however have factored the multi-distro part out ot their TCO equation. Perhaps they did and the Microvell evil twins stirred it back in.
Of course I have not RTFA, that's cheating, but a global corp has to also consider seamless service of its remote offices too. You can buy a Windows box in any city in the world and expect it to perform to a certain level. Setting up a Linux box is not always that easy.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Why not? You're a lot happier living in a dream world.
Just ask George Bush.
Gerbil's do not command significant stud fees, nor win million dollar purses. Racehorses that do invariably have a very high TCO, but the ROI (Return On Investment) is greater still.
People who confuse cost with value for an asset should be ignored or taken advantage of whenever possible.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
It's a crying shame that Novell purchased SUSE... While not the same, I suspect MS will end up using Novell the way MS used SCO/Caldera.
This is comparing the TCO of a mixed linux enviroment and non mixed MS enviroment. I work with a mixed windows enviroment and I can tell you the TCO is higher than a non mixed windows enviroment. It is a pain to deal with issues that come up with software only being suppored on 2000 or 2003 server but not the other. It is made worse since MS refuses to give out simple patches to things like DST for 2000 server for no reason other than to encourage migration to their new "distros." The comparison is not completly fair since the articles reasoning for the higher costs is different distros of linux when the same problem can exist for windows, it was just not in this particular instance.
Every once in a while, you encounter Windows administration issues that aren't on the wizard menu. If you think next/next/finish is how administration is done in Windows, you must be an end user or a total newbie. Does "regedit" ring a bell?
I suppose you must also be a big fan of the Microsoft event viewer -- another one of God's gifts to sysadmins. The messages are soooooooooooo relevant and helpful!
There's also a number of other questions which spring to mind:
1. What are the Linux servers doing? If you've got a cluster of boxes all doing the same thing, the way you administer them in Linux would be rather different to how you might do so in Windows.
2. What applications does the business use and what are their dependencies? One of the drawbacks of Linux vs. Windows is that closed-source applications (and whether you like it or not, they're a fact of commercial life) are generally compiled against a specific version of basic libraries. Not generally a big problem in Windows, but it suddenly introduces lots of questions on Linux. Like "We can't update this server because the application won't work with the update we'd like to do, but every other server should be updated because the update in question is important.... Oh look, now we've got a disparate bunch of servers". Doesn't take long before you're not sure what server is running what.
3. Group policies. Say what you like about Microsoft, GPO is slick and works out of the box on Windows. There is no immediate equivalent on most Linux distributions (though I understand Novell's ZenWorks may go some way to solving this).
Sure, you can lash together something yourself using shell scripts and cron, or other options exist if you're feeling flash, but they all require a bunch of work and none work out of the box. A basic group policy, on the other hand, can be set up in a few hours quite easily and once set up, is rolled out to everything with very little effort.
There is also the pretty big issue that every business is different. What works for me may not work for your, and the only way you'll find out what the cheapest solution for you is is by looking at your own business needs, not by looking at someone else's.
Getting the IT department to agree means nothing. It's a matter of picking one and mandating it. Of course, your argument goes around the fact that you don't have a choice with Windows, you better pick the one MS will continue to support (for a couple years anyway). If they don't have a mandate and half the systems are running XP, some running 2000, and some running 98, do you think the overhead is lower? Of course not, because they mandated what version people would be running.
This whole debate is a joke, statistics will say anything you want them to say. If I wanted Windows cost more then linux I would just combine factors that are negatives for Windows such as virus issues, required third party apps, security fixes, hardware upgrades required for vista, etc. In the end I could come back with a statistic that shows Windows is the cause of Global Warming if I really wanted to. Remember, statistics mean nothing unless you check the agenda behind the research.
How about, "You get what you pay for"?
So in order for the TCO and ROI of using Microsoft software to be cost effective you have to partner with Microsoft so they give you the software for free?
I run multiple flavors of *nix and various other OSs including Windows at my company... I'm on hour 3 of trying to get an XP box to activate, after swapping out its motherboard and running a repair, becasue it thinks the copy of XP that was pre-installed by Dell isn't legal.
Doesn't seem a good use of my time to me.
Did you really create a new account just to post that troll? Or are you planning on starting a career in it?
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
let's put all banks and military systems on windows cuz its cheaper and easier.
to hell with reliability and security right?
On the other hand, RedHat and related products install easily and run even easier. FreeBSD has also really good in this regard.
It makes sense to me if I make some basic assumptions about TCO. If TCO includes training cost, then it is understandable that Windows would trump Linux. Most people getting hired into an organization already understand how to use Windows, so there is a lot less training, hence less money spent.
I've spent some time playing with powershell, it is an attempt to integrate a *nix shell into their server/development environment. I guess so $USE and M$ can play nicely. Not quite as powerful as is suggested. It came out around the same time as Novell/M$ licensing thing came up. They know serious admins don't want paper-clips and wizards and need some sturdy shell to issue edicts and commands.
"Our decision to simplify our mixed-source environment with Microsoft and Novell will allow us to reduce the cost and complexity"
I really haven't seen enough outcry against Novell in the Linux community, nothing good can come from this partnership.
Last week with the Chinese mini stock crash, Microsoft's Windows Server crashed along with it. So much for their propaganda. Take anything either have to say serious and you're an idiot.
...you don't mind about the rest of the world peering over your shoulder once you've been trojan'd and keylogged to death.
Windows is a toy. If you don't like being pwn3d, use a serious system - Linux or OS X, BSD, Solaris 10 - anything else.
you had me at #!
At a previous IT company where I worked, we had a ratio of roughly 1 admin for every 40 Linux/UNIX servers (a bit of Solaris and OpenBSD in there also). Conversely, we had a ratio of around 1 Windows admin to about 4 servers. The interesting part is each set of admins were pretty much equally busy in their duties. I can verify it's true that the *nix guys got more pay than the Windows ones. However, it was nothing like 10x more pay, more like 30%. So while I can *maybe* buy MS's claims about CTO on very small networks (or with largely incompetent IT who must rely solely on consultants), I just can't make the numbers work based on what I've seen it real life.
;-)
For reference, nowadays I work for a different company who doesn't have nearly as many servers, but is primarily a Windows shop. It's really culture shock for me to see servers go up and down so often for maintenance, be it scheduled or unscheduled. OTOH, I also do quite a bit of *nix consulting on the side. I can confirm that there's not a lot of return business in that market unless you're doing development, since the *nix servers I've setup for customers years ago are still running perfectly to this day. Eh, sucks to work yourself out of a job.
Working in a DevOps shop is like playing in a band made up entirely of keytarists.
"You can't compare Linux TCO with Windows TCO, because Windows doesn't have one. You don't own anything with windows. Windows TCO is a myth and should be called Windows TCL - Total Cost of /licenseship/."
-- User 'shrinkwrap' (#160744) on Slashdot.org
"The purpose of argument is to change the nature of truth." -- Bene Gesserit Precept
It's also easy to make it really cheap.
To make it expensive, you hire people who haven't got a clue how to manage an infrastructure, they install point solutions, treat individual problems/requirements with individual solutions. Before long there are dozens of them constantly fire fighting, completely unable to prevent the complexity getting out of control.
To build a low TCO infrastructure with Linux is a doddle, it's easy but you have to understand system and infrastructure management. Not just system administration.
Frankly MS do in fact do a lot of the right stuff and they basically force muppets who are otherwise generally without a clue to do the right thing when it comes to infrastructure management. Linux, on the other hand, all about freedom gives you plenty of rope, a sharp saw and helps you build the gallows.
Deleted
i have to agree with the above, they dont specify what distros.
I mean if you have RH 5.3, and you were trying to get it supported then i could see the TCO being alot higher.
but if you had an office full of w98 and nt4 boxen then you could pick up any cS student off the street.
basically, windows is a kid os with training wheels and knee pads. Mac OSX is like teenagers, it thinks it knows it all and has a good idea most of the time, its sexy and is only legal through certain avenues. Linux is young adulthood, you have your bearings straight you have more control but your still 100% on how to do everything, and you have a gui to help you reminisce. Unix, well you need specialized hardware(a walker/power assisted chair), but its optimized for that hardware (you really need a walker or p.a.c.) its stable on this hardware, does what it knows very well, and doesnt get young punk exploits, but the problem is the one punk exploit it does understand is a major kernel one.
Id guess that the TCO of DOS is cheaper than Windows, but so what ?
Comparing the cost of linux and windows is like comparing the price of a car and a motorbike, you get so much more when you buy a car...
Windows you dont get source, security, accountability, you dont really have control of the product.
Until you can put a dollar figure on freedom you cant accurately compare the cost of free and non free software.
They can say, but they are worth nothing to us so (or the same as windows) so we have them at zero dollars, thats not the point, the point is your getting them anyway wether you like or not.
The premise of the customer's comment is that their current Windows infrastructure cost less than their current Linux infrastructure, which uses multiple distros. The point Novell supports is that a mishmash of Linux is more expensive than Windows and that standarizing their Linux usage on one distro will save money.
What would be stupid to support is if the customer asserted that the standardized usage still costs more than Linux.
From the context, Linux is only more expensive than Windoze when you have Linux and Windoze.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
This is in no way a generalized statement about ALL linux or ALL windows. This is a statement about one specific implementation. TCO depends on SO many factors that the cost of the software itself is irrelevant, and cheaper windows installations are absolutely plausible. People are the real cost, not the software. Good Linux people are in short supply, and reasonable contract admins seem to cost about 1.5x as much ($200k vs $130k) as their mass-produced windows counterparts while providing the same capabilities, quickly negating software cost savings.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
Naturally, if you pay for Linux, it will not take much to be as expensive or even more expensive than windows.
Except if it is the truth as seen through the hazy vision of a tried-and-true Slashdotter where nothing Microsoft-based is worth anything. Clearly, we all need to bow at the altar of Steve Jobs and/or Linux where all is rosy and good and - of course - all the time!
Seriously. No data, no anything - and TCO for them when they probably get Windows for free now... yeah, whatever. Either that or they have some really stupid *ix admins and support staff.(because *ix takes 1/2 the manpower to run compared to Windows)
For everyone else, thouhg, it's clear. As long as your current machine keeps running, it will run every distribution of most every version of *ix for the next decade. No upgrade cost, no new hardware, and no having it blow up on you every hour or two.
I've used computers for um... 28 years. In that time, I've used over a dozen different OSs and Windows without a doubt is the worst(OS/2 aside - that deserves a special place in OS hell). Until I used Wondows, having a machine running for days or weeks at a time without a single crash or glitch was the norm. Somehow Microsoft has made everyone complacent with computers crashing - sometimes several times a day - as routine.
*ix is such an improvement that it literally feels like you are driving a nice Porsche and discovered than there are more than two gears. Suddenly the whole world snaps into focus and everything is quick and smooth as glass.
Novel - they forget this part - *ix systems result in much higher worker productivity and happiness/less stress. Less work and stress for the IT department as well. And that effects the whole business. Oh well, their loss, I guess... They'll learn when Microsoft crashes and burns like Apple did in the mid 90s.(eerily simmilar pattern we're seeing right now)
http://techp.org/
http://techp.org/p/1
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
So when a report states something along the lines of "The estimated cost of the virus on business was 2.6 billion dollars" - is that taken into account for a TCO calculation?
priceless ...
It might happen only ONCE in 5 years, but when it happens, the image of your corporation/service totally goes to bust.
I reckon they did not count in costs such as these to calculation of 'ownership'. Its not about just 'owning' something - its about being able to make full use of it WITHOUT it trashing your business.
Read radical news here
"King Rat" is another one in that very loose asian series. And yes, they are all quite good. It's the story of a ruthless capitalist GI corporal in a japanese POW camp who winds up basically taking over. A very good analogy with today's pirate CEO's.
Others have commented well enough I need not go further.
But I will, "Click,Click Click" Problem? Re-install. Still a problem? Throw more money at it.
TCO is ROI.
ROI is pretty meaningless for things that don't give a return but are still business critical.
Whats the ROI on your backup system (without giving me the probability of disaster * cost of rebuild crap)? Theres no return.
You might want to compare say a $500 tape drive inc reusable media, vs a $200 dvd burner + $20 a week in write-once media over a variety of periods. ($AUD, im aussie).
Or, preference issues aside, the $0 linux desktop + (cost of sufficiently competent linux geek / num pcs) vs $200 windows desktop + (cost of sufficiently competent windows geek / num pcs).
I submit that a windows geek thats good enough to keep a small office of 20 PCs running along would cost say 20% of the time of some bloke on a $40k salary. ($400 per pc per year).
Linux geeks are rarer. I imagine to keep a linux geek good enough to keep those 20 PCs running smoothly you would need to pay more. Say around $50k. ($500 per pc per year).
Picking a time period that fits, say the 5 year upgrade cycle for buying a new OS from MS, that gives a TCO per pc, windows $2200, linux $2500.
Yes its just the OS, yes you probably buy Office for the windows pc, yes these figures came straight out my arse, but hopefully you get the point. The licence costs for the OS are a fairly insignificant part of the entire investment.
If linux wants to replace windows on the desktop its not going to do it because its free/Free.
3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
I can assure you, that all windows installations that I have were cheaper than my linux installation... ;-) )
(for all the people who don't get, why this is funny: read about predicate logic...
otoh I think you can really say, that windows is a "cheap" OS...
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
Stick some apt-get commands in cron. You're done.
Oh, and let's not forget -- these are not just kernel updates. It's not even comparable to a Windows Update from MS -- every single piece of software on the machine is controlled by package management. Everything -- from a word processor to a web browser to a game to a mailserver to some random webapp that was nice enough to provide a package -- all of those will automatically be updated, and in the same place, with the same local cache (apt-proxy as one example).
Or use a distributed filesystem -- you can run the entire OS off the network. Not a thin client, but any change you make, every config file tweak you do, is instantly propagated over the network. This is actually pretty easy to set up... on Linux. I don't even know if it's possible to boot Windows off a network.
And by the way, 15 minutes of admin time is nothing when you consider other possible time sinks. I have to spend that 15 minutes maybe once a week, if I feel like it, and I really don't have to do much else. How much time do you spend?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Once business upgrade to the next version of windows, then you'll see the TCO jump higher than Linux. Fortunately, most big corporation jump to the next version of windows when the TCO look right--that when the next version's (e.g. Vista) been around for several years.
Of course business can update to the latest Linux kernel easily. And they likely are running the latest production versions or even cutting edge versions. And it's more hardened (secure), and Linux is usually replacing a UNIX environment, i.e. which are bigger or more demanding ecosystems than Windows setups == a higher TCO.
This report somewhat skews the facts.
I am disapointed I did not see this common phrase stated...
here it goes..
" You get what you pay for... " (exception of the rule being Vista, where you definately, do not get what you paid for...)
This is sensationalism gone way amuck. Even the purest open source die-hard would agree that managing lots of versions of lots of distros is not only expensive but probably more expensive than managing a version or two of Windows. Whether HSBC went all SUSE or all Red Hat is not material. That they're reducing the variations is how they'll get their Linux TCO down, probably lower than their Windows TCO.
There is NO story here about Novell endorsing Windows as having lower TCO than a decent Linux implementation, SUSE, Red Hat or other.
Which caused quite a few turned heads at the office. Took a little longer than I expected, but its good to know I wasn't far off base.
Here's a back of the envelope calculation from the electronics company I work at.
TCO:
New Windows Machine Hardware 650
OS 279
Software 5,000-10,000
HOURS of installing and patching clicking OK, Next, Finish, Reboot, rinse, Repeat. Oh and Don't forget drivers.
New Linux Machine Hardware 650
Debian OS 0
Software 0
20 Minute install, unattended apt-get Updates.
Software includes Electronics Layout, Office, FlowCharter, Development tools( IDE, Compilers, Programmer, UML, Documentation), Solid Modeling, Project Management, Image editing, I could go on all day.
In my office there is a Windows 2000 Server, A WinXP Pro Right beside a Debian Development machine and another as Lamp Server.
Administration of the two windows boxes (Not to mention the 15 others) justifies my position as MIS. Administration of the two Debian boxes can be done remotely once a year in minutes.
I'm no big city, fancy accountant but I can say unequivocally (can you?) that OUR TCO is lower on our windows boxes than our windows boxes.
This is in just my office. All machines in the company are now running OpenOffice, FireFox, Thunderbird, Gimp, Inkscape, GhostScript, PDF Printer. and any other needed GPL tool that is cross-platform.
This method of transitioning to opensource is very effective. At first I got a few complaints and lots of skepticism. But quickly the bottom line starts to reflect positively and the people who matter, stop the complaining. I never again have to clean up IE related cruft and viri. We now have money in the budget to purchase Hardware instead of throwing it down the Proprietary Software Hole. When my phome intercom beeps I know it is a windows box calling for help.
I now spend most of my time developing Embedded Linux software instead of patching and reinstalling Windows and apps and I couldn't be happier.
Today the chief engineer asked me, "Why can't you just change it so it ignores that error?"
My answer was "You'd think I could, I mean, It makes sense that since the error is inconsequential to the operation of the application I could just change a few lines of code and we'd be golden. If we were talking about my machine I could do exactly that, But its Windows so I cannot. It's not just hard, its illegal. Just Restart the app when it happens."
"But, That's like 4 times a day."
"Oh well you could just call MS and ask them to check in to it. I'm sure they would be interested in fixing it for a big customer like us with our 25 licenses. Snicker..."
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
I'm going to assume you just skimmed and responded based on that. The poster did, indeed, mention "as much or more" in that sentence.
Oh wait a minute - that would be Canonical.
Perhaps your bias is getting in the way of your fairness?
"The most sensible request of government we make is not, "Do something!" But "Quit it!"
"Although it is unclear at this time which Linux distributions the bank is using, the fact Novell is associated with a statement that claims Linux has a higher total cost of ownership than Windows will surprise and anger many in the open-source community." I really would be. If only that was what the report said. But clearly it didn't. If you don't understand the difference between 'windows' and 'windows environment' or computing versus computing environment then you really shouldn't be writing and commenting on system related articles. The original article actually specifies one, but only one, factor in that environment that is not related to a windows/linux tco comparison between the two. But go for it... Have a blast.
Linux tends to have a higher TCO associated with it. Sure. But that is not a problem.
In general, it also tends to have a higher ROI when properly implemented (more reliable, fewer problems, more automated maintenance possibilities, more flexility in how to run applications, more flexibility in how to best utilize hardware).
However in this case, it seems like it has been bungled (lots of distros, probably no effective network management infrastucture, and the like). Hence you are going to see a lot of money being spent unnecessarily on tasks that shouldn't be hard to do.
You can't just expect to deploy a bunch of Linux desktops in the manner you deploy Microsoft desktops. They two are build around entirely different models of network managment and you really want to spend some time planning first. Looking into good solutions for network management... Kerberos/OpenLDAP (or FDS)/OpenAFS are good starting points (centralized management of home directories is a key aspect of good Linux workstation management).
If you don't know what you are doing though, and try to implement Linux the Microsoft way, you are going to get burned...
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
In the end, I have found that people do well with the flexibility and reliability that can only be achieved on desktops based on Linux. Linux offers levels of flexibility that people often don't imagine, and it brings power and reliability in range of smaller businesses (and more portions of larger businesses) than we have ever seen before.
It is possible to save money with open source in the short run, but usually this means poor implementation, and the like, and ends up costing more money in the long run. However, my experience is that well-implemented Linux systems and related infrastructure may cost more initially in terms of implementation, but in the long run the maintenance either saves money or generates a much higher ROI (depending on the needs of the business).
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Does having a "cost of ownership" imply that you get ownership?
Based on your poor grammar, I'd say you are neither a hiring manager nor a professional SA. I'd say you are just a mother's-basement dwelling twentysomething spazz. Based on your total inability to grasp the gist of the menu.lst anecdote, I'd say you are a pointy-haired boss. (parent wasn't bragging about knowing how to edit menu.lst...he was pointing out that he had to show a "SA" how to do this, and then you go on to inadvertently support his point by saying "Oooh, a menu.lst file. Any idiot with a text editor and man page could figure that out,". His point exactly. Maybe you don't read before posting, I don't know.)
So then, which is it? Troll or PHB? Either way, you're not making yourself look good here. You should quit while you're still just a little bit behind.
blah blah blah
Can we change the icon used for Novell stories from the red N to... well, say, the Borg Queen?
Linux doesn't cost me a cent. But I'm a computer science student at a good university. Linux is for power-users and they love it because it stays out of their way and lets them set up their own ideal environment.
The real conclusion of these TCO tests is simple. Executives, share-holders - the kinds of people Microsoft and Novell are aiming for - they're all n00bs. n00bs who don't wanna be n00bs forever should learn to use Linux, it will work out cheaper and more effective for them.
n00bs who don't care how a computer works and just want to sip a drink and feel like they're saving money should buy Mac OSX or windows. Should jane doe suburban housewife by a V8 holden commodore with custom built hydrogen booster based on the fact that it's easier than her last car to pull apart and add more custom hydrogen boosters? Heavens no! In term's of cars, she's a n00b. She should by that cute little red car that looks like a bubble and matches her favourite lipstick. [/sweeping generalisations] [/sexism]
Censorship is the opposite of education. If neo-darwinism were defensible, people would not need to try and censor ID.
I don't want to be ever close to that substance.
Your wide unsubstantiated generalization, as most of them are, is a complete lie and a sham/
There are so many examples of bussinesses making money with an open source strategy that i will not waste my time labouring the point. The biggest cluemoter you need is that Sun became profitable again using open sourcing of their crown jewells as an important part of their bussiness strategy. ANd then there is IBM.
Which brings us to the point of open source supporters not wanting to pay money for software. No, I *personally* do not want to pay for software that is open sourced, thank you very much. But I will (and do) gladly pay for support, documentation, conferences and products around open source software.
People enhebriated with strange substances like you (otherwise how can you exaplin the bizarre lame attempt of allegory with your modern art "example") fail once and again to understand that selling software is the least important source of revenue of any company invoved with open source.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Because this is becoming a bit of an urban myth.
Bot granting you that without conceding it, the non written part of the bargain is that to maximize shareholder value the ethical thing to do is competing with better products for your costumers.
Companies that are increasingly finding it difficult to compete in the Software arena are relying in broken patent and copyright law in order to hold costumers by force with substandard products.
If you thing that is OK, all the power to you, many of us think is a rotten way of behaving, specially when you are harming the credibility of a lot of people that have supported you unreservedely for some time.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
.... why is MS so concerned to show the differential?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
We get enough feedback from the Windows SAs and there is one truth: Windows do not scale. Period.
Secondly, we have seen our Intranets collapse under the weight of WIndows only virus or worm tha manges to evade our outher defenses.
I all the years I have been a UNIX SA I have never seen this with a UNIX (or Apple, VAX or many others for that matter) based machines.
I personally have been sympathetic to WIndows based solutions on occasions, just to be brought down to earth by people that knew better and that demonstrated to me why it was a bad idea.
Windows has its place (for now) on the desktop and on the groupware arena. ANywhere else it is a bloody liability waiting to bit you in the ass.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And this is no in a hippie kind of way.
The fact that you can modify and inspect the source code has many specfic benefits for any company.
I have seen how a problem that used to exist with Solaris was easily dealt with once it became open, since the user itself had the resources to investigate the issue that Sun did not have.
Not only that, but when any company offering services to a more less standarized, open platform, you are no longer captive to your provider. You become, as you shoul always have been, the master of your decisions in regards to IT infrastructure.
If that means a higher TCO I can afford I would gladly pay it, because that could bring higer margins to my organization in the future. TCO is not an end by itself you know, it is just a very unscientific measure to try to appease the bean counters.
If paying for cheaper infrastructure will hand your ass to a company whose interests will take precedence over yours every time you need new products or licenses, I would question how wise it is to do so based only in TCO.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I have worked in the IT side of things for many years, in industries as diverse as oil, media, software development, education and yes, banking.
I'll give you a clue. Banks pay the higest salaries of them all, in my experience as much as double as what the other industries can afford at any given time.
Look to any other industry. Who are paid the higest salaries? The best matey.
The people working in banks are some of the most talented people working in one of the most pressure intensive environments. I have seen people troubleshooting a problem while they have people screaming at them claiming the company was losing $ 1 million per hour of downtime and getting the job done.
Will yo find people that are not up to scratch? Hell yes, but they are a minority.
And frankly I don't know which banks you have to deal with, I have dealt with many and the picture you describe is completely false.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The wording implies a grater amount. "more or less about the same" which is usually a large group doesn't imply equality, but rather a non-notable level of change.
-josh