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.
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.
They probably got a ridiculous discount on Micro$oft licenses.
Anywho, I find most all TCO calculations to be dubious and akin to damned lies.
Bearded Dragon
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
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"
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.
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.
Those are two more valid possibilities.
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
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.
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
Just to clarify, since its published group history doesn't make it clear, the bank was founded in Hong Kong 140 years ago by Scottish white men. To this day, most of the Board members are white men of Scottish ancestry. For some interesting close to the truth fiction regarding the original creation of that bank, and the kind of Scottish men we're talking about -- read "The Noble House" by James Clavell (it's a very good novel -- that you won't want to put down once started).
Sorry, have to post as AC as this violates the NDA I signed in good faith... lol...
Few outside HSBC are aware of the massive struggle that took place between HSBC and MS over the enterprise licensing agreement in 2005/2006. You need to realize that there is enterprise licensing and then there is Enterprise Licensing for a nearly 2 *trillion* dollar multinational. HSBC is that big.
When the previous agreement expired in 2005 (and in the months leading up to the expiry), Microsoft took a pretty hard line, issuing all sorts of memos about the "new licensing structure" which of course worked out to HUGE increases in enterprise agreements (and not just for HSBC, for the whole world - remember that?). HSBC also went in hard, even going so far is to make a global "announcement" that our new global standard for server architecture would be linux-based. I remember running complete bullsh*t "pilots" of applications which were obviously purely for the benefit of our local MS/VAR boys. Now there was never any real threat of a full-on conversion but just think about the impact of such a statement from one of the world's largest technology purchasers. Those of you involved in any sort of vendor renewal will be familiar with this sort of mexican standoff.
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that as the final hand$hake took place between MS and GroupHQ, the following exchanage took place:
- MS guy: "Ohbytheway you really killed us with that whole switch-to-linux thing... Citigroup and GE renew in the next few years... would you mind issuing some sort of statement that downplays/refutes/minimizes your earlier linux announcements?"
- HSBC guy: "Sure, how about 'Upon further review, TCO for linux >>> TCO for MS'?"
- MS guy: "That'll do."
Oh and for those who think that HSBC is "just a bank" because it isn't quite so dominant in the US, you really have no idea.