It is a good deal. I seriously doubt these are net-new systems, but rather new systems replacing older Windows desktops. If that's the case, let's think of the cost of an enterprise-wide desktop OS (any other OS) migration project to the tune of 497,000 systems, including new infrastructure with swing assets, support staff training, end user training, and application redevelopment over a span likely much longer than 6 years.
A first analysis reveals that it isn't a bad deal for the army financially speaking.
That's right. And dig deeper, and it's a helluva great deal compared to the cost of a migration to a different OS at the desktop.
That's why MS is cheaper. Many, many Joe Users sit down in their cubicle for the first time, already familiar with Windows, Office, IE and other MS products and don't require training. You take the average user off the street, sit em down in front of Red Hat and they'll have a stroke right there in front of the screen just trying to start Mozilla. Sit em down in front of XP/2k and it's more likely they'll know what their doing, as chances are that's the OS they've used most before at home or elsewhere.
That doesn't make MS better, just cheaper to implement and support because of its market penetration. You can chant "Linux Rules!" and point out that it's free all you want, but until 93% of people walk into offices already knowing Linux, you can expect more of the same kind of deals like the Army just made. Period.
Even if they did, I doubt they'd have won the deal anyway.
$497,000,000 for licensing systems that were likely already MS anyway is a decent chunk of change. But tack on all the other hidden costs of migrating to any other OS (training, infrastructure rebuild, application remediation, swing assets, etc.) and it'd be closer to a billion dollar cost.
You have to consider all the variables here. While it'd be great to see some big money make it into OSS pockets, going with Linux just wouldn't the smart fiscal move for DoD to make, especially in tough economic times.
Be patient though... As Linux continues to mature, OSS will win a big one at some point, and I'm looking forward to it. At the same time, don't hold your breath... in today's economy trying to sell a cash-strapped enterprise on a complete desktop migration ain't easy.
You couldn't be more correct. In enterprise environments, Linux has some major hurdles to jump to try to compete for large-scale conversion contracts. ANY conversion from Operating System X to Operating System Y at the desktop is tremendously expensive, regardless of what the OSes involved are. For that reason, the Linux camp is going to need to find a more convincing sell than "the OS is cheaperâ if they ever want to land deals like this one.
The other thing to keep in mind is that for a Microsoft ELA, $950/PC isn't terrible. It likely has Software Assurance as a component, which saves money long-term anyway... It's a 6-year deal, and it's $950 in today-dollars, and will probably buy them upgrades and support at little-to-no cost through the duration of the agreement. (though that's speculation on my part)
And to all you OSS apostles out there, these licenses likely apply to machines that are already Windows (more speculation), so I don't really see this as a huge defeat for OSS. But I think it's time for a reality check: Convincing large enterprises to switch to Linux at the desktop is a ridiculously tough sell, and you'd be wise not to get your hopes up every time a MS contract comes up for renewal. Instead of blindly proselytizing the surface benefits of Linux, the OSS community would be better served by creating and demonstrating ease and cost-efficiency of migrating to Linux from Windows at the enterprise desktop. Because as it is now, the cost of renewing a Microsoft ELA is ludicrously lower than the cost of an enterprise-wide migration to Linux. Though Iâ(TM)m not a Microsoft fan, this decision doesnâ(TM)t bother me at all. $497,000,000 over six years is probably less than half of what a Linux migration of that size would cost.
I see... It'd be interesting to see how a support structure for that kind of environment in a business (specifically a shared-services organization) would be costed... My bet's still on the fact that it's currently more than that of a proportionate Windows env., but that it'll come down within the next 5-10 years... perhaps even below the then-MS-centric support structure cost. Especially if half the users in your environment are Unix-ish.
You make a good point. Their support does leave something to be desired, if you look at it from an admin level. But CIO it... They're bigger, they've got more money, and they ain't goin away.
And to be honest, the few times I've had to deal directly with Microsoft (working in my current position), I've been pretty impressed. We are a pretty large client, but the people I've spoken to have always been very informed, though perhaps not entirely cordial. There have also been issues where they've pretty much said "tough shit, that's the way it is" (you know, it's not a "flaw" it's a "feature") but that's been the exception. But in general, I agree, though I don't think those issues really matter in a business-case type scenario to senior or executive management.
My point is that I don't think there'll be fewer tickets in the first place. I just don't buy it, and I haven't seen any evidence anywhere that supports that claim. Am I missing any?
Given enough time, I'm sure you could find a Gartner study that shows that Sony Playstations are cheaper to support than Windows. That's not my point.
You are a complete babbling idiot!
For being such an idiot, you're having a really hard time proving me wrong. You can criticize argumentative methodology of my points all you want, but you still haven't shown one example of how my overall point is wrong. If you're so supremely intelligent, answer my questions instead of criticizing the manner in which I ask them.
I'll ask AGAIN, since you've apparently not been capable of understanding so far: And you haven't answered me this: "...find me a large enterprise organization (15,000+ users) that uses Linux at the desktop and show me their support structure costs. Five bucks says it's more than that of an similar-sized Windows environment." Prove me wrong. Maybe I'll PayPal you 5 bucks if you can.
Come on, smarty. Name one. Do it. Make me look stupid. Or, keep ignoring my point and keep making yourself look... oh... I dunno... "blatantly stupid". Whichever works.
I won't be holding my breath waiting for an answer. And good luck in a forensics class, kid, because you got a lotta learnin' to do.
Desktop support staff? How big a user base? Just curious, because if that's true at a large scale, then I'm totally wrong. I have a feeling, however, you're talking about a smaller environment or server support.
No, I'm saying that nobody is running Linux at the desktop in a large organization at a support cost less than Windows. Is my point still not getting through?
However my skills scale far better and result in more stable operations than you will get from some freshly minted ex-burger flipper now MSCE via the Chubb Institute. That translates directly to lower business costs.
Well put, but I disagree with the notion that that holds true as you scale way up. 400 Linux admins running around dealing with user tickets isn't much more compelling than 400 Windows admins doing the same thing. Especially if they cost more. And I just don't buy the argument that running Linux at the desktop is going to reduce call or problem volume. Incident (in ITIL terms) volume maybe, but I don't see it cutting down on normal issues, which means I still have to have 400 people running around. And even if they are recent-burger flippers, with Linux as the primary skill on their resume, right now -- today -- I'd have to pay them more. Maybe that'll change.
You are simply defining the scope of your organization
I guess you're right. It is basically a scope-definition thing. But at the same time, it's a much easier sell to upper management to say, "I'm offloading that responsibility on Microsoft, a stable, financially healthy, readily available corporation." It'd be hard to do the same thing with Linux. Whether that's good or not, I dunno, but that's the way it is, right now.
It's the cost of being able to prove compliance
Yeah, there's that, but we don't really have a problem with licensing compliance... With SMS and a couple other home-grown apps, we have that pretty much under control. But I can see how that'd be an issue.
1. You're right. Bad choice of words. I guarantee you I'm really sorry.
As for the rest of the admin bit, your arguments are moot. Good admins cost more than bad admins, regardless of the infrastructure you support. And you haven't answered me this: "...find me a large enterprise organization (15,000+ users) that uses Linux at the desktop and show me their support structure costs. Five bucks says it's more than that of an similar-sized Windows environment." Prove me wrong. Maybe I'll PayPal you 5 bucks if you can.
2. No I didn't miss that. For one, that's not my problem. For two, if a service critical to one of my business units fails due to a Microsoft problem, the business unit is responsible for recovering the cost from Microsoft (which obviously would never happen). Why is that a good thing? I can manage my cost structure based on a certain catalog of services and pass the lower costs on to my client, the business, which saves them money at a marginal potiential loss of service. Also, if your organization is having so many problems that it's caused you to have to actually try to recover losses from MS, you're doing something wrong. And as for you and your IE problems, sorry, guy. Maybe you should change your methods to support all browsers. I dunno... I guess when I code stuff, I take into account the idiosyncrasies of the most widely-used browser. I guess that's just me, though.
3. Good call on the Gartner thing. You're right. But again, studies (contradicted or not)show lower TCO in Microsoft environments. And it's not the cost of the software or the licenses that I'm talking about, it's the support costs behind it.
Specifically, it's mostly our coordination of user's doing the testing, with probably about 30% of the apps being tested by my staff. But if you cut all that out of the picture, my guess is the actual time to produce and roll out a package may be similar. If so, SMS doesn't provide a specific advantage over your method. But, if there's no advantage either way, the overall TCO question still stands... You see where I'm going...
Slightly OT: For my sanity and blood-pressure's sake I just wish we could convince the business units to lose about 100 of their goddamn apps...
Absolutely. But I guess the "manageability" thing was just one point to underscore my overall argument. For all those reasons, right now -- today -- it's cheaper to run Microsoft in a large environment. I hope to hell that changes, and maybe my view is an exercise in staunch pragmatism, but Microsoft TCO is lower. And to businesses in the current economic environment, the unfortunate reality is that's all that really matters.
No, because they cost more. Bottom-line it: If magically tomorrow, my environment was Linux at the desktop, I'd be paying my support people more. That factor would for-sure change. And I still don't buy the argument that a standard Linux admin can do more on his own than a standard Windows admin. Take a Linux admin and throw him 40 tickets a day from people who can't figure out how to print or forgot their RAS dialin number and reconfig'd with AOL, and he's just as cost-(in?)efficient as a Windows admin.
1. Maybe he can do it as quickly, maybe he can't. I don't care. The point is, find me a large enterprise organization (15,000+ users) that uses Linux at the desktop and show me their support structure costs. Five bucks says it's more than that of an similar-sized Windows environment.
And "Well any is remarkably easy to disprove blah blah blah..." We're past the point of arguing based on semantics, don't you think?
2. "And it doesn't matter if Microsoft doesn't compensate you for your losses because people can't sue you?" Bingo. Microsoft screws up, we're not liable. That's for putting it a little more clearly.
3. I disagree. I don't buy the argument that a Linux environment is, as a whole, going to be cheaper to support. I just don't buy it. Factor in users, factor in admins, factor in licensing even, and Windows makes for a cheaper support structure at scale. I dunno. Maybe you know something that Gartner, Meta, et. al. and I don't.
Yeah, that product is pretty slick. But big-picture it, and your costs are still higher in a large enterprise with Linux at the desktop, package distribution notwithstanding.
That's great. Good luck trying to scale that to a 20,000+ user environment with a support structure cost less than or equal to Windows. If you can, good for you. Because not a single large environment has been able to do it yet.
Slashdot Mirror
Done.
In reply to your #2...
......
HFNETCHK out:
Scanning SLAPPY10
Done scanning SLAPPY10
------
SLAPPY10 (192.168.2.10)
------
* WINDOWS 2000 SP4
Information
All necessary hotfixes have been applied
* INTERNET INFORMATION SERVICES 5.0
Information
All necessary hotfixes have been applied
* INTERNET EXPLORER 6 SP1
Information
All necessary hotfixes have been applied
I've also applied 818043. Can't remember the last time I bluescreened. Same for all my servers at work.
Underinformed zealotry never got anyone anywhere.
It is a good deal. I seriously doubt these are net-new systems, but rather new systems replacing older Windows desktops. If that's the case, let's think of the cost of an enterprise-wide desktop OS (any other OS) migration project to the tune of 497,000 systems, including new infrastructure with swing assets, support staff training, end user training, and application redevelopment over a span likely much longer than 6 years.
A first analysis reveals that it isn't a bad deal for the army financially speaking.
That's right. And dig deeper, and it's a helluva great deal compared to the cost of a migration to a different OS at the desktop.
They didn't provide training for Word or IE
That's why MS is cheaper. Many, many Joe Users sit down in their cubicle for the first time, already familiar with Windows, Office, IE and other MS products and don't require training. You take the average user off the street, sit em down in front of Red Hat and they'll have a stroke right there in front of the screen just trying to start Mozilla. Sit em down in front of XP/2k and it's more likely they'll know what their doing, as chances are that's the OS they've used most before at home or elsewhere.
That doesn't make MS better, just cheaper to implement and support because of its market penetration. You can chant "Linux Rules!" and point out that it's free all you want, but until 93% of people walk into offices already knowing Linux, you can expect more of the same kind of deals like the Army just made. Period.
Is it still a req for C2-compliance that the system in question can't be attached to a network? ;-)
Even if they did, I doubt they'd have won the deal anyway.
$497,000,000 for licensing systems that were likely already MS anyway is a decent chunk of change. But tack on all the other hidden costs of migrating to any other OS (training, infrastructure rebuild, application remediation, swing assets, etc.) and it'd be closer to a billion dollar cost.
You have to consider all the variables here. While it'd be great to see some big money make it into OSS pockets, going with Linux just wouldn't the smart fiscal move for DoD to make, especially in tough economic times.
Be patient though... As Linux continues to mature, OSS will win a big one at some point, and I'm looking forward to it. At the same time, don't hold your breath... in today's economy trying to sell a cash-strapped enterprise on a complete desktop migration ain't easy.
You couldn't be more correct. In enterprise environments, Linux has some major hurdles to jump to try to compete for large-scale conversion contracts. ANY conversion from Operating System X to Operating System Y at the desktop is tremendously expensive, regardless of what the OSes involved are. For that reason, the Linux camp is going to need to find a more convincing sell than "the OS is cheaperâ if they ever want to land deals like this one. The other thing to keep in mind is that for a Microsoft ELA, $950/PC isn't terrible. It likely has Software Assurance as a component, which saves money long-term anyway... It's a 6-year deal, and it's $950 in today-dollars, and will probably buy them upgrades and support at little-to-no cost through the duration of the agreement. (though that's speculation on my part) And to all you OSS apostles out there, these licenses likely apply to machines that are already Windows (more speculation), so I don't really see this as a huge defeat for OSS. But I think it's time for a reality check: Convincing large enterprises to switch to Linux at the desktop is a ridiculously tough sell, and you'd be wise not to get your hopes up every time a MS contract comes up for renewal. Instead of blindly proselytizing the surface benefits of Linux, the OSS community would be better served by creating and demonstrating ease and cost-efficiency of migrating to Linux from Windows at the enterprise desktop. Because as it is now, the cost of renewing a Microsoft ELA is ludicrously lower than the cost of an enterprise-wide migration to Linux. Though Iâ(TM)m not a Microsoft fan, this decision doesnâ(TM)t bother me at all. $497,000,000 over six years is probably less than half of what a Linux migration of that size would cost.
I see... It'd be interesting to see how a support structure for that kind of environment in a business (specifically a shared-services organization) would be costed... My bet's still on the fact that it's currently more than that of a proportionate Windows env., but that it'll come down within the next 5-10 years... perhaps even below the then-MS-centric support structure cost. Especially if half the users in your environment are Unix-ish.
I guess time will tell.
Obviously not all 100,000 of those users are Linux, correct? Would you say that even a quarter are?
You make a good point. Their support does leave something to be desired, if you look at it from an admin level. But CIO it... They're bigger, they've got more money, and they ain't goin away.
And to be honest, the few times I've had to deal directly with Microsoft (working in my current position), I've been pretty impressed. We are a pretty large client, but the people I've spoken to have always been very informed, though perhaps not entirely cordial. There have also been issues where they've pretty much said "tough shit, that's the way it is" (you know, it's not a "flaw" it's a "feature") but that's been the exception. But in general, I agree, though I don't think those issues really matter in a business-case type scenario to senior or executive management.
Heh... touche...
My point is that I don't think there'll be fewer tickets in the first place. I just don't buy it, and I haven't seen any evidence anywhere that supports that claim. Am I missing any?
Given enough time, I'm sure you could find a Gartner study that shows that Sony Playstations are cheaper to support than Windows. That's not my point.
You are a complete babbling idiot!
For being such an idiot, you're having a really hard time proving me wrong. You can criticize argumentative methodology of my points all you want, but you still haven't shown one example of how my overall point is wrong. If you're so supremely intelligent, answer my questions instead of criticizing the manner in which I ask them.
I'll ask AGAIN, since you've apparently not been capable of understanding so far:
And you haven't answered me this: "...find me a large enterprise organization (15,000+ users) that uses Linux at the desktop and show me their support structure costs. Five bucks says it's more than that of an similar-sized Windows environment." Prove me wrong. Maybe I'll PayPal you 5 bucks if you can.
Come on, smarty. Name one. Do it. Make me look stupid. Or, keep ignoring my point and keep making yourself look... oh... I dunno... "blatantly stupid". Whichever works.
I won't be holding my breath waiting for an answer. And good luck in a forensics class, kid, because you got a lotta learnin' to do.
Desktop support staff? How big a user base? Just curious, because if that's true at a large scale, then I'm totally wrong. I have a feeling, however, you're talking about a smaller environment or server support.
No, I'm saying that nobody is running Linux at the desktop in a large organization at a support cost less than Windows. Is my point still not getting through?
However my skills scale far better and result in more stable operations than you will get from some freshly minted ex-burger flipper now MSCE via the Chubb Institute. That translates directly to lower business costs.
Well put, but I disagree with the notion that that holds true as you scale way up. 400 Linux admins running around dealing with user tickets isn't much more compelling than 400 Windows admins doing the same thing. Especially if they cost more. And I just don't buy the argument that running Linux at the desktop is going to reduce call or problem volume. Incident (in ITIL terms) volume maybe, but I don't see it cutting down on normal issues, which means I still have to have 400 people running around. And even if they are recent-burger flippers, with Linux as the primary skill on their resume, right now -- today -- I'd have to pay them more. Maybe that'll change.
You are simply defining the scope of your organization
I guess you're right. It is basically a scope-definition thing. But at the same time, it's a much easier sell to upper management to say, "I'm offloading that responsibility on Microsoft, a stable, financially healthy, readily available corporation." It'd be hard to do the same thing with Linux. Whether that's good or not, I dunno, but that's the way it is, right now.
It's the cost of being able to prove compliance
Yeah, there's that, but we don't really have a problem with licensing compliance... With SMS and a couple other home-grown apps, we have that pretty much under control. But I can see how that'd be an issue.
1. You're right. Bad choice of words. I guarantee you I'm really sorry.
As for the rest of the admin bit, your arguments are moot. Good admins cost more than bad admins, regardless of the infrastructure you support. And you haven't answered me this: "...find me a large enterprise organization (15,000+ users) that uses Linux at the desktop and show me their support structure costs. Five bucks says it's more than that of an similar-sized Windows environment." Prove me wrong. Maybe I'll PayPal you 5 bucks if you can.
2. No I didn't miss that. For one, that's not my problem. For two, if a service critical to one of my business units fails due to a Microsoft problem, the business unit is responsible for recovering the cost from Microsoft (which obviously would never happen). Why is that a good thing? I can manage my cost structure based on a certain catalog of services and pass the lower costs on to my client, the business, which saves them money at a marginal potiential loss of service. Also, if your organization is having so many problems that it's caused you to have to actually try to recover losses from MS, you're doing something wrong. And as for you and your IE problems, sorry, guy. Maybe you should change your methods to support all browsers. I dunno... I guess when I code stuff, I take into account the idiosyncrasies of the most widely-used browser. I guess that's just me, though.
3. Good call on the Gartner thing. You're right. But again, studies (contradicted or not)show lower TCO in Microsoft environments. And it's not the cost of the software or the licenses that I'm talking about, it's the support costs behind it.
"The study, by the Robert Frances Group, in Westport, Conn., looked at production deployments of Web servers..."
Duh. How about 20,000 desktops?
Specifically, it's mostly our coordination of user's doing the testing, with probably about 30% of the apps being tested by my staff. But if you cut all that out of the picture, my guess is the actual time to produce and roll out a package may be similar. If so, SMS doesn't provide a specific advantage over your method. But, if there's no advantage either way, the overall TCO question still stands... You see where I'm going...
Slightly OT: For my sanity and blood-pressure's sake I just wish we could convince the business units to lose about 100 of their goddamn apps...
Absolutely. But I guess the "manageability" thing was just one point to underscore my overall argument. For all those reasons, right now -- today -- it's cheaper to run Microsoft in a large environment. I hope to hell that changes, and maybe my view is an exercise in staunch pragmatism, but Microsoft TCO is lower. And to businesses in the current economic environment, the unfortunate reality is that's all that really matters.
No, because they cost more. Bottom-line it: If magically tomorrow, my environment was Linux at the desktop, I'd be paying my support people more. That factor would for-sure change. And I still don't buy the argument that a standard Linux admin can do more on his own than a standard Windows admin. Take a Linux admin and throw him 40 tickets a day from people who can't figure out how to print or forgot their RAS dialin number and reconfig'd with AOL, and he's just as cost-(in?)efficient as a Windows admin.
1. Maybe he can do it as quickly, maybe he can't. I don't care. The point is, find me a large enterprise organization (15,000+ users) that uses Linux at the desktop and show me their support structure costs. Five bucks says it's more than that of an similar-sized Windows environment.
And "Well any is remarkably easy to disprove blah blah blah..." We're past the point of arguing based on semantics, don't you think?
2. "And it doesn't matter if Microsoft doesn't compensate you for your losses because people can't sue you?" Bingo. Microsoft screws up, we're not liable. That's for putting it a little more clearly.
3. I disagree. I don't buy the argument that a Linux environment is, as a whole, going to be cheaper to support. I just don't buy it. Factor in users, factor in admins, factor in licensing even, and Windows makes for a cheaper support structure at scale. I dunno. Maybe you know something that Gartner, Meta, et. al. and I don't.
Yeah, that product is pretty slick. But big-picture it, and your costs are still higher in a large enterprise with Linux at the desktop, package distribution notwithstanding.
That's great. Good luck trying to scale that to a 20,000+ user environment with a support structure cost less than or equal to Windows. If you can, good for you. Because not a single large environment has been able to do it yet.
That's true. But extend that mentality to a 400+ admin/analyst staff supporting 20,000 users, and the attrition will be the exact same.