Win2k Cheaper than Linux 1279
An anonymous reader writes "According to this story, Win2k costs an average of 11%-22% total cost of enterprise. The study showed that the initial investment takes up less than 5% of the total cost. Linux did beat Win2k in one category, Web-serving." Man did this thing get submitted a lot.
Total Cost of Ownership (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, probably because macs won every other TCO report I've seen
I think they underestimated the downtime cost (Score:2, Insightful)
Doesn't it depend entirely on how to define TCO? (Score:5, Insightful)
Alas.. (Score:2, Insightful)
People should relax more. This is what creates wars
In the dark and grim future, there is only MS VS LNX.
Lifespan Issues (Score:4, Insightful)
Part of the cost of maintenance on the Linux platform is surely regular installation of upgrades which are freely available.
By contrast, who keeps a Microsoft product for five years without upgrading it? Especially in a corporate environment? That means that two years down the road, it's time to pay for a new version. . .
Just a thought.
Larsal
a company i worked for called MS once... (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux is basically hard. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:5 year study (Score:5, Insightful)
I also wonder how rough Windows 2000 was in 1997! Could it be that these figures are made up!?
TWW
The problem is... (Score:3, Insightful)
You have a previously win32 shop where everyone know how to support win32. You either train or hire someone to support Linux. That is where you incurr the cost. From there, you have one person supporting 1-5 boxes (typically in test deployments) and so your divisor is low, with a high numerator.
What these studies don't do is assume that you have the same size install base of Linux as for Win32. Everyone knows that Linux is more reliable (and having worked in IT as a professional for 7 years, (and still working in it now) that is not heresay) so the same person can support more boxen.
Another problem is that the people who train rather than hire have the problem of unfamiliarity. Just like with any other job, it takes newbies longer to do anything.
Finally, the last reason is because it takes more to be a good Unix admin, and their salaries reflect that fact. But fortuneately, the stability of the boxes more than make up for that fact.
We will never have a proper TCO study unless conversion is 100% with proper support staff. The closest thing would be the migration of Hotmail to Win32. But we all know how that turned out...
But what is each server doing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why?
There are less mission-critical systems running on NT, so there are less DBAs, less backup, etc. The print server sits in the corner and gets a 3-finger salute if it plays up, so it's cheap to run. The mission-critical boxes, running web servers, databases, etc can't go down, so we have administrators to look after them.
IMNSHO - if we normalized for what each box is doing, Linux and Unix are cheaper to run.
Alan.
typical MS tactic (Score:4, Insightful)
When you take into account third party apps that are necessary to get a true useable, functional and secure system from MS, plus the training and high licensing fees, this introductory TCO comes out to BS. Novell or Mac, and Unix hardly ever needed 3rd party products to get them to do what you want. And regardless of the system, books, training, salary - are all going to cost. I mean, do you really want Proxy server as your firewall?
How can this be? (Score:2, Insightful)
IDC says that IT staffing alone accounts for 62.2 percent of TCO, while downtime represented another 23.1 percent of the costs.
So basicly the people running Linux weren't exerianced enough to keep it running more often than the tards that ran windows could(since all the windows admins needed to do was reboot). And on top of it all the Linux admins got paid more. So if you truly want the idiots of the world to use Linux then you have to make it alot more userfriendly and we need more services like http://e.linux-support.net/
If you listen carefully you can hear the Linux backlash comming. But then again the good book says "Don't throw pearls to swine. They will just trample them under their feet."
Does MS agree? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:2,5 year to go? (Score:5, Insightful)
I haven't seen a 'use before' date, but Linux distributions get cut off just the same. I've got a box at home running Redhat 5.2 that's no longer being supported. Here's the errata archive [redhat.com] where they recommend upgrading to a supported product.
While Linux (and open source in general) does have the advantage that someone can always support it, that doesn't mean that someone is supporting it -- especially when the package in question has been superceded by a number of later versions. There's always the option of hiring a trained individual to handle watching bug lists and backporting necessary fixes, but the pricetag on that would make Windows mandatory upgrades cheap in comparison.
Re:Well duh (Score:4, Insightful)
Now theres something to curse Bill Gates for, Gee he makes it so easy to use.
Ease of use should be a goal of EVERY software design.
The real problem is that Windows is easy because it defaluts to the lowest level of security. If you want to try to make it secure it becomes much harder.
If your software is better because fewer people are smart enough to use it, you have accomplished nothing.
Promote Linux because of it's real strengths, not because being able to use it makes you feel smarter than someone else.
Complete waste of bits (Score:5, Insightful)
Win2K Uptime (Score:2, Insightful)
The main knock against Windows here on Slashdot is that it is not nearly as reliable as Linux. I maintain that the two most significant reasons for this are that the typical Linux admin is much more experienced and that Linux is installed "bare-bones" and features only enabled by direct action. Windows, on the other hand, is designed to install with a ridiculous number of services and applications by default.
A properly configured Windows Server can be quite reliable. The main problem is reboots to apply service packs and hot fixes (although this is getting better). An experienced (not "certified") Windows admin knows how to configure Windows Server with only the necessary services and the proper security restrictions. You actually can get pretty good uptime if you know what you're doing.
Re:Well duh (Score:4, Insightful)
The first comparison was, while still off the mark, more apt: driving an automatic is easier than driving a stick, and Windows 2000 is easier to set up, administer, and use than Linux.
Re:Lifespan Issues (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, a corporate environment is more likely to stay with an old operating system than an individual or small business. There are still plenty of companies that are still using NT4 with Novell clients, or even Windows 3.11. Hell, there are still many (inventory, purchasing, etc.) systems that run on mainframe-type unix terminals. Agreed, most companies don't go 5 years without upgrading but there are certainly some that do.
Re:Total Cost of Ownership (Score:5, Insightful)
Sheesh - it was a FIVE YEAR study and Max OS X hasn't been out that long. Oh wait... neither has Windows 2000. In fact, Windows 2000 will not be supported five years after it's release date.
Oh I get it. Windows 2000 doesn't cost anything to support after 5 years, since your forced to upgrade at that time.
Cost is not everything (Score:4, Insightful)
I am really sick of reading all this rubbish about the cost comparison between linux/unix and windows.For the sort of work that i do which is scientific based, the applications that we need are not available under windows. So it is impossible to run a cost difference between linux and windows, linux is basically priceless. And I am sure that there are some people that it works
the other way for as well.
In order to decide what operating system to use, one should first know what one wants to do with their computer and then decide what operating system to use. Cost should not be the deciding factor (although an important one) when choosing an operating system. If an operating system does not do what one needs it to do, then no matter how inexpensive it is, it is just wasted money.
As for training costs while using computers. It has got to the point now where the basic operation of all operating systems are very much the same. Using a browser in linux is almost identical to using it under windows. So it is impossible to say that training costs are substantially different for any operating system.
Now things will fly about violently (Score:5, Insightful)
But I cannot see how they can support the argument except that at the moment, there are simply more Windows administrators and techs out there than there are Linux administrators and techs. What's more, I have encountered people who proudly make statements like "Microsoft Only" as if it were some status symbol or major accomplishment and who won't even go NEAR a machine running anything else as if it were diseased and might infect his mind. (Brings to mind certain flavors of Christianity)
But as there are more Microsoft-supporting professionals and so many of them are still out of work, it stands to reason that the TCO is low over 5 years... except one thing-- will Windows2000 still be supported in 5 years or will their license terms change again encouraging [requiring] upgrades to their latest OS? So yes, MS people are more available and will accept lower pay. Linux people are still more rare and generally expect more pay because we know a bit more... and usually know MS in addition to other OS's pretty well.
You still get what you pay for, for the most part. But the TCO figure is a very subjective thing... and has anyone asked if this was also yet another MS supported study?
Measured on people with the right background? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Absolutely True (Score:4, Insightful)
When factoring TCO, you must also realize that 500,000 per infraction is a lot to pay if you're caught for software piracy.
Re:Well duh (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, it did take me about 6 months to learn how to parallel park smoothly. But - once I had learned, it was in fact much easier, because the clutch gives you an added dimension of control as you slip into a tight parking space. I got to the point where I could park the manual in a space 6" (15 cm) longer than the car. No one with an automatic trans could match that.
My experience with Windows products pretty much parallels (ha ha) this: easy to learn. Hard to administer.
sPh
What's the point? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I don't see how thats possible (Score:5, Insightful)
Read more at InfoWorld [infoworld.com].
How does Linux require more care & feeding? I don't understand, my experience has been the exact opposite. Whenever I patch a Linux box it continues to function properly, similiar maintainence on a W2K server (with a subsequent reboot) invariably leaves me with a new problem. BTW, patches to W2K servers are far more frequent and require longer download times than any Linux patches -- even when a new kernel is required Linux is still faster.
I think Giga has the right perspective here, if you don't know what you're doing of _course_ it's going to require more care & feeding. I'm eager to read this report, there is another MS sponsored study coming out 1Q2003 that should be equally interesting....
Re:Linux is basically hard. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Support costs (Score:4, Insightful)
I love when a TCO study comes out and people read and article (not reading the TCO itself) and claim victory, the fact is you have to treat one hundred servers differently than you do 5 servers. A TCO is not scale at a linear rate.
Re:2,5 year to go? (Score:5, Insightful)
Given: After a period of time, Microsoft operating systems are no longer supported by Microsoft.
Given: Windows 2000 will no longer be supported by Microsoft in about 2-1/2 years.
Given: The study was for five years.
Since the front end costs are greater for Windows 2000, their study claims to show that, over five years, the backend costs (administration) overcome the frontend savings.
Now, shave off the backend by cutting the case study to half the length: the front end costs become a much more significant portion of the TCO. </obvious>
Draw your own conclusions...
Re:2,5 year to go? (Score:5, Insightful)
While the theory is nice, and I'm sure someone will note that the source is available so you can patch it yourself (which is most certainly not true of Windows), the reality is that outdated Linux systems are harder to find patches for than Windows in some cases. Most serious bugs aren't patchable by even above average programmers -- the time involved in learning the code base so you can figure out where the bug is and fix it is usually huge... hell, most programmers have a hard enough time fixing code they wrote 3 months ago, much less someone else's code!
As a case in point, MS is still providing patches to Win98. Trying to find patches for a Linux system 4 years out of date is a daunting task. No, it's not true in every case. But the majority of cases it is true. It's stuff like this that makes CTOs break out in cold sweats when they think about moving to Linux. You can't simply upgrade to the latest version of library X everytime one comes out -- that kills support because they have to test everything before every upgrade to make sure nothing breaks. But if you don't then you run the serious liability of not being able to patch a security hole several months or years down the line. Yeah, theoretically true for other OS's as well, but very few OS's have the level of constant flux that Linux exhibits.
That said, we're slowly moving to Linux here (Redhat specifically), and I couldn't be happier. AIX sucks. SCO sucks even more. But both have better long term support than Linux has shown thus far.
Lower cost partially a factor of scale... (Score:5, Insightful)
But everyone else is doing the same thing, so you have to lower prices and they lower theirs. (This is overall mind you, not pinned down to any two support services) Microsoft products are also quite easy to manage on the whole. Especially since Win2K came rolling in, plus with NT4SP6a you shouldn't have too many major server problems either.
Everywhere you go you can find all sorts of Microsoft camp product support. Once you learn one Microsoft product you are well on your way to knowing another.
Many corporate level packages also come on Microsoft (ERP, etc.) so that gets added into the mix as well - if you want a Linux solution you are really going to have to take the long way around for a lot of this stuff.
Linux is doing quite well, but entry into the Linux world is like running into a brick wall for many. There are far fewer Linux users around and the system is totally different from what most people are used to. There is a staggering amount of things to learn when taking on Linux, kernel recompiles, following the chains of dependancies, all of this takes time to learn and internalize. Most Microsoft type products are a matter of getting the latest service packs.
So there are fewer Linux users and fewer people overall familiar with Linux. The cost of finding someone to help you is going to be higher. Plus, I would argue there is *far* more to learn so you're going to pay the high priced people even more.
This presents a massive total cost barrier for those who would seek to save licensing money by switching to Linux. It is far easier to pay out to a software company for support and pay cheaper mainstream consultants and get things done than it is to start entering this whole new world of OSS. And you'll have to keep paying out more money to expensive consultants and employees to keep up-to-date, even though the initial costs are cheaper.
Then there's all of the little things that Linux can't quite do yet. Incompatibilities with the mainstream software products, pieces of software that just aren't available or which just aren't up to snuff when compared to the MS world. Add these in as indirect costs - even if you get the money to start up with Linux these little niggling issues will make management wonder why they bothered. Finance is not going to be happy without running Excel, the VP is going to be annoyed by not being able to access his IE only stock market site.
On the flip side, if you happen to have employees that known their Linux and know it well, there are definitely benefits to be had. If you want to add a new web server, W2K Adv Server is going to cost you more than the hardware and your Linux-savy employee can probably get an Apache server running nice and easy.
The problem is Linux is just not quite popular enough yet so these gifted people are hard to come by. Trying to insert Linux into a corporate world of Windows raised folk via consultants is going to mean huge dollars - basic stuff that everyone at least sort of knows how to do in Windows may require more consultant hours for instructional purposes.
But, even as the article mentions there are places were Linux is making itself cost effective and useful - like webserving. These tasks should be Linux's thin-end-of-the-wedge. Slowly get Linux in there for these tasks, and then maybe it can take over one more job, then another. Sys Admins can slowly learn more about it and become more experienced. Eventually that TCO is going to balance towards Linux.
There is a long ways to go though - and screaming that all MS users are idiots and they just don't realize how far superior Linux is, is counter-productive. The technical snobbery that often goes on (knee jerk MS bashing, even near-religious fervour found within variations on Linux, newbie bashing, etc.) helps nothing. The rest of the world will just ignore Linux even more and continue on doing their business using MS and closed-source products that they are comfortable with and *that work* as often as not. They *really and truly* don't care what software they use as long as it works, and as long as it is cost-effective to use it. Most business need to use computers, but what computers they use are irrelevant to them. They just need to, well, take care of business.
Find ways that Linux helps them to that in a cost-effective and friendly way and I'm sure more and more business will bite.
Re:2,5 year to go? (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, it would be just like MS to give away licenses to Win2K when it will be unsupported in a couple of years. I doubt anyone will be getting any discounts when they are forced to upgrade at that point. With Their differential pricing, they'll probably try to make up the revenue lost giving away the initial licenses.
TCO studies are worthless (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd like to see this study with 10 windows vs. 10 linux servers, or 100 vs. 100
Hmmm.. (Score:4, Insightful)
"Well sure any retard can run Windows so of course it is cheaper TCO"
And that is exactly how MS will market their products. Wanna web server? No problem, sure linux/freebsd is free, but the staff to support it will end up costing you more in the long run.
You folks act like being easy to use is a _bad_ thing. While the rest of the world thinks it's a good thing.
You call people who install a win2k server for their small business idiots and they're idiots for not mastering unix. But maybe they don't time to learn all that is needed, because they have a business to run, and it is simply cheaper(in the long run) to run a Win2k server than a linux one.
Think about it.
Sometimes it seems like slashdot folks sits in their geek tower and spews insults at all the morons for using MS. Without ever knowing what's really going on in the real world.
BTW, I use linux/freebsd and love them. But i also love computers in general.
Talking with some of my friends who run their own business they are really nervous about going to linux yet they are interested.
I can't give them support and they are afraid that supports costs will be too high, and Jim down the hall is pretty good with Windows so we will just let him do the administration.
Sorry for the rant I know everyone on slashdot is not this way.
Re:+ 10 Karma! (Score:4, Insightful)
balanced, he's claiming that the Register article's
bias balances the linked article's bias; i.e. the opposite biases cancel out, leaving an objectively informed reader. At least that's how I understand
that post.
Re:CRN is a one sided company.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Lifespan Issues (Score:2, Insightful)
From everything I've read, companies are sticking with W2K for the forseeable future. It's stable, it's fast, and there's no great reason to go to XP or
Re:I don't see how thats possible (Score:3, Insightful)
HERE'S WHERE THEY CAN COOK THE NUMBERS: if they say one-admin-per-10-machines, and MS admins are so much cheaper than Unix/Linux admins, then Windows wins. Of course, typically an admin can support many more boxes using *ix than Windows, so the higher cost of the *ix admin is spread out more, so *ix wins (or at least breaks even) vs. Windows.
Lies, damn lies, and statistics?
Re:IBM (Score:5, Insightful)
All too true. I'd like to see the full study this article refers to. It is very easy to manipulate these numbers, and I am sceptical of a few things as well.
For instance they state that downtime represents 23.1% of TCO. When comparing two systems with an (alledged) large difference in reliability/downtime, one would expect the cost of downtime to loom larger for one OS than for the other. Also... Cost of downtime is very hard to estimate and varies a lot between businesses (suppose the corporate webserver goes down: how does this affect a phone company as opposed to, say, Amazon?). If Linux would have a favorable downtime average, one could simply downplay the cost of downtime to fix the numbers.
Likewise for staff cost. Staff cost is very hard to estimate as well, and even looking at existing companies won't help: they'll all have different needs and will staff accordingly. A company using Linux might need much more staff to run their servers than another company using Windows... at first glance. But perhaps the first company is in a business where downtime stop everything, and has plenty of expensive experts to quickly cope with any calamity. The second company might figure that a system availability of 85% is fine, since people can get on for a day or two without server access.
Most TCO figures by themselves are meaningless since many of the parameters are business-specific. You may find that in a particular business, Windows is a cheaper and better solution than Linux, and in other businesses it will be the other way around. Lastly... when a OS vendor starts waving such figures at you, I suggest the Dogbert approach: wave your paw back at them and say "bah".
Re:Well duh (Score:2, Insightful)
At any rate, the point is moot. Linux is harder, OUT OF THE BOX, than Windows to set up a total network solution. That's just the way it is. It takes more effort, and the people who do it will be paid more for their knowledge to get it done right, to setup a Linux network.
Re:But what is each server doing? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with normalizing the servers is that your non-technical businesspeople are retarded from learning the interdependencies of the systems and the business. The costs, risks, and benefits of any system directly emanate from the impact they have on the operation of the business. Your MBA doesn't really know *any* details about the operation of either the business or the systems or the people that execute those details.
This kind of reporting is just upper-executive grandstanding, trying to reinforce the justification for their astronomical salaries. Look at the numbers. They are designed specifically to make it seem like the proponents of such work are making decisions with consequences that dwarf their salaries. The inferences are drawn from overgeneralized facts, and the conclusions ignore the significance of overlooked factors.
If you do not see the scientific explanation of "how to repeat this study in your situation" it is BULLSHIT!. YMMV: here, it holds just as true as anywhere else! Now what are we paying these jokers for?
Re:Well duh (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft's offerings were never especially "easy to use".
Is it "easy" to remember wether your burner is E: F: or G: ? Or was that a network share? Or did that change after I put in a harddrive?
Call me crazy, but I feel much better having /dev/hdxy and mountpoints than that mess.
Is it "easy" that you have to install numerous add-on programs to make Windows usable? My Linux distribution came with an Office suite, ICQ, a browser that doesn't suck, image manipulation software and much, much more.
Is is "easy" to edit undocumented and strangely named registry keys? I'll rather be able to make a backup of a config-file and then make changes guided by instructions *IN* the file, not buried inside a 2000-page doorstopper. Of course, usually you will use the GUI tools to change settings, but they don't cover everything, neither in Windows, nor in KDE/Linux.
Is it "easy" to remember when to double-click and when to single-click? For beginners it's harder than it sounds. They will ask why they don't have to double-click icons in toolbars, but do have to double click icons on the desktop, why they have to double-click directories but not links in Explorer. KDE/Linux is A LOT more consistent here. A lot.
Face it, guys: Windows is not that "easy to use" at all. It's just that people have got accostumized with it's problems and think that they are normal.
And BTW: Windows did not build Microsoft's empire. DOS did. And DOS was the most unfriendly OS in existence.
There are only two reasons why DOS/Windows is so widespread: Because it comes with the computer and because of available software
That's it. No other explanations necessary. KDE/Linux beats Windows in every other aspect, including ease of use for true beginners.
Win2k is good but the end of good MS OSes (Score:2, Insightful)
I have been travelling around South America for the last 2 months and I've probably been to about 20 or 30 cybercafes. Nobody is using windows XP. Hahahaha. People were fine using Windows as long as it was free but now, with the piracy protection and all they are just going to stick to win2k and win98. This is kind of like the computers getting too fast issue. Everyone has a computer now and they are fast enough. Windows doesn't crash anymore and people don't need anymore features.
I talked to a guy who asked me about Linux who I met on the beach. He was the head of a large Chilean corporation who said that the software cops were coming to check out his licenses. I told him RedHat 8, Evolution, Star Office. Get the Point Of Sale and Call Center Running on Linux first. Oh yeah, and get a LINUX GURU.
Re:Well duh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:2,5 year to go? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, I think it's somewhat less of a problem in the Linux world. After all, nobody's charging you for the upgrades. It's still a pain to have to make sure everything works, etc, but at least you can do it for nothing but time.
Re:2,5 year to go? (Score:4, Insightful)
There's always the option of hiring a trained individual to handle watching bug lists and backporting necessary fixes, but the pricetag on that would make Windows mandatory upgrades cheap in comparison.
Or you could just use RHN/up2date and spend $50.
Re:I don't see how thats possible (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Actually (Score:5, Insightful)
Dunno, my experience is a lot different, and I've seen both large Unix and large Windows environments.
Without any fancy tools, administering a large number of Unixy boxes is easy, whereas administering a large number of Windows boxes is hellish.
With fancy tools (which are available for both environments - see Tivoli) you can set things up so that operators can do just about anything as long as nothing breaks. When things go wrong you end up having to revert to the standard admin. tools anyway. Unix is fixable, Windows a nightmare.
Re:Well duh (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, according to my experience, that's wrong - and wrong in all 3 aspects.
Set-up: Win2K is easy to set-up, but so is any modern Linux distribution. I don't see an advantage for neither. Well, maybe a small advantage for Linux because you don't have to install a virus scanner.
Administration: Linux is easer to mantain because it has both GUI-tools and CLI-tools. So for quick-and-dirty administration, you use the GUI-tools, but for automated tasks you use the CLI-tools in a script. Win2K has some CLI-commands, but the basic CLI-tools like grep/awk/sed etc. are missing, so it's not nearly as useful. Also Linux can be easily administered from anywhere and from any OS through SSH. And I didn't even start to talk about the flood of patches and security problems you will have to handle on Windows...
This is humbug (Score:5, Insightful)
It might be worthwhile noting that real studies, which we can look at, unlike this one, and which aren't backed by MS, show that Linux has a lower TCO:
http://www.cyber.com.au/cyber/about/linux_vs_wi
http://www-1.ibm.com/linux/RFG-LinuxTCO-vFINAL-
Agree! (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not saying Windows is crap, I am saying I've pulled more hair out trying to maintain Windows systems then Unix systems...
The drive letters you mention are especially frustrating. How many people can fix it when they add a hard drive, and suddenly their games don't run because they all think the CDROM is D: and now it's E:? Most reinstall - and then call it an "easy" fix. Sure, a lot of us will jump into the registry and fix it...maybe have to edit some
Windows is wonderful if you get a stock system and never change it. Change things around - new drive, video card, network card... it might be easier then Linux, and it might not - and when it's not, it's a horror show.
Windows maintenance is NOT easier then any version of Unix I've ever had the pleasure of using... there's a perception there that it's easy to maintain, and it's usually by people who've never used anything else, or learned Windows first then tried some ancient version of Linux.
As far as security goes, it's not that easy locking down anything...if you think you've clicked the right buttons in Windows, then your system is probably not as secure as you think it is.
Easy is when you know how to do it... Windows is more popular than Linux... More people know how to use/maintain Windows, therefore there is a perception (false, in my opinion) that Windows is somehow easier. The same people call things "standard" because they're made by Microsoft, not because they actually follow some publicly agreed upon "standard".
About those uptimes... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's interesting to check out netcraft's [netcraft.com] statistics about web servers with insane uptimes.
They only list the fifty highest uptimes, the 'winner' (FreeBSD/Apache) have been up for 1410 days. That's right folks, three years and 315 days.
I'm aware that OS uptime != service uptime, and that most admin work on a *nix doesn't require a reboot, but still it indicates that they have had no major problems due to the OS.
Too me it seems like this is a great advantage when running a production server (is that the term in English?), and that it at least indicates a lower long term maintenance cost. Admittedly, those servers are only web servers, but I would think that you would observe a similar trend for servers running other kinds of services.
I'm not an admin (not yet, currently studing CS). Still, am I way off here? I see no Microsoft software on that list... Just a thought.
I'm eager to learn, corrections/observations are most welcome!
Re:Well duh (Score:4, Insightful)
Am I the only one who actually thinks the 'unix way' is better? Mount things where they make sense in terms of how your data is partitioned? My second hd in my unix server, which is typically newer, larger drives, is
So don't call bullshit just 'cause you can remember if E or F are your cdwriter or reader. All if means is if I come to your machine, i have to sit there and figure it out by doing directory listings.
At least by doing a mount, or simply going to
Re:Total Cost of Ownership (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes it will. [microsoft.com]
Oh I get it. Windows 2000 doesn't cost anything to support after 5 years, since your forced to upgrade at that time.
-rw-r--r-- 1 536 536 6573183 Dec 16 1997 linux-2.0.33.tar.gz
Still using Linux 2.0.33? That came out five years ago. Want to count "service packs?" Okay. Still using 2.0.x?
You're not?
Then shut the fuck up about using something for five years. Linux has seen more substantive change over the past five years than the NT codebase has. With Linux, if you wanted new filesystem support, SMP, faster I/O, etc., you needed to upgrade.
Re:Well duh (Score:3, Insightful)
All I am saying is that for the newbie, Windows is the easy way to go. I started out on DOS, went to OS/2, then to 98, 2000, and I now run FreeBSD. However, I would have had one hell of a time going in reverse
Re:Well duh (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, then my apps need help. A couple of years ago, when I still used Windows for serious tasks, I had to reinstall half a dozen apps because the drive letters changed after a hard-drive installation.
And I need also help, because I have more important things to do than to remember drive letters on all the machines I administer.
Right, and it is easy for beginners to remember how to chmod, sh, and rm without totally fucking things up. I see, I forgot how second nature the command line is to newbies.
Beginners don't need to know that. Even you should know that by now. But it's very nice to be able to send a command line for copy-pasting via email, so yes, the CLI (alongside the GUI) is also great for supporting beginners.
Yea, you are right, the start button, the My Computer, the Control Panel, all very confusing and counter-intuitive. KDE is such a god-send.
I know that you are desperately trying to be ironic here, but yes: The "Control Panel" in Windows is just a directory with apps randomly thrown in, while the KDE-control-center is organized tree-like, which makes it much easier to find what you are looking for.
Depends on what your server is doing, doesn't it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Database servers require far less daily change control than File/Print servers. Even less when you consider it's the DBA doing changes, not the server admin.
What if you have one NT admin for every 40 NT servers, but only have one Unix admin for every 4 Unix servers? Isn't that a nonsensical comparison, when the NT boxes are 1U Compaq rack-mounts, but the Unix boxes are HP Superdomes?
And besides, when people talk about administrative functions they are thinking enterprise level. Not your dorm room.
The register (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, the write up pointed out that if you add in an upgrade, the Linux system would come out ahead, since upgrades are free, and the cost differences are small.
Re:Lifespan Issues and Licensing 6 (Score:2, Insightful)
The reason that this article can be viewed as valid is becuase any idiot can go to windowsupdate.com and patch their server box. In my area of the world a MCSE might make 40 grand a year, a Red Hat certified Linux admin might make well over 6 figures a year.
Hencforth that makes the TCO of windows less than that of linux. While it is generally true that a linux admin can handle more boxes simutaneiously than a windows admin... most companies that i deal with only have a max of 5 or 6 servers. Which one admin can easily handle no matter what the OS.
So there are some instances where linux may have a larger TCO than windows. That is not to say by any stretch of the imagination that I would ever install a windows server in MY office. I have 6 servers sitting in my server room and not a one of them is running anything other than SlackWare. But thats not to say that it may be cheaper in some cases to run windows, but nowhere near as reliable.
Re:Google (Score:3, Insightful)
It was "Windows 2000 vs. Linux".
Not "Windows 2000 vs. Unix-like Operating Systems." Not "Windows 2000 vs. Solaris vs. AIX vs. Linux." Just "vs. Linux". Why? Surely there are more choices than Windows 2000 and Linux for all your server needs.
I would think that a research company would want to compare TCOs from a wide range of options to increase the total value of the study. However, this reeks of a targeted result based on an agenda to me.
Mike
Re:Well duh (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Total Cost of Ownership (Score:5, Insightful)
Btw, I have a part time admin job (3 days a week) of 63 Linux machines, and the other days of the week I help out with another 100+ machines (admined by one person full time, who also programs), as well as supporting a number of lower priority machines.
The Register as usual... (Score:2, Insightful)
the survey was paid for by Microsoft,
the five year ownership DIDN'T include the cost of upgrading the hardware,
that Microsoft recommend / require upgrade cycles
that downtime wasn't taken into account.
Hmmm.
Linux Vs. Windows Ease of Use.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it.
REALLY read it (Score:3, Insightful)
And you will see the biggest unrealistic caveat: the study assumed no upgrades over a span of 5 years! M$ tries to force an upgrade just about every frickin' year or so. It is unrealistic to think a company will have the same windoze running 5 years down the line with M$ breathing down their neck AND M$ dropping support for their 5 year old OS after a mere 3 or so.
Another interesting and true point is that those people you hire to administer a linux system setup are more knowledgeable, period, than the MSCE admins for doze so that when something really goes south (on windoze almost anything beyond people forgetting their passwords) the windoze admins are useless while the *nix geniuses can easily whip out a fix - probably without terminating network connectivity while they do it.
An M$-funded study is the same thing as a "study" produced by the M$ marketing department and has the same legitimacy.
Re:Well duh (Score:3, Insightful)
Regardless (command-line in Windows? Heretic! Where's the GUI interface?), the name assignment doesn't solve the fundamental problem of apps expecting the drive in one place, but it moving to another. C:\CDROM might be nice for you, but apps are looking for D: or E: or...
Fundamentally, Windows is an excellent implementation of a poor core design, whereas Linux is an unpolished implementation of a better core design. (Above the core, Windows starts to look better design-wise.) You complain about
Ditto "unlike unintuitve Unix/Linux, Windows is actually smart enough to turn the respective icons (even if it's mounted as a folder deep in the filesystem) in to CDs or hard-drive-with-a-pipe-sticking-out-of-it". Are you sure Nautilus or another Linux file explorer doesn't do this? The info is certainly available. This sort of thing is an implementation detail, not fundamental to either system.
Neither Linux nor Windows' preferences systems are perfect. Linux loses points on inconsistency in format. However, can you easily grab all the prefs related to a particular app, or several favorite apps, and copy them to another machine. Although you can select branches of the registry to do something similar, it's not as easy, has to be done app-by-app, and many apps don't store their settings in the registry but in
The thing bout Linux being a better core design, and Windows being a better implementation: it's easier to fix an implementation than to fix a poor design.
Time travel? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you read the article a bit more closly and check the comments for referance, you'll notive the article says that this study was done over a 5 year period of time. Windows 2000 wasn't out 5 years ago making this rather impossible and thus pretty hard to believe. And I can imagine that starting with Linux 5 years ago and using that till now probably would cost more than it would to start now and carry forward 5 uears because so much progress has been made. Were upgrades allowed? This article is very light on the details. Would a service pack be allowed then? Wouldn't this make Linux better because for free, you get better and better upgrades. Win 2000 only gives you a few services paks, unless you upgrade to XP (ha!)
So in the end I am really confused at how this is even possible and sort of able to believe part of it because of the severe age-ness of it. But really. Come on, we need way more detail before I'll actually believe it.
Re:I don't see how thats possible (Score:3, Insightful)
Note that Linux has advanced MASSIVE amounts over those 5 years in both performance, reliability, and ease of maintenance.
Second, it depends on WHICH 104 companies you survey. I could probably pick 104 companies that would have a totally different experience.
What's that old saying about statistics again?
The Real Problem (Score:1, Insightful)
Does this sound sane to you? Do you really want to be running a network with 100 computers on it and not have an administrator who can fix critical problems? What about security settings? I don't care how easy they make it, it's still not easy enough for the company receptionist to administer.
I guess MS is saying nobody needs MCSE's either...
I'd be kinda pissed off with them if I had a MCSE and read this report.
This kind of study is pointless (Score:4, Insightful)
World still needs a non-OS OS (Score:1, Insightful)
A) For those users who don't want to know about files, permissions, etc., so they can use the system without messing things up.
With Windows, Linux, etc., they can blow away files and get in a load of hurt.
B) For running simple tasks, such as print servers, etc.
Why would anybody need a full-blown OS for that? But they want something more configurable than a Cobalt box that is stuck doing only that task.
Basically what users need is a box that hides all of the details of the underlying OS from them.
Scientific method (Score:3, Insightful)
For folk who have an interest in the sciences, pooh-poohing a scientific study, with probable extrapolation, without looking at it objectivly is probably about as un-scientific as it gets. You want empirical evidence? Here's some:
I have been trying to break from MS for ages. I can't condone a switch yet. Why? Admin costs. It isn't because myself and the other 2K admins can't understand or transfer our expertise to an archaic CLI based OS. It's not even because we can't work out how to do familiar things in *nix because we're all thick (much as you lot would have us believe).
It's actually the cost of having more staff to administer each machine. If I were to switch 100% to Linux I would have to administer each machine individually at the moment. In Windows I can simply change the group policy for whatever AD object I wish to change for, say, a virus database update or a permission domain wide for installation of a certain program. In *nix I would either have to log in to each machine myself or write a script for a machine to do it for me. Each way faffing about is a process involved. Simply put, *nix hasn't got the group and domain managment facilities that Windows has. Until it has, there's simply no competition. And yes, I love the OSS idea too, but i'm also a realist. Sorry.
Re:What (almost) no one is saying (Score:2, Insightful)
Not only wanting to please the man (the one paying the bills) will affect the out come, you can bet that Bill & friends carefully chose a firm that could be trusted to get the "right results" in the first place. Now let me be really clear here if IBM or Red Hat were to directly fund such a study I would be just as unwilling to accept the out come as well and ,yes, those studies would find linux much more cost effective to use.
In reality this study is just FUD, why would I want to waste time following it up, or arguing specifics because you still have a serious flaw at the outset that renders this study questionable at best.
if ( Win2KTCO LinuxTCO ) echo "Only in US!"; (Score:2, Insightful)
wow 5 years (Score:2, Insightful)
It must be a really good report if windows 2000 offers a better TCO over 5 years. . pretty cool that they can see into the future like that, and know exactly what windows will cost tomorrow, cuz the cost has been constant for the last 5 years right
Stupidity (Score:3, Insightful)
This study is a big Troll. The fact that it is "breaking news" ought to raise red flags for most people! tsk tsk