Weekly Edition
Return to the Press pageSponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
IBM gets own facts out for Linux v Windows (the Register)
The Register
covers the IBM version of the Windows vs Linux TCO comparison.
"IBM is kicking some total cost of ownership (TCO) dirt in Microsoft's face, releasing a numbers survey that claims Linux is cheaper to deploy and manage than Windows.
An IBM-sponsored Robert Frances Group study found it is 40 per cent cheaper to buy, implement and run an application server on an x86 server running Linux than on a similar server running Windows. Robert Frances polled IT executives at 20 mid-sized and large companies with 250 or more employees."
(Log in to post comments)
IBM gets own facts out for Linux v Windows (the Register) Posted Sep 1, 2005 21:07 UTC (Thu) by trutkin (guest, #3919) [Link] How is this any different from the Microsoft funded studies that show that Windows is cheaper?Because it's what we want to hear?
IBM gets own facts out for Linux v Windows (the Register) Posted Sep 1, 2005 21:16 UTC (Thu) by havoc (guest, #2261) [Link] Uh, no. Maybe because IBM sells both systems?
IBM gets own facts out for Linux v Windows (the Register) Posted Sep 1, 2005 21:26 UTC (Thu) by rev (guest, #15082) [Link] Get the report.. analyze it conntents and see if it is biased, setup to support a a-prori conclusion, or compares apples to oranges like the MS funded "studies" do.
IBM gets own facts out for Linux v Windows (the Register) Posted Sep 1, 2005 21:29 UTC (Thu) by xtifr (subscriber, #143) [Link] One notable difference: IBM is admitting up front that they paid for this study, rather than trying to pretend that it's an "independent" study, as MS did until they were called on it.
I agree, there's no reason for any sensible, intelligent person to take this any more seriously than any of the MS-funded studies. On the other hand, some people <em>do</em> take the MS-funded studies seriously, and this may give them something to think about.
IBM gets own facts out for Linux v Windows (the Register) Posted Sep 1, 2005 23:48 UTC (Thu) by hchristeller (subscriber, #4246) [Link] It doesn't matter if people believe the IBM-sponsored study. What matters is if it leads people to doubt the Microsoft-sponsored study.
Many people will blindly accept assertions if they never hear anything contrary. IBM has given the typical risk-averse manager a reason to say: "Let's look at both sides."
Yeah, a one-dimensional "both sides" view is too simplistic, but getting people past a zero-dimensional view is the hard part.
IBM gets own facts out for Linux v Windows (the Register) Posted Sep 3, 2005 2:38 UTC (Sat) by wilreichert (subscriber, #17680) [Link] Nice to see some anti-M$ FUD thrown back in their face but I have to admit its equally as worthless. The statistics that make up the fiction known as TCO can be skewered any which direction. No one can take a generalized study and use it as fact for any particular company, everyone has slightly different cirsumstances to be dealt with.
IBM gets own facts out for Linux v Windows (the Register) Posted Sep 3, 2005 14:33 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Nice to see some anti-M$ FUD thrown back in their face but I have to admit its equally as worthless. Nope. It's iportant tool. The statistics that make up the fiction known as TCO can be skewered any which direction. You know this. I know this. Pointy-Haired Boss does not know this. And "Microsoft is big and successfull company - they know better". If you'll show study done by other seccessfull company - it'll make you point (you must measure TCO by yourself - every company is different) more believable. Remember: most peoples who are not IT-professionals do not see Microsoft as dirty company without morals - they still think it's honest yet successfull company who thinks about client needs first!
IBM gets own facts out for Linux v Windows (the Register) Posted Sep 8, 2005 8:48 UTC (Thu) by ekj (subscriber, #1524) [Link] Yes. But that's not the point.If everyone knew that, everyone would ignore "TCO" studies and instead look into the actual facts in their own company. If they did that, it'd be a win for Linux overall. Unfortunately though, quite a few managers *don't* know that, and take the MS funded studies as some sort of indication that Windows has a generally lower TCO. What this study does is not proove that Linux has a lower TCO. Like we all know, one can usually get the results one want from such studies. What it *does* do is present the fact that there is no such thing as a general, realistic way of estimating TCO of various solutions. In the best case, it'll make a few managers think: The MS study shows Windows is cheaper. The IBM study shows Linux is cheaper. Maybe there *is* no clear-cut fits-all answer and we need to actually think for ourselves, let me go have a talk with my engineers. If it can achieve that, it's a useful thing indeed.
|
|||||||||||