Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| |||||||||||||
A new Linux/Windows TCO study
Levanta and OSDL have put out a press release announcing the results of a Linux v. Windows study. Surprisingly, this one comes out in favor of Linux. "'Get the Truth on Linux Management' concludes that in many cases, Linux is
likely to be a significantly less expensive platform to acquire and manage
than Windows. Respondents indicated that the average resource costs
(salaries, training, and support) are no longer significantly higher than
Windows and that the management of Linux is of minimal concern when
considering the overall TCO." Those wanting to skip the release can go straight to the executive summary or the full report [PDF].
(Log in to post comments)
A new Linux/Windows TCO study Posted Feb 13, 2006 16:18 UTC (Mon) by jwb (guest, #15467) [Link] The study seemed to reach conclusions with which I generally agree, but does anyone else think they relied overly much on the "major city university"? I counted 15 mentions of the "major city university."
A new Linux/Windows TCO study Posted Feb 13, 2006 16:25 UTC (Mon) by eric_boutilier (guest, #35765) [Link] Excellent! And wanted to point out also that most (all?) of the advantages sited in the study apply to all the open-source UNIX OS's, not just Linux. For example, OpenSolaris distros, FreeBSD, NetBSD, etc.
Eric Boutilier
A new Linux/Windows TCO study Posted Feb 13, 2006 19:56 UTC (Mon) by einstein (subscriber, #2052) [Link] Excellent point -
A new Linux/Windows TCO study Posted Feb 13, 2006 17:33 UTC (Mon) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] Very good study.
But its a pitty that its only centered arround server side of the equation.
I belive the study was about some "more traditional" deployed systems, but it would have been very nice to include in the study some "advanced" configurations also deploying Linux on the desktop spectrum, specialy those arround LTSP on schools and other social institutions arround the world.
Many topological configurations would be possible with LTSP, http://www.ltsp.org/inthepress.php to the point that some *RECOMENDED TOPOLOGICAL CONFIGURATIONS* would be possible to advice, encompassing most intended IT payloads needs, and across the board from storage, database, server to thin and thick desktops.
That would settle the TCO arguing not only with studys, prone to rethoric and debacling, but with *EXAMPLES* that would hurt the most to the ones that are lying and trying to manipulate these kind of studys.
A new Linux/Windows TCO study Posted Feb 13, 2006 17:59 UTC (Mon) by wartstew (guest, #9819) [Link] "Problem resolution in over 60% of cases, when problems occur in Linux environments they are diagnosed and repaired in less than 30 minutes, over 8 times faster than industry average."
This is the one that really rings home with me.
When a Linux server develops a problem, you simply fix it, usually in a straight forward manor.
When a Windows server develops a problem, especially one where it will no longer boot, it is often very hard to repair. I'm probably one of the few people who even try, but often without enough success. With Windows you are better off restoring the previous backup or rebuilding the whole machine. I think this is an unacceptable solution for any thing considered a "critical server".
A new Linux/Windows TCO study Posted Feb 13, 2006 20:55 UTC (Mon) by alspnost (guest, #2763) [Link] Yep - I can second this as well, now that I work in a mainly Windows support environment. I've fixed a few Linux servers quickly and easily, and they go on to run trouble-free for another 2 years or so, to the point that people forget they are on the network at all! With Windows servers, when they goes wrong, it's a nightmare. Endless meaningless errors in the event logs, fumbling about trying to diagnose them in the Micro$oft knowledge base, and constant maintenance requirements. Windows Server 2003 looks great on the outside, and is fairly solid overall, but it's still a horrible mess underneath, with log files and TMP files just dumped all over the damn place, and the achilles heel of being a monolithic system, wherein one screw-up can bring down the entire edifice. As for Windows PCs, how would we even repair them without our trusty Linux live CDs?!
Web survey? Posted Feb 13, 2006 18:14 UTC (Mon) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] This seems to agree with the way things are in the real world, but did anyone else notice this on p. 4?
"This multi-faceted research study consisted of a telephone survey using a random sample of several thousand IT organizations, a web survey of self-selecting respondents, and in-depth interviews with CIOs and MIS Managers in 13 enterprises with Linux environments. Overall, the study netted over 200 responses."
How many in each category?
And can't you get a "web survey of self-selecting respondents" to say anything you want, depending on who you promote it to?
Wouldn't we be calling b------t on this if the results came out the other way?
(Interesting, though, that "Hank the Angry Drunken Dwarf" took one week of training and now administers 50,000 Linux servers for $36,000/year and gets 99.9999% uptime.)
Web survey? Posted Feb 13, 2006 18:45 UTC (Mon) by maney (subscriber, #12630) [Link] Well, yes - if it presented findings as counter to our experience as all the MS-sponsored TCO studies have. When what they're saying is clearly false, you look for explanations, and tend to assume the worst of any possible source of error.OTOH, no, in that I wouldn't call the raising of valid concerns, as it usually done here on LWN, by that colorful name. Perhaps you're thinking of Slashdot?
Web survey? Posted Feb 13, 2006 21:21 UTC (Mon) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] In my opinion, it is good advocacy to be as critical of studies that come out favorably for OSS as we are about "studies" that don't, regardless of the sponsor.
People take notice when an advocate says, hey, I agree with the outcome of this study, but the methodology has this (fill in the blank) problem.
Likewise, people notice when an advocate is just cheerleading.
Web survey? Posted Feb 14, 2006 15:43 UTC (Tue) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] "" Likewise, people notice when an advocate is just cheerleading.""
At center target... at least for IT aware people.
Dont cheerlead rethoric, that only is advantageous to the party that *lie* the best, because common Joe will always go with the noise.
Promoting solutions, clear well documented HOWTOs with examples, like LTSP deployments and others, should be the norm for OSDL and others, because it would be advantageous to all from Corp to corner shop.
Gotta have a bumper sticker Posted Feb 14, 2006 2:34 UTC (Tue) by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989) [Link] "My GNU/Linux TCO study can beat up your proprietary OS TCO study"
A new Linux/Windows TCO study Posted Feb 14, 2006 3:35 UTC (Tue) by foo-bar (guest, #22971) [Link] Gents, do you really believe in all these funny studies ?With all these funny precise numbers like 88%, 97% etc ? Let's be realistic: IMHO all these studies, regardless of which side they take are worth nothing. IMHO.
Let's concentrate on servers as this particular study does.
There two very different markets: big corporations with
The former are not worth discussing much, they typically
With small business the story is the opposite.
Now there are several options.
So, how can you estimate TCO if it ranges from 0 to Infinity
---
Now some personal experience. Which is actually a Linux TCO=0 case.
We, a group of 15 employees of not-so-small (but not-so-big :-)
You know how much it costs per month ?
You want to know TCO ? It's so small that nobody
So in this particular case TCO ranges from 0 to USD 30/mnd
Now imagine that I was not in the group. What's the Linux TCO then ?
A new Linux/Windows TCO study Posted Feb 14, 2006 20:47 UTC (Tue) by Just_call_me_fred (guest, #35163) [Link] Agreed, this is exactly why Linux/Windows 'TCO studies' are useless. If you compare security, stability & configurability then that's more informative.
|
|||||||||||||