Another analyst TCO report

Yet another analyst report comparing the costs of running Linux and Windows networks has been released. The report was funded by a corporation with a clear interest in the outcome, but, of course, the authors claim to have done entirely independent work. It features data collected from a number of different companies (the way these companies were selected is not disclosed) and from "self-selected" respondents to a web survey. Information on the availability and cost of administrators was obtained from "a cursory survey of resumes" from online job boards. Surprisingly enough, the report is strongly favorable to the company which sponsored it.

The Linux community, once again, has come together to debunk the findings in this survey. Well, actually, maybe not. This report was sponsored by Levanta and OSDL, and is unequivocally favorable to Linux.

Those who are interested in the details are encouraged to look at the press release, the executive summary, or the full, 21-page, pie-chart-stuff report [PDF]. In essence, however, it says this: Linux systems are cheaper to purchase and install, cheaper and more reliable to administer, and more secure than the alternatives. Linux administration staff can be had cheaply, and is in plentiful supply. Oh, and if those administrators are well equipped with "sophisticated administration tools," such as those sold by, say, Levanta, they'll be even more efficient.

Much of what is found on these glossy pages corresponds to the experience of those of us who have managed large networks of systems. A Linux administrator really can manage more systems than a Windows administrator. But the sad fact, which not all in the community seem to want to recognize, is that this report is the same sort of subjective analyst recycle bin fodder that the proprietary software companies crank out. We should not invest it with a higher level of credibility than the other offerings in its genre.

It is worth noting that this report appears to have had the desired initial effect. The technical press has dutifully carried the "Linux is cheaper" news. Presumably, the pointy-haired bosses who are held to be impressed by these reports will be suitably influenced. It seems that these analyst reports are simply part of how this game is played. People who are trying to get some real work done on a Linux platform need a stack of glossy paper to justify their decisions to certain levels of management. The other side is producing a long stream of these reports; if the Linux side has no reports of its own, it looks like it has no answer at all. So it may be a good thing that somebody is going to the effort of producing all this paper. But we shouldn't make the mistake of believing that reports like this one prove anything.

---

(Log in to post comments)