| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Windows could be cheaperWindows could be cheaperPosted Dec 12, 2002 22:09 UTC (Thu) by dbrandon (guest, #1090)In reply to: Windows could be cheaper by esh Parent article: Linux and the total cost of ownership It's true that simplicity is key to keeping down TCO. But there is a tradeoff here. People harp on security a lot, but rarely really do much. Linux has not only ACLs, but also capabilities, which really help security wise. But these make things even MORE complex, of course. And I agree that not knowing what you're doing leads to weaker security. But sometimes, for example my environment which handles data under FDA regulations, you absolutely require that complexity. However, I don't think that's a Windows/Linux thing. They both can be configured for good security. My (not very well made) point was that some of the complaints about Windows come from a kind of entrenched bad practice from the DOS days, where everyone was a system administrator and every process was a root process. My background is a unix one, so I find that absurd, but it's standard practice in windows. Some end-user software we use here just plain won't run unless the user is an Administrator. Crazy. I do agree that the simplicity of Linux is a big plus. Well, I wouldn't say simplicity so much as transparancy. Sometimes, on a windows systems, it's practically impossible to figure out what the system is doing and why. But if you deploy your windows desktops in a unixy way, you can minimize the effects of this. No admins, standard configurations, server side data storage, minimal well-known configuration -- this allows you to simply take away a badly behaved box and plop a new one in front of a user with minimal fuss. This is standard practice in the unix world. Every user in the company likes to think that they own their windows desktop. They don't. I do. So for desktops, I think it's a toss up. Most user problems are things like, "where's the on switch?" For servers, I prefer the transparency of Linux, which I think makes simple, minimal configurations more possible. Windows has some better enterprise-wide tools, like MMC, which linux just plain can't touch. Overall, though, my experience is that linux tends to be somewhat more solid. The whole windows/linux thing is kind of a red herring, though. Let's face it: software sucks, no matter the platform. The interfaces haven't advanced in 30 years. What's the substantive difference between the windows/X/Mac OS X interfaces? Why, nothing. (Might as well use the free one in that case, BTW.) My anecdotal experience suggests to me that TCO differences will be rounding errors over the lifetime of some piece of software. Right now, the biggest factors controlling TCO are process oriented. Training. Security. Coherent IT strategy. That's where the big wins are to be had. People are only now figuring out what personal computers are actually GOOD for. The whole process is in its infancy.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||