Is Microsoft Really Less Expensive Than Linux? (CIO)

[Posted September 11, 2003 by corbet]

CIO comments on the Giga Group study claiming that .Net is cheaper than Linux and J2EE for web service applications. "Of course, it's not shocking that a study commissioned by Microsoft should demonstrate the advantages of that company's products over Linux, but the fact that the study was commissioned at all is revealing of the big company's concern. The popularity of Linux - fueled by fear of placing too much control in the hands of a single (notoriously aggressive) vendor and by the widespread conviction that open source software can save you a bucket of money - is rising like the waters of the flood toward the software fortress that Gates built."

(Log in to post comments)

Posted Sep 11, 2003 18:37 UTC (Thu) by TheOneKEA (guest, #615) [Link]

I like this article. CIO has shown just how biased and one-sided the review really is. And the people who commented to this article see it as well.

Is Microsoft Really Less Expensive Than Linux? (CIO)

Posted Sep 11, 2003 20:47 UTC (Thu) by murry (guest, #13033) [Link]

Hat's off to CIO for not slavishly toeing the Redmond line. It seems as if many respected research orgs are being commissioned to reach similar conclusions. It will backfire. Anecdotal evidence of open source viability continues to mount in various market segments.

I for one maintain that a marketplace of competition is far healthier than a monopoly. Competitors who encourage one another, then compete fiercely, have long life cycles. Domination does not bode well when the dominator's strategy is always to step on the ants.

What would life be like if only Toyota sold cars?

Can anyone point out any other giant marketplace that is dominated by a single company, like the OS (and, to a lesser but still significant degree, desktop computer software) marketplaces?

Is Microsoft Really Less Expensive Than Linux? (CIO)

Posted Sep 11, 2003 21:14 UTC (Thu) by gilb (subscriber, #11728) [Link]

One of the most telling things about this latest study is that the press, instead of simply regurgitating the press release, is instead cynical about the results. 2 or more years ago, a press release on a study funded by Microsoft would have uncritically repeated the results with the headline "Microsoft is better/cheaper than Linux doing X". Now a study is an opportunity for the trade press to say "You know, Linux has really arrived and many people are basing their businesses on it." and "The study, paid for by Microsoft, tries to show Linux in a bad light, be we aren't buying it."

Yet another example that Linux, free software and open source is getting mindshare.

Is Microsoft Really Less Expensive Than Linux? (CIO)

Posted Sep 12, 2003 5:29 UTC (Fri) by dkite (guest, #4577) [Link]

I await with baited breath to read a review where they describe the Microsoft solution as "good
for a Microsoft shop". The implication being that you wouldn't use it otherwise.

It's almost there. It's amazing to live through another sea change in this industry. Microsoft has
benefitted from most, but this one must be scary for them.

What really surprised me is the study comparing IBM Mainframe with linux to MS servers. Like,
why? If they are that concerned about losing sales to IBM, they have a real problem.

Derek

bated breath

Posted Sep 19, 2003 20:30 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

bated = stopped or held back. Similar to "abated."

baited = containing bait (e.g. a baited mousetrap).

Is Microsoft Really Less Expensive Than Linux? (CIO)

Posted Sep 11, 2003 22:04 UTC (Thu) by neoprene (guest, #8520) [Link]

"The savings are impressive. For large corporations, the cost of using Microsoft products for development and deployment plus three years of maintenance was 28 percent less than the cost for J2EE/Linux. And for medium-size companies, the Microsoft route was 25 percent cheaper."

... and not to mention the added benefit you get of being completely dependant on a convicted monopoly in addition to whatever games and licensing scams MS may add in the future.

"Linux is not a product, it is a process" - Ian Murdoc.

The "suits" keep treating Linux and other GPL programs as "products" making their comparisons limp and hobble.

Without a monopoly on desk-top OS, M$ would be just another software vendor.
Linux is likely to become adopted as THE desk-top OS _STANDARD_. Widely accepted Standards are extremely vaulable, like the TCP/IP communications protocol and the English language. Keeping such things proprietary is not only not smart, it is also stupid.

Microsoft better hang on to their $45 billion in cash, thats likely to be the last Judas money they will ever see.

I expect to see even more studies how .NET will save the planet. ( .net is a URL nomenclature, somebody stop M$ from using this and dictionary WORDs for proprietary products)

Gartner is largly owned by MSFT

Posted Sep 12, 2003 12:08 UTC (Fri) by walterbyrd (guest, #11620) [Link]

Follow the money. I think it works like this:

Integral Capital Management, is one of the largest, if not the largest institional investors in Gartner Group.

Integral Capital Management, is largly owned by MSFT.

BTW: Integral Capital Management, owns 521,410 of SCOX, making them SCOX's largest institional investor.

Gartner is largly owned by MSFT

Posted Sep 12, 2003 12:42 UTC (Fri) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]

What's the tie-up between Integral Capital Management and Canopy? I keep hearing stuff about that, too ...

Cheers,
Wol