ActiveMac - The Most Activated mac Resource

ActiveMac

User Controls

New User

Edit/View My Profile

ActiveMac

Articles

Forums

Links

News

News Search

Reviews

News Centers

Windows/Microsoft

DVD

ActiveHardware

Xbox

MaINTosh

News Search

ANet Chats

The Lobby

Special Events Room

Developer's Lounge

XBox Chat

FAQ's

Windows 98/98 SE

Windows 2000

Windows Me

Windows "Whistler" XP

Windows CE

Internet Explorer 6

Internet Explorer 5

Xbox

DirectX

DVD's

TopTechTips

Registry Tips

Windows 95/98

Windows 2000

Internet Explorer 4

Internet Explorer 5

Windows NT Tips

Program Tips

Easter Eggs

Hardware

DVD

Latest Reviews

Applications

Microsoft Windows XP Professional

Norton SystemWorks 2002

Hardware

Intel Personal Audio Player 3000

Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer

Site News/Info

About This Site

Affiliates

ANet Forums

Default Home Page

Link To Us

Links

Member Pages

Site Search

Awards

Credits
�1997/2004, Active Network. All Rights Reserved.
Layout & Design by Designer Dream. Content written by the Active Network team. Please click here for full terms of use and restrictions or read our Privacy Statement.

Linux TCO edge: Lower labor costs

Time: 00:00 EST/05:00 GMT | News Source: TechRepublic | Posted By: Robert Stein

The question of whether Linux's total cost of ownership (TCO) is lower than that of Windows or other operating systems has inspired many fierce debates among enterprise IT professionals. On initial review, the answer seems simple. Linux's low- or no-cost license fees should drive down the TCO of the open source OS, compared to Windows or other flavors of Unix. But the debate--like the larger debate of Linux vs. Windows--is complicated by administration and support costs that vary for each installation.

Write Comment
Return to News

Displaying 1 through 25 of 434
Last | Next

The time now is 5:52:36 AM ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us

#1 By 6859 (12.219.44.45) at 1/5/2003 9:46:19 PM

Some of my favorites from the article "Schenkenfelder argues that the typical Linux administrator can handle more than the typical Windows admin."

They're comparing apples to oranges again and justifying it. A "typical" Windows box tends to do what? What does a "typical" Linux box do? Do they define "typical operation"? No. They just spout.

I believe it was Mark Twain who said that there are three types of lies: Lies, Damn lies, and Statistics. And as we know statistics can be made to show ANYTHING you like, but without even ground and locked-in definitions you get crap.

"Brian Schenkenfelder, president of Kentucky-based Linux consultancy..."

More proof, if he was the head of a MCSE training ground he'd say the opposite. He KNOWS what side his bread is buttered on.

100K hits per day, Windows needs 7.6 servers? What kind of crappy systems are they running there? I can do that on NT4 without blinking! ONE SERVER! NOT 7!!!

This is crap.

#2 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 1/5/2003 10:23:33 PM

Guys... relax. The Linux community doesn't except TCO analysis that shows Windows on top, so why should we accept a similar analysis that shows Linux on top?

All I know is that I can manage a Win2k network a lot more efficently, and with a lot less headache, than I can with Linux.

It takes me a couple of clicks to distribute software across the enterprise, allowing me to guaruntee the users will see the software they want already installed the next time they log in. I can be confident that even if a user goes and deletes some vital files for Office or WinZip that the machine will detect this, and automatically repair the installation in the background, without the user even knowing they did something wrong. I have little doubt that I can instantly lockout a particular user from any resource (not just file/folder resources) on the entire domain with a single click. I am positive that I can have a workstation automatically boot from the network when something is wrong with the OS, repair itself, and reboot... with the user barely noticing something was wrong. I love being able to write all the same scripts I can in Linux while in Windows, have them interact with applications not just with command line arguments, but with COM interfaces... OR utilize the user friendly interface to do much of the same without a single line of code.

Personal incredulity on my part? Perhaps. But I don't really care... I know what works for me, and that's really all that matters.

#3 By 2062 (68.129.118.191) at 1/5/2003 10:42:53 PM

More FUD from the linux thugs

gosh

#4 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 1/6/2003 12:00:52 AM

#6 - Actually, 100k hits per day is almost nothing. 100 million hits per day is where the mice and men get seperated, but 100k a day is trivial.

100k a day is only about 4167 an hour, which is about 70 a minute... which is, for those of you who are mathmatically retarded, just over 1 hit per second.

Considering IIS on a weak machine (PIII-500, 256MB of ram, 100mb ethernet) can easily handle 1000 request per second of static content, and perhaps 400-500 requests per second of database driven content (assuming ASP or ASP.NET) if the database isn't a bottle neck, this requirement for over 7 servers is simply silly.

7 Win2k Servers with the stats listed above should be able to handle (again, on average) about 604,800,000 requests for static content, or assuming a fairly weak 200 rps, 120,960,000 requests for dynamic content, all in a 24 hour period.

Without knowing more about their setup, it's impossible to determine why their results were so bad. Considering I've never seen even the most demanding of applications bring IIS down to 1 rps, I have to conclude they screwed up...

#5 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 1/6/2003 12:03:54 AM

Wait a minute!

This is rehashed news. The RFG TCO Study on Linux came out last July from IBM. That's already been hashed over and generally found to be incredibly flawed with many blind assumptions made.

http://www-1.ibm.com/linux/RFG-LinuxTCO-vFINAL-Jul2002.pdf

I question the integrity of a journalist who would repost something like that as new news. Must have not had much time to write with the holidays and such.

#6 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 1/6/2003 12:13:22 AM

Hahah... good catch Soda.

#7 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 1/6/2003 8:51:09 AM

#10 - "Had you adequately locked down your system, the user would never had stuffed up the application in the first place."

In a perfect world of happy applications, I would agree. But many applications (including non-legacy, very expensive ones) require read/write access to the the folder of execution. This means they will not run without the user being able to delete at will inside that folder.

"But those applications should be written better..." blah blah. They aren't, and I would rather have a system that offers the ability of setting a particular folder/application to restore itself, than telling my user they can't run something because it sucks.

"The only access the user should have is to their personal folder on the server and ability to execute assigned applications related to their job."

Well, sometimes this is not realistic. When I was a sysadmin, I had to support not only the companies workstations, but also laptops owned by employees. I can't go around restricting what employees can do with their own laptops, but at the same time I need to be able to ensure a certain level of reliability of that workstation, regardless of whether or not the user has complete access to it. In these cases, the restoration features of Win2k are perfect. The user will always have full access to their machine, but the applications assigned to them via the company will be available after their first login automatically, and will always work as long as their on the domain.

So, unlike the Linux/Unix world... where I would have one option that works fine in perfect-land, in Win2k, I have many options - offering a wide variety of possible solutions to the problem.

#8 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 1/6/2003 10:28:19 AM

"In a perfect world of happy applications, I would agree. But many applications (including non-legacy, very expensive ones) require read/write access to the the folder of execution."

Here, here, RMD. I have a similar problem here with our accounting app. It needs write access to the root of C: (for some unknown reason) and thus is broken for certain functions on Windows XP. I struggled for about 4 months trying to convince the software company that was what was happening, and just now (12/31) they said that they will make changes to the software in an upcoming release. But until then, either we do without accounting, or....

It's frustrating how so many developers seem to write under the presumption (or ignorance, more likely?) that every user is a local administrator.

#9 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 1/6/2003 10:40:50 AM

In the media's constant battle to will Linux to beat MS, I present you with... (this article)

#10 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 1/6/2003 11:05:51 AM

matgarnz - "As for Windows situation, sure, you can't be a little hitler on the laptop front, however, on the workstation front, they should be so tightly tied down that the only thing the employees can do is work. For example, why does a employee require a CDROM? get rid of it. "

Why do employees need you to support their computer? Get rid of you and replace you with someone who is more willing to let them do what they want.

There is a balance. It's called "Personal" computer for a reason.

At our company the desktop supported started going that direction, they didn't want developers to have admin rights. It got to a point where we started looking at what it would involve to just buy our own computers from Dell instead of going through our desktop group. At that point the desktop group woke up to reality.

It's that "Personal" aspect which is what brought the PC into the corporate world.

#11 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 1/6/2003 1:17:17 PM

Why are you people going crazy about this? This whole article is about the numerous conflicting TCO stories, tries to be equitable to all of them, but mostly points out where differences will arise and it's final point is, that considering your own circumstances, TCO for Windows or Linux may or may not be lower. How can you dispute that conclusion? This is why there is old data--it's just citing major TCO studies for inclusiveness. Jesus, the title is misleading, but can't anyone else read this article with a little objectivity?

#12 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 1/6/2003 1:49:50 PM

matgarnz - "Is it really necessary to take things to the logical extreme?"

No, but it's fun.

"What your employer is doing is plain stupid. A technology company is COMPLETELY different to the normal mainstream finance, government or other non-IT related industry."

Well we're actually a financial company, but we develop software.

No, I understand what your saying, but even on the regular employee side I do not think the draconian control argument works very well. You either give them certain levels of access, or you need to be really really responsive to their needs.

The reason the PC came into existence in business is because in the days of the Mainframe and 3270 terminals business people would go to IT and say "I need a report that shows the last quarters results broken down by product group" or some such. IT would say "Ok, that'll take me six weeks, I'll get back to you."

At some point someone realized that if they downloaded the data themselves into Lotus 123 they could have the report done in an afternoon. Thus people started going to computerland and buying PC's.

If you try to take the PC environment and turn it back into the old IT world, the endusers will again be stifled and go look for other solutions.

You know maybe her task is only processing accounts, but now her boss has asked her to install and run this application provided by NASD to enter in the information they will need to report to regulatory agencies this year. If she calls IT to have them come do this, it better be done in a timely manner.

Oftentimes it is easier to just let the users be able to self-manage their machines to a certain extent.

#13 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 1/6/2003 1:52:13 PM

sodajerk - "Why are you people going crazy about this? This whole article is about the numerous conflicting TCO stories, tries to be equitable to all of them"

Actually no that's not what the article is about, nor is it trying to be equitable. Otherwise you would not see a title like "Linux TCO Edge: Lower Labor costs".

And no, nobody is going crazy over this, we're simply disagreeing with it.

#14 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 1/6/2003 2:46:47 PM

"Linux TCO Edge: Lower Labor Costs"

Sounds like a marketing whitepaper by IBM or Red Hat.

#15 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 1/7/2003 8:59:04 AM

#22 - BenQ

I live in Boston, and have a friend who is quite familiar with Ximian and Miguel. He finds it very unlikely that Miguel gets paid 6 figures.

Where did you get your information?

#16 By 4240821 (45.149.82.86) at 10/26/2023 4:22:32 AM