SEATTLE (Reuters) - Most U.S. businesses say there is very little difference between the cost of maintaining a Windows versus a Linux-based corporate computing environment, according to a new Yankee Group study released on Monday. The main cost difference, said Yankee Group analyst Laura DiDio, is determined by the amount of time it takes to develop applications or ensure the security of servers, the networked computers that store data, crunch numbers and serve up Web pages. "What we found is that costs are not really dependent on the underlying functionality in the core operating system," DiDio said. Read the rest of the article at Reuters.
One of my biggest problems with the article is that it said something about the security rating for the Windows server has about doubled since last year. That seems a bit fishy to me. How, in a year, have so many people decide that "oh wait, my windows server is good"? I actually kinda liked the comment toward the end that said something in the effect of people not needing so much of a reason to change OS as a reason not to keep the one they already have. I think the problem is that most people just aren't informed enough about the real differences of Linux and Windows to make a truly educated decision regarding which OS to choose for either business or home. Not to mention that there are an incredibly large amount of stupid admins for businesses
Fred, nowhere in the article does it say technical guys were polled. FTA: These could be people from anyplace, in any job position. Reliable source, eh? In my mind, the only objective and realistic TCO/value evaulation must come from experienced IT leadership with plenty of experience in both Windows and Linux environments. How can a Unix admin with no Windows experience give a sensible answer about Windows TCO? Isn't the reverse also true? In my own limited experience, I have administrated both Windows and Linux systems. The company I currently work for has a 100% Linux backend, meaning servers, routers, etc, with some scattered Linux workstations. I have carefully weighed the advantages and disadvantages of a complete migration, since administrating the Windows clients eats up easily 90% of my time while the Linux stations 'just work'. In the rare case the Linux boxen require my attention of any kind, I can easily accomplish everything I need to do quickly and securely, without ever leaving my cubicle. With the Windows boxes... well, you know. Everything must be done in person, not to mention time & money wasted on spyware and virus sweeps (and it really pisses off the users, having you move them out of the way to do this kind of thing). And stupid things like common print-spooler crashes drive the poor office people up the wall. However, being a heavily CAD-oriented company, we simply cannot migrate all the workstations presently since I haven't found CAD software for Linux that's even remotely as good as AutoCAD. For now we'll remain a hybrid shop. Does this mean I agree with the article? Hell no. Let me elaborate: the CEO of our company is a very intelligent man, although not extremely IT savy (his background is industrial engineering). Yet he noticed the bottom line of our Linux solutions, and asked why it couldn't be implemented company-wide. After all, by using Linux wherever possible, we've saved thousands of dollars in licensing fees, 3rd party software (like Anti-virus solutions) -- this not to mention the hundreds of man hours in avoided maintenance and downtime, and other generally unspoken factors like professional appearance. Our NT5 servers were down more than they were up, and were often casualies of viruses and successful hack attempts. Although the system compromises were due to the fact that the previous IT had not properly configured nor regularly patched the NT5 servers, the fact remains that they were generally unstable regardless. In contrast, our Linux servers automatically update themselves daily, requiring no user interaction. Even if they were neglected for years, it's likely they'd keep on doing what they have been doing since they first went up, without interruption. As of this writing, not one of our Linux boxes has been down for anything but to move them from one building to another. That to me is a big part of TCO. Linux pulls more weight around here than Windows, and by a sizable sum.
I just post the news I don't write it . It's upto each individuals judgement whether to listen to it or not.
What we need is an OS that has all the ones available combined. The security and power of Linux, the solid as a rock OS X, and of course, not forgetting, Windows' pretty colours.
ahahah, missed the pretty colours. something about bright purple on yellow striped backing with brown shadows (or any other combination of "crud" colours) doesn't rank as pretty in my colour ranking book.
