Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business Businesses Microsoft Software The Almighty Buck Linux

Yankee Group Survey Says Windows, Linux TCO Equal 351

Posted by timothy from the don't-trust-statistics-unless-they-apply-to-you dept.
prostoalex writes "A new survey by Yankee Group analyst Laura DiDio shows Windows and Linux are viewed as equal by U.S. businesses. In the eternal OS wars, '88 percent of respondents said that the quality, performance and reliability of Windows was equal to or better than Linux.' Companies were also asked to rank the operating systems on security. On a scale of 1 to 10 'companies rated Microsoft's security at 7.6, double the rating in a similar survey conducted last year. Linux's rating was mostly the same at 8.3.' Conclusion? 'DiDio said that most companies -- whether large or small -- rarely take the huge step of replacing one operating system with another. Instead, they usually add a mix of Windows and Linux server software to expand functionality.' Microsoft used last year's Yankee Group survey results in their Get the facts campaign."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Yankee Group Survey Says Windows, Linux TCO Equal More

Yankee Group Survey Says Windows, Linux TCO Equal

Comments Filter:

  • What are they using? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fembots ( 753724 ) on Monday April 04, 2005 @08:27PM (#12139568) Homepage
    The survey needs to take into account what OS the respondents are currently using, that's the single most important factor.

    You don't use an OS that you don't like, and if that's not true (e.g. you're forced to use a pre-installed OS), then you probably wouldn't know any better alternative if you've been using only one OS.

    If a Linux-only user said Windows is better, or vice versa, what does that mean? How does he come to this conclusion? The most credible answers should be from Multi-OS users.

    I'm not saying this study is inaccurate, but there are simly too many things to consider, and this may well lead to a simple conclusion - software choice is more on personal preference than anything else.

    • Re:What are they using? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Cruithne ( 658153 ) on Monday April 04, 2005 @08:32PM (#12139607)
      Another factor, the study says 88% said windows was equal or better - but how many said it was better versus equal? And were they given an option between the two?

      More importantly, how many people said linux was better versus people that said windows was better...

      This post seems suspiciously void of those kind of common-sense numbers.

    • Re:What are they using? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Monkelectric ( 546685 ) <{slashdot} {at} {monkelectric.com}> on Monday April 04, 2005 @08:45PM (#12139694)
      Yep, this is fluff journalism/science, whatever they claim it is. What the study basically says is- peoples confidence in their OS is about the same no matter what OS they use.

    • Re:What are they using? (Score:4, Informative)

      by mboverload ( 657893 ) on Monday April 04, 2005 @08:53PM (#12139758) Journal
      Windows XP is pretty secure if you know what you are doing. Disable the services, get antivirus and a firewall and you are set. Don't forget the router firewall, probably the most important part of securing your machine. I have never gotten a virus doing this.

      Then again, this only works with people who know what they hell they are doing. No matter what I would never recommend Windows as a internet-facing server. I run a Windows 2003 server here in my home but it is just to learn it and host a small site with little traffic.

      • Re:What are they using? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Zeinfeld ( 263942 ) on Monday April 04, 2005 @09:13PM (#12139876) Homepage
        Then again, this only works with people who know what they hell they are doing.

        Which goes the same for pretty much any O/S. If you have a pinhead they will configure the machine insecurely.

        No matter what I would never recommend Windows as a internet-facing server. I run a Windows 2003 server here in my home but it is just to learn it and host a small site with little traffic.

        You mean even if the figures say that Windows is more secure you will never choose it? Or are you only referring to the current release?

        Whatever, I think that Linux advocates should take a lesson from history, it is really hard to maintain an O/S distinction in the security area. The only reason Linux is any better is that UNIX machines have been Internet connected by default for about 15 years while with windows its only about 8. Read the CERT advisories from the 90s, they are almost all reports of UNIX vulnerabilities.

        UNIX got cleaned up, Windows will be cleaned up. Back in the 90s UNIX was a byword for insecurity, people still used SUID scripts and shadow passwords were only used by a minority.

        What is more interesting here is the derrivative. The perception of Windows is improving rapidly, the perception of Linux is pretty static. I don't see a heck of a lot of new security action going on in the Linux world. There is a heck of a lot going on in the Windows world.

        • So all OSes are built exaclty the same? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Infonaut ( 96956 ) <infonaut@gmail.com> on Monday April 04, 2005 @09:50PM (#12140074) Homepage Journal
          The only reason Linux is any better is that UNIX machines have been Internet connected by default for about 15 years while with windows its only about 8.

          This is the same argument as the old saw about how simply because Windows is the dominant consumer operating system it is the target of more malware. It ignores the fact that operating systems are not all built in the same fashion. For example, what about pre-OS X versions of the Macintosh? What about OpenBSD or Bastille Linux?

          These discussions about OS security tend to ignore the fact that the *NIX distro or Windows version you're using can significantly impact security. Just as all OSes are not the same in terms of usability, I think it's a gross simplification to say that they're pretty much equal in security.

        • Re:What are they using? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Coryoth ( 254751 ) on Monday April 04, 2005 @10:02PM (#12140138) Homepage Journal
          What is more interesting here is the derrivative. The perception of Windows is improving rapidly, the perception of Linux is pretty static. I don't see a heck of a lot of new security action going on in the Linux world. There is a heck of a lot going on in the Windows world.

          If you don't see much happening with regard to security in the Linux and UNIX world, then you simply aren't really paying enough attention. UNIX is getting fitted with a new, significant, very powerful, security architecture. The difference is aking the the difference between a single-user and a multi-user os. It's coming to Linux via SELinux (though there are other implementations of the basic concept such as RSBAC). The BSDs have it in TrustedBSD, and the new (open source) Solaris 10 has it (Trusted Solaris has been integrated into the main branch). Does Windows have anything even close anywhere on the horizon? No.

          Sure, for all of these systems the security architecture is new, and by default it is often either off, or in a relatively minimal configuration. The point is that it is already developed, and implemented, and in the respective kernels. From here it's a matter of educating users and developers, getting better application support allowing for stronger/stricter policies by default, and building better tools to configure and administer the system. For Windows any level of Mandatory Access Controls is still in the hazy future, to be implemented, at best, in the release after Longhorn. By the time Windows secures all its holes UNIX may well have moved a quantum leap ahead.

          Jedidiah.

        • Re:What are they using? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by FreeBSD evangelist ( 873412 ) on Monday April 04, 2005 @10:48PM (#12140415)
          What is more interesting here is the derrivative. The perception of Windows is improving rapidly, the perception of Linux is pretty static. I don't see a heck of a lot of new security action going on in the Linux world. There is a heck of a lot going on in the Windows world.

          There's a lot of "security action" going on in Windows because there's a lot that needs to be done. If they were to get close to the security of the average FreeBSD box (like, never) that activity would slow down too.

        • Re:What are they using? (Score:5, Informative)

          by galdur ( 829400 ) on Monday April 04, 2005 @10:52PM (#12140438) Homepage
          Maybe you should take a look at those CERT advisories again:

          Red Hat:
          http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/bymetric?searchview&qu ery=red*hat&searchorder=4&count=100 [cert.org]
          Microsoft:
          http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/bymetric?searchview&qu ery=microsoft&searchorder=4&count=100 [cert.org]

          Guess which list is longer?
          SELinux, Novell's SUSE Linux CC EAL4+ certification (where's XP's/2003's EAL4+ cert?).

          Not to mention that the French government is putting 7 million euros into creating a Linux derivative with a CC EAL5+ certification. Windows ahead? Pah.

      • Re:What are they using? (Score:4, Funny)

        by flyingsquid ( 813711 ) on Monday April 04, 2005 @10:09PM (#12140192)
        Windows XP is pretty secure if you know what you are doing. Disable the services, get antivirus and a firewall and you are set. Don't forget the router firewall, probably the most important part of securing your machine.

        Final step: unplug Windows machine from network.

      • I'll never consider XP a secure OS as long as it is required to have administrator/enhanced privileges to run consumer-level software.

        skribe

    • Re:What are they using? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by belmolis ( 702863 ) <billposerNO@SPAMalum.mit.edu> on Monday April 04, 2005 @08:53PM (#12139762) Homepage

      It's really too bad that we don't have access to the actual study. Without it it is hard to judge very much. I went to the Yankee Group web site and found their press release, which is a little bit more informative than the news item, but not much. Elsewhere on the Yankee Group site they reveal that the study will not be available until JUNE 2005. Funny that they are issuing press releases now about a study that won't be released for two months. I wonder if that is so that they can have their impact now and defer the hard criticism?

      Anyhow, there was an interesting bit in the YG press release:

      However, Yankee Group's survey shows Linux gaining momentum as a complementary server presence in Windows networks. More than 50% of companies surveyed said they plan to install Linux in parallel with, or in addition to, existing Windows operating systems.

      I think that this gives us a hint of what is going on. If MS Windows were really perceived as better than Linux, or even equal, the cost of making a change and general inertia would presumably result in little Linux adoption. The fact that the same businesses in which MS Windows has an overall reputation of being better than Linux are adding Linux or shifting partly to Linux suggests that there is actually a perception of Linux as better and/or cheaper. I suspect that what is going on is that the reputation questions were answered largely by managers with little firsthand technical knowledge, who have, however, been pushed by their technie subordinates to allow a shift in the direction of Linux.

    • Re:What are they using? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AstroDrabb ( 534369 ) * on Monday April 04, 2005 @09:25PM (#12139936)
      Why don't we look at this rationally. The Yankee Group doesn't do "studies" for free. The Yankee Group are a for-profit company. So basically someone paid the Yankee Group to do this "study".

      Now, who could it be? Could it be Red Hat, SuSE, IBM or some other pro-Linux company? I have serious doubts about that. What about Microsoft? Well, MS has certainly paid for other "studies" to be done in the past. So I don't think there would be any major reason to not count MS in on this "study". Basically we just need to find out _who_ paid for this "study" to really see where the bias lays.

      I remember last year I had a phone call from some unknown company that was doing a "study" about MS. I was asked how I felt about MS as a company. How I felt about the products put out by MS and if I "trusted" MS. As soon as I answered that I "did not trust MS as a company", I was told my "interview" was over and "thank you for your time". So it seems as soon as one of these companies get a negative response about the company that are footing the bill, the interview dies.

      Does anyone know who _paid_ for this "study"?

      • Yep, you hit the nail on the head. Serious scientists call these "researchers" who perform studies for-profit and for interest groups "whores". If you pay for a study, even one whose results can be objectively measured and the study is conducted properly, the official conclusions and the way it is presented to the media will push the desired outcome even when not borne out by the numbers themselves. An average perceived security rating of 7.6 vs 8.3 may actually be a signifcant difference if the survey was

    • Re:What are they using? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by jdwest ( 760759 ) on Monday April 04, 2005 @09:25PM (#12139939)

      Who the hell are "the respondents"? What was the methodology? What was the exact wording of the question?

      The list goes on ..

      Sorry, I conduct research for a living. This kind of drive-by "journalism," simply report-what-the-findings-were reporting pisses me off to no end.

  • No comment... (Score:3, Funny)

    by kwoo ( 641864 ) <kjwcodeNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday April 04, 2005 @08:28PM (#12139574) Homepage Journal

    If they say that Windows is better than Linux, there's a shitstorm of comments. Ditto if they say Linux is better than Windows. But either my timing is good today, or no one has anything to say about them being equal. :P

    • Re:No comment... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by wasted ( 94866 ) on Monday April 04, 2005 @08:39PM (#12139657)
      From the Article: "Server operating systems are largely commoditized," DiDio said, adding that many companies were not tracking their operating costs closely enough to base their decisions on total cost of ownership, or TCO, the main cost metric when comparing Linux and Windows.

      So, they ask the bosses "What is the TCO for Windows-based servers?"
      "I don't know"

      Then, they ask the bosses "What is the TCO for Linux-based servers?"
      "I don't know"

      Since "I don't know" equals "I don't know", the conclusion is that the operating systems have equal TCOs, at least in the eyes of the business managers.
      • Very true. Also most organizations are using A LOT of Windows especially on the desktop, so for them to admit that Linux is better (more secure, cheaper, whatever) would be admitting they are doing it wrong... Thus not a common trait of managers.

  • Opinion Based (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 04, 2005 @08:29PM (#12139580)
    '88 percent of respondents said that the quality, performance and reliability of Windows was equal to or better than Linux.' Companies were also asked to rank the operating systems on security. On a scale of 1 to 10 'companies rated Microsoft's security at 7.6, double the rating in a similar survey conducted last year. Linux's rating was mostly the same at 8.3.'

    Notice, it doesn't say security professionals for security, it doesn't say economists for TCO, it says companies. I'm sorry, but the first thing to enter my mind in this situation is a "Pointy Haired Boss" filling these things out. It's basically an opinion survey, pointless in anything but spreading FUD.

    • That's the point (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jerometremblay ( 513886 ) on Monday April 04, 2005 @08:41PM (#12139674) Homepage
      If your intent is to measure their PERCEPTION, this is exactly what you need to do.

      Instead of taking it as FUD and discarding it, consider it as a TODO list to increase your favorite OS acceptance (whatever that may be).
      • If you read the article, it is not being portrayed as perception.

        "Study shows Microsoft and Linux Neck-and-Neck"
        Not "Perceived as Roughly Equivalent"

        "Most U.S. businesses say there is very little difference between the cost of maintaining a Windows versus a Linux-based corporate computing environment."
        Many of whom, the article goes on to say, don't really bother to keep track of the costs in the first place.

        "In the independent study, 88 percent of respondents said that the quality, performance and re

      • But in this case, it's /not/ a question of what one needs to do - it's asking the proper question to the person who is /qualified/ to answer it. That would be the difference between a good survey ('...we asked network security experts about network security issues and got the following results...') versus creating a good marketing tool ('...we asked marketing experts about network security issues, and got the following results...').

        In the first instance, you've provided real information that decisionmakers

    • Not FUD! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CaymanIslandCarpedie ( 868408 ) on Monday April 04, 2005 @08:48PM (#12139718) Journal
      I don't see how this survey can be considered FUD. They aren't saying anything either is better or worse than the other. They simply relay feelings of their respondants.

      The whole point of this of course isn't to compare the platforms or make a suggestion on which is better, it just conveys the feelings of their respondants.

      Should this be used as a basis for a decision for what to use? Of course not!!! Is this an interesting insight into the current thinking of corporate IT departments? Yes.

      It isn't FUD and isn't pointless, but if you take any of this as FACT, thats your mistake. This is simply an interesting look at current thinking. If this thinking is correct or not isn't the point. Its like saying a poll finding 80% of people are against the war in Iraq is FUD. That poll wouldn't wouldn't mean we should or shouldn't be there (as the respondants may not really be qualified to know), it would just give an interesting view of what people are thinking.

      Read this article as such.

      • Re:Not FUD! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by nmos ( 25822 ) on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @12:22AM (#12140932)
        I don't see how this survey can be considered FUD. They aren't saying anything either is better or worse than the other. They simply relay feelings of their respondants.

        Maybe and maybe not. From the article we really don't know who was surveyed. Given Didio's history I wouldn't put it past her to have selected the people/companies being questioned to give whatever results she's being paid to find this week.
    • Linux and Windows having perceived security ratings of 8.3 and 7.6 isn't interesting, but what is interesting is that Windows perceived security rating doubled in one year. It may be time for Linux advocates to find another argument besides "security". The "stability" argument is no more, the "security" argument is losing steam, so I guess "price" is the only argument left (although, if the perceived TCO is the same for Linux and Windows, even the "price" argument doesn't have much steam).

  • equal? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Cruithne ( 658153 ) on Monday April 04, 2005 @08:29PM (#12139582)
    That's not something you see very often, usually its a landslide one direction or the other, depending on who did (or didn't) pay for the study.

    From my experience, this seems to be fairly accurate (as far as company's interpretations). Can anyone else back that up?

    • Re:equal? (Score:3, Informative)

      by node 3 ( 115640 )
      That's not something you see very often,

      What do you think the odds are that Windows and Linux are actually both equal?

      "TCO" is completely subjective--it's not a universal value. It's like trying to define the 'universal frame' in physics. There is no such thing.

      Does your company require the features of Exchange? Is the cost of *not* having those features higher than the cost of the support and licensing for the Exchange server? Is your company a science/engineering centered one? In that case, Unix is mo

  • So consider... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rasafras ( 637995 ) <(tamas) (at) (pha.jhu.edu)> on Monday April 04, 2005 @08:30PM (#12139586) Homepage
    "Instead, they usually add a mix of Windows and Linux server software to expand functionality."

    Thus, they have the ability to directly compare between both. If they find Linux to be infinitely better, they would switch. Different tasks -> different tools, however, so they use both.
  • ...two years ago, I would not believe that such a story can get posted on slashdot.

  • DiDio. Why am I not surprised? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MsGeek ( 162936 ) on Monday April 04, 2005 @08:32PM (#12139603) Homepage Journal
    DiDio is a total shill for Microsoft. I don't know why /. dotes on her every word. She isn't an unbiased source, y'know.

    The non-biased information all says the obvious: Linux has TCO ownage on Windows. That said, I'd like to see a TCO study where Linux and Windows are compared to MacOS X, especially now that Apple has a relatively cheap model that could be a great replacement for enterprise desktops.

    • Re:DiDio. Why am I not surprised? (Score:5, Informative)

      by wct ( 45593 ) on Monday April 04, 2005 @08:56PM (#12139785)

      In fact, her position has often been more anti-Linux than pro-Microsoft. This is the same Laura Didio that signed the SCO NDA back in 2003 and came back to report: [computerworld.com]

      "The courts are going to ultimately have to prove this, but based on what I'm seeing ... I think there is a basis that SCO has a credible case," and "This is not a nuisance case."

    • This says it all: (Score:4, Informative)

      by Sweetshark ( 696449 ) on Monday April 04, 2005 @09:28PM (#12139949)
      http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/facts /videos/didio_video.wvx [microsoft.com]

      com'on guys, microsoft.com needs some traffic ...
      • This was actually the first time, (after years of disrespect for this woman and her work) that I have actually seen her. Now you can call me shallow, but the fact she is like 400 pounds brings a certain personal satisfaction to my heart. I know how difficult your life gets with 50 extra pounds, now 250 extra, thats something. I might almost feel sorry for her. .. nah ... who am I kidding? :)

    • Re:DiDio. Why am I not surprised? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by aldoman ( 670791 ) on Monday April 04, 2005 @09:58PM (#12140122) Homepage
      I disagree entirely.

      The fact is that the OS is not a big price for a major company. When I can go on dell.com and order 10 2.4GHz Celeron machines with a copy of WinXP Pro for $349, it's not a big deal at all.

      Let's say these are for secretarial use. 99% of secreteries know how to use Windows, Word and Outlook.

      Let's say I also spend $200-$300 (a day basically) on a techinican to set up a group policy and install Firefox on all these machines. These machines now can't run .exe, .pif etc etc and Firefox means veryl ittle crap is going to come in from the web.

      Looking at the Windows startup cost it's $349x10 + $300 = $3790.

      Now let's see the Linux cost. I'm going to get a maximum of $50 off those Dell machines for chosing Home instead of Pro, I can't 'not have' Windows on it. So that makes it $299/machine. Let's say the cost of installing Linux on each of these is $0.

      Now let's look at my army of typists. None of them know how to use Linux/GNOME, OpenOffice or Evolution. So I train them. I hire a training guy to come in for a day to give them a crash course on how to use Linux, and he charges me $200. However, I've got to pay my typists anyway, $100/ea for the day. So that's $100x10 + $200 = $1200.

      Linux startup cost: $2990 + $1200 = $4190. Windows wins.

      Now, this is probably a bad example, but training costs, which are not going to change for the short to medium term, are very expensive.

      For many small businesses this is the situation they have, and it's even worse if they have specialist apps they need to run on Windows.

      So saying 'Linux has TCO ownage on Windows' is a bit unfair. It's very much true (IMO) for servers and workstations. But for average 'business desktops' I don't think it is.

      • Re:DiDio. Why am I not surprised? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Now let's see the Linux cost. I'm going to get a maximum of $50 off those Dell machines for chosing Home instead of Pro, I can't 'not have' Windows on it. So that makes it $299/machine. Let's say the cost of installing Linux on each of these is $0

        It was $79 when I checked. But with the right login scripts, it seems you can actually make Home play nice on a Windows network. As for not getting $50 off for not choosing XP home, you can blame MS for that. In order to get the $50 price, OEMs pay for a license

      • Re:DiDio. Why am I not surprised? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by clare-ents ( 153285 ) on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @06:29AM (#12142222) Homepage
        Haven't you forgotten to buy Word and Outlook ? 10xWord + 10xOutlook might swing your calculation the other way.

        Now lets add on the fact you might need a server to store the files with 10 CALS. Then you might need a copy of Exchange so that email can be managed. Suddenly your costs are rocketing in both technician time & software costs.

  • Windows XP and 2000 arn't bad, just expensive (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 04, 2005 @08:33PM (#12139621)
    Actually Windows XP and 2000 are both pretty reliable products. I haven't had any problems with XP/2000 reliability (unlike Windows95/98 crash randomly).

    As for performance and driver support, Linux wins on performance but windows wins on support.

    I'd say they are equal if you discount price, which this survey did.
    • I don't even have a problem with the price. What's keeping me from ever using XP is Product Activation. I hate the fact that I'd always be treated like a thief. That'd I have to essentially ask permission to change my hardware (which is something I do quite often, I go through at least three motherboards a year, at the least.)

      That's the exact same reason I never bought Half Life 2. I just hate the idea that someone has control over my computer other than me.

      That's why I'll eventually switch to Linux.

    • Re:Windows XP and 2000 arn't bad, just expensive (Score:4, Interesting)

      by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Monday April 04, 2005 @08:48PM (#12139725) Homepage Journal
      "I'd say they are equal if you discount price, which this survey did."

      Seconded. After the switch to NT, Windows was actually quite usable for both servers and workstations at my previous job. Our IIS webserver had an uptime of over 180 days. (Pity we had to move it, I'm curious how long it would have lasted.)

      When the engineers switched to Linux, though, there were all kinds of stupid problems getting it working. Some of them were networking, some of them had to do with flawed implementations of stuff we needed to work. (i.e. on dual-proc machines, the clock would sometimes jitter back and forth a second or two.)

      I'd like to mention a couple of things, though, since dues with mod-points are often vindictive when legitimate complaints about Linux surface:

      1.) This was a couple of years ago. Those problems may or may not still exist. I think it'd even be fair to say that most of the problems were likely unusual. The workstations were both development stations AND custom software was being written on them.

      2.) Some of the networking problems we had may not necessarily have been the fault of Linux on the workstations. It was, however, very difficult to tell. I remember watching the engineers googling for various networking tools just to narrow down the list of suspects.

      • I work in a Microsoft shop. We've got 600 servers, all Windows 2000 and 2003. We use the hell out of AD, we have 50 sites, and over 6,000 workstations. It's not a huge company but it's formidable.

        Anyways, the bane of any Windows IT person these days is patches. Almost every single Windows patch requires a reboot. Even some of the IE patches.

        Microsoft releases new patches every Month. On Feb 8th they released 12 of them. That's 12 patches we need to determine if we're going to install, test the

    • Re:Windows XP and 2000 arn't bad, just expensive (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Glowing Fish ( 155236 ) on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @12:08AM (#12140866) Homepage
      'd say they are equal if you discount price, which this survey did.

      Price isn't the only aspect of the idea of licensing software. I think many people don't realize how easy it is to get hardware, and how fluid the hardware situation can be.

      Say you have some people doing a data entry job. Say that for whatever reason, you have a sudden excess of data that needs to be entered. With a Linux set up, you could take an old computer, put together a terminal, and have someone enter data for a day, and then you can throw that computer back in a closet. With Windows, you would need to buy a seperate license for that computer, even if you were using it for a day. Similiar situations exist all over, from small jobs like this, to someone who might have a temporary spike in web traffic for a week, and needs another server to cover it. Dealing with the technicalities of getting a license for these things would be somewhere between a nuisance, and a threat (if you do it wrong).

      Many people, especially in management, wouldn't realize this is a problem, because they grew up in an era when your computer hardware was too heavy and rare to move. Now, when you could get a P-266 off of a pile, or at a garage sale, and turn it into a backup webserver in one hour, the entire idea of licensing specific computers makes less sense.

  • From TFA... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Suhas ( 232056 ) on Monday April 04, 2005 @08:35PM (#12139628)
    .... "Server operating systems are largely commoditized," DiDio said, adding that many companies were not tracking their operating costs closely enough to base their decisions on total cost of ownership, or TCO, the main cost metric when comparing Linux and Windows.

    If they are not tracking operating costs, then that means they are only tracking the initial cost of acquisition, which for Linux, is ..umm...zero. So how exactly is the windows TCO equal to that of Linux? What a fucking troll of an article.

  • Irrelevant (Score:3, Insightful)

    by pegasustonans ( 589396 ) on Monday April 04, 2005 @08:35PM (#12139632)
    Yeah, so a bunch of people are asked for their opinion about which OS is better. How is this even remotely relevant to anyone other than social scientists and marketers?
  • Maybe Yankee Group does see a realized saving and need to do an about-face just to save their face.

  • No surprise (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 04, 2005 @08:37PM (#12139643)
    Well I'm not surprised because it sounds like they are asking employers which they think is better. And lets face it, when it comes to playing video games Windows pretty much has it in the bag. Well at least thats what my employer uses Windows for.

  • What was their sample? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Admiral Trigger Happ ( 807561 ) on Monday April 04, 2005 @08:40PM (#12139664) Homepage
    It would be easier enough to get a "mathmatically" representative sample with very small number of people who have never used linux. I have worked for or with Business that have setup Windows and Linux Networks also mixed enviroments, and for some of them it windows had a lower TCO (thats because they would have had to train too many staff to use Linux and that was awhile ago) Other people find that a Linux network as a significantly lower TCO than Windows. On the topic of training we have got people to sit down on a linux box (properly configured) with no prior linux exp, and they thought it was better than windows. ------ Admiral Trigger Happy

  • The only thing that changes is the write up (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    In most cases, both Linux and Windows are growing at the expense of Sun Microsystems Inc.'s (Nasdaq:SUNW - news) Unix-based servers

    DiDio said that most companies -- whether large or small -- rarely take the huge step of replacing one operating system with another. Instead, they usually add a mix of Windows and Linux server software to expand functionality.

    I know all these frontpage stories are framed in terms to churn up a large number of comments, but these quotes have always been true. For all the co

  • DiDio (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bogaboga ( 793279 ) on Monday April 04, 2005 @08:46PM (#12139696)
    I'm just tired of DiDio. Isn't she the one who said just last year, that it will take Linux close to a decade to even be percived to be competitive to Windows? I better become an analyst to. How do I start? And there is Gartner too spewing "facts" about Linux all the time...

  • rather... (Score:4, Funny)

    by zr-rifle ( 677585 ) <zedr@@@zedr...com> on Monday April 04, 2005 @08:50PM (#12139737) Homepage
    "All TCO's are equal, but some are more equal than others..."
  • First more expensive and less secure.

    Now about the same

    Next...

  • Enough of this TCO crap (Score:4, Insightful)

    by js3 ( 319268 ) on Monday April 04, 2005 @09:03PM (#12139821)
    The only we learned from TCO studies is they don't know what the TCO is.

  • Laura DiDio is well known at Groklaw (Score:4, Informative)

    by Nice2Cats ( 557310 ) on Monday April 04, 2005 @09:10PM (#12139860)
    Anybody interested in this study should wander over to Groklaw [groklaw.net] and read up on what they have collected on Laura DiDio -- she's not an unknown in the Linux and especially SCO world. Also, it is interesting that Reuters sold Yankee Group [computerweekly.com], which I don't take as a sign that some of the world's best financial journalists are too impressed with their work.

    But then, maybe they're all wrong and Mrs. DiDio is right. After all, she's an analyst, right?

  • Why fight and get excited about Linux and open source? Looks like most of the common folks wants to get screwd by viruses, likes unpredictable crah, stupid pseudo-productivity tools and want to watch commercials and buy bad art or uncomfortable shoes or stupid dresses anyway.

    More and more it seems to me that we really wanted no progress and wanted to stay in the little village as cave man.

    But nooooooooo ... some .0001 percent of people wanted to see what's new and made life difficult for rest of the 'normal

  • Its all in how you chose your words (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dilvish_the_damned ( 167205 ) on Monday April 04, 2005 @09:17PM (#12139897) Journal
    In terms of security, Yankee Group's survey showed a sharp rise in companies' assessment of Microsoft's security level, bringing it closer to perceived security level of Linux.

    May be more accurately phrased:

    In terms of security, Yankee Group's survey showed a sharp rise in companies' perception of Microsoft's security level, bringing it closer to the assessed security level of Linux.
  • This actually sounds like a retraction. Laura DaDildo has been spouting MS FUD consistently for years now. Why the sudden change in direction?
  • ...poorly done. look at the piece of information the summary is based on.

    "88 percent of respondents said that the quality, performance and reliability of Windows was equal to or better than Linux.'

    That doesn't seem to really give us solid info. Does that mean that they think Linux is what the people surveyed will use as a bench mark? Does that Mean that was the question that asked to the people surveyed (ie Do you think that the quality, performance and reliability of Windows is equal or better than

  • We're still reporting DiDio? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lakeland ( 218447 ) <lakeland@acm.org> on Monday April 04, 2005 @09:26PM (#12139944) Homepage
    Laura Didio is a paid shill, who writes whatever will give her the most hits, regardless of factual content. I've read tabloids with a better grasp of the truth than her.

    According to the article, she's now claiming to have done yet another study which no doubt will get debunked within a couple hours but still cited by microsoft (sans the debunking) months later.

    So, a simple question for everyone? Why bother debunking it? Anybody with more than half a brain already knows Didio is a paid liar, so she's not going to care if you drive a truck through her arguments. The other people on ./ already know she's a shill, they won't care. And the PHBs reading the article via MS's links won't get to read your debunking. Why waste your time on her?

  • Humor the Thought (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 04, 2005 @09:29PM (#12139960)
    Suppose they are equal for now. Then what would happen if, say, one of them destroys the other in the next 30 years?

    Case 1: Linux ends up suiting everyone's needs "for free", so (very) many people leave Microsoft. Cost of ownership (inflation-adjusted): equal or less than today.

    Case 2: Palladium (I guess it's called NGSCB now) becomes reality; Linux, Apple, and all other competition is destroyed. Cost of ownership: 10, 100, or 1000 times more, or maybe just whatever your business can afford.

    Investment: even if the two actually are equal today, and even if TCO is the only factor I consider (i.e. setting aside my enjoyment of Linux), I still have my preference.

    (Did I miss something? It seems like people don't talk about Palladium on /. anymore...)

  • Deployment, etc (Score:3, Insightful)

    by paugq ( 443696 ) <pgquiles&elpauer,org> on Monday April 04, 2005 @09:38PM (#12140003) Homepage
    Some important features Linux has been lacking for a long long time has been ease to deploy software & patches from a central location and a highly-integrated and easy-to-use directory service.

    Sure, you could use scripts and LDAP, but they suck. Those are time-consuming and limited solutions.

    With Novell entering the Linux market (I'd rather say Novell is betting everything to Linux), these is changing: eDirectory, ZenWorks (6.6 works great, I can't wait for 7.0), etc are superior tools and services.

    A lot of companies (mine included) are starting to use SuSe because of the awesome integration of Novell tools with SuSe. We are even deploying it to our clients. Is this the return of Netware, in shape of a Netwared Linux?
    • I swear I was not in drugs when I wrote that! I don't know how could I wrote so many grammar errors in so little text! %-)

  • Question for Accountants (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SunFan ( 845761 ) on Monday April 04, 2005 @09:49PM (#12140066)

    Are companies in denial about the costs of lost productivity due to Windows-based outages? Labor accounting sort of sinks that information away, IMO, and is harder for businesses to quantify as an IT-related expense.

    IIRC, Bill Gates himself said a while ago that companies lose two weeks per year per employee due to Windows' downtime. Having worked on a mixed UNIX and Windows network, this seems about right to me. The Sun's were rebooted a couple times a year for maintenance, and the Windows PCs got rebooted every day. Even on the Windows side of the place, they conceded to Solaris for all the infrastructure where they could, such as e-mail routing, scanning, DNS, etc. Still, that didn't help the Windows server "cluster" that served many of the user accounts.

  • Laura Didio is a con artist, liar and.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by I_redwolf ( 51890 ) * on Monday April 04, 2005 @09:50PM (#12140073) Homepage Journal
    general jokster. In all honesty, who really cares what she has to say? Or for that matter, anything else coming from the Yankee Group in general. It's all joke, smoke and mirrors stuff.

    You know what would be a good idea. A bunch of geeks getting together with a bunch of researchers in their respective fields. Creating honest, non-biased "this is the way it is" anaylsis and reports on TCO/Software/Hardware/etc. Sort of like Consumer Reports(tm) but with more detail and analysis of specific topics.

    Laura Didio? Whatever.. If I want to run my business or anyone elses into the ground; I'll take her advice. Until then, I won't even pretend to RTFA.

  • DiDio is quoted on Groklaw a lot.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Malor ( 3658 ) on Monday April 04, 2005 @11:14PM (#12140580) Journal
    Other than SCO and Darl McBride, I think DiDio is probably held in the lowest possible esteem over on Groklaw. They quote her a lot, and she seems to get it wrong nearly every time. The opinions that I have read by her are consistently pro-SCO, pro-Microsoft, and anti-open source, to the point that I don't think she can be considered an even remotely reliable source.

    So it's particularly interesting that "TCO is equal" is the best she could come up with. If that's the best they can manage, it's a huge win for Open Source. When TCO is equal, why on earth would you pick the software that costs more up front?

    The claim must be that Linux costs more to run, since it's free to install. That was the exact method that Microsoft used for ages to get ahead in the market... it was cheaper up front but cost more to run. That can actually be a very smart business decision, since presumably you'll have more money later than you do now, particuarly if your business is just getting off the ground. (That's part of why leases do so well.)

    Of course, we all know that Linux is probably cheaper to maintain once you have the skills to do so, possibly by an order of magnitude, due to the absolute control you have over the system and the enormous power of the built-in scripting languages.

    But even if you grant that it's more expensive to run, this study shows that Linux is a good choice for many businesses, particularly small ones, or companies growing very quickly without a lot of capital to do it.

  • How long is a piece of string? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cardpuncher ( 713057 ) on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @04:50AM (#12141943)
    What's a "corporate computing environment"?

    The number of Linux *desktops* in "corporate" environments is vanishingly small, so I don't know how any responses could be statistically significant.

    Linux *servers* will be more in evidence, but the role they play will vary significantly. In smaller companies, they may well be used for file and print services. In larger companies, they probably won't because AD makes much more sense in that environment. Mostly, Linux servers will be web servers and the TCO will depend almost entirely on the type of application you're trying to build and the development and support time using the chosen tools (J2EE/PHP/CGI/Perl/bash...).

    So for *most* Linux deployments, it's not a question of Windows vs Linux, but the TCO of Visual Studio/SQLServer/IIS vs Websphere or some FOSS solution.

    Which might explain why the survey "reveals" so little...

  • Do any TCO studies make sense? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by walterbyrd ( 182728 ) on Tuesday April 05, 2005 @09:52AM (#12143155)
    Frankly, I don't see how TCO studies make any sense. To me, it seems that it's completely situational.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close