Ret. World Bank CTO on Desktop Linux TCO Facts 345
comforteagle writes "W. McDonald Buck, retired CTO of World Bank, believes we need to take a more honest and frank look at the Cost Analyses it will take to put Linux on the corporate desktop. In Part I of Corporate Desktop Linux - The Hard Truth he begins with one of the most common misconceptions... that a business can buy a computer without Windows and save money in the transaction."
But the OS is just the starting point (Score:5, Interesting)
I know that to some, this might sound silly, but it is common practice in many medium to large business anyway. They will simply overwrite the OS that comes on the box with the version that they want configured in the manner that they want it for their IT department.
Now lets look MS office that is installed on the image that is deployed on almost every corporate system across the country. Now if you are a company of any size you will likely get a very nice discount of the retail price, although if you are talking 1,000 PC or more, unless you wish to risk ripping of MS, the price will still add up to a pretty penny.
Then we have things such as Exchange, which at first everyone will swear that they need because it has integrated scheduling functions, despite the fact that most corporations hardly ever use the functionality, except for one or two very annoying people who are quickly ignored by everyone else (if you are one of those people, think of that statement as humor). Here is where the price starts getting steep.
But he does make a fair point, that when we discuss this matters it is only fair that we make an effort to be fair with ourselves and others on the subject.
Re:I'm a programmer at a bank.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Step outside your cubicle. Banking is not the only thing going on in the world, and it's definitely not the most difficult.
A security-minded industry? Absolutely... But then why do you choose to rely on WINDOWS?!!
Re:Well he ignores one big fact (Score:5, Interesting)
For techies, building your own or going with not so mainstream manufacturers isn't a problem.
But for W. McDonald Buck, retired CTO of World Bank, he wants a big name, 1st tier manufacturer to supply his PC, not Joe Bobs PC Hardware Shack.
The point Buck makes is:
The boxes with Windows are less expensive than the boxes without.
Or to be more accurate:
It looks to me, however, like the Microsoft monopoly has such a stranglehold on the tier 1 manufacturers that it is now not possible for a corporate shopper to save money by avoiding Windows unless they are prepared to go outside the first tier...... Small businesses may buy computers this way if they have or hire somebody tech savvy to help them, but I don't think this is how your average homeowner buys, and I know it isn't how large companies buy.
Which is the main point he makes. The big players, including IBM, are still shills for the Microsoft tax.
Re:Yeah, but it's not a one time purchase (Score:5, Interesting)
If only 'twere true.
The problem with Linux is that over the years things have changed and broken binray compatability. This isn't a show-stopper usually, but if you do have some closed-source software from 5 years ago that you still want to run today, you are going to find all kinds of library dependency problems.
The thing about Linux is that most of your applications are Open Source or Free, so they get updated and recompiled incrementally as time goes on.
I bought some Loki games for Linux a long time ago. Some of them haven't worked in years because they depend on obsolete and deprocated libraries. If I had lots of time on my hands (which I don't have nowadays) I could probably spend several days looking out old source tarballs and doing a bit of porting, but life's too short.
Most people or businesses who buy software or computers to do a job need specific version of specific kernels with specific libraries and utilities and specific versions of applications that have been integrated, tested and certified to work together.
Windows is very poor at this. Linux is a bit better, but if you're using Linux commercially, you're probably using RedHat Enterprise Linux (or maybe SuSE), you've payed hundreds or thousands of dollars for the software license (for the OS), you've probalby spent tens of thousands on the hardware, you have a support contract, you'll have spent thousands on the applications and you'll have trained clued-up staff to deal with it all.
Does Red Hat garantee backwards compatability?
Can I get Red Hat ES today and Oracle and be garanteed that in 5 years time, my Oracle that I bought will still run, unchanged (same binary), still supported etc.?
Linux is much, much better than Windows, but no Linux company has solved this problem yet.
Re:Bring it on. (Score:2, Interesting)
> to a hundred systems. The business pays for that time and
> effort. Even if it's an in house tech doing the job, at the very
> least his salary for the time spent doing the install should be
> factored into the cost.
Well then you can buy 99 Windows PC's for $400 and one Linux PC in the same configuration and mirror the linux PC configuration and put it on all the Windows PCs then. So then you save $99 times $20 or $1980 doing this. And you didn't have to spend on creating an install!. And when in the article he says Windows boxes cost up to $230 LESS with dell and 100 to 150 LESS with HP then over 99 computers that is a saving of $1450 to $2270.
That is latteral thinking!
The best mac support on the web [tribbles.org]
Why branded? (Score:3, Interesting)
The same can be said for any industry (Score:3, Interesting)
Parts break down and need to be replaced but, d'oh!, that line has been discontinued. Please upgrade your [[insert item here]]. That means buy a new(ew) car or new vacuum.
I've got an old eMachine P3 500Mhz happily running Linux and I believe this box is still capable of doing real work. Sadly, the mindset we all seem to share is that that old box is too, well, old and too slow. So corporate environments buy newer and bigger machines. Why? So our little automation tasks can running a little faster?
I don't know much of the specifics about Google's server farm, but from what little I understand, many of their machines would be considered old and obsolete. Meanwhile, they have those machines performing real work.
My old eMachine might be old, but damn if it can't crank out thousands of our little automation tasks per day. But people still want to have the latest and greatest. Maybe it's marketing that won us over, but if I were a business leader looking to keep costs down, I'd get as much value from these old machines as I could. But that's just me.
Re:Bring it on. (Score:3, Interesting)
so twenty two thousand dollars saved by going with linux.
The best mac support on the web [tribbles.org]
W. McDonald Buck? (Score:4, Interesting)
I think you all have been hacked, because the article tells you what you wanted to talk about.
Looking at worldbank.org and searching for CTO, I haven't found a reference to a CTO for themselves, only references to CTO's elsewhere. I don't beleive they even have a CTO, honestly.
Just sayin'.
Re:Article before the slashdot effect kicks in... (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course we were buying some serious hardware and they knew we were going to be getting support for it as well for a long time. But even less serious corporate buyers will never be buying a single workstation and will never paying what joe sixpack pays either. Websites targeted at consumers have absolutely nothing to do with what corporate people pay.
Re:W. McDonald Buck? (Score:2, Interesting)
Turns out there is a McDonald Buck, who does know something [helsinki.fi] about Linux. As parent says, repeated searching on worldbank.org (or worldbank.int) gets scratch.
For the curious, his e-mail address comes from wmbuck.net [wmbuck.net], which he owns [dnstools.com]. His website is however completely locked out using server-side authentication.
Hey, it's a boring Saturday night
Re:YMMV, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
Interesting (Score:3, Interesting)
But when I negotiate for big customers they're putting our gold disk image on our machines. We pay for our site licenses through MSFT, not the PC vendor. And we have a disk image for some servers that's not Winblows and we're not paying MSFT for those. We spec the components and configuation. The only company left out of that loop on some of the servers is MSFT. Our unit machine cost doesn't change.
For a real TCO study the author isn't going to be buying machines retail. But he still has a point. Most companies aren't going to be buying enough machines to be able to supply the image like we do. Interesting. I build my own machines at home so I had no idea you couldn't buy a machine without Windows from the big players.
As long as MSFT can keep a grip on that pipeline and make it a huge pain in the ass for someone running Linux to get a rebate for the Windows they don't use, then that sort of anwsers that thread yesterday about why when Windows sucks so bad does it stay so popular. Consumers don't have enough choices.
Re:Try WalMart (Score:2, Interesting)
Dude, the average mom doesn't know this stuff.
Plus it's cheap so it's not that big of a deal if the kids break it.
If you're shopping at Wal Mart for a computer, you don't have hundreds of dollars to just say "well, kids broke that computer, time to buy another!"
And as far as why a mother of three wouldn't buy Linux, one word: Games.
Kids want games, and Linux doesn't provide them. My little sister wants to play Roller Coaster Tycoon and Zoo Tycoon and The Sims. Not to mention Warcraft, Halo and HL2.
Kids don't want to play Frozen Bubble and Tux Racer -- I should know, I tried to get my kid sister to play them, and she was like "these are boring, I want to play Zoo Tycoon now!"
Re:He makes a fair point (Score:2, Interesting)
You may want to check out EmperorLinux [emperorlinux.com]. They specialize in selling Linux-powered laptops and provide support them as well. They have been around for a while now and make buying laptops for work a lot easier.
L-ViS
Re:I'm a programmer at a bank.... (Score:1, Interesting)
It depends what area of the bank you work in.
If where you work isn't very competitive then a number of vendors (and possibly the internal guys) will have a solution for you.
On the otherhand, in competitive areas (e.g. sharetrading, arbitrage) in-house development is the norm.
Any advantage you have over the competition -- stable systems, simpler programming environment, etc. -- is allowed and encouraged.
Eventually applications like these migrate outwards into the rest of the bank and, along with them, the Linux OS and distribution they depend upon.
Linux has already taken over at the Bank -- but it isn't mainstream enough for you (yet) to notice. Don't worry, it will be.
Memories... (Score:3, Interesting)
I have to say, the World Bank is not your model of intelligent spending when it comes to this kind of stuff, though. I don't think he was CTO at the time I was there, though he may have been.
You have to understand, the World Bank operates much like a government. Everything is very political, much more than most offices. Advances happen more from a buddy network than from actual accomplishment and the quality of one's work is seldom appreciated as much as the quantity.
For example, if you're a in charge of making loans, the volume of loans you make, and not the security of those loans, is what gets you noticed. Everything in the WB operates that way (or it did when I was there).
Money is pissed away in almost every way. For example, a number of years after working there the first time, I was hired as a contractor to write a very basic time tracking package to keep track of billable ours by employees (departments bill each other for various services provided). They spent about $40,000 for me to write this fairly basic software. Instead, they could have spent a few hundred dollars and bought a much more feature rich shrink-wrapped package. My software, while customized, was largely a matter of customized look and not customized features.
Anyway, I'll have to take any spending advice coming out the World Bank with a brick of salt.
Re:Bring it on. (Score:3, Interesting)
We're talking about TCO - Total Cost of Ownership. It takes time and effort to create an install and then mirror it to a hundred systems. The business pays for that time and effort. Even if it's an in house tech doing the job, at the very least his salary for the time spent doing the install should be factored into the cost.
Just like no one installs windows from raw OEM media, if you roll out Linux to many machines you image it just like Windows. And if your tech staff can't install Linux, I pitty you.
And it's hardly a win for Linux to say that Linux is not more expensive than Windows. If we can't show a cost savings for Linux, it's a win for Redmond.
Especially for companies, Linux TCO is cheaper. Most CEOs couldn't tell you how much they spend on Windows but do bet it is more that they realize. Linux comes with alot of stuff that in Windows is extra. Lets list a few I have never seen in TCO analysis:
Complete and full development environment including vetted source code
Secure terminal emulation such as secure shell
File distribution software and package management including remote install
Remote administration (securely)
Backup and recovery software (that works without an OS install!)
Proxy software (squid)
IMAP/POP3 servers including SSL versions
Firewall that works and is stateful.
VPN software
GRID and distrubuted computing that is tried and true
SQL servers
DNS, LDAP, sendmail and other servers included 0 best of all they even work with Windows.
Open Office
All the above (and likely more) is included and no CAL nickel and diming. Best of all, many functions can be shared!! That is the secretaries PC might also be the local mail server and no need for the extra system to support local mail or DNS.
If your like most corps, the same problems, and the same solutions exist to roll out linux as Windows XP. Not a whole lot of differences.
Mind you if your CEO/CIO/CFO and others spend more time playing games and watching videos, and like loading spyware instead of financial and business management and order input -- then Windows is your answer.
Re:Bring it on. (Score:3, Interesting)
Alternatively, you can buy one machine, configure it the way you want it, then send Dell the disk drive and tell them to load that on *all* your machines - try getting HP to do that...
You can certainly talk to a Dell sales rep about 70 PCs, you can even talk to a Dell sales rep about 5 PCs - I haven't tried talking to them about 1 PC yet though.
Re:Well he ignores one big fact (Score:3, Interesting)
First, the "Microsoft tax" is not just on the purchase price of the first year's license, it's on the all the years following.
Second, if corporations are too stupid to figure out how to save money, they should be out of business.
And everybody knows MOST corporations - the bigger the better - are LOUSY at figuring out how to save money. Which is why they spend most of their time raising prices, cutting customer service and having their accountants nickle and dime the IRS.
Because management are morons.
As this "World Bank CTO" clearly demonstrates.
If this idiot wants to demonstrate "hard truth", he's started off really badly.
What CEO goes to del.com??? (Score:4, Interesting)
In any case, I second the note. No large-compamny CEO in his right mind is going to pay the stock prices at dell.com or ibm.com. They're going to call up their personal sales rep and say "I'm buying 4000 machines next month. What's the price without Windows?".
The people who have little choice but to pay stock price at the tier-1 manufacturers are also the same ones who have half a dozen friends who can point them to a local grey-box manufacturer who can give them a much better price with better local support. (i.e. they won't go: "Your CD died?? Well, first you have to load Windows on your box, then you have to reinstall it.").
For me, it's literally the computer store next door (OK: 2 doors down). He'll sell me a cheap box for $285CDN (about $230US) without windows, and another $100 ($80USD) for XP home.
The reason why Microsoft makes it so hard to get boxes without Windows at places like DEL and IBM is that they know that if home users can get easy access to Linux, they'll talk about how well it works when they get to work, and that'll infiltrate to the CEO who'll start a pilot project on the corporate desktop.
They also don't want corporate CEOs to just buy their $3000 home box with Linux installed on it 'on a lark' and (once again) find out just how much functionality and security they get (see previous paragraph).
Flies in the face of... (Score:3, Interesting)
Seems like this has been happening to OSS from the beginning of time.
OSS User: "I love OSS. It works for me."
Anti-OSS: "No you don't. You just think you love OSS, and you just think it works for you. In reality, you're wasting all of your time fiddling and nothing on your desktop works at all!"
OSS Business: "I saved big money with OSS. My books are balanced! Woohoo!"
Anti-OSS: "No you didn't. You just think you saved money because the numbers in your ledger tell you you did. In reality, it's not possible to save money with OSS, so you must have lost somewhere."
As far as I'm concerned, if you think you're very happy with a product, and your bankbook numbers tell you that you're saving money, then who cares what's "really" happening in the underlying "reality" of the OSS-doesn't-work-at-all universe?