Users Reject MS Independent Study Claims

PenguinCandidate writes "End users from various corners of the Web have whole-heartedly rejected Microsoft's claims that an independent TCO comparison between Linux and Windows would be something akin to the second coming. Said one senior Linux architect: 'With Linux and open source, it is possible to arrive in a position where the organization has increased control over its situation [and reduced] its long-term costs. That's a highly desirable outcome and I doubt we'll ever see a Microsoft-funded study which will come to that conclusion.'"

imagine that

[maukdaddy]

wow a linux architect disagrees.....imagine that

How about some REAL news ./ ?

LOL News from the 1860's

[Crashmarik]

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
Abraham Lincoln, (attributed)
16th president of US (1809 - 1865)

But what is TCO anyway?

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Suppose Microsoft demonstrates with a (real) independant study that Windows is, say, 30% less expensive than any other OS. Is it really all that counts? What if 5 years from now Microsoft pulls another one of its format-change trick and my company can't read the documents it produced 5 years ago reliably?

I'd say having control of your software, giving you better control over the data that is produced and a fighting chance against malware, as opposed to being enslaved to a software manufacturer, benevolent as it might appear to be, is a big part of the decision too. The problem can't be presented simply as a pure immediate or mid-term savings proposition. Possible loss of data, loss of services, and loss of business due to them are a big part of the equation, but of course it's not as easy to sell as "look, this costs less".

Lies, Damn lies, and statistics

[Safe Sex Goddess]

Sounds like they made the right decision. The article makes the great point that it's the definitions that make all the difference. It sounds very balanced. It just seems so natural that Open Source is the way to go. As with art and culture, many creative people would have you believe that everything new is created from nothing but their own creative spirit. However, it's possible to trace the historical influences on the evolution of arts and culture. Everything created is based on thousands of years of art and culture that belong to all of humanity. Even new scientific and technological developments are based on the entire history of human scientific knowledge that provides the foundation for new knowledge to be added to. And isn't that what Open Source is all about?

This will never be resolved

[Crixus]

A topic like this will never be resolved to anyone's satisfaction. The simple fact of the matter is that many huge corporations are using linux corporate wide, and many users on this blog use linux daily with an incredibly low TCO, and a huge satisfaction factor. :-)

That's all that matters.

MOD PARENT UP

[Adelbert]

Microsoft created the term 'TCO' in the first place, IIRC. To me, its all BS. Sure, 7-11 may have found it moderately preferable to stay with Windows than to retrain staff, but that doesn't give any indication to the qualitive improvements in the standard of work, nor does it factor in long-term benefits that open source development models tend to provide. The parent also raised a fantastic point about vendor lock-in; if you use windows, Microsoft effectively owns your software.

Re:Linux and Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

These studies are targetting corporate I.T. decision-makers, not home users like yourself. An I.T. department is likely to have the luxury of planning for the hardware that will be deployed in the future, and can thus make hardware incompatibilities a minimal concern.

Your claim of 800 hours is also completely off base from a corporate perspective. By setting a few GUI preferences, you could make it look and feel close enough to Windows that the majority of the Win32 workforce wouldn't care. The real work is done by the I.T. department, which probably already has significant in-house Linux muscle.

I won't even get into the benefits of improved manageability/lower licensing...

Proofread, please!

[Anonymous Coward]

End users from various corners of the Web have whole-heartedly rejected Microsoft's claims that an independent TCO comparison between Linux and Windows would be something akin to the second coming.

What is that sentence supposed to mean? Microsoft doesn't think an independent TCO comparison is likely? And that end-users think it is?

I can't believe anybody actually read that sentence between the fingers hitting the keyboard and it appearing on the front page of Slashdot.

When will they learn...

[Ravatar]

TCO will never be anything but a meaningless statistic. That's like trying to budget your personal expenses a year at a time. Situations arise that will always make TCO an insufficient benchmark.

Security

[WindBourne]

just once, it would be good to see a single MS TCO study include the costs of virus, worms, etc.

This will never be resolved, and here's why

[Weaselmancer]

Name one independent observer that could conduct a TCO study that everyone on both sides would trust, regardless of the outcome.

My experience with Linux TCO.

[Captain Scurvy]

I've set up a few Linux servers for small businesses with very general needs, and their TCO so far has been limited to setup and hardware costs. In such environments, next to no maintenance has been required.

I would assume the story would be somewhat different, however, for someone with more specific (i.e., vendor-locked) needs than file, web, DB, or mail servers. Maybe some more experienced techs out there could chime in on that.

How this compares to Windows seems hard to quantify. A "properly configured" Windows server, while not quite as stable in certain situations as a "properly configured" Linux server, comes pretty close.

Frankly, I think it really just boils down to what the clients' needs are. Linux works better in some situations, Windows in others, etc.

Re:Linux and Windows

[Trip Ericson]

But some things never change. I could not get linux to recoginze my sound card. I was told to get some second program to do it, but it was a hassel. Windows works out of the box.

Or so you think. If Linux were more widely supported, companies would provide drivers for both Windows and Linux on the CD. I must add that I have had to manually install drivers off the CD for most sound cards (among other things) I've dealt with in the last several years. It did not work out of the box.

Is it easier to install the drivers in Windows? At this time, yes, but were they made available on the CD in, say, and RPM and DEB format or something, it would not be anywhere near as difficult.

Re:My experience with Linux TCO.

[SanityInAnarchy]

I would assume the story would be somewhat different, however, for someone with more specific (i.e., vendor-locked) needs than file, web, DB, or mail servers.

That's a point for the Linux side. If your needs are locked into vendor-specific crap, then your needs are not a Windows server to run said crap. Your needs are to free yourself of the vendor-specific crap.

This is true because if we're talking about total cost of ownership, not total cost of purchase, vendor-specific crap increases TCO and risk because even if you aren't currently charged a licensing fee, you don't get free updates. Linux wins TCO because Linux is free forever, not just free once.

Re:This will never be resolved

[Rikkochet]

I totally agree. The two sides of this issue will never be reconciled. In the great nerd tradition, it's an unending holy war of ideas which will never end peacefully, and never rise above heated forum posts and polite "I guess we just disagree, let's go drinking" statements when face-to-face.

I have a stupid question...

[SeventyBang]

Microsoft's efforts in these studies is obviously part of their marketing efforts. Microsoft's strongest suit is marketing, not technology development. After all, look at how many companies they've purchased vs. original technologies which have been developed in-house.

I will qualify my question with this: I like Linux, but I make my bread & butter off of Windows - like it or not, it's easier to find income [here] with Windows. n.b. I said easier. I didn't say the work was better.

Now:
If Windows is such a great product, why is Microsoft plucking out their own short hairs (one-by-one) in frustration because they cannot convince tens of thousands (hundreds of?) of corporate licenses to move from Windows 2000 when it went out of service on June 30 '05 [microsoft.com]; well-covered by the media, no less? It would seem businesses|corporations are well aware the various flavors of 2K are (relatively speaking) arguably the most stable of Microsoft's O/S products. Office 2000 and Visual Studio 6.0 dovetail quite well with 2K, creating a very cozy ménage à trois.

The TCO certain is dropping over time. No need to upgrade software, no need to purchase an assload of new hardware to support upgraded software. Microsoft may have to break one of their "rules" re: backward compatibility. It's been said IE 7.0 won't work on pre-XP systems, although I don't think that's going to make corporate accounts give a rat's posterior because there are some fine, decaf browsers which work quite well and don't make anyone miss IE at all.

As I said, MS could easily prove TCO of Windows is low(er), but to do so would admit loudly businesses don't want to budge. So the question remains: how do they motivate the 2K users to pry open their accounts payable budget and upgrade? Until they answer that, it doesn't matter what they say about TCO.

Wise move

[mersy]

Microsoft has shown themselves to be manipulative and tricky SOBs in the past. There was nothing to be gained by getting involved with them on this issue or any other issue. The "Get the Facts" campaign is a transparent ploy. When MS is ready to really advance the state of computer tech they know how to contribute. In the mean time don't feed the troll.

Wait, What?

[Quantam]

The buzz with end users this week is that Open Source Development Labs (OSDL) chose wisely when it rejected an allegedly independent comparison of Linux and Windows. Unless there was a second page in that (Linux web site hosted) article that I missed, that is the ONLY time end users are ever mentioned, and the rest of the article is quotes from several Linux technicians/developers, one independant developer, and a very brief appearance by an MS person. Where the heck did all these end users come from? Unless I'm missing something huge (like that aforementioned second page), this article is no better supported by evidence than MS' anti-Linux press releases.

Control...

[Yaa 101]

TCO has nothing to do with Linux...

Control has everything to do with it...

I let nobody tell me how to do my business, not Bill, not Steve, nobody!!!

The fucking arrogance these people have in thinking that they can...

Re:I'm still weary.

[schon]

And how many machines can each admin handle?

The typical unix admin can handle many times the number of machines as a Windows admin.

So if you only need one Unix admin for every 10 Windows admins, then you've saved yourself $90,000 per year.

MOD PARENT UP!

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent is correct. Total cost of ownership is a nebulous issue. It is different for each company. If you only have MCSE's on staff, with no desire to learn anything else, and who have a difficult time with more technical aspects of Microsoft's products, coupled with a user base that occasionally has a difficult time getting the toast into the toaster, Linux is not for them (and never will be). If you have skilled Linux admins and developers on staff, and a tech-savvy workforce, Linux is a dream come true. It also depends on exactly what the company is doing with it's technology, it's current hardware and software condition, past licencing, the current cost of electricity, the products they sell and whether the technology is used in the manufacture/enhancement of those products, and about 1 billion other variables (all of them independent, and then also the point of view of the CXO, their tech-savvy-ness, and (to a certain degree), the assertions, aspirations, and skill of the Microsoft sales people trying to give them facts. The entire process is subjective, and widely open to interpretation (even miniscule parts of the debate are open to wide swings of opinion and point of view)

Re:But what is TCO anyway?

[einhverfr]

TCO is the lazy person's attempt to measure return on investment. I.e. how much will you have to pay to get x back in better productivity etc.

In my experience Linux-based businesses pay me more as a consultant (at the same hourly rate) than Windows-based businesses. However, this is often because they are getting a *higher* return on investment by being able to have solutions that do exactly what they want. I close reading of the IDC study on the Microsoft site may indicate that others are having similar experiences.

I.e. that you pay a consultant not because you can't make it work adequately in-house, but rather that you would like the product to do X, Y, and Z (which may not be available on Windows) and are willing to pay more for those features because you get a net benefit as a business.

For example, if you cannot adequately impliment a Linux-based file and print server inhouse, you are not going to pay a consultant to tweak the system for you. You will simply go back to Windows (Windows file and print sharing isn't that expensive). If you can, but you realize that it would be cool if (insert idea here) then you might pay a consultant to make that dream a reality.

What I am trying to say is that essentially all of the evidence I am seeing is that those customers who can and do move to Linux are spending more in part because they are investing in an infrastructure that they can use to build their business in very unique ways. As a result, they may be paying a bit more than they would with Windows, but it is not that they are getting a lesser deal. Instead, they are paying more because they are getting a *better* deal.

Re:I'm still weary.

[Hiro Antagonist]

As a skilled Unix admin (according to your definition; I still consider myself to be a neophite, as there are always new things to learn), I rather resent your comparison, as 'Unix admin' and 'Windows admin' are not equal.

I've dug through kernel code and stack traces of buggy applications, conferred with developers, worked with Sun engineers to fix failing hardware, and generally dug very deep into the OS to find and fix problems. Only, I do this before the problems become problems, so that my userbase never sees my efforts.

It's kind of sad, really. They only know I exist when things go wrong, which is pretty rare.

Moreover, I am capable of, and have done, management of hundreds of servers at once. This is without any fancy clustering, expensive support contracts, or any other assistance. Just me, all by my lonesome. Sometimes things got hairy, of course, but overall, the systems I administrated just kept running, even through patches and upgrades galore.

Any problems that cropped up, other than hardware failures, I could fix remotely, saving me an hour-long trip into the office. What was great was when there was another admin, we had time for all sorts of things. The backup system got improved, a whole new security model got put in-place, vacations were took, a new monitoring system got installed...it was great.

One admin. Two hundred servers. That's five milliadmins per server, for the mathematically impared. With no clustering or vendor support, other than for failing hardware, and in a dirt-cheap bare-bones budget environment. Can a Windows admin, even an experienced one, make that claim? I think not.

TCO is important

[typical]

The problem is that for a long time, somewhere, it was hammered into people's heads that "TCO is important". That's a pretty simple, important concept. The idea is that the vendor can hide costs, and that the customer's up-front cost may be less than what they will actually wind up paying.

However, the entire concept of having a bloody vendor doing a TCO study and presenting you with the results is absurd -- it's the vendor presenting you with *another* set of up-front costs. Who is to say that they don't have *more* hidden costs? Unless they are providing you with a guarantee that you will not have to pay a single cent above the TCO that they are claiming, that they will pay every cent in your related costs above claimed TCO, a vendor-supplied TCO is simply meaningless.

The concept of TCO is important. The idea of slapping an absolute value for TCO on product packaging is quite silly.

I think that there's one pretty simple argument in favor of Linux. Any time a vendor provides any possibility of lock-in, be it user familiarity with their software, format incompatibility with thier software, whatever, there is a cost to migrate. At some point, if they are doing a good job of running their business, they will wind up extracting from you $COST_OF_MIGRATION - 1. That's an ideal case, but that's the way it is. Look at software packages from people like IBM, Novell, and so forth. They *will* get more expensive, have expensive things to interface their software and so forth, and the further on in the lifecycle the software is (the more entrenched their remaining customers are and the harder it is to move away from the product) the more expensive the prices. IBM makes a tremendous amount of money from simply providing compatibility with their old systems -- IBM's systems are *not* cheap. Look at SCO if you want to see an even more towards-the-end-of-the-life example.

Now, Microsoft has a great deal of lock-in potential. They provide the primary application suite, have a number of closed formats and protocols, the operating system, and the server-side apps to interface with the application suite. Now, if you go with Microsoft, you are gambling that either (a) someone will come along and reduce cost of migration to a nominal amount (not that likely, especially when it is in Microsoft's interests not to allow this), or (b) that Microsoft will screw up extracting money from their locked-in customers at some point in the future (which seems unlikely, because Microsoft has done a pretty decent and aggressive job of being a business thus far).

Now, I expect Red Hat to do the same damn thing at Microsoft at some point in the future, someday. The point is that it's not very hard to transition from Red Hat to something else if necessary, be it as simple as to White Box Linux or even more extreme (SuSE, Debian, etc). At least in the current state of things, it is extremely difficult for a Linux vendor to achieve any significant degree of lock-in. Start worrying if a vendor starts shipping non-open-source GUI apps (build user familiarity with them, making it harder to switch away), servers (closed protocols, leveraging incompatibility), or so forth. Aside from TrollTech, though, I've seen few attempts to "get a lock" on the Linux distro world, and it looks like there will be a multi-vendor environment for a long time to come. Seems like a pretty attractive option.

Re:I saved money

[rolfwind]

You do have a good point.

But I mentioned Windows had free solutions in my post - I didn't intend to just compare like-for-like - just my actual experience.

When I was on Windows - I expected to pay money for products and so did not look for nor trust the free solution to do the job. It was an effect of being a corporate user & being in the windows world mentality.

Switching to Linux, I saved money by being introduced to the concept that good software can be free. And I got introduced to all those programs by default (on the distro).

To put it in perspective - it's like saying Windows can be run as or more securely than Linux. If you close all the default services/activeX, etcera, etcetera, etcetera.

This may be true but it's ignoring that all computer users aren't experts and that the "insecure" mode is default which is the reality for most people.

For me, Windows the barebone system (except for perhaps unuseful/unwanted vendor software) is the default. I only have so much time to hunt down and learn certain programs. I might not run into the free alternative for whatever reason.

Linux the fully capable OS with all these tool is the reality on many distros (I use Ubuntu). That's how I got introduced to them^_^

Also I'd like to mention while Adaware/Spybot/MSAntiSpywareBeta are reasonably good programs - I got spoiled by Linux and not having to run those in the first:) But then I didn't count those man-hours and add them against Windows.

TCO and Productivity?

[thunderpaws]

I would think a truly independant study would look at all the time required by end users to maintain their NTFS or FAT32 file systems, cache cleaning and defragging, Anti-Virus and Anti-Spyware updating and scanning, not to mention answering all those annoying and prolific dialogs that constantly get in your face, that consume otherwise productive time. Then there are all those oddities that Windows is so well known for.... How do Windows users get anything done? I guess these are not cost factors if you are only playing with your computer. What about down time when 3 workstations out of 10 suddenly got porn popups? Oh yeah, that isn't an OS problem, is it.

Calculate the TVO

[digitalderbs]

I think the Total Value of Ownership tips the scale to one end more. Tack on reliability, open-formats, malware/viruses, spectrum of useful and competing tools, maintenance.

Linux in itself, independent of cost, is a much more valuable product that Windows in many ways.

Re:I saved money APK edited/added to reply #2...

[Anonymous Coward]

"You do have good points" - by rolfwind (528248) on Saturday August 27, @09:00PM

Thanks man, they come from experience is all. I love this stuff (this field in general, and cars too... they're both the 'province of hackers' galore!)

Hacker imo, means someone who's into learning for the sake of bettering themselves & working with what they have (be it cars, computers, their homes even, etc./et all, anything that involved BOTH "art & science" (craftsmenship)) to make it better/faster/stronger & more efficient (if not more aesthetically pleasing to boot).

"I only listed that article to mention that MS is still working very hard to make it the perception that TCO of MS is lower than linux." - by rolfwind (528248) on Saturday August 27, @09:00PM

Got ya, & they do a decent job of it, citing successes experienced by their customer base such as the Radio Shack example you & I discussed here.

It just sometimes TRULY "boggles the mind" how 'jihad' Linux & UNIX folks can be when it comes to Microsoft imo... Linux, if anything, is going to be what ultimately "KILLS" Unix if anything does, not Microsoft.

(Easier turn-around learning curve for UNIX folks to Linux, & also more overall familiarity: IMO? Linux IS a "better UNIX" is all... a better knock-off & improvement, because this field is RAMPANT with "imitate & improve upon", constantly & I cite it in the URL's I put into this reply for you to reference with facts in those URL's of a far more detailed & technical nature).

Both sets of OS families (Microsoft's NT-based ones like 2000/XP/Server 2003 etc./et all &/or Linuxes) have been around for a decade++ now & are going strong... and, they tend to "rip off" & imitate the HELL out of one another, quite a lot:

E.G.=> Linux process scheduling methods are now VERY similar to NT-based OS' completion ports, & also threads being present @ the kernel level in Linux is a direct copy of what has always been there in NT-based OS (for SMP purposes mainly imo).

Here is more direct technical info. on that from me that I have posted here before in FAR greater technical detail if you are interested:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=155314&thresho ld=1&commentsort=0&tid=201&mode=thread&cid=1304523 3 [slashdot.org]

Overall, on the subject of "Linux vs. Windows"?

My opinion is, that the "thinking of this century/decade" should be that INTEROPERABILITY is the keyword of the decade: making them work as seamlessly as possible together.

What MAY hurt Linux, imo, is what happened to UNIX: Too many 'fractured factions' & incompatibilities @ the binaries level on diff. versions of Linux...

Yes, this is WHY we are all not running a UNIX of somekind on today's PC's imo, but instead are mostly running Win32 based OS'.

UNIX vendors, early on, all got 'greedy' & wanted the 'whole ball of wax' & MS took advantage of it!

They did that by getting developers via providing an EXCELLENT & FLEXIBLE/POWERFUL/UBIQUITOUS API + development tools (from both Borland & MS mainly) that made QUICK RAD app development possible that are pretty cheap compared to say, the cost of UNIX mainframe/midrange apps & development tools is why... hardware improvements (and software ones in apps, OS & development tools as well) took it the rest of the way.

Bottom-line:

Get the developers and provide them MONETARY incentive?

You get apps... you get apps, & lots of them for a plethora of purposes??

You get users, and thus, sales.

The freeware model & OpenSource, technically, should have imo, knocked-the-chocolate outta MS @ least 5 years ago...

Now, I think the reason it hasn't is because the apps (or as many as there are for Win32 from commercialware to shareware, or