Linux, UNIX, and Windows: TCO Revisited 26
base_chakra writes "In response to Steve Ballmer's recent, vague criticisms of Linux and UNIX vendors' product support structures and pricing schemes, I've compiled a reference chart which might help others to compare licensing and support options available from several big-name vendors. Kudos to Red Hat for having the simplest, most accessible licensing and service plan of the pack--as well as one of the most affordable!"
My personal case study. (Score:5, Interesting)
I have spent about 2 hours or less on the phone with Sun support.
I have spent a whopping 20+ hours alone on the phone with Microsoft support.
Unfortunately here for Microsoft they can't use the argument that it's because they have a dominating market and the ratio of support calls to them is therefore higher. Not in my client's server rooms. The ratio of the MS to "other" operating systems installed on the servers is dead near 50/50.
Just my personal experience.
Re:My personal case study. (Score:2)
I have spent about 2 hours or less on the phone with Sun support.
I have spent a whopping 20+ hours alone on the phone with Microsoft support.
Have you considered this is possibly because:
you know more about how to run unix systems ?
you know more unix community resources ?
you are trying to do more/different things with your Windows systems (eg: an
Does the MS TCO include opportunity costs? (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux/Unix may not be perfect, and the personnel may be more expensive, but the opportunity costs may balance the scale in favor of a non-MS solution.
Re:Does the MS TCO include opportunity costs? (Score:3, Insightful)
How many servers per body can you support Under Linux vs Windows?
Even things like YUM make all the difference. It took a few days to set up a server to handle windows updates. It took me less than an hour to set up yum for our Fedora servers.
Except for our mail server our linx boxes have been trouble free
Re:Does the MS TCO include opportunity costs? (Score:2)
I have spent a couple days configuring and screwing with SUS for Windows... Easy setup and sync, but the software is inconsistant and without documentation, etc. Low quality freeware from Microsoft.
The nice thing with SUS though, is the ability to apply or not apply updates.
If yum(and it might) had a server/client option that a given yum/linux server c
Re:Does the MS TCO include opportunity costs? (Score:2)
but an approve gui could be put together with PHP/Apache.
Re:Does the MS TCO include opportunity costs? (Score:2)
Re:Does the MS TCO include opportunity costs? (Score:1)
If you're a MS-only shop, then replacing a software product with a similar product from a MS competitor is hard if not impossible - giving you no room to negotiate a price cut.
If you're using open standards, then negotiating a bargain will be easier.
Being a MS-only shop means having to pay MS whatever it asks for its products - and the price for MS products is going up-and-up, because that's the only way MS can get more money from a market it dominate
Initial setup vs. continued maintaince (Score:3, Insightful)
In my experience prouctivity is 5-10% *nix time and 90-95% MS time - that is not a good thing when you have to talk about TCO.
Only reason for using MS is ignorant marketing people that don't dare take a chance with FOSS because "MS products work out of the box"....
IMHO and experience, that is, a *nix server is cheaper in the long run vs. a MS server. Sorry that I don't have any factual budget to back my experience up, besides my own time spent on *nix vs. MS machines, which many of my friends and coleagues also share.
Re:Initial setup vs. continued maintaince (Score:3, Insightful)
A manager's ability to lead and get paid more than their underlings depends on the perception that they are smarter than said underlings. The fact that my boss has administrative knowledge and I have technical knowledge is not really a concern; they generally shoot down proposals because simply based on a gut reaction and a lack of knowledge. Your average manager doesn'
Re:Initial setup vs. continued maintaince (Score:1)
Re:Initial setup vs. continued maintaince (Score:1)
But if I must then yes, you are 100% correct about keeping the *nix box up to date as well, since no software is flawless...
I'll be more specific next time, even though it was my first time /. post and all :-)
The points made taken with a Grain(or pound) (Score:5, Insightful)
To quote briefly from the points made:
n early 2004, Forrester conducted in-depth discussions with 14 companies that had been running Linux platforms for longer than one year to see what the costs really were. Several key themes emerged:
* Few companies know what they're really spending. Only five of the 14 kept detailed metrics - and each of those five found Linux more expensive (5% to 20%) than their current Microsoft environments.
Basically, this is stating that regardless of the figures any company gives, they cannot and have not kept accurate records of the TCO for anything. This reason is moot at this point due to the inept accounting practices.
* Preparation and planning activities took 5% to 25% longer for Linux than Windows.
Linux has not been in the marketplace (Business) so naturally planning a move to A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT method is going to require more planning and better preparedness. In my experience, this turns into meetings and more meetings, without the ability to truly resolve anything. Naturally, when you decide to shift PLATFORMS to something like Linux from Windows, there SHOULD be more planning and careful consideration of the differing methodology. Ask these companies how long it took to implement a datastore, or a full blown Notes / Exchange server, and I am sure the amounts of time/personnel were similar. In this planning stage, a company would want to make sure that there will be several contingencies in place to handle unknown elements.
* Training for IT employees was significantly higher for Linux than for Windows - on average, 15% more expensive. The reasons: training materials were less readily available, and customers spent more on training to compensate for the lack of internal knowledge about Linux.
This just means that more people need to be trained in how to best utilize the new platform. Again, this would apply to any new SOFTWARE application...which could be why there are such issues with upgrades and new installs now. The company usually views training as a last effort and minimal cost is spent. "We can get 'Joe' trained and he can train others" which can usually lead to misinformation and bad training, especially if 'Joe' has some other job to go along with the new one of Instructor.
* All 14 companies said it was difficult finding qualified Linux personnel in the marketplace to support their Linux projects. When they did find third-party help, they had less leverage negotiating hourly rates than with Windows consulting resources.
See the above reply to #3. There needs to be more people in the field with the ability to actually DO the work. This issue then falls into the fact that the bottom line for any company these days is "How much are we spending" instead of "How productive are we going to be". The leverage they discuss is geared towards how cheap can we get this done. Without developers to play against each other (and whether they can outsource later...which to my knowledge they really cannot with Linux) the company ends up paying the "going rate" for a decent programmer. Tsk Tsk (sarcasm intended)
IMHO, it seems that companies polled were looking for INSTANT savings as opposed to overall TCO. Not taking into consideration the savings at the next version of Windows (Not needing to spend XXXXXX dollars on an upgrade platform). Nor taking into consideration the fact that if there IS a problem with the implementation that someone can FIX it then, and not have to call the MFR for a patch...or wait for a patch....or hope for a patch....
Just MS spewing forth as normal I guess. Sad to say, but it always falls to "How much do we save the shareholders this week" rather than "How much do we save Overall?"You get what you pay for (Score:1, Insightful)
TCO is a lot more than money and administration (Score:4, Insightful)
One poster mentioned the "opportunity cost" for managing a Windows environment due to the downtime suffered by Windows shops. One key fact is this: with proper planning, appropriate maintenance windows, and good people, even a lowly Windows environment can run and actually be very, very stable. I don't care what kind of environment you have, patches *are* required, and administration is required after the initial implementation.
Finally, there is the case of the "tool for the job" that a lot of people tend to forget in the zealousness for all things non-Microsoft. In some cases, MS *IS* the best tool for the job. I current manage a smallish environment where we have about 35 servers. Most are Microsoft, but some Linux is there for specific services. Because of software that we use in our line of business (that is what this is about, after all), we are primarily a Windows shop and will remain so for the foreseeable future. To move to Linux, even a free version like Fedora, would be incredibly expensive and result in a maintenance nightmare due to our primary business apps not supporting Linux. Before you say "then switch apps", consider that our apps are what keep us in business and what all of our people are trained on. It's easy to say "get rid of Windows", but a hell of a lot harder to make it actually happen.
When you're spouting "TCO" analyses without actually considering specific environments, you're providing serious misinformation. Let's call it PCO - partial cost of ownership instead.
OT: Speaking of SUSE (Score:2)
The Great Myth of the GPL (Score:4, Informative)
Oh, you mean provide *free of charge*? No, I don't recall reading anywhere that you have to provide source to all and sundry for no cost. Only to your users.....
Licensing costs != TCO (Score:2)
The biggest chunk of