Submitted by Two research reports sponsored by IBM argue that Linux is less expensive to buy and operate than Windows or Unix. The first paper claims Linux is 40% less expensive than a comparable x86-based Windows server and 54% less than a comparable Sparc-based Solaris server. The second that using Linux has “Second Stage Benefits” such as attracting IT workers, among whome open source is increasingly popular.
What a surprise! A company supporting Windows (MS) sponsors a study and Windows turns out to be cheaper. A company supporting Linux sponsors a study and Linux turns out to be cheaper.
Who would have thought…
I know, it’s getting old too.
Alternatively you could look at it this way. Companies with alot of Windows experience know how to make the TCO for Windows lower and companies with alot of LINUX experience know how to make the TCO of LINUX lower.
Hmmmmm…..
and this is the very reason that OSDL should not (have not ) do the study. NOBODY has confidence in them.
When was the last time you believed an online study
on the usability and effectiveness of computer studies ? Almost never. What other people who have used the software said and thought is what influenced you more. … regardless of their subjectivity
…all you linux zealots were worried about Microsoft sponsered studies being too biased towards Windows.
If your smart you’ll apply the same logic here, and agree with me that this must be a biased study not to be trusted. After all, IBM is very pro-Linux. You shouldn’t believe any numbers out of IBM with regard to Linux.
Well, you’re right. But at least they’re straight forward about it.
Also, I’d like to point out that IBM is not “pro-linux.” IBM supports linux because OSS is so friendly to companies like IBM: Consultancy companies. So yes, the study is biased because it’s IBM looking for more fuel for its consultant fire; but at the same time it doesn’t have nearly the investment in Linux that Microsoft has in Windows.
…is only good to combat the claims made in other sponsored surveys.
At liest IBM is upfront about it.
Ehhr, no they’re NOT upfront with it… the OSNews editor is though.
Either way, my 2 cents go to the fact that almost anything supported by IBM will be the most expensive solution in the long run.
Ehhr, no they’re NOT upfront with it… the OSNews editor is though.
Yet, the linked article starts off with…
Just as the debate over whether Linux or Windows is cheaper to deploy and manage was threatening to become old hat, IBM on Wednesday fired the latest salvo by promoting two reports it sponsored that indicate Linux is significantly less expensive than Windows and Unix and that Linux usage brings with it a number of secondary benefits that add intangibles to the cost argument.
…so, I don’t see how they are hiding the fact that they sponsored the surveys. Do you know otherwise? Details if you have them.
IBM also typically gives you the best solution in the long run though…
I’m sorry. I’m a biased AS400/I-series/I5 nerd…and my company is giving up the I5, and moving to a windows based solution. Which is going to destroy them…mark my words…
…figure it out for yourself. Hearsay from others never tells you the “reality” of your own situation.
Do a small pilot. See where the weaknesses are, see where the strengths lie. Decide where you can use it or not.
Sponsored studies: “Give me a thousand bucks and I’ll tell you what you want to hear.”
Also, “Give me £1000 and I’ll tell you how to save £300”.
But also, do the test yourself, taking up £300 worth of time, and you’ll learn how to save £50.
“The lesson to be learned from these Linux and Windows TCO comparisons is that companies need to conduct a little research of their own before making any IT platform decisions. Actual costs are bound to be very specific to each company’s needs.”
If you read all the way through, you would have seen this.
Also, IBM does a not-insignificant portion of Windows based sales on their Laptops and Desktops. They’re just playing it smart and selling what sells! I commend them.
Before Linux, IBM would be pushing Unix on servers, they see where Unix is going and now push Linux on servers. IBM has never really been a one OS kind of company (CP/M, dos, OS2, windows, unix etc). If IBM thought Windows Server 2003 was a better platform for their servers, they would be selling Windows Servers. I gaurantee it. Big Blue’s endorsement of Linux proves their confidence of Linux as a viable and better solution for servers over Windows or Unix.
You don’t become the worlds longest lasting computer company by being stupid.
Also, IBM does a not-insignificant portion of Windows based sales on their Laptops and Desktops. They’re just playing it smart and selling what sells! I commend them.
Just for ythe record IBM no longer sell their Laptops and Desktops, this has been sold to Lenovo.
They will however sell you Windows on their IA86 servers if you want it.
I’d be surprised to no end if someone, anyone, proved that a server using a Microsoft OS was cheaper than *any* other comparable OS. That includes OS X!
The downtime an MS machine “provides” is amazing. If you are dumb enough to do “Automatic Update”, or even if you manually download and install all fixes, you’ll have an uptime of less than 95%!
Compare that to the kind of servers I run _at my home_ (meaning uptime isn’t a tenth as important as for a company) where 99+% uptime is more normal.
Then there’s licensing fees. Imagine you you run a small shop and is securely firewalled. Yuo want a simple SMB server for 50 co-workers. What? MS SMB Server requires you to “license” more client connections?
OK, compare SAMBA. What, you can (if your hardware allows it) connect a gazillion clients, and not pay a dime?
I don’t think you need a BullShit in economy to see the light.
I could go on, but it would just repeat the obvious.
To this, add the number of virus infections and _the willingness of Microsoft boxes to spread those viruses_.
I use MS OSes daily, even at home – but as I’m a very security concious admin I also know how to “herd the sheep”. I’d never, ever, try to use an MS OS for anything (directly) connected to the ‘net.
Easy Ace,
I run both Windows and Linux servers at my company. At least every other month there is a kernel patch requiring a reboot of my Linux systems. Stability-wise they are both equal (for us).
Licensing fees? I used to do consulting for a number of small companies in N.E. Massachusetts – they went with Windows because it could be configured and installed by the business people – they didn’t need an IT guy just to get up and running (we proved our worth by reducing the post-install admin and patching). Licensing costs are just a cost of doing business – it works like their desktop, so they don’t worry about losing their ‘IT’ guy and being out in the cold.
You mention the downtime caused by patching, but then talk about the viruses – if you’re patching your servers, they aren’t susceptible to viruses (desktops are another matter, as you can’t prevent people from clicking on some things).
You are making an assumption that cost is the major factor in choosing a server OS. It may be a factor, but it isn’t the primary one. Familiarity and supportability are higher. When hiring, I would take a good Unix/Linux person over a Windows-only person any day, but they are far more rare than I would like.
“I run both Windows and Linux servers at my company. At least every other month there is a kernel patch requiring a reboot of my Linux systems. Stability-wise they are both equal (for us).”
Microsoft has “patch Tuesday” once per month, so if reboots for patching every other month are the only downtimes for your linux servers, then the linux servers are bound to have better uptime. Can Windows servers stay up for a whole month without the performance dropping?
“if you’re patching your servers, they aren’t susceptible to viruses”
I wouldn’t bet my job on that…
“When hiring, I would take a good Unix/Linux person over a Windows-only person any day, but they are far more rare than I would like.”
Well, the problem isn’t in higher education. I don’t really know how to program for Windows because all of my CS classes assumed a unix environment. My guess is that talented unix people find IT sysadmin stuff degrading and seek development jobs instead, whereas ITT Tech will sell you an MCSE certification and get you a job at graduation.
Ditto.
I know they probably chose Solaris as a representative for old unix for good reasons, but the story would have impressed more if IBM had said “Linux is better than AIX”.
“I know they probably chose Solaris as a representative for old unix for good reasons, but the story would have impressed more if IBM had said “Linux is better than AIX”.”
I think I’m the only IBMer in the AIX division that says that. I don’t argue that based on the technical merits of the platforms, AIX on pSeries beats the pants of anything Linux runs on, but based on momentum. The free software community has leveraged the collaborative power of the internet to make software engineering a downhill battle. There’s simply no way that AIX can keep up with the development of Linux in the long run. It’s already starting to happen. Xen can failover an apache server in less than 200ms. IBM recently purchased a company called Meiosys to bring this same technology to AIX. Linux (and Solaris even more) is starting to push on AIX, and the effect is not great for AIX. AIX can only be the stable, reliable, iron-clad UNIX it’s supposed to be because most of the code is mature and extensively tested in the field. What happens when customers start demanding new features? The diffs become large, and the chance for destabilization increases.
The only OS development team in the world that can consistently and relentlessly add new features while continuing to improve overall software quality is the open source software community (which makes up more than Linux, of course). No proprietary team has enough manpower, testing resources, or mindshare to do this, and typically management gets in the way as well. The only reason for management in software development is for directing projects and making efficient use of manpower. When anyone in the world can contribute, there is no need for management. The cream can float to the top.
Linux isn’t better than AIX at what AIX does best, but Linux is the fastest growing operating system (kernel) on the planet. And when the fastest growing OS is OSS, it isn’t going to stop accelerating, either.
Since Linux-based servers are one of IBM’s products, I’d take this study with a grain of NaCl (much the same way I did when reading MS-funded researches).
That said, I can’t help but adding that: 1) IBM sells both Linux- and Windows-based solutions (among other things), and 2) our own experiencing in using Linux extensively and shifting from MS products tell ME that Linux TCO is much, much lower. (Anyone who wants to interview the company for a study can email [email protected])
Ans now we got IBM comparing x86 Linux solutions against SPARC ones????? Yeah, SPARC solutions are more expensive than x86, we all know that IBM. In fact, why they didn´t said anything about “SPECS” (performace)… or even more, what about POWER5 ($$$$$$$$$$$$$)!!!!!!!!!! OR AIX?????
yeah IBM, we all are just plain stupids…
Yeah, SPARC solutions are more expensive than x86, we all know that IBM. In fact, why they didn´t said anything about “SPECS” (performace)… or even more, what about POWER5 ($$$$$$$$$$$$$)!!!!!!!!!! OR AIX?????
Actually, when we tried to compare servers with our resident consultant (with an IBM partnered firm) some time ago, the same server from IBM loaded with Linux cost more than when it was loaded with AIX. It was a reatively low spec afair btw, a P630 or something.
IBM are pushing Linux, but not at any cost.
Interesting. I had this argument with a guy where I live a few nights ago. He’s a Windows admin at a respectably sized company, and he’s adamant that the TCO is much lower for Windows, and that all the big places like CNET etc are releasing reports saying so. I let him have his rant, nodded, smiled and didn’t say a word. If he wants to buy that spiel, that’s his choice.
In many cases, Linux will have a lower TCO, but not by a huge amount. To administrate Linux takes skill and knowledge, something that a lot of Windows admins lack (I’m saying a lot, not all). That means, that it costs more money to hire a Linux admin that’s competent (not a Windows user wannabee Linux user admin). In some places, the TCO will be approximately the same. In places that are heavily tied to Windows only applications, with no, or few options of porting, then it’s most probably cheaper to go to Windows.
This is the whole problem with MS Windows and Microsoft – everything that stems from it is purely designed to lock you in to this o/s. Nothing more, and nothing less. It’s so blatantly obvious that Microsoft is a monopolistic business, and the answers are so obvious to fixing that, I simply cannot believe that the US cannot enforce the necessary changes to eliminate this monopolism and give some real choice to the IT community.
To be honest, I don’t give a shit if Microsoft has to spend a shitload of money and time redesigned their o/s to remove the hooks that force the monopoly – that’s their problem, and it’s what they deserve. They took the risk of designing their systems that way, with the express desire of becoming a monopoly with deliberate hooks to strongly discourage, nay sabotage 3rd parties to compete with Microsoft products. They should pay the price.
We all know what needs to be done, and what should be done, but no one wants to seem to make the US government do it.
Dave
Don’t just bitch about sponsored surveys. Yes they lie all the time, but they also contains grains of truth. Combine these with your own research and make up your mind. That’s why it’s there in the first place.
Quick!! Where’s an OS X study from Apple declaring that it’s cheaper as well!?!?!
Creating doubt in the Microsoft study is the point. IBM needs managers to actually think about what TCO means for their unique organization, and not blindly accept Microsoft’s story.
Manager: “Every study shows Microsoft has lower TCO.”
Executive: “That’s not what I’ve seen. Show me the numbers for your organization, not someone else’s. And I want to see numbers for Unix, Windows, and Linux.”
Windows may be the best choice in some situations, but that needs to be proven, not accepted on faith. With Microsoft’s huge market share, it’s a good bet that Windows is being used in many places where something else would be better. Linux may be in some of the wrong places, too. But if 10% of Windows servers switch to Linux, and 10% of Linux servers switch to Windows, Linux comes out way ahead.
I dont really need studies to show me that the TCO is much less for linux.
I used both and see the end result =)
Are you running/beancounting an organisation with 100s of employees, 100s of seats, large servers etc? You have a SPARC server?
You _may_ not be retarded, but your implication that because others may want to outsource their “used both and see the end result” then they must be, is pure FUD.
If you had made the title of your post: “IMHO”, or “For my personal use” then you would have got +2 insightful. As it is you get -1 Troll.
seriously, we all know that a unix/linux admin is commonly more expensive than windows admin. And that unix administration requires familiarity in nfs, nis, network configurations, shell scripting, quotas, environments, PATH’s, log files, etc. And well, as little as i know about windows…. it seems to require patch, click, patch, click, re-certify, patch, click, etc. But if you want an internal network that is cheap and productive for lemmings… and cheap to admin…. might windows be most cost effective for certain applications? And if so, who cares? Nothing is replacing *nix. Science and real development happen on platforms that prove their suitability and correctness in the field — *nix. I vote that we stop comparing Microsoft Windows and Unix derivatives and focus on open standards and security correctness in all OS’s and apps. I don’t care if you wear “GAP” jeans or “Levi’s”… it’s the stitching and fabric that concerns me.
Shane Bostick
Boise, ID
“as little as i know about windows…. it seems to require patch, click, patch, click, re-certify, patch, click, etc.”
You forgot some steps. It goes like this:
license, patch, click, license 3rd party apps, buy support, patch, click, buy more servers, hire more sysadmins, re-certify, patch, click, 7 years later new windows comes out, repeat.
If you don’t know about quotas or log files you’re screwed as a windows admin, same thing if you even use nis for anything.
… Jean-Louis Gassé just completed his very own study in his basement and conclude that BeOS is STILL the least expensive OS solution.
I have read a previous report by the Robert Frances Group. I then compared it with a Microsoft TCO study. I will admit to being biased, but the RFG report struck me as being much more rigorous. They used measured values for the number of computers that could be administered by a single admin. This strongly depended upon the platform. They used and a platform dependent salary for the admins. The Microsoft study incuded a platform dependent salary, but they assumed that the number of computers per admin was platform independent (and equal to a number similar to what RFG used for the Windows servers.) This difference in assumptions leads to significantly different estimates for the cost of administration, which is the leading cost of operating either Linux and Windows. So, its easy to say ‘the authors are biased’. Perhaps, but read the reports and show me where the bias occurs and why you think that the bias makes a difference in the analysis. Anything less is just cheerleading for your side.