Referred to this rather amusing article, I thought the readers here would like to get a kick out of it and comment...

https://us.etrade.com/e/t/invest/Story?ID=STORYID=e-trade_delv_2002_12_02_etrade_reuters-eng-reuters_MICROSOFT-BASED-SERVERS-CHEAPER-TO-RUN-THAN-LINUX-STUDY&provider=ReutersUSCompanyNews

Comment?   :)

Gary
gwinn7
A+, Network+  

1.  Mi?ro$oft paid for the survey.  It's always interesting that when Mi?ro$oft pays for the survey, it always comes out in their favor.  I wonder how many surveys they pay for and discard every year.

2.  The cost to operate over five years does not include the cost of licensing.  Linux is probably more expensive to operate, just because there isn't some GUI-based management tool that takes care of simple tasks.  But licensing Mi?ro$oft servers for 100 users will cost you much more than the difference in operating costs betweent the two servers, particularly when you include Mi?ro$oft's forced upgrades.

______________________________________________________________________
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
TANSTAAFL!

It doesn't seem completely unlikely to me.  Windows servers are certainly easy to configure etc.  I don't think gui type linux ones are quite so good and the command line type stuff is certainly more complicated (I was thinking of Apache config files?).  I suppose they are saying the labour cost is much greater than the hardware or software cost.  

Peter Meachem
peter @ accuflight.com

That artical doesn't actually prove anything. They compare the costs from a touch over a hunderd companys, but don't tell anything about the companys themselves. are all these places running similar hardware, working in the same industry, performing the same tasks? You can't compare a company that has their servers running linux on quad or hex CPU machines to opperate 24/7 requiring administrators working around the clock because the buisness requires changes to be made at any given time to a company running win2k on a machine with dual CPUs, when the place is only staffed from 9 'til 5...

where I work, it would be cheaper to run linux servers, but the transition time, and costs doesn't justify the change...yet... We have a LOT of internal software that would have to be re-written, web sites that were developed in ASP that would have to be ported, etc.

garwain:

Benjamin Disraeli was supposed to have said: There are three kinds of lies:  lies, damned lies, and statistics.

______________________________________________________________________
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
TANSTAAFL!

>more expensive to operate, just because there isn't some GUI-based management tool that takes care of simple tasks

This indicates a that you have a somewhat simplistic view of of what system administration might involve.

I think prestige and respectibility come into it somewhere.
Snobbery exists even in the computer world.
In real life, there are those who have to shop at KMart, Wallmart,
and the local discount store, where they also buy their PCs and Microsoft OS.

There are those who would not be seen dead doing that, and buy Gucci, Merceded, Rolex. Unix fall into this category.

Microsoft may mean something to the man in the street, but I don't think that it's name is worth much in serious computing circles.

I'm sure this has always rankled with Bill and MS.

strongm:

You're making assumptions based on facts not in evidence.  I know what system administration involves -- in my last position I had before the current one, I ran a multisite heterogeneous network for 3 years.

The reported difference in costs over 5 years between Linux and Win2k to support 100 full time users is $1,476.  I figure that's 24.60/month.  If you're paying an administrator $50,000/year, that's just under an extra hour per month.

Something as simple as the efficiency of the administration software's interfaces can explain at least part of the difference.

______________________________________________________________________
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
TANSTAAFL!

Two good links:

http://theregister.co.uk/content/4/28408.html
http://theregister.co.uk/content/4/28386.html (I say FreeBSD, not Linux...)

Of course Linux takes more work than Windows to administrate, if you don't know what you are doing. Most Linux distributions provide an annoying mix of GUI and text-based configuration, so if you rely on their methods, you never really get in a groove.

But, if you actually bite the bullet, and take the time to really learn Unix configuration (Slackware Linux is one of the few that actually treats the OS like a Unix), then you realize that there is one great benefit that Windows cannot really provide: scripting. With a handful of Perl scripts, you can make changes much more quickly than the time it takes to open a series of windows, click to the right pane, scroll to the right button, etc...

I have spent my time with FreeBSD, and with Windows, and I will say quite forcefully that one can administrate a FreeBSD server farm much more quickly and effectively than a Windows one, and there are actually Microsoft employees who agree with me: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/28226.html (yes, I know the paper is dated, but it still deals with Win2K)

For example, on my FreeBSD DNS/Webserver, with a couple Perl scripts, I can enter a one-line command for which creates the following:

1. new user account, with web skeleton
2. new DNS record
3. new Apache virtualhost for that domain
4. new "catchall" email alias, with skeleton for further email addresses for that domain

It takes me literally about 10 seconds to enter the command, and I can get back to business. Even better, if I have a list of 100 domains to enter, I can just run a script on top of that which just pipes a whole list to that command. Fait accompli.

And this is only the beginning of true Unix management. Anything can be scripted. Anything. Certainly things can be scripted in a Windows environment, but scripting on windows is not a standardized, unified thing, and even if you could create scripts on a one-for-one level of ease with Unix, then FreeBSD/Linux would still be cheaper, because of licensing costs.

So yes, of course, if I slavishly added users by console 'adduser', edited each text file by hand, and restarted each process by hand, etc... then I would be operating much more slowly than a Windows admin. But then I would also deserve TO BE FIRED.

-------------------------------------------

Big Brother: "War is Peace" -- Big Business: "Suspicion is Trust"
(http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html)

> at least part of the difference.

Absolutely, won't argue with that. What I was referring to was the assertion that it was 'just because of...[etc]'

rycamor:
strongm:

rycamor just helped me figure out where that exta hour per month comes from...

The companies surveyed are probably ones that switched from Win32 to Linux.  Their Win32-experienced sysadmins are going to blow an hour a month bitching about the fact that they can't run MMC.

______________________________________________________________________
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
TANSTAAFL!

Heh!

By the way, Gary... there is a solution to horribly long URLs like the one you posted above: http://www.makeashorterlink.com/

Your link is now http://makeashorterlink.com/?J2AA516A2

And there was much rejoicing in the village...

-------------------------------------------

Big Brother: "War is Peace" -- Big Business: "Suspicion is Trust"
(http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html)

Ah Yes! Thanks Rycamor, I will try it!

Gary
gwinn7
A+, Network+

The companies surveyed are probably ones that switched from Win32 to Linux.  Their Win32-experienced sysadmins are going to blow an hour a month bitching about the fact that they can't run MMC.


-Tarwn

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

I think this article points out something the free software hippies always look over. Its not cheaper if its harder to use.

The average billable rate where I work is $125/hour. You figure if each user loses 10 minutes a day due to this lesser free software, with 100 employees, thats over half a million dollars it would cost us to use the free stuff.

100 employees running...? What OS? What bundled software? What Service calls to the MS million-dollar a minute support center?

Your Numbers
OK at $500,000 per unknown time period
100 people wasting 1/6th of an hour at $125/hour:
$500,000/(100*125*1/6) = 240 days (work year - vacation?)
or
Per Person:
125/hr * 1/6hr = $20.83/day
240 days * $20.83/day = $4999.20/workyear (ouch)

Reboots? Fresh Boots?
That seems like a lot, but nowehere have I seen the cost of reboot times on MS, figure at least 9 reboot or wait for initial boot every week, average of 15 minutes because you walked off and got into a conversation waiting for it to come up:

Per Person:
125/hr * 1/4hr = $31.25/day
240 days * $31.25/day = $7500.00/workyear (aah!)
For 100 people: $750,000 just to boot and reboot machines every year

Gotta Smoke?
Do you smoke? at 1 cigarette/hour 8hrs/day thats 8 cigarettes during work hours at 5 minutes apiece (probably closer to ten if you consider trying to remember what uyou were working on and getting back into the flow).
so 40min/day is spent smoking or:
125/hr * 4/6 = $83.33/day
240 days * $83.33 = $19999.20 your (3/4 pack a day) habit costs the company

If only 1/4th of the people at your company smoke thats:
25 * $19,999.20 = $499,980/workyear

Coffee, Soda, Water?
What if your company hired someone at $5.50/hr to bring coffee around for 8hrs/day all year?
$5.50/hr * 8hrs/day * 240 days = $10,560.00/year
versus employees going to the coffee urn(soda machine, water fountain, etc) for at least 30 min's wasted time per day (walk time, talk time, getting caught back up on what you were doing before you left):
$125.00/hr * 1/2 * 240 days = $15,000 per employee
or $1,500,000/year for 100 employees.


So not counting software for the computers or anything else, with Linux not needing the black magic fix-all reboot of MS Windows and convincing the smokers to quit smoking or use break time to smoke, or just hiring a coffee maid, you have already saved money and probably puchased your initial software, and won yourself a commendation and raise for your massive money saving efforts.

See how fun numbers can be?

-Tarwn

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

Tarwn (and the other Linux guys),

You seem to be able to do the math to prove Microsoft figures are incorrect but not that the Linux figures to prove the cheapness.  This is all conjecture.

Microsoft have commissioned the survey and chosen to publish it as it is in it's favour.  This doesn't mean that this is a lie.  It means that on the parameters chosen the Microsoft platform is cheaper.

Basically, you could pick any number of parameters and get the figures to say what you want.  That's true of any costing type function.  But in doesn't mean that one is cheaper than the other.

As for do I prefer Linux or Microsoft, I don't care.  I want the best solution for the BUSINESS in which I am working.  No-one on the board cares whether Linux is better or whether Microsoft is.  They want the best service available at the minimum cost.  In general, in a large company, UNIX is the way to go but in a small to medium enterprise, Microsoft is.

Now can we all stop the mine is bigger than yours arguments?

Craig

>>Now can we all stop the mine is bigger than yours arguments?

Umm... I didn't think we were getting at all personal about this.

Looks to me like so far we have had a fairly civil and rational discourse. Why on earth are you trying to shut everyone up?

The whole point of these discussions is (hopefully) to arrive at a better understanding of each perspective in an argument, so that each person can make a more informed choice. Even if some people's minds are already made up, there's still no problem with having the discussion.

-------------------------------------------

Big Brother: "War is Peace" -- Big Business: "Suspicion is Trust"
(http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html)

You seem to be able to do the math to prove Microsoft figures are incorrect but not that the Linux figures to prove the cheapness.  This is all conjecture.

Just trying to prove a point.

Basically, you could pick any number of parameters and get the figures to say what you want.  That's true of any costing type function.  But in doesn't mean that one is cheaper than the other.

yep, that was my point.

I think you misunderstood, that entire post could actually be used in a cost function (if I actually had slightly less approximated values).

As to the implication that I am a Linux person, I run two Win2000 servers, work in a Windows and VMS only workplace, started with DOS and only recently decided to re-install Linux as a dual boot on my laptop after not using it in a couple years (ish). I'm not anti-Linux or anti-Windows, I'm anti-choose-the-tool-for-the-brandname :) The point? I wasn't trying to be anti-anything, just back up the assertation that with a little finesse you can make the total costs/savings come out to say anything you want.

I still think Linux would be cheaper to run in the long run, a lot of people quote that it is difficult to learn and they would lose time at x dollars a year... my advice would be to fire the blighters if the amount is considered to be a yearly expense, they should be able to pick it up fast enough that the expense of learning a new version of Windows in-and-out every 3 years will be more expensive.

As a sidenote, my girlfriend, a lifelong Windows user, non-programmer, can take a computer apart and put it back together if she has to (but prefers me to do it, *sigh* women.), is getting a Redhat machine for christmas. After $1,200 for the hardware the last thing I want to do is drop the money for Windows(xpPro $200, win2k pro, $150?) and MS Office(xpPro OEM for about $300, retail for $500+?).

-Tarwn

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

Craig0201:

It is you who has completely missed the point of this discussion.

Choosing mission-critical software is not something a business does lightly.  If I pick the wrong OS on my own computer, I can start from scratch and load what I need -- I'm only out (at worst) a couple of hundred bucks.  But when you multiply that by 100 machines (as in this survey), the business can be out $20,000 dollars.  Not to mention lost profitability, costs of retraining personnel, and other expenses.

So businesses need clear, reproducible, non-biased data to use to make their decisions.  If anyone is tainting data in order that a survey produce the answers he wants, then he is behaving unethically -- he is lying to the public.  And no, it doesn't matter that everyone else is doing it, it still doesn't make it ethical behavior.  And anyone who has ever been laid off will tell you that business decisions affect people.

Mi¢ro$oft, in particular, has a track record of lying to its consumers about the stability of its operating systems, the extent of security breaches associated with known exploitable software bugs, and their ability to innovate (which in Mi¢ro$oft terms seems to really mean "we bought some other product and branded it as our own").  They have had a crusade going against open-source software in general for the last 4 years (http://www.opensource.org/halloween/), and within two weeks of announcing the end of the crusade, they release this survey.  I, for one, haven't forgotten that the last time Mi¢lro$oft published data of this type, their survey methodologies discredited the entire report.

You want some counter-data?  Try: http://www.ibm.com/linux/RFG-LinuxTCO-vFINAL-Jul2002.pdf

______________________________________________________________________
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
TANSTAAFL!

Sleipner: Very good link, thanks for both, made some good reading.

And now I better go see to changing my signature, i didn't notice how alike they were until just now :P

-Tarwn

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

I am sorry if the post offended anyone.  It certainly wasn't intended to.  

I didn't feel that this was a rational discussion.  I read it in a way that Linux is better because I say it is.  A number of posters have been discrediting the Microsoft report WITHOUT replacing it with an argumnet of their own.  It seemed to me to be a case of: It's wrong because Microsoft say it is true.

I would be equally sceptical of the report on the IBM site.  IBM are a big proponent of Linux and supporting it can only boost their server sales.

Until the day that all businesses are identical, there will never be a single best platform, nor a single cheapest platform.  The number of variables involved are simply too big.  You can disagree with Microsoft's figures, you can disagree with IBM's figures, you can disagree with whatever figures you like but the fact remains that you have to make your choice and sometimes Microsoft is the best option.

Craig  

As much as I love this discussion there seems to be two themes to it.  One is what platform is easier to use and the other is which platform is cheaper.  Microsoft is claiming that because their platform is easier to use it is cheaper.

I do believe that Open Source Software does lack true consistency and usability and is the biggest downside of free software.

In a study by Apple computers (on usability) they found consistently that using the mouse was faster then using shortcut keys.  Scripts are can provide a great deal of automation but what Rycamor doesn't know is that MS does have plenty of scripting features.  Just go in the VBScript section to see what some people are capable of scripting. Heck Perl actually runs on Windows as well and can be used to do the command line administration you mentionned (with a slightly different syntax) or even good old batch files.

Thing is Unix does many things better but it remains a very complex OS that most people can't use without getting lost in jargon or let's face it ugly inconsistent GUIs.  Windows is consistent, easy to use and as scriptable as *nix.

I use Mandrake as a desktop (as well as XP) and use FreeBSD as my web server.

Gary www.xutopia.com Haran

"using the mouse was faster then using shortcut keys"
Really? Cool. Was this a test on completely replacing the mouse with shortcut keys or just certain tasks? I'd be interested to see the documentation, interesting test.

VBScript, I'm a member, in fact if you look at the ASP forum experts list it sounds like I might know a little about it, whereas I haven't touched Perl in a couple years.
Point? I'm not convinced that scripting is easier in a Windows atmosphere.

Reliability of *nix over Windows is not an opinion, but a proven fact.
Speed of *nix over Windows is also not an opinion, but a fact. (MS had to slow apache down in order to beat it, etc)
Scripting...you don't have access to half the things yuo want to do, how could it be as powerful on a Windows machine? Sure you can use Perl, but will the OS give you access to make the changes you want?

As to links, sleipner's links provided a whole slew of them.

As to me being one of the "free software hippies" mentioned above, i think if you look at other threads I normally try to argue for Windows, I run both systems,

Use the best tool for the job.
-Tarwn

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

Craig0201:

Even if you discount that Mi¢ro$oft's report said one thing, and IBM's another, there is still the matter of the scale of the numbers -- they differ by orders of magnitude, even on line items that, at least by description, should be the same.

The IBM report also includes methodology descriptions and other meta-information that can allow you to weigh the value of the study.  When Mi¢ro$oft releases a report, you typically get the executive summary through their marketing department.  It's the Wizard of Oz's old "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" thing.


xutopia:
*nix's GUI can be just as consistent as the Win32 GUI.  Your system adminstrator simply says, "Okay, people, all company-owned machines on this network use [KDE|Gnome|<whatever>]."  Don't confuse choices with inconsistency.

Also, many companies find open-source productivity suites competely usable -- and more every day.

Yes, setting up a *nix network, to do it right, can be a more daunting task than a Win32 network (so long as you stayed away from Windows ME -- don't get me started), but that does not imply more difficulty of use.  Through judicious use of NFS and NIS, you can have network-wide single-signons, portable profiles, and even apparantly-local portable "My Documents" folders.  And I've found that so long as they can find their documents, invoke their necessary programs, and their screen-saver doesn't change without their knowing about it, a majority of users are happy with any system.



I'd like to take a look at that Apple mouse/keyboard study, too.  You got a link?

Want the best answers?  Ask the best questions: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
TANSTAAFL!

hmm..
Use the best tool for the job.
-Tarwn

I'm suprised that didn't end the conv.

I have something better then all of you.  The AS/400 with IE for a GUI.  OK, Maybe not

My most satisfying and best work has come from helping others

http://www.onpntwebdesigns.com
admin@onpntwebdesigns.com

>Windows is consistent

Any OS that requires you to use the 'Start' button to stop the damn system has got to be suspect...

In GUI terms the conventions Windows takes to being consistently similar to the next version is very consistant.  
That, I believe is the reasoning behind so many companies (namely manufacturing settings) using it.  It is easy to use from a user stand point.  User proof if there is such a thing, and upon a version upgrade when needed in the company, the consistency of the interface for a user side of things does not change a great deal.  This I itself from a business point of view on the cost side of things (training etc.) is worth it.

My most satisfying and best work has come from helping others

http://www.onpntwebdesigns.com
admin@onpntwebdesigns.com

onpnt:

And that differs from picking a standard Xwindow desktop manager in that......?


strongm:

Want the best answers?  Ask the best questions: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
TANSTAAFL!

Speaking of consistent desktops, I can make my KDE desktop look exactly like windows XP, down to only having one screen (ick), double click to open files, windows style title bars on my windows, right click menus, etc, etc, etc. In fact if your users never use DOS than they never need to use Linux command line, it has come far enough that as long as you trim the menu down and give them a link (as was mentioned above) to their documents and personal folder area, it looks and feels extremely similar to windows. Then you apply the windows XP theme (if your really insane) and there are still differances, but very very few.
Sounds like a lot of work, right? nah, set up one, create a script to duplicate it, or use a GUI tool to create some default new user settings so every new user looks like your custom one, and away you go.

As to manufacturer settings, if you set up all your user machines the same (with settings and such) it shouldn't really matter to anything less than the developer if they have three machines with three differant builds.

-Tarwn

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

>>Windows is consistent
>
>Any OS that requires you to use the 'Start' button to stop >the damn system has got to be suspect...

or in the 9x / ME, CTRL+ALT+DEL to reboot, NT/2K CTRL+ALT+DEL to login...

More comments on this:

http://www.computeruser.com/articles/daily/8,6,1,1209,02.html

Jeff
No matter how bad it is, it can always get worse ....

>or in the 9x / ME, CTRL+ALT+DEL to reboot, NT/2K CTRL+ALT+DEL to login...

Not such a good example. Assuming I'm actually logged in, all the named OS's give me their version of a task manager.

It's this kind of behavior that gets Microsoft sued over and over again.

It's this kind of behavior that gets Microsoft sued over and over again.
Which behaviour? (Theres been so many examples)

Also, anyone actually have a link to all the lawsuits, or even a count? I actually hadn't realized there were enough to say "over and over again" but the more I think about it, the more I realize it's possible, especially considering how good they are at PR, anything "minor" could be spun or hushed.

-Tarwn

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

Speaking of Total Cost of Ownership.  What about the cost of maintaining your mountain of windows licenses?  

I would like to see a comparison of cost from running a nt4 server (which a lot of small and medium size business still have, such as the business I work for.) and a *nix server.  You would have to include the cost of every concievable utility needed for a server.  NT4 doesn't even come with a defrag utility!  Also throw in the cost of the network crashing every two weeks, and throw in the cost of the backup system failing for a random reason and losing data!

Granted, win2000 server is a much better system, but not all companies (especially in our modern economy) will invest in the latest and from microsoft.

One point people miss is a OS is really only as good as the apps that will run on it. Thats why everyone thinks linux is such a good webserver, because apache is ported for it.

The problem in the accounting world, and I'm guessing everywhere else, is all the good software is made for windows. Thus even if you OS doesn't slow you down, the lesser applications will.

Hmm, software, yummy:
Quicken: $50, $70, $80 US for intial purchase
Then theres GnuCash (don't have the linux machine up, may have misremebered the name), umm free and imports QIF files.

This is not an accountants machine. Accountants have enough problems with win 95

All of the highly advertised software is made for Windows. Even that is to general a statement. We can't say all the good software, because there is a great deal of good software included in most types of Linux. Plus there is a whole heck of a lot that you can download independantly of the ISO's you need to install it. Plus support (if wanted) is cheaper. Win2000 SP3 fubar'd my machine. The only way i could contact them was through a forum (sorry, not going to pay that much to ask them what they did to my computer so I could fix it myself). I got one answer. It was entirely unrelated to my question except for the fact that a few jeywords in my question appeared in the answer. I eventually managed to shovel sp3 off my system and just recently got my settings menu back.

I'm not bitter :P

MS Windows is further ahead in the arena of general public knowledge, but Linux us further ahead in how well applications tie in to the OS. Every time a programmer decides they need a large tool, they start building it (well, obviously not all programmers, but enough to make a differance). So basically what I have found is so many tools I can't play with them all. Applications, games, etc. MS Windows may be ahead here and there, Linux may be ahead here and there, but I son't see a clear cut definitive one in front of the other situation.

-Tarwn

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
No more vacation for me :(

FAQ FAQ20-2863
 = new Forums.Posting.General.GettingAnswers()