Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Linux TCO significantly lower than others

  • Subject: Re: Linux TCO significantly lower than others
  • From: Richard Rasker <spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 17:00:12 +0200
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Organization: Linetec
  • References: <df8rvv$25f2$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk> <mGYRe.1628$4i6.991@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>
  • User-agent: Pan/ (As She Crawled Across the Table)
  • Xref: news.mcc.ac.uk comp.os.linux.advocacy:1026996
Op Fri, 02 Sep 2005 13:43:46 +0000, schreef billwg:

> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message 
> news:df8rvv$25f2$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Many of you have probably seen this by now:
>> http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=170102340
>> In short, Linux if 40% cheaper than Windows in terms of total cost of
>> ownership, i.e. setup /and/ maintenance. This study comes from IBM and 
>> it
>> is surely something to wave at the boss' face when he/she considers 
>> the
>> deployment of a new system, whatever its nature may be.
> Ah, yes, roy, but you have to get the linux for free to meet these 
> numbers and thus you need to provide all your own support and pay low 
> wages to your own people rather than contracting the support to the 
> linux distribution vendor.  The study shows lower in-house costs with 
> "free" linux as the source of the savings. The whole idea of linux lower 
> TCO rests on the backs of those who will work for less money than an 
> alternative.

Nope, Linux IT staff isn't paid less - in fact, many seasoned Linux
workers earn twice the hourly rate of a Windows expert. Yet they're still
cheaper because one Linux admin can maintain *way* more machines than one
Windows admin, and Linux requires *way* less in terms of hardware. Often,
it takes two to four Windows machines to replace one multi-role Linux
server. I even heard of one particular messaging solution that would
require only one Linux box, but 30(!) Windows servers.

> Availability and needs for IT weenies ebb and flow with the times and
> the cheapskate companies that look to lower costs with wage squeezes on
> surplus talent will inevitably feel the pinch some future day when their
> staffs decamp for richer climes.  You buy cheap and you get cheap and it
> will eventually show.

Have you *read* the article? It specifically states that Linux is very
popular among both IT novices and specialists - and I think because it's
open, free and transparent. Tinkering with and digging into the OS to any
desired level is highly encouraged, and not punished, as with Windows.
With Windows, all you get is a black box. You're allowed to do exactly
*nothing* on the level of the OS itself, you're just allowed to use
whatever options the black box and the license permit. Do you want more?
Pay more. Do you want something different? Pay again. Do you want
something not yet implemented? Tough luck, learn to do without, or pay
huge sums to have it developed. Windows is a ball-and-chain, for which
one's expected to pay quite a bit too.

The only negative side of using Linux (from an admin's point of view, that
is), is that it's so boringly reliable. I have a per-hour maintenance
contract for a handful of servers; the past year, I could charge exactly 3
hours for 5 machines, two hours of which were spent recovering a system
from a crashed disk. When checking the logs for the past year or so,
there's *nothing* noteworthy, except the "business as usual" messages.

I think that I could have easily charged ten times the amount mentioned if
these were Windows machines. So yes, in a way you're right: Linux is for
cheapskates, who simply want their stuff to work.

Richard Rasker

Linetec Translation and Technology Services


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index