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

Re: [News] Microsoft Admits Linux TCO is Lower (Shot in Own Foot)

__/ [ Roy Culley ] on Monday 25 December 2006 13:35 \__

> begin  risky.vbs
> <1570806.WqlcCmpN5o@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> This one from Groklaw... (DOC file from Microsoft's Web site, May 2004)
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>| Many factors are considered when making a network operating system
>>| platform decision. While the direct acquisition costs of licensing
>>| and support clearly play a role in IT decisions, this study has
>>| found - after comparing such costs in medium and enterprise
>>| scenarios throughout a five year period - that they do not
>>| significantly differentiate the server product offerings from
>>| Microsoft, Red Hat or Novell/SUSE.
>> `----
>> http://download
>> So, Microsoft does not deny that its products are far more expensive
>> to acquire. Then, it argues that running costs are
>> indistinguishable. Not at all what experience suggests, e.g.:

No, Funky. I know what I read and I know why it was cited. It contradicts the
other self-funded 'studies', too.

> The running costs of Windows are enormous. Where I work the Windows
> and Unix teams are the same size. The Unix guys admin many more
> systems than the Windows guys. SunOS, HP-UX and Linux (primarily RHES,
> plus some Gentoo and SuSE). All mission critical systems run *nix. For
> e-commerce Windows simply isn't allowed. The Windows systems are
> mainly used for file sharing, print servers and Intranet web servers.
> A couple of years ago the comapny chose Siebel for their CRM system.
> Siebel initially developed the system under Windows. They had to give
> up and use Unix because of performance and stability reasons. Windows
> just isn't capable for mission critical applications if you want to be
> competitive.
> Another example is file sharing. The group I work in and the Unix
> group moved all their critical data to *nix systems running Samba
> because the Windows systems were just too unstable. Our bosses never
> noticed a thing other than accessing the shared file systems is now
> totally reliable.
> I can think of no technical reason to run Windows as a server. The
> cost of its maintenance and poor scalability are a drain on IT
> department budgets. There is still lockin on the corporate desktop.
> This is declining as more and more applications are being ported to
> OS neutral versions. Java applets are being used more and more.
> I think MS have missed the boat once again. Their reliance on their
> illegally maintained OS and Office monopolies will be their undoing.
> WWW based apps is the future for both Intranet and Internet services.
> Java is the clear winner in this field.

Heh. Funny that. Read the following on a mate's blog the other day:


"We're sorry we ever thought we could trust PHP on Windows/IIS for even a
minute under virtually no-load without keeping our eyes on it. We?re
especially sorry that NeoSmart Technologies, the blog, the forums, the
downloads, the whitepapers, and all the resources were unavailable for that

                        ~~ Kind greetings and happy holidays!

Roy S. Schestowitz      |    "Lions are like hippie tigers"
http://Schestowitz.com  |     GNU/Linux     |     PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Swap:  1036184k total,   315504k used,   720680k free,    87956k cached
      http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms

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