In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Oliver Wong
<owong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Wed, 26 Jul 2006 18:01:00 GMT
<w5Oxg.133551$A8.24067@clgrps12>:
>
> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1611581.ezUyNyCSjT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> __/ [ Oliver Wong ] on Wednesday 26 July 2006 18:29 \__
>>
>>> <nessuno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:1153899427.955549.220130@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> The article starts off talking about electricity, then drifts into
>>>> other topics.
>>>
>>> I read the article, and I didn't really get how it is that open
>>> source
>>> save electricity...
>>
>> You're quite the skpetic, are you not? *smile*
>
> That, combined with ignorance, I guess:
>
>> It is a known
>> fact that you need several Windows servers (or use fractions
>> thereof) to carry out the work of just one UNIX/BSD/Linux
>> server with the same hardware specifications (leave TCO
>> aside for now).
>
> I was unaware of this well known fact.
Indeed. Is there a link somewhere? The data I have is
rather old, but Google can still find it, and
there is this Cybersource 2001 NT versus Linux
versus Solaris study:
http://www.cyber.com.au/cyber/about/linux_vs_windows_pricing_comparison.pdf
(4.3 MB)
which among other things suggests that Linux saved Intel $200M.
However, it is a tad misleading, since it only looks at software costs.
(The hardware, presumably, is identical in both problem
sets, which makes it partly excusable. But don't expect
1 16MB 486 box to handle hundreds of interdepartmental
users. :-) )
Interestingly, it also contains some screenshots, including
StarOffice 6, near the back.
It turns out that
http://www.cyber.com.au/cyber/about/linux_vs_windows_tco_comparison.pdf
also exists. This one's apparently been updated (by
Open Source Victoria), as it mentions both 2002 and 2004.
It mentions a possible 36% savings if existing hardware and
infrastructure is used, and 26% if one uses new hardware
and infrastructure. The savings are about 8% less if
one uses RedHat Enterprise. The report also mentions the
infamous IDC report (linked to below) and critiques it, as
well as Laura DiDio's 2004 report from the Yankee Group.
I'm having troubles finding the time interval over the
length of the study, but I suspect at least 3 years.
Google also coughed up this 2003 article:
http://searchopensource.techtarget.com/qna/0,289202,sid39_gci883142,00.html
which among other things mentions:
For us, Linux is a no-brainer as a first choice. The
cost and the fact that it works well on older hardware
mean that we can trial ideas without a huge outlay
in money. This is great, especially when the ideas
don't pan out, as we're not left with costly licenses
and no chance of returning them.
-- Rodd Clarkson of RedFish, Bluefish Creative of Australia
This admittedly makes Linux very attractive for prototyping purposes.
A partial rebuttal to Microsoft's claims is here:
http://linux.sys-con.com/read/44881.htm
which starts out with an overview of the TCO process, then walks
through some of the possible pitfalls in a study, which are
subtitled:
- Abstract Assumptions Don't Translate Well to the Real World
- Real-World Data Is More Valuable than Opinion
- Omissions Can Make the Data Unrealistic in Practice
Hear hear! :-)
Another page, dated 2004-10-13:
http://www.ameinfo.com/47305.html
quite frankly states that
The cost issues in Linux's favor are hard to
quantify. Though distributions like SUSE and Red Hat
aren't free, most of the Linux tools are free and
open. For the MIC project, for example, it represents
tens of thousands of dollars in initial cost savings.
But some studies claim that the total cost of ownership
for Linux is higher than it is for competitors such as
Windows NT because of the higher cost of qualified
labor. The studies suggest that because Windows
NT administrators are more prevalent than Linux
administrators, NT administrators will be cheaper
and easier to recruit, thus lowering server costs
over time.
[...]
'Linux is now the standard for teaching computer
science and programming at the university level,'
[Douglas Welsh, a lecturer and senior professional
technical staff member for the department of molecular
biology at Princeton University] says. 'The people
we hire have been trained and are familiar with Linux
systems. That makes it cheaper and easier to administer
Linux over time.'
(OK...this makes it clear as mud.)
Some studies, including one as early as July 2002
conducted by the Robert Frances Group (RFG), confirm
Welsh's position. The RFG study shows that, on average,
one Linux administrator can administer significantly
more servers than NT administrators can.
Taking a host of variables into account-initial cost,
labor cost, administrators per server processor and
relative security-the RFG study concluded that the
three-year cost of a 100,000-hit processing unit
was significantly different among three systems:
Sun Solaris costs $561,520, Windows costs $190,662
and Linux costs $74,475. The study was conducted on
x86 systems to control for hardware variables.
Cum grano salis and YMMV, but a 60% savings looks real
good in the bank. (It is far from clear how much of
the cost is from antivirus subscriptions -- an issue
for Windows but not all that significant for Linux.
Note that the Open Source Victoria deliberately ignores
this issue, trying to give the issue to Microsoft; Linux
still wins.)
And of course for those who want it, the 2002 article from
Microsoft/IDC:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/docs/TCO.pdf
which suggests that, over a 5 year period Linux has
*higher* security costs than Windows (+29%), as well as
higher printing (+23%), filesharing (+15%), and networking
(+12.5%) costs -- and a maybe 5% cost savings for web
serving.
Ouch. Of course there is the little issue that one has to
analyze this *very* carefully, and I for one don't know
what their underlying assumptions are. (They include
staffing.)
The logo should mention "printed on recycled FUD", since it's
going to sow confusion (and already has). :-)
Make of all this what one will.
>
>> The use of resources in Windows (including
>> the cost of instantiating many processes, as in Web
>> servers... article refers to Craigslist) is blazingly high.
>> There are many more technical issues* that make GNU/Linux
>> more resource efficient (and thus less inclined to
>> overheating, high consumption of power, etc.)
>>
>> To give just one reference from a *gasp* Microsoft study:
>>
>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Murphy/index.php?p=459
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | What's noteworthy about it is that Microsoft compared Singularity to
>> | FreeBSD and Linux as well as Windows/XP - and almost every result
>> | shows Windows losing to the two Unix variants. For example, they show
>> | the number of CPU cycles needed to "create and start a process" as
>> | 1,032,000 for FreeBSD, 719,000 for Linux, and 5,376,000 for
>> | Windows/XP."
>> `----
>
> Was unaware of this as well. I'm susprised that Wired magazines assumes
> the reader is familiar with this information.
I do remember that information, though I can't say I'd be able to
find it readily now.
>
> - Oliver
>
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
|
|
