Tech&Me said:
What about the Linux Support Service , which do charge u more than what Microsoft Charges from you for there Server OS. There is a recurring expenditure on Linux, since Linux requires more support then Microsoft OS's. Linux turns out to be costly in the long run.
Well, it looks like you're still in the infamous 2002 Microsoft TCO Report mood.
Actually, there's no clear winner yet when it comes to TCO. Both parties claim superiority and have excellent case studies to prove their claims, but there is one thing I've seen in all of them - it depends on the use and is totally individual and not REALLY a case study at all. It all depends on the function of the OS, the hardware, whether you're migrating from Windows to Linux or if you're starting from the ground up, and if you have IT staff thats experienced with Linux. You cannot throw random numbers into formulas and come up with a TCO and claim its a general case study. But here's what I've found.
Linux claims the licensing fees when it comes to comparisons with Windows is ridiculously low. True, they're right, and as Microsoft points out, the licensing fees in the long run is practically negligible in figuring out the TCO over, say, a 5 year plan, in a dynamically growing company.
Like Microsoft says, the administration and support costs for a Windows system are much lower than a Linux system and that's what really matters, and Windows admins are larger in number and hence, cheaper than Linux admins. Again, true. But there's a fatal flaw that's in their argument. They fail to see that most Linux admins already have extensive experience as Unix admins, plus, the most important thing is that a Unix/Linux admin is able to manage ten times more systems than a Windows admin.
So while a Windows admin can manage 10 servers, a Linux/Unix admin can easily manage 1000 servers at a time, which means that they need fewer admins to manage a larger base effectively. The salary is obviously higher, but they get more bang for their buck with Linux guys. Also, its not like its really difficult to find qualified Linux people anymore. Basically a Solaris admin can work with Linux and pick it up within a week.
The Robert Frances Group (RFG) tracked 14 companies running mission critical web servers, or "processing units" that would be required to process about 100,000 hits per day over a period of 3 years.
With Red Hat Linux 7.3 running Apache to Solaris running Apache, and Windows running IIS, they tested on an x86 platform, they found that Windows needed an average of 7.6 servers for a processing unit, Linux needed 7.4, and Solaris needed 2.2.
Licensing costs per processing unit varied from a one-time software purchase cost of $400 for Linux, where most companies just ran the free download versions. Solaris was highest at $27,500 per processing unit, and Windows' up-front cost was $5,320, with a total licensing cost of $7,980.
Hardware and maintenance costs were nearly the same for Windows and Linux; Solaris cost about 10 times more. Linux admin salaries were slightly higher than Windows admins, with Linux at $71,400 per admin, and Windows at $68,500 per admin. But Linux admins took care of an average of 44 servers and Windows admins an average of 10. So the salary per processing unit was Linux, $12,010, and Windows, $52,060.
When it came to systems support costs, very few companies paid for Linux support, most of them used the free support online, which debunks your cost of support theory for servers. Obviously, commercial Windows Server support is a costlier option. A 3 year cost of the 100,000-hit processing unit among the systems was: Solaris: $561,520, Windows: $190,662, Linux: $74,475.
Nobody says Linux is free, its just cheaper and more effective compared to Windows. The facts are there for everyone to see.
babumuchhala said:
Well nice little dream GNUrag. Laughing Laughing Microsoft would never do that and wat its doin currently is all under the eyes of fedral & other governmental agencies.
Actually, GNUrag may not be dreaming all that much. Microsoft is slowly testing open source waters, they did release WTL and WiX as open source on SourceForge and they're planning to release Windows 2000, XP, Server 2003, Windows CE 3.0, ASP.NET and Visual Studio, the Common Language Infrastructure (CLI) and C# as part of the Shared Source Initiative with their OEMs. True, its not GPL and its not open source, but at least they're swinging this way. It cant be too long (meaning before I kick the bucket) that they will go open source with their core code too.