🚀 go-pugleaf

Also, linux pcs can stay up longer without reboots... Windows i find need to
be rebooted a hell allot more frequently!

"Rowland Croucher" <rcroucher@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:3dece943$0$18869$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Windows costs less than Linux. A bit. Sometimes - MS study
> By John Lettice
> Posted: 03/12/2002 at 13:38 GMT
>
>
> Windows 2000 servers are cheaper to run than Linux ones, sometimes, says
an
> IDC study which was by strange coincidence sponsored by Microsoft. The
study
> will come as welcome relief to Microsoft salespeople who have been
parroting
> the 'cheaper than Linux' line to general disbelief, but whether anyone
else
> will believe it is another matter.
>
> Nor indeed should we take the study at anything like face value. IDC set
> itself the task of measuring total cost of ownership of the two server
> operating systems over a five year period, segmenting this into five areas
> of server operation. Over a period of years one would naturally expect
> differences in the purchase price of software and hardware to account for
a
> declining proportion of TCO, with support and staffing costs accounting
for
> an increasing proportion. And lo! This indeed is what IDC found.
>
> However, erm, correct us if we're wrong but we were under the impression
> that obstinate corporate customers who hung onto their Windows servers for
a
> whole five years without upgrading were more or less open source loving
> commies in the eyes of Redmond. We haven't as yet seen the full study, but
> suspect software upgrade costs, and the associated cost of new hardware
> during the period, may not have been entirely factored in to the Windows
> 2000 server tab. Linux can have similar upgrade cycles if you want it to,
> but there is really no similar hardware upgrade imperative if you do
decide
> to move up a version.
>
> Aside from that, the study looks maybe a little stacked in other areas. It
> finds the support and staffing costs for Linux are greater, largely
because
> Linux systems are more difficult to configure, manage and support than
> Windows ones, this itself being because Windows has more mature, easy to
use
> management tools.
>
> Which from a certain perspective, i.e. a Windows network manager's
> perspective, is true.Large-scale, properly set up Windows networks with a
> ton of hardware and GUI management tools all over the shop needn't cost a
> lot in terms of machine minders, whereas an open source network without
> these tools will need the requisite number of skilled geeks making
> incantations over bash prompts. But this is comparing apples and pears,
the
> geeks will serve you better than the deskilled machine minders when
> something goes badly wrong (which it will). In any event we doubt the
> smooth-running easily-managed Windows network actually exists anywhere
> outside of slideware.
>
> More: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/28408.html
>
> --
>
> Shalom!
>
> Rowland Croucher
>
> http://www.pastornet.net.au/jmm
> (8200+ articles)
>
>