🚀 go-pugleaf

Wed, 4 Dec 2002 04:26 am will from hence forward be known as the day Rowland 
Croucher blabbered:

> Windows costs less than Linux. A bit. Sometimes - MS study
> By John Lettice
> Posted: 03/12/2002 at 13:38 GMT

After reading this entire report, MSFT preety much paid for someone to waffle
on and make things up to make them look good. *whats* *new* ?

> 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.

In the server world hardware can all but be negated as the costs will be the
same, therefore we should really only be dealing with software costs. Now its
fairly obvious which is cheaper here.

> 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

While in esscence that makes sense, it isnt true. The companies would have to
have paid for some MSFT support / maintenance at some point in 5 years. It is
inevitable with Windows.

> 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.

Of course it hasnt been factored the whole IDC report is a "pat-on-the-back" 
for MFST with no intention of portraying the entire truth.
 
> 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.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! More difficult to configure?
It is my experience with windows systems that you set something up, reboot,
change another setting, reboot, find out that the first change you made isnt 
right even though you followed the book perfectly, change it again, reboot, 
find that the change didnt occur, do it again, reboot .....

This cycle goes on and on.

Linux: Issue a command from bash, or open the GUI config tool. Make all the
changes you want. Restart the services effected.... 

Hmmm maybe a total of FOUR actions.

> Which from a certain perspective, i.e. a Windows network manager's
> perspective, is true.Large-scale, properly set up Windows networks with a

That's because they're brainwashed. See above.

> 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.

It doesnt take a geek to use Windows GUI config tools.
Therefore: It doesnt take a geek to use Linux GUI config tools.

These two simple statements preety much anul the entire IDC report, because 
they have based the entire costing differences on the fact that only geeks
can setup and configure linux, and that you need more than one to do it.

Why, if you have a single network server running linux, do you need more than
one SysAdmin?????

-- 
remember this is the sequence of events, in no particular order

Registered Linux User 282072
<www.volutin.net -- everything irrelevant>

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)
>
>

Are there any studies of server operations made by someone who actually
switched from linux to windows or from windows to linux? These probably
would be more useful than a study done by Microsoft(or RedHat).

Dick Kistler

Dick Kistler wrote:

> Are there any studies of server operations made by someone who actually
> switched from linux to windows or from windows to linux? These probably
> would be more useful than a study done by Microsoft(or RedHat).
> 
> Dick Kistler

All I know is that I switch from Windows to SuSE 8.0 and my dial-up modem 
transfer speed increased.  Same hardware (with the exception of a 45GB hard 
drive versus a 6GB hard drive) and same ISP.

The Screen Savers on Tech TV talked about this story and they even said they
wouldn't put much faith in the results of this study because the study was
paid for my Microsoft.

I perfer to go by governments and military units around the world, including
the United States that are switching to Linux because of cost savings and
better performance in some areas.  Also, what about all the universities
that are switching from Windows to Linux?  Those real world cases are saying
the opposite to what this study says.


"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)
>
>