Study: Linux Doesn't Cost More to Manage

Linux Insider ^ | 2006-04-25 | Communications News

[N3WBI3]

In various studies, Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) Latest News about Microsoft and some analysts have claimed Linux has a higher total cost of ownership (TCO) than Windows. They attributed the difference mainly to higher system management Latest News about system management costs, and concluded that the higher TCO outweighed the lower license and acquisition costs for Linux.

In a new study of more than 200 Linux enterprises conducted for Levanta, however, Enterprise Management Associates (EMA) found that this perception is no longer accurate. Sophisticated management tools now allow Linux management to be fast, effective and inexpensive. With lower acquisition costs, Linux is now a cost-effective alternative to Windows, EMA says. Sophisticated Management Tools

Study respondents represented a range of industries, with most organizations being small to mid-size enterprises, earning less than US$5 million in revenues -- although 27 percent had revenues of more than $100 million. Most respondents had fewer than 500 employees, but almost 20 percent had more than 2,500 employees.

EMA analyzed the cost factors cited in previous studies and found the following:

Seventy-five percent of administrators using sophisticated tools can provision a Linux system in less than one hour; one-third can provision a system in less than 30 minutes. Most Linux administrators spend less than five minutes per server Powerful Yet Simple: HP ProLiant ML110 G3. Just $688 with the Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor. Latest News about Servers per week on patch management. Sophisticated management tools reduce this effort even further.

Most respondents reported 99.99 percent or higher availability for their Linux systems. A significant number (17 percent) reported no downtime at all. In more than 60 percent of cases when problems occur in Linux environments, they are diagnosed and repaired in less than 30 minutes -- more than eight times faster than the industry average.

Eighty-eight percent of enterprises with Linux and Windows spend less effort managing Linux; 97 percent say it is, at worst, the same for both systems. Respondents with sophisticated management tools all reported Linux management is the same or easier than Windows management. Enterprises with sophisticated management tools did not find any significant difference in storage management effort or utilization for either Windows or Linux. Inherently More Secure

Salaries for combined Linux/Windows administrators are only marginally higher than for Linux-only administrators. Linux skills are readily available. Seventy-nine percent of enterprises spent nothing on Linux consulting, and 63 percent spent nothing on training.

For similar environments, Linux acquisition costs can be almost $60,000 less per server than Windows in software operating system costs alone. Windows also incurs higher hardware Powerful Yet Simple: HP ProLiant ML110 G3. Just $688 with the Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor. costs. Linux tends to be more productive, as Linux administrators tend to manage more servers than Windows administrators, and Linux systems tend to handle greater workloads than Windows systems.

Seventy-five percent of Linux administrators spend less than 10 minutes per server per week managing security. With sophisticated management tools, this goes up to more than 85 percent. Ninety-five percent of Linux administrators with sophisticated tools spend less than 10 minutes per server per week managing viruses and spyware. Respondents strongly endorsed Linux as inherently less vulnerable.

One administrator who handles both Linux and Windows for a large entertainment software group said, "I see way less [virus] traffic for Linux than for Windows." Another administrator for a major U.S. bank said he spends twice as much time on virus and spyware protection for Windows than for Linux. A large peripheral manufacturer spends 10 percent of its virus and spyware management effort on Linux, and 90 percent on Windows.

The MIS manager at a large city university with equal numbers of both platforms said, "It is a constant battle to get the Windows servers to work." The MIS manager at a large state university stated simply, "Anything you need to do on Windows just takes more time than the same thing on Linux."

This study found, at worst, a marginal difference in base resource costs between Linux and Windows. Linux becomes less expensive when taking into account the ability of Linux to support larger numbers of users, and the additional productivity of Linux administrators. Overall, resource costs for Linux environments are therefore likely to be lower than for Windows. In many cases, Linux is likely to be a significantly less expensive platform to acquire and maintain than Windows.

[N3WBI3]

OSS PING

If you are interested in the OSS ping list please mail me

[antiRepublicrat]

Funded by a Linux company. so I will have to look deeper before accepting (although it matches my experiences and anecdotal evidence).

[N3WBI3]

Even a TCO put in by the king of neutral territory will not apply in all situations. But good point and I shoud have disclosed as such right off the bat.

Thanks..

[antiRepublicrat]

But good point and I shoud have disclosed as such right off the bat.

It was right near the beginning of the article and I Feel Lucky on the company name tells you what they do, so no real need. Only GE could complain since he only reads the titles, not the articles, and never researches.

[N3WBI3]

Actually this time it would have been alegitimate complaint I really should have put that right off the bat. The problem is this:

You come come in and point out an omission, I agree and the thread can go on

Someone else comes in and says *liar, you are pushing linux on all of us* refuses to be civil and brings useful discussion on the thread to a halt..

[zeugma]

Interesting article, but it has so many generalities in it that it is less useful than it might otherwise be. What exactly do they mean by "sophisticated management tools"? That could mean almost anything. I'd be interested in more details about the environments they are talking about.

[N3WBI3]

"sophisticated management tools"?

I would guess products like webmin for one but I would also guess TUI's and GUI controll applets liekthose found on RedHat

[AFreeBird]

And, depending on the admin; a well written shell script.

[N3WBI3]

I think thats what they mean by tool improvements. Bourne shells are only as good as the guy writing them and needs vary so much that no company is going to go much deeper than init scripts.

As an example we have a unix box that our developers use CVS on I really really dont want to waste my time applying permissions and managing accounts, that not what your level three people are for so:

I set up webmin so out level one guys who can hardly spell linux can create accounts and manage repositories.

[rzeznikj at stout]

I know this article talks about servers and more of a business mindset, but I would say that one can make the same argument for the desktop--heck, even the private (though somewhat computer-inclined) user as well.

Switching to Linux after I got my own computer--didn't have to pay money for anti-virus software or to have some decent games to run (the KDE games that came with my distro--and a few from KDE-Look more than suffices). Nor did I have to pay for a copy of the OS (save for maybe $1.50 for five cheap CD-R's from the campus bookstore).

Considering I'm a poor college student--a reliable OS with fairly reliable software and nearly-unlimited possibilities is certainly a good deal.

The article does make a pretty good case for Linux though. After all, one of the factors that helped MS grow in the 1990's was that Windows was simpler to use and companies invested in Windows systems so more of their employees could use computers in their jobs and in schooling. And when individuals bought PC's--they were familiar with Windows, so that's what they bought.

Personally, as a person who's seen computers for most of their life, I see that kind of thing happening with Linux as time goes on--and especially so if and when more companies start using Linux. And as they implement Linux in their offices and have their employees ease over to running it over time, then more people will start choosing to run Linux at home.

In any case though, Good Post!!