Replies

Yet qualified Linux admins don't seem to know it. I mean, how can Largo service 400 machines and 800 accounts with an admittedly underworked staff of 6 (including the IT director)?

Simple: all of their machines are derived from a common image stored on a single disk. But that doesn't diminish the fact that Linux boxes are simply more difficult and time-consuming to administer. I don't know how you can even question this premise. Anybody with half a clue knows this to be a fact.

But lack of software functionality isn't a TCO issue. You can't even compare TCO if one can't do the job specified.

Of course it is. If you don't have the functionality and need it, you're going to have to endure some kind of cost to provide it. That may mean buying it or modifying existing software to provide what you need. Of course it's a TCO issue.

managing a Mac network of clients is also brain-dead easy.

So is managing a network of PC clients. But you need to administer them properly from the start -- which you clearly aren't willing or able to do.

Tell that to someone with a large ASP web site or a MS SQL Server farm.

This point was actually a gimme to you -- and you snubbed it. Server apps typically aren't as difficult to port to different architectures as desktop apps -- since they offer a layer of abstraction between their clients. That was the point.

Linux boxes are simply more difficult and time-consuming to administer. I don't know how you can even question this premise. Anybody with half a clue knows this to be a fact.

My last Linux-oriented administrator would easily question that. They're quite easy, if you know what you're doing. Since you don't, you assume no one else does.

Of course it is. If you don't have the functionality and need it, you're going to have to endure some kind of cost to provide it.

If my specs say MS SQL Server required, then I don't even consider Macs or Linux, so there's no TCO comparison.

So is managing a network of PC clients. But you need to administer them properly from the start -- which you clearly aren't willing or able to do.

Where did you get that last part from? Even if Windows networks were as easy to manage as Mac networks, that only brings the TCO equal on that front, and if you're buying quality desktops (not the sub $1,000 trash) the client hardware cost is about the same. But don't forget you paid much more for your Windows servers. Now count in the historically lower incidence of Mac client problems and the current dearth of Mac malware, and you'll save boatloads on your Mac TCO.

Server apps typically aren't as difficult to port to different architectures as desktop apps

You're right, that can definitely be true, but not always. It would be extremely easy to port a Java app to OS X, but good luck with the .NET apps.

But that doesn't diminish the fact that Linux boxes are simply more difficult and time-consuming to administer.

ummm what?

Anybody with half a clue knows this to be a fact.

Anyone with half a clue knows you need to define the environment and use before you can even say which will be better or worse..