|
|
|
 |
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
|
|
Posted on 10/08/2002 8:45:48 AM PDT by ShadowAce
The cost of running Linux is roughly 40% that of Microsoft Windows, and only 14% that of Sun Microsystem's Solaris, according to a new study which examined the actual costs of running various operating systems over three years.
The study, by the Robert Frances Group, in Westport, Conn., looked at production deployments of Web servers running on the three operating systems at 14 Global 2000 enterprises.
Linux cost $74,475 over three years, while a Windows deployment cost $190,662 and one on Solaris $561,520.
Most of the savings with Linux come from software licensing fees. Companies will typically purchase commercial versions of Linux for pilot projects, says Robert Frances Group senior research analyst Chad Robinson, and download free versions off the Web for production deployments.
Only 27% of the Linux servers in the study were provisioned with purchased copies of their respective distributions.
That allows organizations to "significantly lower their software costs, and take advantage of the economies of scale that make Linux a more compelling option," Robinson says. The larger the deployment, the greater the savings: One of the companies in the study had deployed more than 10,000 Linux nodes.
Linux, along with Solaris, also came out ahead of Windows in terms of administration costs, despite the fact that it's less expensive to hire Windows system administrators. The average Windows administrator in the study earned $68,500 a year, while Linux sys admins took home $71,400, and those with Solaris skills were paid $85,844. The Windows technicians, however, only managed an average of 10 machines each, while Linux or Solaris admins can generally handle several times that.
There were other costs the study was not able to quantify, according to Robinson, such as security. While study participants were reluctant to provide hard figures on the costs of security breaches, it appears that the "cost for handling security issues on Windows systems was very high," says Robinson. The study revealed that Windows administrators spent twice as much time patching systems and dealing with other security-related issues than did Solaris or Linux admins.
Of the companies in the study, almost half were in the financial or insurance industries, along with several retailers and educational institutions, and one manufacturing firm. All of the organizations running Linux been running it in production for at least two years; most of them had been using it for three years or longer.
Thanks to bobzibub for link to study
Linux TCO Study (in PDF format)
Related Stories:
|
|
|
|
|
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
|
|
How about message queuing (free with Windows)? Mail server for enterprise level? Development costs for the software? Free tools can't compare to Visual Studio, and lag considerably behind stuff like WebSphere. "Free" tools can cost you a lot if they increase development times substantially, because programmers are very expensive.
At an enterprise level like this, Linux lags in all those areas, and they are critical to success.
Now, if the application is a fairly simple "serve a ton of fairly static pages to the web" type thing, then their figures are probably fairly accurate. But enterprise applications are seldom that simple. Or anywhere near it.
Wanna be Penguified? Just holla!
Got root?
I thought that a GUI interface was supposed to enhance productivity of SysAdmins. Give me a CLI any day of the week for running a server. But then again, the reason the Windows techs can only handle 10 machines is due to the problems with Viruses and Crashes. Wasting time with Virus Updates, Bizarre Blue Screens and Script Kiddies does add up. Thank God for BSD!
Side Note: Anyone played around with RedHat 8.0 on servers? Downloading the ISOs now, just curious on performance.
This is BS. No way! MS rules! Linux sucks! Apple? Sucks! Everything but Microsoft? Sucks.
Carry on.....
My best guess is that it would be between Linux and Microsoft TCO. I don't think enough time has passed to judge the xServe box's performance. I prefer OpenBSD and Linux for servers but Mac OS X Server does look like a great system for Newbie System Admins. They are incredibly simple to set up, secure and maintain. Linux can be a Script Kiddie Haven if its not locked down properly. The biggest problem with Linux distros, Microsoft and Sun is the fact that most default installs are weak on the security side.
Supposedly it's undergoing testing to get some sort of certification and several federal agencies are chomping at the bit to buy once that happens.
Mr. Bill might want to sell some MS stock while it's still high.
Ummm...maybe because you might hire people who already know Linux, instead of hiring MCSEs and trying to retrain them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.