The Penguin Ping.
Wanna be Penguified? Just holla!
Got root?
Posted on 11/07/2002 5:13:25 AM PST by ShadowAce
European chief argues that total cost of ownership is lower
Microsoft has dismissed claims that Linux is more cost-effective for businesses, arguing that Windows is cheaper over its total lifecycle.
When asked by Gartner about Microsoft's intensifying battle against the open source operating system, European president Jean-Phillipe Courtois claimed that Linux is in fact more expensive to run than Windows.
Arguments that Linux is free, and therefore a good alternative for governments and organisations on a tight budget, are incorrect, he said.
Courtois claimed that Microsoft has been tracking the total cost of ownership (TCO) in 12 organisations across a range of business sectors, and that in 95 per cent of cases the "TCO was better on the Windows platform".
Licensing costs account for just five per cent of the total cost of an operating system, he said, and those plumping for Microsoft have an easier life in terms of application integration both internally and with external business partners.
But Courtois was challenged by Peter Sondergaard, Gartner's president of research in Europe.
He argued that the perception among chief information officers is that Linux and open source software is more cost-effective than Windows and Microsoft's Office applications.
"I do expect that some of your clients are looking for a response on licensing or more flexibility in the packaging," he said.
Courtois replied: "As soon as you start digging down you go beyond licensing. It's not that we are perfect with licensing; we need to make it simpler. But it's about the end-to-end environment."
He claimed that, with such a rich diversity of software applications and hardware devices now on the market, companies can achieve tighter integration by using Windows.
However, there is growing interest in Linux in the public sector. Last month, West Yorkshire police took delivery of Linux desktops as part of a trial for the operating system for English and Welsh forces.
And the European Commission handed open source advocate Netproject a €250,000 (£160,000) contract to conduct a feasibility study into running the operating system in government departments.
Wanna be Penguified? Just holla!
Got root?
But I have a hard time believing a sweeping statement about MS being cheaper. It seems to me that the size of the installation, # of admins, # of servers, etc. would vary so much that you can't say a particular solution is best for situations.
Did they count the cost of the time spent rebooting?
Why should they? Does anyone?
Of course. It would behoove the user to know something about how the system works.
No mercy.
Coming soon: Tha SYNDICATE.
Yeah. Probably.
I could see Linux losing in such a cases.
Why is that not surprising?
No mercy.
Coming soon: Tha SYNDICATE.
Yup, no surprise here, just more FUD from Microsoft, since TCO is about the only argument they have left against OSS.
Arguments that Linux is free... are incorrect..
.. with such a rich diversity of software applications and hardware devices now on the market, companies can achieve tighter integration by using Windows.
But you'll still need to buy those extra applications and pay for support/maintenance whether or not you need it. If you don't pay for on-site support (which you'll need to wait for) you'll need to dedicate a fraction of a headcount for self-support. And beyond a certain amount of time (5 years or so, assuming the vendor is still around) you'll need to buy upgrades, because you can't get support for the old stuff at any price.
OTOH, you get gigabytes of applications bundled with a typical Linux distro. There are other apps and support information out on the Internet at very competitive prices (most for $0) if you want to dedicate a fraction of a headcount for self-support. If you go with RedHat you can also buy commercial support.
As you scale up, your per-seat licence costs increase. You'll probably have to dedicate a portion of a headcount to keep track of all your licenses (or let BSA do it for you, at a substantial cost).
You may find some situations where the OSS alternative is the more expensive route. If you have specialized hardware, for example, you might have to pay someone to write some drivers. Every situation is different, but in the majority of cases, going with closed-source is more expensive in terms of money, risk and long-term stability.
The absense of real numbers to support TCO assertions might indicate that there aren't any. MS is studying this very hard; perhaps they'll pay Gartner or somebody for a reasonably believable "white paper" soon.
LOL. Isn't that what we hear about every new Windows release?
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.