Another study backs MS claims over Linux

ZDNet ^ | Sept 11, 2003 | Andy McCue

[Leroy S. Mort]

Only Microsoft users on older versions of its desktop operating systems are likely to get any benefit from migrating to Linux, according to a new report by Gartner.

The report said the operating system and PC represent less than a third of the total cost of ownership and that migration should only be considered in a few situations. Michael Silver, VP and research director at Gartner, said in a statement that other costs such as labor, training and external services should be taken into account.

He said organizations should compare the costs and savings of a move to Linux with the cost and savings to upgrade to a newer version of Windows as the total cost of ownership will vary depending on which version of Windows is being considered, according to Gartner. "Enterprises running Windows 95 will likely see more benefits by a move to Linux than will enterprises using Windows 2000 or Windows XP. Windows 2000 and Windows XP include more modern technology than Window 95 and are generally more stable and incur lower costs,” said Silver.

Gartner revealed that while Linux has had success in the server market reducing costs, the same savings cannot be achieved on the desktop.

David Smith, VP and Gartner fellow, said in a statement: "Many servers are dedicated to running a single application; in many cases, it has been relatively easy for enterprises to replace specific servers, such as a web server, and implement Linux."

But the environment for Linux on the desktop is significantly different, he said.

"For those users, migration costs will be very high because all Windows applications must be replaced or rewritten," said Smith.

The report comes in the same week that a Microsoft-sponsored survey of just 12 companies claimed firms could save up to 28 per cent by developing certain programs with Windows rather than Linux.

[Leroy S. Mort]

"For those users, migration costs will be very high because all Windows applications must be replaced or rewritten,"

I'm guessing he means in-house applications here, not Office-type suites, etc.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Aren't most operations of any size running off a server? How many companies are using individual, unconnected desktops?

[SES1066]

I believe this because there is a cost in throwing out paid-for software. The cost would be a lot less for a virgin installation. What cannot be so easily quantified or qualified is the continuing rise in cost of a Microsoft monopoly that is publically seeking to move to a subscription basis. My personal belief is that MS would already be doing this for its OS and Office products if not for fear of Linux. Having defeated DR-DOS, BEOS and OS/2 and reducing Apple to 5-6%, the coast would have been clear except for the guerrilla open code Linuxers.

[staytrue]

Abandonning Linux is an invitation for MS to double or triple its software prices. Right now, MS fears linux and keeps its price low and competitive, if linux dies, you can expect to pay double or triple for software.

[smith288]

I can think of the complex porting that would have to be done for the insurance company I work for. Hundreds or even thousands of applications would need converted... Hardly a justifiable cost.

[FastCoyote]

It's not the next couple years of costs I'm worried about, it's when you go to Longhorn and DRM and Office requires 2003 server or better to run. Plus new licensing plans, backward incompatibility, no access to underlying code. With the browser being written into the OS, and the move to automated updates, the whole thing becomes a security nightmare subject to catastrophic failure. All in all, I see Microsoft becoming a monster within the next five years.

So, I move to Open Office (spreadsheet and wordprocessor for 90% of the office), make my server FreeBSD (solid as a rock), write my aps in Java or PHP with Mysql in the backend, and when the big crash happens, my little world just keeps on going. What a relief. And all the software is free.

So, I take a hit on the learning curve of Unix (which is not negligible), but the application changeover won't be too bad if done over a few years and I've already started that. So, all in all it comes out about the same costwise over say 5 years, but I'm way ahead on the catatrophic failure front and not having to worry about the next killer virus. And over 20 years there's no planned obsolesence to pay for (needed to keep Microsoft in Business)

[Leroy S. Mort]

Aren't most operations of any size running off a server? How many companies are using individual, unconnected desktops?

There are tons of home-brewed Windows apps running off corporate desktops right now. Moving them from the mainframe dumb terminals to Windows PCs was costly enough back in the salad days of IT. I wouldn't expect many major companies to make that kind of investment in this economic climate.

[Rain-maker]

I don't see the report mention the lack of programs for Linux.

I use graphics oriented software and there's no Photoshop, FlashMX, Director, Lightwave, etc. in Linux format. Until the support from software manufacturers comes in, the author is beating a dead penguin.

[FastCoyote]

"I can think of the complex porting that would have to be done for the insurance company I work for. Hundreds or even thousands of applications would need converted... Hardly a justifiable cost. "

You are very correct. But here's the situation, port now or long term you're going to be screwed. The updates coming down the pike from Microsoft are designed to lock you forever into their world of upgrades, designed incompatibilities, rights management, etc. The article above doesn't address any of the very big problems which come on the edge of three years out.

[Leroy S. Mort]

well there's GIMP for Photoshop...but I get your drift....

[smith288]

But here's the situation, port now or long term you're going to be screwed.

Im in no position to tell one of the largest Insurance/Finance companies in the United States with International reaches to chage all their apps.

You may be right, but the cost just cant be justified with the shortsightedness of upper management.

Huge companies have to either suck it up and pay (both financially and time) or forget it. Forget it, to them, looks alot cheaper to them.

[smith288]

Forget it, to them, looks alot cheaper to them.

And I head up the Dept of Redundance Dept.

[Dataman]

Windows 2000 and Windows XP include more modern technology than Window 95 and are generally more stable and incur lower costs,” said Silver.

What? Linux will crash 4 or more times a day compared to XP's 3 times a day?

The very fact that the comparison has to be made shows that Linux is eating away at Gates.

[FastCoyote]

"I don't see the report mention the lack of programs for Linux. I use graphics oriented software and there's no Photoshop, FlashMX, Director, Lightwave, etc. in Linux format. Until the support from software manufacturers comes in, the author is beating a dead penguin. "

You are right, and it is a tough decision to make. But, with Linux you know the operating system is stable and is converging on a solution, Windows cannot converge on stability because it would lose the profits which come from mandated upgrades. So, your complaint is valid, but based on applications, not the worthiness of the OS.

Tortoise and Hare longterm, those applications will all be recompiled for Linux. Software is maturing, you don't see breakneck updates. So, applications will migrate to catch other markets - i.e. Linux.

Most of the upgrades slated for Longhorn have absolutely zero use for the end business customer.

[Leroy S. Mort]

3 times a day? Sounds like a hardware problem. I've got 4 XP boxes here that have NEVER crashed.

[Steely Glint]

Have you run both Linux servers and Windows servers? I have.

The great difference between the two is stability. No Linux server I have been associated with has EVER carshed.

[Rain-maker]

I use a customized version of 98lite-pro and have no crashes.

Users should fix or tweak their OS's and quit griping about their lack of computer skills.

[Leroy S. Mort]

Have you run both Linux servers and Windows servers? I have

Yep..Ive got a Red Hat Server too, It's just as stable as my XP boxes. The article is talking about the desktop environment, however and the costs associated with migrating to Linux.

[AgThorn]

Microsoft-sponsored survey

Yeah, that's believable ..

[Mind-numbed Robot]

This is typical of all migrations from one technology to another, IMO. With the advent of the automobile there was the difficulty and cost associated with lack of gas stations, repair shops, tire stores, etc. That took quite and investment over time but look at the difference once it was done. The same will be true if another fuel or transportation technology comes along.

In this MS vs. Linux situation, once the transformation is started the costs go down for all computer based operations due to lack of operating system cost, more and cheaper applications due to competition, and as far as the home-brewed apps are concerned, computer languages are so advanced that writing new apps is not nearly as difficult as it was a short time ago.

There is also a sort of poetic justice in seeing MS get its comeuppance after years of stealing apps from struggling software developers in an effort to corner the market on not only the operating system but on applications too, and therefore on nearly all of the economy. Such grand schemes must eventually go awry. I remember the Hunt brothers attempt to corner the silver market. They went momentarily from the richest family in the world to barely rich and they still haven't completely recovered. Are you listening, Mr. Gates?