Linux costs more than Windows
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 30

Thread: Linux costs more than Windows

  1. #1
    AO Security for Non-Geeks tonybradley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    830

    Linux costs more than Windows

    Hard to fathom. I mean, Linux is "free" for all intents and purposes. But, this article from Forbes highlights Microsoft's recent success at proving to corporations who are looking to drop Windows in favor of Linux that it will actually cost them MORE to use Linux than to stick with Windows.

    Consider the deal that Microsoft (nasdaq: MSFT - news - people ) snagged with the London borough of Newham, announced in early August. Looking to overhaul their computer systems, the Brits originally planned to dump Microsoft's Windows and switch to open-source programs, including Linux. But when they commissioned a study to evaluate costs, they found it would be cheaper to stick with Windows. So they signed on for a 10-year deal.
    Full article: Thanks, Linux

  2. #2
    King Arana: Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    4,055
    Okay, even still after reading that article I still don't really see how in the long run (or short run) it costs more. The mere fact that linux itself and whatnot is free should be enough. It's stable enough to be cost efficient on it's own, IMO.
    Space For Rent.. =]

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    373
    Is Linus Torvalds secretly working for Microsoft? That sounds crazy until you consider that lately, the free operating system he created, Linux, has been helping Microsoft close deals.
    And, yes, as Newham proves, Linux is forcing Microsoft to slash prices and to work harder to keep customers.
    So Linus is helping microsoft by them having to slash prices?

    For years customers griped that Microsoft was gouging them. Now, thanks to IBM, Novell, and Red Hat, customers are learning what it is that Microsoft charges them for--upgrades, patches, research and development, indemnification, integration of disparate programs.
    Some, like the folks in Newham, are discovering that Microsoft isn't ripping them off at all.
    So is linux helping companies understand that they are being gouged or not? As far as Newham is concered, yes they supposadly got a good deal, but will that deal last for the whole 10 years.

    Here is another take on this matter
    http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news...le.php/3397021

  4. #4
    King Arana: Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    4,055
    All of those point's seem like a crock of serious **** to me. By saying Linux/Microsoft are one and by saying Linus Torvalds is working for Microsoft is ludicrous and is an extremely (IMO) blank and retarded accusation. Trying to look at the logistics of these kinds of matters and then twisting them is what is happening IMO and this is the result.
    Space For Rent.. =]

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,130
    Ive faced this kind of reaction from my clients when i offer *nix instead Windows on some deployments.

    Most say "software is free, but how can i get SUPPORT? its free too"?

    riiing. No, its not.

    Ive mencioned on other thread, big companies dont like free software because they dont believe in "free lunch".

    On medium ones, they ask me if i will support them if they cant get support in other place. So, ive signed $$$ contracts to support it. (and hire other to do that, since im not exactly an linux expert)

    On small ones, they simply want to expend less money as possible.

    Companies just trust in Microsoft that it will support them because they have paid for that.
    So they only trust in a linux company (lets say RH) if they can contract a support...

    its a kind of business model.
    Meu sítio

    FORMAT C: Yes ...Yes??? ...Nooooo!!! ^C ^C ^C ^C ^C
    If I die before I sleep, I pray the Lord my soul to encrypt.
    If I die before I wake, I pray the Lord my soul to brake.

  6. #6
    AO Security for Non-Geeks tonybradley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    830
    Well, the thing with large (or even medium to larger) companies is that most simply won't use free, open-source software. They would rather buy vulnerability scanning built around Nessus from Tenable than simply downloading Nessus for free. They will spend the $800 to $2500 per server for "maintenance" from RedHat rather than simply downloading any of the umpteen variations of Linux for free. They want a real company with real support people they can call and they don't like just downloading software and winging it.

    Fortune 100 companies often won't do business with ANY company that hasn't been around for at least 3 to 5 years and without seeing current financials and sales projections to prove that the company will actually live long enough to provide the support they are promising. A lifetime guarantee from a company that folds tomorrow is useless and there are companies whose products I have reviewed in the last two years that don't even exist any more.

    From those standpoints, I can see where the issue lies. If companies were willing to use the free, open-source versions of stuff that you can just download they would only have to worry about the training concerns, but they would prefer to pay RedHat to give them a "free" product just so they have a toll-free number to call when it breaks and someone they can hold to a contract and a performance SLA.

    I do agree thought that Microsoft is having to do some major scrambling and price slashing to close these deals and make sure they undercut a comparable Linux solution. From that stance it seems that it is the corporations, not Microsoft that are benefiting most from this competition. In the end they are getting more (or at least the same) bang for less buck from Microsoft.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    112
    I don't think that they are talking about the cost of the operating system itself. Linux has that one because it is free. But, when you factor in the costs of teaching your users about the ins and outs of the system, Microsoft will probably fair better simply because just about everybody who has ever used a computer has used Windows before and therefore will probably require less training. Which equals less $$. Just a thought.

  8. #8
    I'd rather be fishing DjM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    The Great White North
    Posts
    1,867
    Originally posted here by hobbdebub
    I don't think that they are talking about the cost of the operating system itself. Linux has that one because it is free. But, when you factor in the costs of teaching your users about the ins and outs of the system, Microsoft will probably fair better simply because just about everybody who has ever used a computer has used Windows before and therefore will probably require less training. Which equals less $$. Just a thought.
    Coupled with this will be the cost of redevelopment of organization specific applications which were originally written for a Windows environment. Depending on the size and complexity of the applications, the redevelopments costs could be staggering.

    Cheers:
    DjM

  9. #9
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    13

    Put another way ...

    the cost of interia is nothing (with only friction showing you down) while the energy inputs to change interia can be quite high. In business this means that when you have a development department, sysadmins and end-users all familiar w/Windows the cost to maintain the current direction is obvious, known and already budgeted. OTOH, the cost to retrain development staff, IT staff AND end-users in a Linux environment is probably larger than the cost of the Windows licenses already on hand and due for renewal soon. So, unless you are focused on security, often develop code on your own or sell IT, Windows is the choice of inertia. In my mind it will take a major MS security FU to change the energy flow.

    Todd

  10. #10
    PHP/PostgreSQL guy
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,164
    Whether companies think linux is less or more expensive than windows is irrelevant. We can discuss the semantics of X OS versus Y OS and support contracts and hardware requirements, but the bottom line is any operating system that's not Windows will save any company more than anything Windows due to the fact that 90% of your "viruses", exploits, bugs, and anything else that's deemed bad are targeted towards MS and all related products including IE, Outlook, OE, etc. Saving money by the boatloads because while you're not invulnerable to anything, you reduce the risk factor by a huge amount and hence, save yourself, your company, your IT staff, and whoever else the stress of the numerous zero-day exploits coming out that affect said targeted OS/applications.

    That combined with a good IT staff and good policies that are enforced save the most for a company, if you ask me.
    We the willing, led by the unknowing, have been doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have done so much with so little for so long that we are now qualified to do just about anything with almost nothing.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •