Linux costs more than Windows - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 30

Thread: Linux costs more than Windows

  1. #11
    AO Security for Non-Geeks tonybradley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    830
    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.
    I only partially agree. In theory I agree, but that would be in a perfect test world somewhere.

    In reality, ignorant and irresponsible users will still be ignorant and irresponsible users. The biggest reason Linux is more secure for those of us on AO is because we know what we're doing. With Linux-novice admins and Linux-novice users it would take a while to reverse that "inertia" mentioned earlier and get to the point where everyone was comfortable enough with Linux and understood how to configure, administer and use it properly to see the fruits of those labors.

    I honestly think that if you unleash 5,000 employees used to using Windows onto Fedora desktop machines they can find a whole plethora of ways to break it that Linux gurus haven't even thought of. I also believe that good network and perimeter security is good network and perimeter security and if the fundamental network infrastructure were configured and secured properly issues on the internal workstations would not have the impact they do now.

    I will grant you that current attacks and malware predominantly target Microsoft, but just let a major corporations, especially banks and financial institutions, swap their infrastructure over to Linux and see how long it takes for malware and attacks to target the multitude of flaws and holes in that system as well.

    I am not saying I think Windows is cheaper in the long run and I am not saying I think Linux is inherently secure. I am saying that the debate is not as black and white as Linux gurus would have you believe. There are many more factors that play into the decision both short and long term.

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Hawaii
    Posts
    351
    I don't think that the "insecurities" out there will stay targetted to Windows. Someone in AO, not too long ago, made the point that, all the viruses written, are for Windows, because almost no one uses Linux...
    If more people switched to Linux, you would see more problems with it, as well as more virii. Linux has just as many holes as Windows, if not more. But MS has abused the "security by obscurity" concept. The few things I see wrong with MS is; the monopoly, the prices, and Windows ME. Of course, the prices are the basis of many things...but they do provide prompt, quick updates to users free of cost. Though I don't agree with charging me $200 for Win95, and charging me another $200 for Win98..as they upgrades there should have been free...but a company has to make money. Bill Gates has a buisness mind...to be rich, you have to be a *****, that's just the way it is. He squandered all the companies he could to make more money, to continue creating this product. God only knows where this world would be if MS went under after Windows 3.1, and we were all using Macs...(*BARF*).
    Geek isn't just a four-letter word; it's a six-figure income.

  3. #13
    PHP/PostgreSQL guy
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,164
    I honestly think that if you unleash 5,000 employees used to using Windows onto Fedora desktop machines they can find a whole plethora of ways to break it that Linux gurus haven't even thought of. I also believe that good network and perimeter security is good network and perimeter security and if the fundamental network infrastructure were configured and secured properly issues on the internal workstations would not have the impact they do now.
    If that isn't the truth, I don't know what is, hehe...I write php applications at work and spend a significant time ensuring data integrity, security, etc...and I release it and get 3 bugs reported to me in fashions I've NEVER considered...
    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.

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    373
    Someone in AO, not too long ago, made the point that, all the viruses written, are for Windows, because almost no one uses Linux...
    If more people switched to Linux, you would see more problems with it, as well as more virii.
    AxessTerminated, you are probably correct, and we shall see down the road, when more schools start using linux. Then people will start using linux at home(more so than at the present time), more businesses will use it. Then we will see what happens with virii, malware etc.

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    723

    Re: Linux costs more than Windows

    Originally posted here by tonybradley
    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.



    Full article: Thanks, Linux
    It seems to be said that microsoft funded that report http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08...ham_10yr_deal/
    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...40817033940321

    Here is an independent study that is quite comprehensive and says the opposite in regards to TCO http://www.researchandmarkets.com/re...6&t=d&cat_id=4
    Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
    The international ban against torturing prisoners of war does not necessarily apply to suspects detained in America\'s war on terror, Attorney General John Ashcroft told a Senate oversight committee
    -- true colors revealed, a brown shirt and jackboots

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,024
    Of course linux costs more to switch to than to keep running windows... think about all those idiots straight out of devry and ITT tech and all those other things you see on TV that end up with IT jobs... They would probably need 20 hours of training to get up to speed on linux... and at least a good year to get good at configuring and securing the OS... You tell me which is cheaper... Training 10-15 IT guys or buying $5000 or so worth of M$ software?
    [H]ard|OCP <--Best hardware/gaming news out there--|
    pwned.nl <--Gamers will love this one --|
    Light a man a fire and you\'ll keep him warm for a day, Light a man ON fire and you\'ll keep him warm the rest of his life.

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,255
    Originally posted here by tonybradley
    In reality, ignorant and irresponsible users will still be ignorant and irresponsible users. The biggest reason Linux is more secure for those of us on AO is because we know what we're doing.
    That's being awful generous.

    I honestly think that if you unleash 5,000 employees used to using Windows onto Fedora desktop machines they can find a whole plethora of ways to break it that Linux gurus haven't even thought of.
    You are giving your average linux user quite a boost in knowledge. Whether or not SOME of the community are "gurus" is irrelevant to the fact that a growing number of users HAVE been interacting with systems over the past three years especially.

    I am not saying I think Windows is cheaper in the long run and I am not saying I think Linux is inherently secure. I am saying that the debate is not as black and white as Linux gurus would have you believe. There are many more factors that play into the decision both short and long term.
    "Linux gurus" is an awfully ambiguous term. I've seen it applied to people (here and elsewhere) who then go to others and ask for help. I've yet to see anyone quite knowledgeable about the OS state unequivocally that it is far superior in every way to Windows, and therein lies the problem. No rational minded clear thinking individual will say that -- for a number of good reasons. Chief among them is the understanding that every piece of software will have its place, and each operating system fills a void.

    Originally posted here by AxessTerminated
    I don't think that the &quot;insecurities&quot; out there will stay targetted to Windows. Someone in AO, not too long ago, made the point that, all the viruses written, are for Windows, because almost no one uses Linux...
    I've heard this argument for OVER five years -- basically since I've been using linux as my primary desktop. The fact of the matter is Linux as a whole (including various unnecessary third party projects) have had maybe a couple of worms (Lion springs to mind as the most obvious), and a half dozen viruses in that time. Compare the numbers and you start to see that market share to attack ratio doesn't track. Linux has say a 5% overall desktop market share (estimated, it could be well more), to Windows' 90%.
    Compare these Virus/Worm numbers from viruslibrary.com:
    Linux: 7
    Windows: Over 300 in the worms section alone. They break up the library into more parts than there are linux viruses to display the number of them. There have been more variants of Bagle in the LAST MONTH than there are total linux viruses. Now consider this for a moment, and let's work out a projection. For linux, in all its lifetime to have 7 viruses, and currently have 5% desktop marketshare, means that Windows should only have 140 Viruses with 90% market share in the current timeframe. Linux has 1/18th the market share, and easily less than 1/200th the viruses. Attribute this to whatever you like, but the statistics are there for you to look through. An operating system's security model as well as the number of scrutineers doing source code review will always reduce the number of methods viruses and worms can function once in a system. The development model linux has generally does an excellent job at both ends of this equation.

    This is ignoring certain other factors, like the fact that linux should make a more attractive target for certain types of attacks (trojans) given it and apache are one of the most popular (if not the most popular) webserver combination on the Internet.

    Linux has just as many holes as Windows, if not more.
    If you know this to be true, why not patch them then? You can't because it's utter bull. Is linux invulnerable? No, only a fool would think so. However it is equally foolish to say it is precisely as problem-riddled as Windows.

    But MS has abused the &quot;security by obscurity&quot; concept. The few things I see wrong with MS is; the monopoly, the prices, and Windows ME. Of course, the prices are the basis of many things...but they do provide prompt, quick updates to users free of cost.
    Which "prompt and quick updates" that are free are you referring to? There have been numerous times Microsoft has managed to issue patches that unpatch a previous issue, break functionality altogether, or outright don't work. How about the "promptness" of the dozen or more IE6 flaws that went unpatched for OVER A YEAR? I have serious questions about what you consider prompt service.

    PS: http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/35688.html &lt; Marketshare info.

    The basic problem I see with linux adoption is an unwillingness on the part of people who are in such positions to support it, and to recommend it as an option. I know many consultants who are avid linux users, but would not and do not recommend it to companies because they feel they do not want to shoulder the responsibility of supporting it. It's not out of a lack of feeling that it will perform as advertised, but rather in situations where a patch is needed, it is harder to explain to a client that they are waiting on an individual in Norway to issue a patch than it is to explain they are waiting on Microsoft to issue a patch. The difference appears to be where blame is shoved. In the former case, it is at the consultant, for making such recommendations, in the latter case it is at Microsoft for not patching it. I hope Novell's acquisition of SuSE as well as RedHat's continued corporate success will help fix this perception on the parts of consultants, and provide the support framework that is needed to back up the consultants and other people involved.
    Chris Shepherd
    The Nelson-Shepherd cutoff: The point at which you realise someone is an idiot while trying to help them.
    \"Well as far as the spelling, I speak fluently both your native languages. Do you even can try spell mine ?\" -- Failed Insult
    Is your whole family retarded, or did they just catch it from you?

  8. #18
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    25
    Imho Linux will never take over MS as OS. If you were to start a computer infrastructure for people who never used computers before, then maybe yes.

    Linux is cheaper, and support for Linux is relatively cheap as well. The problem is the bulk of the users who are unwilling for change. I work in a company with 800 employees, and I dare not think about changing form Windows to Linux. The people in my company are not interested in IT, Linux, Windows or whatever. They are only interested in doing their job quicker using a computer. They have been using Windows over the past years (at home or at work) so they are very reluctant to change, because it would require an effort for them. Windows would not require that (initial) effort, because they are already used to it. It's an effort they are not willing to take (since they are not interested in IT).

    What I'm trying to say here is that Windows will always be the major player because most people are not interested in IT and most people have been using Windows for years. So why change? That's the genius about Microsoft, they are excellent marketeers and sales people, no matter if there product is good or bad.
    There are 10 kinds of people, those who can read binary, and those who can\'t.

  9. #19
    Okay, that's it, I can't stand this anymore:

    1. Windows may be more expensive than Linux. Linux may be more expensive than Windows. You know what? Who gives a fsck which is more expensive and which is cheaper. NO one that has anything better to do with their lives, that's who

    2. Stop bitching and arguing over fake statistics. Most people here are complaining and theorizing about situations they have never experienced nor had interaction with. Stop it. Some companies will find Windows more expensive because of licensing, product porting and employee training, while other companies may find Linux more expensive for the exact same (don't bullshit me about licensing either, read enterprise level OS licensing options). Each company will assess what is best/cheaper for them, and arguing for a god damn answer it all universal to the question is not going to happen.

    3. If you are considering an OS change on an entire company level, you had damn well better look beyond costs alone. Usablity, speed, comfort, productability, customization, portability, and so forth need to be primary concerns. If a company does not have the funds to make a switch (a proper switch, mind you) to another OS just yet, then it's time to set that on the backburner and GET SOMEONE TO SHOW YOU HOW TO MAKE THE OS YOU ALREADY HAVE, DO WHAT YOU WANT

    4. Which brings us back to here. What was the point of this conversation? This entire thread?! It makes no difference which is more expensive because each cost situation will vary per user/company/idealology and buisness practices.

  10. #20
    Super Moderator: GMT Zone nihil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom: Bridlington
    Posts
    17,191
    Well,

    1. There is no such thing as a free meal.
    2. The quality is remembered long after the price is forgotten.
    3. "Securityology" is a new way of spelling "Mythology"
    4. The "bean counters" rule our lives (unfortunately).

    Sorry...........just took my cynical pill

    My views only................
    If you cannot do someone any good: don't do them any harm....
    As long as you did this to one of these, the least of my little ones............you did it unto Me.
    What profiteth a man if he gains the entire World at the expense of his immortal soul?

Posting Permissions

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

 Security News

     Patches

       Security Trends

         How-To

           Buying Guides