Linux TCO
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Linux TCO

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    314

    Linux TCO

    Following the MS TCO ads that seem to be all over the place, IBM have done some Linux research:

    http://www-1.ibm.com/linux/competiti...sToLinux.shtml

    Where (unsuprisingly) Linux comes out on top, still, interesting reading nonetheless.
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    445
    The TCO of an operating system is going to depend entirely on it's environment. For my network, the TCO of Linux/BSD is 0, for Windows, It's thousands of dollars. But in a corporate environment, Windows can end up being cheaper. Especially where desktops are concerned, user training and time lost all cost money.

    Although obviously, a Microsoft study is always suspect.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    137
    Originally posted here by d0pp
    For my network, the TCO of Linux/BSD is 0,
    it's not $0. it never was $0. it's not supposed to be $0. don't go telling people that it's $0! especially if you are an open source advocate. everyone has to eat. even the open source guys. no one wants to get paid $0.00!!! do you??

    you incur costs. they are different costs. they are less than MS deployment -- but there are costs. it's not free!! if you are d/l ing linux or BSD -- don't forget to support the distro you like. buy CD's. donate. don't always keep counting on the next guy to do it. maybe the next guy is counting on you?

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    1,004
    it's not $0. it never was $0. it's not supposed to be $0. don't go telling people that it's $0!
    If for no other reason than it indicates your lack of understanding in developing a TCO.

    Although obviously, a Microsoft study is always suspect.
    ALL privately funded studies are suspect. Including the aforementioned IBM study.

    cheers,

    catch

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    137
    Originally posted here by catch
    If for no other reason than it indicates your lack of understanding in developing a TCO.
    The Deloitte & Touche study defined a simple cost model with four cost components. The first component, direct hardware and software costs, is the easiest to define. The second component covers the costs for maintenance and support staff, a figure that's a bit more difficult to nail down. The third component is what the study's authors call opportunity costs, which are the costs of time that users spend doing their own technology support. Opportunity costs are difficult to quantify, unless you're willing to stand over a user night and day for weeks at a time (which will make the user behave differently). I'll discuss the fourth component, the productivity factor, shortly, but first let's look at how the Deloitte & Touche analysts derived the second and third cost components.
    Full link

    The problem with TCO is that it's not real. It a manufactured by the corp's to try to confuse.

    Which one is a better? Constantly patching, rebuilding and checking MS servers or spending 10 times as long configuring a must use must have piece of hardware on a *nix box? Who is to say?

    But I still stand behind what I preach. Linux does not cost $0 and it's not free.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    1,004
    The problem with TCO is that it's not real. It a manufactured by the corp's to try to confuse.
    Not always... in fact it is a good idea to develop your own TCOs when deciding between several products to implement. However this data will be very different than generalized data dumped out by some generic study.

    cheers,

    catch

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    137
    Sure - but do most orgs develop their own TCO's? Or do they go to th MS/Novell/IBM site and download their's and say, "look, this is what we need!".

    I work is a pretty very place. we recently did a cost analysis for wheather we should go with Linux or MS for server deployement. Sure -- *IF* we were paying official stated MS prices as posted on their web site Linux would have won -- but MS sell us their server products for over 75% off their official posted prices. When that's happeneing, you can take the TCO and shove it. Welcome to big business.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    445
    How was there a TCO that wasn't $0 on my network? All of the computer's we're scavenged from dumpsters and/or stolen. All the cables were free, my internet connection was pirated, and electric was included with the apartment, which I also did not pay for. And ya know what? I didn't drive to the dumpsters either? Ergo, TCO=$0

    Rowdy, what distributions did you look at?

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    137
    Originally posted here by d0pp


    Rowdy, what distributions did you look at?
    RHEL - ES

    yes, it's corp stuff but when you are providing a network service for 1,000's of people -- you can't have them sit around while you scratch your head -- you need to ensure you have paid for and can call level 3 support on the spot.

    but we did deploy ubuntu once to a very small field office once. worked out well.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    1,004
    d0pp... time, space, effort, etc all have costs assigned to them.

    nothing is free, the best you can hope for is an even or positive ROI.

    cheers,

    catch

Posting Permissions

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