Referred to this rather amusing article, I thought the readers here would like to get a kick out of it and comment...
Comment?
Gary
gwinn7
A+, Network+
Comment?
Gary
gwinn7
A+, Network+
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations Chriss Miller on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Microsoft Cheaper Than Linux? 1
- Thread starter gwinn7
- Start date
sleipnir214
Programmer
1. Mi?ro$oft paid for the survey. It's always interesting that when Mi?ro$oft pays for the survey, it always comes out in their favor. I wonder how many surveys they pay for and discard every year.
2. The cost to operate over five years does not include the cost of licensing. Linux is probably more expensive to operate, just because there isn't some GUI-based management tool that takes care of simple tasks. But licensing Mi?ro$oft servers for 100 users will cost you much more than the difference in operating costs betweent the two servers, particularly when you include Mi?ro$oft's forced upgrades. ______________________________________________________________________
TANSTAAFL!
2. The cost to operate over five years does not include the cost of licensing. Linux is probably more expensive to operate, just because there isn't some GUI-based management tool that takes care of simple tasks. But licensing Mi?ro$oft servers for 100 users will cost you much more than the difference in operating costs betweent the two servers, particularly when you include Mi?ro$oft's forced upgrades. ______________________________________________________________________
TANSTAAFL!
petermeachem
Programmer
It doesn't seem completely unlikely to me. Windows servers are certainly easy to configure etc. I don't think gui type linux ones are quite so good and the command line type stuff is certainly more complicated (I was thinking of Apache config files?). I suppose they are saying the labour cost is much greater than the hardware or software cost. Peter Meachem
peter @ accuflight.com
peter @ accuflight.com
That artical doesn't actually prove anything. They compare the costs from a touch over a hunderd companys, but don't tell anything about the companys themselves. are all these places running similar hardware, working in the same industry, performing the same tasks? You can't compare a company that has their servers running linux on quad or hex CPU machines to opperate 24/7 requiring administrators working around the clock because the buisness requires changes to be made at any given time to a company running win2k on a machine with dual CPUs, when the place is only staffed from 9 'til 5...
where I work, it would be cheaper to run linux servers, but the transition time, and costs doesn't justify the change...yet... We have a LOT of internal software that would have to be re-written, web sites that were developed in ASP that would have to be ported, etc.
where I work, it would be cheaper to run linux servers, but the transition time, and costs doesn't justify the change...yet... We have a LOT of internal software that would have to be re-written, web sites that were developed in ASP that would have to be ported, etc.
sleipnir214
Programmer
garwain:
Benjamin Disraeli was supposed to have said: There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. ______________________________________________________________________
TANSTAAFL!
Benjamin Disraeli was supposed to have said: There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. ______________________________________________________________________
TANSTAAFL!
guestgulkan
Technical User
I think prestige and respectibility come into it somewhere.
Snobbery exists even in the computer world.
In real life, there are those who have to shop at KMart, Wallmart,
and the local discount store, where they also buy their PCs and Microsoft OS.
There are those who would not be seen dead doing that, and buy Gucci, Merceded, Rolex. Unix fall into this category.
Microsoft may mean something to the man in the street, but I don't think that it's name is worth much in serious computing circles.
I'm sure this has always rankled with Bill and MS.
Snobbery exists even in the computer world.
In real life, there are those who have to shop at KMart, Wallmart,
and the local discount store, where they also buy their PCs and Microsoft OS.
There are those who would not be seen dead doing that, and buy Gucci, Merceded, Rolex. Unix fall into this category.
Microsoft may mean something to the man in the street, but I don't think that it's name is worth much in serious computing circles.
I'm sure this has always rankled with Bill and MS.
sleipnir214
Programmer
strongm:
You're making assumptions based on facts not in evidence. I know what system administration involves -- in my last position I had before the current one, I ran a multisite heterogeneous network for 3 years.
The reported difference in costs over 5 years between Linux and Win2k to support 100 full time users is $1,476. I figure that's 24.60/month. If you're paying an administrator $50,000/year, that's just under an extra hour per month.
Something as simple as the efficiency of the administration software's interfaces can explain at least part of the difference.
______________________________________________________________________
TANSTAAFL!
You're making assumptions based on facts not in evidence. I know what system administration involves -- in my last position I had before the current one, I ran a multisite heterogeneous network for 3 years.
The reported difference in costs over 5 years between Linux and Win2k to support 100 full time users is $1,476. I figure that's 24.60/month. If you're paying an administrator $50,000/year, that's just under an extra hour per month.
Something as simple as the efficiency of the administration software's interfaces can explain at least part of the difference.
______________________________________________________________________
TANSTAAFL!
-
1
- #9
Two good links:
(I say FreeBSD, not Linux...)
Of course Linux takes more work than Windows to administrate, if you don't know what you are doing. Most Linux distributions provide an annoying mix of GUI and text-based configuration, so if you rely on their methods, you never really get in a groove.
But, if you actually bite the bullet, and take the time to really learn Unix configuration (Slackware Linux is one of the few that actually treats the OS like a Unix), then you realize that there is one great benefit that Windows cannot really provide: scripting. With a handful of Perl scripts, you can make changes much more quickly than the time it takes to open a series of windows, click to the right pane, scroll to the right button, etc...
I have spent my time with FreeBSD, and with Windows, and I will say quite forcefully that one can administrate a FreeBSD server farm much more quickly and effectively than a Windows one, and there are actually Microsoft employees who agree with me: (yes, I know the paper is dated, but it still deals with Win2K)
For example, on my FreeBSD DNS/Webserver, with a couple Perl scripts, I can enter a one-line command for which creates the following:
1. new user account, with web skeleton
2. new DNS record
3. new Apache virtualhost for that domain
4. new "catchall" email alias, with skeleton for further email addresses for that domain
It takes me literally about 10 seconds to enter the command, and I can get back to business. Even better, if I have a list of 100 domains to enter, I can just run a script on top of that which just pipes a whole list to that command. Fait accompli.
And this is only the beginning of true Unix management. Anything can be scripted. Anything. Certainly things can be scripted in a Windows environment, but scripting on windows is not a standardized, unified thing, and even if you could create scripts on a one-for-one level of ease with Unix, then FreeBSD/Linux would still be cheaper, because of licensing costs.
So yes, of course, if I slavishly added users by console 'adduser', edited each text file by hand, and restarted each process by hand, etc... then I would be operating much more slowly than a Windows admin. But then I would also deserve TO BE FIRED. -------------------------------------------
Big Brother: "War is Peace" -- Big Business: "Suspicion is Trust"
(
(I say FreeBSD, not Linux...)
Of course Linux takes more work than Windows to administrate, if you don't know what you are doing. Most Linux distributions provide an annoying mix of GUI and text-based configuration, so if you rely on their methods, you never really get in a groove.
But, if you actually bite the bullet, and take the time to really learn Unix configuration (Slackware Linux is one of the few that actually treats the OS like a Unix), then you realize that there is one great benefit that Windows cannot really provide: scripting. With a handful of Perl scripts, you can make changes much more quickly than the time it takes to open a series of windows, click to the right pane, scroll to the right button, etc...
I have spent my time with FreeBSD, and with Windows, and I will say quite forcefully that one can administrate a FreeBSD server farm much more quickly and effectively than a Windows one, and there are actually Microsoft employees who agree with me: (yes, I know the paper is dated, but it still deals with Win2K)
For example, on my FreeBSD DNS/Webserver, with a couple Perl scripts, I can enter a one-line command for which creates the following:
1. new user account, with web skeleton
2. new DNS record
3. new Apache virtualhost for that domain
4. new "catchall" email alias, with skeleton for further email addresses for that domain
It takes me literally about 10 seconds to enter the command, and I can get back to business. Even better, if I have a list of 100 domains to enter, I can just run a script on top of that which just pipes a whole list to that command. Fait accompli.
And this is only the beginning of true Unix management. Anything can be scripted. Anything. Certainly things can be scripted in a Windows environment, but scripting on windows is not a standardized, unified thing, and even if you could create scripts on a one-for-one level of ease with Unix, then FreeBSD/Linux would still be cheaper, because of licensing costs.
So yes, of course, if I slavishly added users by console 'adduser', edited each text file by hand, and restarted each process by hand, etc... then I would be operating much more slowly than a Windows admin. But then I would also deserve TO BE FIRED. -------------------------------------------
Big Brother: "War is Peace" -- Big Business: "Suspicion is Trust"
(
sleipnir214
Programmer
rycamor:
strongm:
rycamor just helped me figure out where that exta hour per month comes from...
The companies surveyed are probably ones that switched from Win32 to Linux. Their Win32-experienced sysadmins are going to blow an hour a month bitching about the fact that they can't run MMC. ______________________________________________________________________
TANSTAAFL!
strongm:
rycamor just helped me figure out where that exta hour per month comes from...
The companies surveyed are probably ones that switched from Win32 to Linux. Their Win32-experienced sysadmins are going to blow an hour a month bitching about the fact that they can't run MMC. ______________________________________________________________________
TANSTAAFL!
By the way, Gary... there is a solution to horribly long URLs like the one you posted above:
Your link is now
And there was much rejoicing in the village... -------------------------------------------
Big Brother: "War is Peace" -- Big Business: "Suspicion is Trust"
(
Your link is now
And there was much rejoicing in the village... -------------------------------------------
Big Brother: "War is Peace" -- Big Business: "Suspicion is Trust"
(
- Thread starter
- #14
The companies surveyed are probably ones that switched from Win32 to Linux. Their Win32-experienced sysadmins are going to blow an hour a month bitching about the fact that they can't run MMC.
-Tarwn --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
-Tarwn --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
I think this article points out something the free software hippies always look over. Its not cheaper if its harder to use.
The average billable rate where I work is $125/hour. You figure if each user loses 10 minutes a day due to this lesser free software, with 100 employees, thats over half a million dollars it would cost us to use the free stuff.
The average billable rate where I work is $125/hour. You figure if each user loses 10 minutes a day due to this lesser free software, with 100 employees, thats over half a million dollars it would cost us to use the free stuff.
100 employees running...? What OS? What bundled software? What Service calls to the MS million-dollar a minute support center?
Your Numbers
OK at $500,000 per unknown time period
100 people wasting 1/6th of an hour at $125/hour:
$500,000/(100*125*1/6) = 240 days (work year - vacation?)
or
Per Person:
125/hr * 1/6hr = $20.83/day
240 days * $20.83/day = $4999.20/workyear (ouch)
Reboots? Fresh Boots?
That seems like a lot, but nowehere have I seen the cost of reboot times on MS, figure at least 9 reboot or wait for initial boot every week, average of 15 minutes because you walked off and got into a conversation waiting for it to come up:
Per Person:
125/hr * 1/4hr = $31.25/day
240 days * $31.25/day = $7500.00/workyear (aah!)
For 100 people: $750,000 just to boot and reboot machines every year
Gotta Smoke?
Do you smoke? at 1 cigarette/hour 8hrs/day thats 8 cigarettes during work hours at 5 minutes apiece (probably closer to ten if you consider trying to remember what uyou were working on and getting back into the flow).
so 40min/day is spent smoking or:
125/hr * 4/6 = $83.33/day
240 days * $83.33 = $19999.20 your (3/4 pack a day) habit costs the company
If only 1/4th of the people at your company smoke thats:
25 * $19,999.20 = $499,980/workyear
Coffee, Soda, Water?
What if your company hired someone at $5.50/hr to bring coffee around for 8hrs/day all year?
$5.50/hr * 8hrs/day * 240 days = $10,560.00/year
versus employees going to the coffee urn(soda machine, water fountain, etc) for at least 30 min's wasted time per day (walk time, talk time, getting caught back up on what you were doing before you left):
$125.00/hr * 1/2 * 240 days = $15,000 per employee
or $1,500,000/year for 100 employees.
So not counting software for the computers or anything else, with Linux not needing the black magic fix-all reboot of MS Windows and convincing the smokers to quit smoking or use break time to smoke, or just hiring a coffee maid, you have already saved money and probably puchased your initial software, and won yourself a commendation and raise for your massive money saving efforts.
See how fun numbers can be?
-Tarwn
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Your Numbers
OK at $500,000 per unknown time period
100 people wasting 1/6th of an hour at $125/hour:
$500,000/(100*125*1/6) = 240 days (work year - vacation?)
or
Per Person:
125/hr * 1/6hr = $20.83/day
240 days * $20.83/day = $4999.20/workyear (ouch)
Reboots? Fresh Boots?
That seems like a lot, but nowehere have I seen the cost of reboot times on MS, figure at least 9 reboot or wait for initial boot every week, average of 15 minutes because you walked off and got into a conversation waiting for it to come up:
Per Person:
125/hr * 1/4hr = $31.25/day
240 days * $31.25/day = $7500.00/workyear (aah!)
For 100 people: $750,000 just to boot and reboot machines every year
Gotta Smoke?
Do you smoke? at 1 cigarette/hour 8hrs/day thats 8 cigarettes during work hours at 5 minutes apiece (probably closer to ten if you consider trying to remember what uyou were working on and getting back into the flow).
so 40min/day is spent smoking or:
125/hr * 4/6 = $83.33/day
240 days * $83.33 = $19999.20 your (3/4 pack a day) habit costs the company
If only 1/4th of the people at your company smoke thats:
25 * $19,999.20 = $499,980/workyear
Coffee, Soda, Water?
What if your company hired someone at $5.50/hr to bring coffee around for 8hrs/day all year?
$5.50/hr * 8hrs/day * 240 days = $10,560.00/year
versus employees going to the coffee urn(soda machine, water fountain, etc) for at least 30 min's wasted time per day (walk time, talk time, getting caught back up on what you were doing before you left):
$125.00/hr * 1/2 * 240 days = $15,000 per employee
or $1,500,000/year for 100 employees.
So not counting software for the computers or anything else, with Linux not needing the black magic fix-all reboot of MS Windows and convincing the smokers to quit smoking or use break time to smoke, or just hiring a coffee maid, you have already saved money and probably puchased your initial software, and won yourself a commendation and raise for your massive money saving efforts.
See how fun numbers can be?
-Tarwn
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Tarwn (and the other Linux guys),
You seem to be able to do the math to prove Microsoft figures are incorrect but not that the Linux figures to prove the cheapness. This is all conjecture.
Microsoft have commissioned the survey and chosen to publish it as it is in it's favour. This doesn't mean that this is a lie. It means that on the parameters chosen the Microsoft platform is cheaper.
Basically, you could pick any number of parameters and get the figures to say what you want. That's true of any costing type function. But in doesn't mean that one is cheaper than the other.
As for do I prefer Linux or Microsoft, I don't care. I want the best solution for the BUSINESS in which I am working. No-one on the board cares whether Linux is better or whether Microsoft is. They want the best service available at the minimum cost. In general, in a large company, UNIX is the way to go but in a small to medium enterprise, Microsoft is.
Now can we all stop the mine is bigger than yours arguments?
Craig
You seem to be able to do the math to prove Microsoft figures are incorrect but not that the Linux figures to prove the cheapness. This is all conjecture.
Microsoft have commissioned the survey and chosen to publish it as it is in it's favour. This doesn't mean that this is a lie. It means that on the parameters chosen the Microsoft platform is cheaper.
Basically, you could pick any number of parameters and get the figures to say what you want. That's true of any costing type function. But in doesn't mean that one is cheaper than the other.
As for do I prefer Linux or Microsoft, I don't care. I want the best solution for the BUSINESS in which I am working. No-one on the board cares whether Linux is better or whether Microsoft is. They want the best service available at the minimum cost. In general, in a large company, UNIX is the way to go but in a small to medium enterprise, Microsoft is.
Now can we all stop the mine is bigger than yours arguments?
Craig
>>Now can we all stop the mine is bigger than yours arguments?
Umm... I didn't think we were getting at all personal about this.
Looks to me like so far we have had a fairly civil and rational discourse. Why on earth are you trying to shut everyone up?
The whole point of these discussions is (hopefully) to arrive at a better understanding of each perspective in an argument, so that each person can make a more informed choice. Even if some people's minds are already made up, there's still no problem with having the discussion. -------------------------------------------
Big Brother: "War is Peace" -- Big Business: "Suspicion is Trust"
(
Umm... I didn't think we were getting at all personal about this.
Looks to me like so far we have had a fairly civil and rational discourse. Why on earth are you trying to shut everyone up?
The whole point of these discussions is (hopefully) to arrive at a better understanding of each perspective in an argument, so that each person can make a more informed choice. Even if some people's minds are already made up, there's still no problem with having the discussion. -------------------------------------------
Big Brother: "War is Peace" -- Big Business: "Suspicion is Trust"
(
You seem to be able to do the math to prove Microsoft figures are incorrect but not that the Linux figures to prove the cheapness. This is all conjecture.
Just trying to prove a point.
Basically, you could pick any number of parameters and get the figures to say what you want. That's true of any costing type function. But in doesn't mean that one is cheaper than the other.
yep, that was my point.
I think you misunderstood, that entire post could actually be used in a cost function (if I actually had slightly less approximated values).
As to the implication that I am a Linux person, I run two Win2000 servers, work in a Windows and VMS only workplace, started with DOS and only recently decided to re-install Linux as a dual boot on my laptop after not using it in a couple years (ish). I'm not anti-Linux or anti-Windows, I'm anti-choose-the-tool-for-the-brandname The point? I wasn't trying to be anti-anything, just back up the assertation that with a little finesse you can make the total costs/savings come out to say anything you want.
I still think Linux would be cheaper to run in the long run, a lot of people quote that it is difficult to learn and they would lose time at x dollars a year... my advice would be to fire the blighters if the amount is considered to be a yearly expense, they should be able to pick it up fast enough that the expense of learning a new version of Windows in-and-out every 3 years will be more expensive.
As a sidenote, my girlfriend, a lifelong Windows user, non-programmer, can take a computer apart and put it back together if she has to (but prefers me to do it, *sigh* women.), is getting a Redhat machine for christmas. After $1,200 for the hardware the last thing I want to do is drop the money for Windows(xpPro $200, win2k pro, $150?) and MS Office(xpPro OEM for about $300, retail for $500+?).
-Tarwn --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Just trying to prove a point.
Basically, you could pick any number of parameters and get the figures to say what you want. That's true of any costing type function. But in doesn't mean that one is cheaper than the other.
yep, that was my point.
I think you misunderstood, that entire post could actually be used in a cost function (if I actually had slightly less approximated values).
As to the implication that I am a Linux person, I run two Win2000 servers, work in a Windows and VMS only workplace, started with DOS and only recently decided to re-install Linux as a dual boot on my laptop after not using it in a couple years (ish). I'm not anti-Linux or anti-Windows, I'm anti-choose-the-tool-for-the-brandname
The point? I wasn't trying to be anti-anything, just back up the assertation that with a little finesse you can make the total costs/savings come out to say anything you want.I still think Linux would be cheaper to run in the long run, a lot of people quote that it is difficult to learn and they would lose time at x dollars a year... my advice would be to fire the blighters if the amount is considered to be a yearly expense, they should be able to pick it up fast enough that the expense of learning a new version of Windows in-and-out every 3 years will be more expensive.
As a sidenote, my girlfriend, a lifelong Windows user, non-programmer, can take a computer apart and put it back together if she has to (but prefers me to do it, *sigh* women.), is getting a Redhat machine for christmas. After $1,200 for the hardware the last thing I want to do is drop the money for Windows(xpPro $200, win2k pro, $150?) and MS Office(xpPro OEM for about $300, retail for $500+?).
-Tarwn --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question