IDC Study: Windows cheaper than Linux

[SilvrDrgn]

Research firm IDC, in a Microsoft-funded study, has reinforced a Microsoft argument that Linux is more expensive to administer than Windows, a factor that makes Windows less expensive overall in most server uses.

("Microsoft-funded" - read: favorably biased towards M$ 'cause they're paying the bill)

LINK to story

[ikir]

Oh my god....
MAN  MAN MAN :-x

[Hattig]

What was quite amusing was that over the 5 years Microsoft would stop supporting Win2K server, so you would have an enforced upgrade of OS, and possibly hardware, on the Windows side around halfway through, and this wasn't taken into consideration. This extra cost would have completely turned the results of the study around on its own.

Also Linux/Unix sysadmins can administer 50% more servers than Windows sysadmins due to the nature of the OS, although they cost around 10% more to hire. This wasn't taken into consideration either.

There was a follow-up on the Register regarding this "study".

[Elektro]

I don't know if this is the same study but apparently the costs were for a five 5 year period. So what's wrong with this picture. Windows 2000 hasn't been around for 5 years...

[legion]

haha, not f*cking likely.

[KennyR]

Let me see: an absolutely free OS, which runs 99.9% absolutely free software, compared to a ~$90 OS in which most server apps can cost an absolute fortune... Um, ah...

The result: Linux more expensive than Windows? LOL! That's the biggest pile of taurine excreta I've ever heard. Go tell it to the marines, Gates.

This is absolute proof (if you needed it) that Microsoft lies in our faces. They have to go.

[Allen]

@KennyR

Whilst I agree with you...

You are looking at the inital purchase costs of the software.  Something I doubt M$ bothered with.  

Mainly because initial costs are nothing compared to running costs.  The joke survey was looking at running costs (administrative only).  So it was a bit skewed in the first place.

I mean how much does it cost for an MSCE Admin course?   Now how much for a Linux one?  

Allen

I knew I spelt something wrong there!?

[carls]

Another thing is remote administrations of machines. On Linux, you could write a script and run it on all your machines through a cron job, by exporting your crontab files to all machines in the network. With Windows, you'd have to use Terminal Services to create a scheduled task on each and every one of your machines by hand.

Imagine doing this on a big server cluster with 20+ machines. Geez....

[ronybeck]

Imagine doing this on a big server cluster with 20+ machines. Geez....

Too true.  Also for low budget networks that use say 64k ISDN, linux simply can't be beat.  You can admin the servers over telnet or ssh because it has a proper comand line enabling you to complete such tasks easily via shell.  In windows, you would have to do this via a gui which just seems to take for ever under windows.  For instance consider changing permissions on say a 3gb Directory on a remote server.  This can done easily via shell but via Gui it takes for ever.  Should it fail part way through ( as it often does ) then the network permissons are stuffed meaning you then have to use terminal services to connect to the machine itself and try and fix them.  If the ISDN link has continual traffic then this is not going to be fun and it will take lots of time.  Time means money.  To be serious with windows you need a fairly big connection to admin Win2k server remotly else it is just too frustrating.  Trust me I deal with this very frustration daily

[Plaz]

Cost to license windows on our 5000 user network this year, almost $200,000. Cost for Redhat support for the same year $15,000. Yup, that make windows alot cheaper.   :-P