Microsoft Challenges OSDL To Prove Cost Case

[Odd_Bloke]

http://www.linuxforums.org/news/article-53480.html

I don't want this to turn into an MS-bash. Having read the article, my question is this:
What specific example would you use to demonstrate the cost effectiveness of Linux compared to Windows?

[josolanes]

i'll start with the most obvious...it's free to obtain

[Odd_Bloke]

When I say specific case, I mean an actual implementation of the OS.

For example, someone with slightly more apache knowledge than myself might be able to lay out the case for Linux as a web server.

[techieMoe]

I wouldn't. TCO is a corporate buzz-word with lots of different meanings. For most users on this forum it doesn't matter either way since we're desktop users. We aren't concerned with licensing 100 enterprise workstations with support frameworks in place. For the everyday joe, Linux is and always will be less expensive than MS Windows from the simple fact (as josolanes pointed out) it's free to obtain.

[designbydave]

i think this is one case where microsoft might be right. yeah linux is free, but what about the support? There are windows techs-a-plenty, but not to many unix/linux experts out there to provide support. That would, in my book, make a linux expert more valuable than someone that just knows windows.

users would also have to learn the new OS. although that i dont hink would be such a big deal as gnome/kde can be made to look just like windows and work very similar.

dont get me wrong, i think open source could save companies a lot of money, if everyone took the time themselves to learn it. But most computer users are not geeks like us and the idea of learning something new on a computer to them is like math homework.

[Odd_Bloke]

i think this is one case where microsoft might be right. yeah linux is free, but what about the support?

I think support would be pretty much equal. In any company, there'll be someone who runs the computer network and they'll be geeky and able to solve problems with the computers. Add to this the fact that you can create virtually identical installs on a myriad of computers while having the extra security and stability that Linux affords means that they'll have less to do than a Windows admin guy who has to come running at every BSOD.

/Because/ the users are not geeks, they'll be happy with what they're given and won't feel a constant need to improve things and try out new things, which is all that ever breaks our computers (barring hardware dying on us), if we're honest. With XPde or the like, the transition can be close to painless as well.

Wow, didn't realise I could write that much on this subject... :P

[LondoJowo]

Add to this the fact that you can create virtually identical installs on a myriad of computers while having the extra security and stability that Linux affords means that they'll have less to do than a Windows admin guy who has to come running at every BSOD.

I can tell you've never deployed a network setup with Windows as you can clone installs. Windows when setup correctly (user has no rights other than to run required software, no installs can be performed other than by a system administrator, including disabling the ability to install software via Internet Explorer) can be just as secure as a Linux install. As for the BSOD, do you realize most all BSOD's are hardware/driver related? I would consider a kernel panic the same as a BSOD and I think I've seen several posts in this forum concerning kernel panics.

[Odd_Bloke]

Fair point(s), but I feel at least one of my points stands. I just can't decide which to defend badly... :P

However, I have been forced to use Windows systems which have been set up as you said, and it's so hard to be productive compared to a non-root Linux user who has more freedom...

[deek]

I will have to admit, I have never seen a BSOD on my work PC...and that goes back about 5 years...realize that in a corporate IT environment, they control the hardware and the software...and if they also control the servers and user rights, and stay up to date on security patches, the network does stay pretty secure.

I would also have to think, that if more linux technologies were being used by companies, there would be more of a draw for crackers to "mess" with those boxes...not saying they would be more or less sucessful, just an opinion.

[carlosponti]

from a corporate standpoint MS gets thier real money from the CAL(client access Liscence) they have to have one for each type of server ie exchange Active Directory and SQL Server. so keep that in mind when tallying up the so called 'TCO'. all i have to say is you dont need a ‘Get The Facts campaign’ if you ARE the best now do you