Find the answer to your Linux question:
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15
I received a very interesting link: http://www.e-balkani.com/book The author argues that Linux and open source is much more expensive than Windows. I think there is somethin true in this. Melinda...
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
  1. #1
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1

    The Traps of Linux...&open source software


    I received a very interesting link:

    http://www.e-balkani.com/book

    The author argues that Linux and open source is much more expensive than Windows. I think there is somethin true in this.

    Melinda

  2. #2
    Linux Enthusiast scientica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    South- or "Mid-" Sweden
    Posts
    742
    The dange? well, sure you'll risc ending up wiht an open system, stable and secure system taht doesn't cost a dine, how terrible...

    Seriously, I strongly disagree. Say you got 500 compuers, with a windows "solution" you'll enup having to buy 500 licenses (which probably costs a few hundred dollars each), then add the cost of 500 licenses of Office.
    What's the cost of 500 copies of a linux distro? (Which inclues a magnificent set of apps, which are in many way better than let's say MS Office -- like open office can with the click of a button export your document to a PDF , "out of the box" -- no extra setup, no extra cost of an PDF writer.) - back to the cost, well, what's the price for a few CDs and a regular CD burner?
    Regards Scienitca (registered user #335819 - http://counter.li.org )
    --
    A master is nothing more than a student who knows something of which he can teach to other students.

  3. #3
    Linux Enthusiast Opnosforatou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Vleuten, The Netherlands
    Posts
    552
    The thing they argue about is the total cost of ownership.
    Linux wins this by far..
    Using linux as both server and workstation is far cheaper.
    The initial config may be a hassle and a bit more expensieve in consultancy cost, but that money is earned back with the year.
    Don't forget the regular patches and reboots when using wintendos.
    All the downtime of all the various applications that incorporates during those reboots... You only need to reboot a linux server when changing the kernel.

    This 'research' is M$ tainted.
    A quote from the book:
    But nobody is making huge investments in any R & D.
    The link

    hm,mmmm.. Didn't IBM invested over 500mil. dolars lately... even more ....

    Tainted book with tained works and dripping of M$ .... an namely $$$$$.
    ---[ MS09-99896 - Vulnerability in All MS Windows OS ; Using Windows Could Allow Remote Code Execution. ]---
    Hardware: Asus P4P800, 1GB, P4-3Ghz, Asus V9950, Maxtor ATA HD\'s, 3Com GBit lan, Audigy ZS Plat.

  4. $spacer_open
    $spacer_close
  5. #4
    Linux Newbie
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    130
    The common misconceptions seems to be that because Linux is initially harder to learn, and takes longer time to install / configure, this will make it more expensive, even over longer periods. I seriously don't think that users will have any more difficulty using a Linux-system once they get used to it. And I don't think a Linux-administrator is more expensive than a Windows-admin. Maybe a bit more competent though.

    What I would like to know is how much money large corporations have to spend to get rid of all those nasty mail-worms and such, since they practically don't exist on Linux systems.

    Did anyone else read the microsoft paper on why one should use MSoffice instead of OpenOffice btw? Amazing how stupid people can be...

    /ooop

  6. #5
    Linux Engineer
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    1,296
    I read about the first page and a half.. it is so badly written that very, very few people will ever read it. of the few opinions held by the author that I was able to see, only one was right.

    "It warrants never-ending progress, free from the impeding effect of money and providing output products that no competitor can resist, because they are free of charge. Anyone can take whatever he wants according to his needs and contribute whatever he can in accordance with his potential. Assuming the process of accumulation of such content, sooner or later it should become so vast and functional and perfect that, as a matter of fact, no company (no matter how rich) would be able to compete with it. "

    this seems to be the only fact.. but the author should have substituted the word "should" with "will"

    Open Source Software is the only way to create anything worthwhile and lasting.

  7. #6
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    6
    I really dont see how the author could argue that linux distro's cost more and frankly dont care to read enough of what he wrote to see if he could make a point. However, cost aside, the advantage of open source software is clear. The code is available for tweaking and it is free of the proprietary hassles that go along with windows.

  8. #7
    Linux User
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    478

    TCO

    most enterprise size organisations spend a fortune on security staff locking down almost every aspect of windows and office. on linux this could be done much easier as the source is open. so if you've got some really good developers then you can recompile a custom gnome and oo which only has the features you want. This may sound really expensive and loads of hassle to those of you who don't work in big industries. But if you have 10,000 workstations spread over five countries and each one runs windows XP Pro (approx 200) and accesses a windows server (+ server license + Client Access License), then add on remote installation software as you don't want to manually install each one (+100) then add on antivirus software (+ 50). Then you provide MCSE training for all of your IT staff. Wow this is getting expensive. Gotta be cheaper to spend 10-20K recompiling or developing your own sys based on some open source stuff.

    Remember that a lot of these studies are funded by MS or another company with an involvemnet with MS. and TCO is iffy anyway. If all your staff are MS skilled already then it will be expensive. But if you take a bunch of newbies and train them up it should be just as easy to learn linux as windows server. And much easier to get free support through sites like this.

    Anyway, rant over. Have fun!
    Kris
    No trees were harmed during the creation of this message. Its made from a blend of elephant tusk and dolphin meat.

  9. #8
    Linux User
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    289
    sheesshh... the piece is badly written. the grammar's off. the webpage design is really bad too! i didn't wanna read that stuff right from the start. hahaha... that thing is so full of bull, i just know, even if i haven't read the whole story!

    he's talking more on the corporate side. but what about regular users like me, who don't do games? i use linux to write documents, write code, surf the net, chat, watch VCDs, play music, burn CDs, etc. linux answers all that. and it does it great! for a fact thousands here in my country are using that "other OS" illegally. i don't dare say millions, but the numbers might be that high. but why do they have to illegally use it or buy it when they can have a free one? M$ comes up with a new OS every 2-4 years. then you'll have to pay for it. again! with linux, one can just update, update, and update...

    the answer to this is obvious. shift to linux!
    Registered User #345074

  10. #9
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    40
    The TCO for linux goes up when you deal with maintenance and support. Look for example at the problems people post on this board. You can install it 6 times and have 6 different sets of issues that come up. Getting a support person who knows what they are doing for MS product could be say $40 an hour roughly. But getting a linux person who knows a) your distribution, and b) what version of a certain package you have installed and all the dependencies gets costly if not due to their hourly rate, but also the time to find them and have them footprint your system. Until Linux gets consistant in it's documentation and installation process then it's going to be hardpressed to beat MS in the game. If a user finds it difficult, they won't do it. Regardless on Security or Cost issues.

    That really is the only issue that pops out in my mind, and what I have a hard time arguing against when clients bring this up.

  11. #10
    Linux User
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    478

    support

    You won't get a good admin or troubleshooter for 40 ph.

    Esp not outside of the city. Here in wales we support a few SME's who run linux. we charge very little support as I have set them up with samba, static IPs SSH open. So I can remotely sort any probs out - this is a nightmare with windows.

    The other thing with windows is that if it is installed wrong - badly planned you must re-install. Active directory is not an add-in or a module but completely built in to the system. some albeit major changes to the settings can require re-installation.

    If you're looking at using Linux in business then employ a good sysadmin. or use something like fedora and get a good IT bod trained by RedHat.
    No trees were harmed during the creation of this message. Its made from a blend of elephant tusk and dolphin meat.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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