GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
Microsoft... is facing a growing threat from the open source software standard as it gains share in the corporate server market used to manage networks and data. META Group predicted that Linux will be used on nearly half of new servers by 2007, up from its current share of 15 to 20 percent, making it difficult for Microsoft to ignore Linux as a platform for its database, Web hosting and e-mail server applications.
Sure, Linux only has 15-20% market share, but Linux ain't the only open source server OS, now, is it?
Instead, Microsoft has stressed that its software is more affordable when considering the total cost of using Linux, including ongoing personnel and administration costs.
A recent Microsoft-sponsored study by researcher IDC concluded that servers based on Microsoft's Windows 2000 were cheaper to own and operate when used for networking, storing and sharing files, printing and security, while Linux servers were cheaper to operate when used for Web hosting
HOW DO THEY FIGURE THAT ONE OUT, OH YEAH, LOOK AT THE BOLD
so how do they figure that cost to run linux is more over the long run that microsoft?
hmm... hardware more expensive? nope, that's not it.
upgrades cost alot? nope, that ain't it either.
Wears out hardware fast? well, I don't know about that, but I'd say no to that as well
Not portable to multilpe architectures? oh wait, that's Windows..
A recent Microsoft-sponsored study by researcher IDC concluded that servers based on Microsoft's Windows 2000 were cheaper to own and operate when used for networking, storing and sharing files, printing and security, while Linux servers were cheaper to operate when used for Web hosting.
How about an insert from New York Times' "Beginner's Guide to Linux" published on December 5, 2002:
McCarty: I’ve studied economics. In fact, I’ve taught it. So I can’t agree that anything is free. The initial cost of Linux is zero or near zero. But the total cost of ownership—which is much harder to measure—is non-zero.
Books, training, support, and time lost in figuring out an unfamiliar program all entail costs. Some argue that the total cost of ownership of Linux systems is less than that of Microsoft systems. Others argue the opposite. As I see it, a great deal depends on which system you prefer and which system you’re familiar with. I use Linux systems on the desktop and in the server rack and I’m convinced that, by doing so, I’ve minimized my total cost of ownership. But, others may experience different mileage results. I don’t quibble with them.
Originally posted by KnightAbel so how do they figure that cost to run linux is more over the long run that Microsoft?
One of the things they say is that it'll cost lots of money to retrain people to use Linux... because it is just that hard ::sarcasm::! And one that I'll throw in of my own: If you're running with a Windows system at work, you can employ MCSE/MCSAs to deal with all of your finickey problems (by reinstalling - wonderful isn't it?). If you run with Linux at work, you can employ people who actually know what they're doing, and therefore they cost more to employ... so it is more cost efficient to employ 2 monkeys that know how to install Windows. Of course, that doesn't take into account the cost of the OS in the first place...
Thymox, that perhaps may be true. However, such as Linux is a "new" and a OS that is beginning to take off and become popular, it is also the "new" people studying computer science, and computer related subject that will begin to be trained in Linux..and not necessarily in Windows. So, in countries where their computer industry is very under-developed, but which are beginning to pick up...like for example Mexico and China, they are training all their technicians in Linux, and not in Windows. It is expensive if you have to switch from one to the other one...but if you start from scratch, like these countries, then it must be, that in the Long run, it is way, way, way cheaper than runing Windows. because there is no switching costs, .
Hey, I wasn't disagreeing. I was playing devil's advocate... stating what I believe Microsoft believes... if that makes sense. Tell you what, I'll put a little ::sarcasm:: in my post to make sure that no-one else might get confused as to my beliefs.