IBM counters MS message
p2pnet.net News:- Linux is significantly cheaper than Windows and Unix, and also brings with it secondary benefits that add intangibles to the cost argument.
That’s IBM’s Linux evangelistic message following Microsoft’s Get The Facts campaign last fall that insisted Windows was the clear cost leader, says InformationWeek.
Linux is 40% less expensive than a comparable x86-based Windows server and 54% less than a comparable Sparc-based Solaris server. Moreover, the Linux server’s costs were $40,149, compared with $67,559 for Windows and $86,478 for Solaris.
So says a Robert Frances Group TCO For Application Servers: Comparing Linux With Windows And Solaris studu commissioned by IBM which compared the cost of acquiring, implementing, and running an application server on Linux, Windows, and Sun Solaris, says the story.
The biggest disparity in costs comes from Linux’s lack of licensing fees, Chad Robinson, principal analyst with Robert Francis Group, told an IBM roundtable on Wednesday.
"But other cost-of-ownership factors that weigh in favor of Linux, according to the report, include the crossover nature of Unix and Linux skills, as well as lower ongoing support and management costs and improvements in how customers manage their Linux systems, says InformationWeek.
But Linux’s licensing-cost edge is, "likely to wane as Microsoft and some Unix vendors, notably Sun Microsystems, lower their prices" and the lesson to be learned from Linux and Windows TCO comparisons is, "companies need to conduct a little research of their own before making any IT platform decisions. Actual costs are bound to be very specific to each company’s needs," adds the story.
If there’s something you think we should know, tips[at]p2pnet.net
See:-
InformationWeek – Linux And Windows Square Off In Another Round Of TCO Testing, August 31, 2005
September 1st, 2005 at 8:32 pm
You’d have to be a fucking idiot to believe that free software is more expensive than software that costs money.
September 2nd, 2005 at 8:30 am
the only draw back is that linux sucks bigtime when it comes to ease of installig software – it is an absolute nightmare – typical xp time to install single program – 15 seconds – typical linux install time for non egg head programmer 1hr 30 if you are lucky!
September 4th, 2005 at 4:12 am
It’s like saying that windows 3.1 is long to install.
That’s because it’s an old version.
And did you count the 24h+ activation nightmare needed to install windows xp?
Try installing a MODERN distro of linux, like the lastest debian codenamed Sarge.
There’s menus and everything in the installer.
Select from a few menus and that’s it.