Great news for Linux Geeks

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Bret, Dec 2, 2004.

  1. Bret

    Bret Guest

    A non-sponsored report calculates that a major Linux deployment or switch
    from Windows is four times more expensive and takes three times longer
    than a Windows upgrade. Other TCO costs include:

    a 20 to 30 percent salary premium for Linux system administrators.

    third-party performance and management software that costs 15 to 25
    percent more than equivalent Windows tools.

    So Linux admins are getting a premium, and programmers ,start writing
    performance and management software.
     
    Bret, Dec 2, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bret

    Bret Guest

    On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 16:47:52 +1300, Bret wrote:

    > A non-sponsored report calculates that a major Linux deployment or switch
    > from Windows is four times more expensive and takes three times longer
    > than a Windows upgrade. Other TCO costs include:
    >
    > a 20 to 30 percent salary premium for Linux system administrators.
    >
    > third-party performance and management software that costs 15 to 25
    > percent more than equivalent Windows tools.
    >
    > So Linux admins are getting a premium, and programmers ,start writing
    > performance and management software.


    Sorry URL

    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/facts/analyses/entcost.mspx
     
    Bret, Dec 2, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bret

    Mike Dee Guest

    Bret <> wrote in
    news:p:

    >> A non-sponsored report....

    >


    *** http://www.microsoft.com ***

    Bwah har har har har hardy har harrr!

    --
    D.
     
    Mike Dee, Dec 2, 2004
    #3
  4. Bret

    Bret Guest

    On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 04:01:13 +0000, Mike Dee wrote:

    > Bret <> wrote in
    > news:p:
    >
    >>> A non-sponsored report....

    >>

    >
    > *** http://www.microsoft.com ***
    >
    > Bwah har har har har hardy har harrr!


    LOL, you look like a pirate (parrot and hook type) with a laugh like that :)
     
    Bret, Dec 2, 2004
    #4
  5. Bret

    Mike Dee Guest

    Bret <> wrote in
    news:p:

    > On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 04:01:13 +0000, Mike Dee wrote:
    >
    >> Bret <> wrote in
    >> news:p:
    >>
    >>>> A non-sponsored report....

    >>
    >> *** http://www.microsoft.com ***
    >>
    >> Bwah har har har har hardy har harrr!

    >
    > LOL, you look like a pirate (parrot and hook type) with a laugh
    > like that :)


    Arrrrr, I don't think so me bucko. I've been told that sometimes I
    *sounds* like one, tho' :)

    --
    D.
     
    Mike Dee, Dec 2, 2004
    #5
  6. Bret

    paul Guest

    Bret wrote:

    > On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 16:47:52 +1300, Bret wrote:
    >
    >
    >>A non-sponsored report calculates that a major Linux deployment or switch
    >>from Windows is four times more expensive and takes three times longer
    >>than a Windows upgrade. Other TCO costs include:
    >>
    >>a 20 to 30 percent salary premium for Linux system administrators.
    >>
    >>third-party performance and management software that costs 15 to 25
    >>percent more than equivalent Windows tools.
    >>
    >>So Linux admins are getting a premium, and programmers ,start writing
    >>performance and management software.

    >
    >
    > Sorry URL
    >
    > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/facts/analyses/entcost.mspx
    >


    It's a micro$oft url; non-sponsored: not convinced.

    Paul
     
    paul, Dec 2, 2004
    #6
  7. Bret

    Peter Guest

    Peter, Dec 2, 2004
    #7
  8. Bret

    dumbkiwi Guest

    Bret wrote:

    > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/facts/analyses/entcost.mspx


    To quote:

    "However, nearly every organization has a Linux strategy. About 25 percent of
    those polled said they would add Linux servers for specialized applications -
    most notably Web servers. The overwhelming majority of the survey respondents
    said Linux is under evaluation and Linux pilot deployments abound."

    Don't you just love selective quoting. If I just published that, you'd think it
    was a pro-linux survey.

    It also seems to be an obvious conclusion to a misleading question. The cost of
    changing from one platform to the other will always be more expensive than just
    upgrading the existing platform. To me that seems to be a no-brainer.
    However, the really interesting question is whether the benefits of moving to
    the new platform in the long run outweigh the initial costs of the change.
    Does this analysis look at this? If not, then the conclusion is axiomatic, and
    pointless.

    --
    Regards

    Matt
     
    dumbkiwi, Dec 2, 2004
    #8
  9. In article <>, dumbkiwi <> wrote:
    >Bret wrote:

    *SNIP*
    >It also seems to be an obvious conclusion to a misleading question. The cost
    > of
    >changing from one platform to the other will always be more expensive than just
    >upgrading the existing platform.

    *SNIP*

    Was the migration to Linux on IBM z-Series mainframes? Not that I doubt
    that a migration to a radically different platform is considerably more
    expensive than an upgrade of the existing one (though some would
    consider Linux to be the upgrade), but having seen the weird and
    wonderful TCO studies that MS has been guilty of in the past, one is
    always left to wonder if they've done it yet again.

    --
    Matthew Poole Auckland, New Zealand
    "Veni, vidi, velcro...
    I came, I saw, I stuck around"

    My real e-mail is mattATp00leDOTnet
     
    Matthew Poole, Dec 2, 2004
    #9
  10. Bret

    Guest

    On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 16:47:52 +1300, Bret wrote:

    > A non-sponsored report calculates that a major Linux deployment or switch
    > from Windows is four times more expensive and takes three times longer
    > than a Windows upgrade.


    Of *course* it *would* be more expensive to migrate to Linux from
    Windows by dividing the HDD into partitions and to reformat them, and to
    completely reinstall everything and to set up all configurations.

    "Upgrading" Micro$oft Windows does not need to reinstall Userland software
    or repartition the HDD.


    > Other TCO costs include:
    >
    > a 20 to 30 percent salary premium for Linux system administrators.


    Nah - Windoze admins are so useless, and Micro$oft Windows is so
    crash-prone, that there is a greater need for M$Win admins. Also, there
    are so many more people with a Micro$oft qualification that it's devaluing
    them


    > third-party performance and management software that costs 15 to 25
    > percent more than equivalent Windows tools.


    Process accounting and many other admin tools come bundled with Mandrake
    10.1 . And they're all third party programmes freely written especially
    for *nix.

    No problems there.


    > So Linux admins are getting a premium, and programmers ,start writing
    > performance and management software.


    The Linux boffins are worth more than Windows lackies, and Third party
    developers

    All good news there.


    Divine

    --
    "Even the most fanatical Microsoft supporter has to see that Longhorn has
    become Shorthorn."
     
    , Dec 2, 2004
    #10
  11. wrote:
    >>Other TCO costs include:
    >>a 20 to 30 percent salary premium for Linux system administrators.


    > Nah - Windoze admins are so useless, and Micro$oft Windows is so
    > crash-prone, that there is a greater need for M$Win admins. Also, there
    > are so many more people with a Micro$oft qualification that it's devaluing
    > them


    Could you qualify your statement please?
    Maybe some sort of numbers or something to back up what you are saying here.
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Dec 2, 2004
    #11
  12. Bret

    AD. Guest

    On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 03:19:39 +1300, wrote:

    > Of *course* it *would* be more expensive to migrate to Linux from Windows
    > by dividing the HDD into partitions and to reformat them, and to
    > completely reinstall everything and to set up all configurations.


    Of course a Linux migration is more expensive than a Windows upgrade
    because the disks have to be partitioned.

    <rolls eyes>

    You don't have any idea of what the expensive bits are in IT do you?

    Extrapolating out from your experience with a few standalone boxes doesn't
    really help. Corporate migrations/upgrades aren't done by someone running
    around with a CD hoping to get some time on peoples machines when they're
    out at lunch or in a meeting or something.

    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Dec 2, 2004
    #12
  13. Bret

    Chris Hope Guest

    Matthew Poole wrote:

    > In article <>, "Dave - Dave.net.nz"
    > <> wrote:
    >> wrote:
    >>>>Other TCO costs include:
    >>>>a 20 to 30 percent salary premium for Linux system administrators.

    >>
    >>> Nah - Windoze admins are so useless, and Micro$oft Windows is so
    >>> crash-prone, that there is a greater need for M$Win admins. Also,
    >>> there are so many more people with a Micro$oft qualification that
    >>> it's devaluing them

    >>
    >>Could you qualify your statement please?
    >>Maybe some sort of numbers or something to back up what you are saying
    >>here.

    >
    > I'm pretty sure there was a study done which concluded that a *nix
    > (any *nix, not just Linux) admin could administer more boxes than a
    > Windows admin of equivalent skill.
    > Not through any particular lack on the part of the Windows admin, just
    > with the lack of really good remote administrative capability on
    > Windows
    > itself. Plus the inherent historical instability of Windows,
    > requiring
    > more admin time. At work we run 20 Linux boxes in a variety of roles,
    > and three Windows boxes as web servers (for customers who want ASP),
    > and the Windows boxes require a vastly disproportionate amount of
    > admin time.


    I'm pretty sure I've read about studies like that too, or at least read
    a lot of anecdotal evidence that says *nix admins can admin more boxes
    more easily than Windows admins.

    --
    Chris Hope - The Electric Toolbox - http://www.electrictoolbox.com/
     
    Chris Hope, Dec 2, 2004
    #13
  14. Matthew Poole wrote:
    >>>>Other TCO costs include:
    >>>>a 20 to 30 percent salary premium for Linux system administrators.


    >>>Nah - Windoze admins are so useless, and Micro$oft Windows is so
    >>>crash-prone, that there is a greater need for M$Win admins. Also, there
    >>>are so many more people with a Micro$oft qualification that it's devaluing
    >>>them


    >>Could you qualify your statement please?
    >>Maybe some sort of numbers or something to back up what you are saying here.


    > I'm pretty sure there was a study done which concluded that a *nix (any
    > *nix, not just Linux) admin could administer more boxes than a Windows
    > admin of equivalent skill.
    > Not through any particular lack on the part of the Windows admin, just
    > with the lack of really good remote administrative capability on Windows
    > itself. Plus the inherent historical instability of Windows, requiring
    > more admin time. At work we run 20 Linux boxes in a variety of roles,
    > and three Windows boxes as web servers (for customers who want ASP), and
    > the Windows boxes require a vastly disproportionate amount of admin
    > time.


    we have ~20 *nix servers looked after by 3 staff, and another 67 Windows
    Servers looked after by 7 Staff.

    The windows admins also admin the ~1500 Desktops that are both on and of
    site too.

    The 7 staff that are doing windows admin and support includes ones that
    just does lease replacements, but I felt should be included as they are
    part ot the support team.
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Dec 2, 2004
    #14
  15. Matthew Poole wrote:
    > *SNIP*
    > Don't forget that Sun have open-sourced (or at least free-licenced)
    > their premier system management tool (the name escapes me). So that's
    > now available for Linux, and I trust Sun to write something like that to
    > a very high standard.


    you mean like Java and it's oh so famous backwards compatibility?
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Dec 2, 2004
    #15
  16. It seems like Fri, 03 Dec 2004 03:19:39 +1300 was when
    "" <> said Blah blah
    blah...

    >Nah - Windoze admins are so useless


    It's comments like this that lose you credibility , and make you look
    more like an ignorant linux zealot.

    I've seen some very competent Windoze (sic) Administrators in my time,
    and also some quite hopeless Linux Administrators (myself included).

    Wouldn't it be easier for all involved just to assume that everytime
    you post you will randomly say either

    A) Install Linux
    or
    B) Windows XP (or whatever version number you'd like to call it) or
    Microsoft in general sucks
    or
    C) A combination of the two.

    For Patrick, swap linux for Windows XP and vice versa.
    --
    Regards,
    Waylon Kenning.

    1st Year B.I.T. WelTec
     
    Waylon Kenning, Dec 2, 2004
    #16
  17. In article <>, "Dave - Dave.net.nz" <> wrote:
    > wrote:
    >>>Other TCO costs include:
    >>>a 20 to 30 percent salary premium for Linux system administrators.

    >
    >> Nah - Windoze admins are so useless, and Micro$oft Windows is so
    >> crash-prone, that there is a greater need for M$Win admins. Also, there
    >> are so many more people with a Micro$oft qualification that it's devaluing
    >> them

    >
    >Could you qualify your statement please?
    >Maybe some sort of numbers or something to back up what you are saying here.


    I'm pretty sure there was a study done which concluded that a *nix (any
    *nix, not just Linux) admin could administer more boxes than a Windows
    admin of equivalent skill.
    Not through any particular lack on the part of the Windows admin, just
    with the lack of really good remote administrative capability on Windows
    itself. Plus the inherent historical instability of Windows, requiring
    more admin time. At work we run 20 Linux boxes in a variety of roles,
    and three Windows boxes as web servers (for customers who want ASP), and
    the Windows boxes require a vastly disproportionate amount of admin
    time.

    --
    Matthew Poole Auckland, New Zealand
    "Veni, vidi, velcro...
    I came, I saw, I stuck around"

    My real e-mail is mattATp00leDOTnet
     
    Matthew Poole, Dec 2, 2004
    #17
  18. In article <pan.2004.12.02.14.19.38.113844@TRACKER>, "" <> wrote:
    >On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 16:47:52 +1300, Bret wrote:

    *SNIP*
    >> third-party performance and management software that costs 15 to 25
    >> percent more than equivalent Windows tools.

    >
    >Process accounting and many other admin tools come bundled with Mandrake
    >10.1 . And they're all third party programmes freely written especially
    >for *nix.
    >

    *SNIP*

    Don't forget that Sun have open-sourced (or at least free-licenced)
    their premier system management tool (the name escapes me). So that's
    now available for Linux, and I trust Sun to write something like that to
    a very high standard.

    --
    Matthew Poole Auckland, New Zealand
    "Veni, vidi, velcro...
    I came, I saw, I stuck around"

    My real e-mail is mattATp00leDOTnet
     
    Matthew Poole, Dec 2, 2004
    #18
  19. Waylon Kenning wrote:
    >>Nah - Windoze admins are so useless


    > It's comments like this that lose you credibility , and make you look
    > more like an ignorant linux zealot.


    indeed.

    > I've seen some very competent Windoze (sic) Administrators in my time,
    > and also some quite hopeless Linux Administrators (myself included).


    Add me to that list of hopeless linux admins, but competetint(well I
    think so) windows Admins.
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Dec 2, 2004
    #19
  20. Bret

    AD. Guest

    On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 09:34:17 +1300, Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:

    > Matthew Poole wrote:
    >> *SNIP*
    >> Don't forget that Sun have open-sourced (or at least free-licenced)
    >> their premier system management tool (the name escapes me). So that's
    >> now available for Linux, and I trust Sun to write something like that to
    >> a very high standard.

    >
    > you mean like Java and it's oh so famous backwards compatibility?


    The only rare cases I've ever come across where an old Java app wouldn't
    run on a newer JVM where either a) the idiot app programmers checked for a
    specific version and refused to run without it, or b) stuff written
    specifically for the MS JVM couldn't run on later Java2 platforms.

    Everything else has just worked straight away, and I've installed and
    supported a lot of Java software over the last 5 years or so.

    Even swapping between different JVM vendors works surprisingly well.

    Cheers
    Anton
     
    AD., Dec 2, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mort and Pam Shuman

    Freaks and Geeks - Any news?

    Mort and Pam Shuman, Sep 3, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    474
    Black Locust
    Sep 4, 2003
  2. Au79
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    431
  3. Au79

    Don't be afraid, Linux isn't just for geeks

    Au79, May 5, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    438
  4. BTMO
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    487
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,017
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page