[plug] [link] Penguin goes `cheap cheap' after all

[Leon Brooks]

   http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2907876,00.html

    Most analysts, if asked whether Linux has a lower TCO than other
    systems, will answer, "It depends." That's because a wide variety
    of factors affect any TCO calculation: what function you're using
    Linux for, what kind of hardware (and how much of it) you're using,
    if you're transitioning from Windows or starting from the ground
    up, and if your IT staff has any experience with a Unix-like OS. 

    Those variables and others--such as what distribution of Linux is
    in play and the version of Windows or Unix it's being compared with
    - make it impossible to plug numbers into a preset formula and spit
    out an easy answer, explained Al Gillen, research director of
    systems software for tech analyst IDC, which has been doing TCO
    studies for several years.

    [...]

    Microsoft has argued that the Windows administrator costs easily
    wash away the Linux licensing cost advantage. The standard Windows
    argument is that a larger pool of Microsoft-certified
    administrators exists, so a Windows admin should cost less than a
    Linux admin.

    [-: LB: and the corollary, `if you're looking for a highly-paid
        career in an employee-chooses market, steer away from Windows'
        is carefully not mentioned :-] [...]

    A July study, conducted by Chad Robinson, senior research analyst
    at tech/business researcher Robert Frances Group (RFG), supports
    Schenkenfelder's claims. Robinson acknowledges that experienced
    admins for Linux or Solaris can be more expensive in some parts of
    the United States but noted that many of them have been working
    with Unix for dozens of years. 

    "One of the things that Microsoft is starting to lose out on now,
    and I'm not sure they realize this yet, is that they still claim
    Windows administrators are cheaper," Robinson said. "But the flip
    side of the same coin is that if one of my administrators on a
    Windows environment can manage only 10 to 15 systems at a time,
    but my Solaris admin or my NetBSD or my Linux admin can manage
    1,000 servers at a time, I need fewer admins. Sure, the salary's
    more expensive, but I get more life out of them."

    [...]

    "And finding Linux experience is not difficult anymore," Robinson
    noted. "Most of the customers told us that their Solaris admins
    basically picked it up and worked with it within a couple of weeks."

    [...]

    "The Microsoft case has always been 'Linux isn't free,' and they're
    losing sight of something these days," Robinson said. "Nobody's
    saying Linux is free anymore. Our number here is $74,000 for a
    three-year deployment. The news is that, despite it not being free,
    it's still considerably cheaper and is more flexible with licensing."

    Robinson also noted that keeping up with Microsoft's licensing
    requirements - and with the hackers that consistently target Windows -
    will add to the Windows cost. He included those issues in his "soft"
    costs section but didn't have enough data to work them into his
    numbers, he explained.

    "Personally, I'm not finding Windows to be less expensive to
    administer, but those security holes - that'll kill 'em," he said.

Cheers; Leon