Headline FeedsLinuxInsider Talkback
|
|
See Full Story
Microsoft's Get the Facts site, which I discussed in my LinuxInsider column last week, "Getting the Facts About Windows and Linux," makes the case that Windows is cheaper than Linux. The site includes a contribution from Meta Group dedicated to the proposition that the combination of Linux plus a database costs more than a Windows Server plus SQL Server. That comparison is deceitful by both omission and commission, but it does raise an interesting question: What does Linux really cost?
In regards to running oracle on "free" dist's of Linux, if ya gonna pay for Oracle licenses it is not wise to slack by not getting ASE with the bundled support. Or you may be explaining why your database won't run since you installed it on something not certified by Oracle. And have nobody to call. I've been down this path.
Linux can't be more expensive than micro$oft's operating system. the main reason is that if you write a program under the GNU/GPL license, it will be "free", you don't need M$VB license, you don't need M$SQL license. Postgresql is also a good choice. M$ products require too much time in actualize, and Debian just requires 2 lines of code that can be added in a cronjob : apt-get update ; apt-get upgrade. Swaret for Slackware works in the same way. If you compare RedHat Linux with Micro$oft Windows, you will probably have two bad products, too much problems. If you have a technical department in your IT, one of these guys can handle a Linux server and be dedicated to Linux server... Reading logs, applying security policies, that's not a lot of work... You don't need a Linux geek but someone who can read a HOWTO. Linux documentation is free of charge and security updates are online few hours after the bug has been discovered. Additionally, if you work with Window$ in a serious enterprise, you MUST get an antivirus application for $49.95 a year, and a firewall solution for more than $299.95. OK! how does IPTABLES cost? Is there any antivirus for Linux? oh yes! there are many : if you just have access to your Linux partition after a Window$ crash, you can recover your Window$ data with some antivirus applications such as F-Prot for Linux... So? It can't be more expensive... A good programmer can give a better technical support and your servers will be offline for less time... Believe me, I made the test with three servers. A Pentium 200 MMX with Linux Slackware and a Pentium III-550 MHz with Window$. My P200 worked fine, then I installed slack to my P3-550 and worked better... and my little sister knows how to use it!
Paul, I would like to commend you on your insightful article on Linux versus Windows. First, let me say that I am neither in the Windows nor the Linux camp, but rather have seen them as 'different technologies' for some time now. i.e. I believe you really hit the nail on the head when you used this as your basis for comparison.
I absolutely, absolutely *hate* it when people say that Linux and open source software are "free" because it means that they've never managed an IT force themselves. This is a very naive perspective in that there are far more costs in maintaining systems than the up-front licensing and installation costs. In fact, I've always held the belief that the real costs with IT system are in the ongoing maintenance and support.
For internal IT systems (file servers, print, etc.) I don't see the technologies comparing equally mainly due to your clients are Windows. I've yet to see a successful internal use of Linux servers perform equally to user's expectations, but rather in a web farm environment I see Linux really doing well. As the front-line web-servers I've had great success. I recently redesigned the entire web-farm for a major US consumer electronics company's marketing/e-commerce site using Linux in place of the front-line web-servers, but still keeping the DB server as Windows 2000 / SQL Server 2000. It's worked well for us.
Anyway, I just wanted to add my 2 cents and to extend my appreciation for a good article.
I absolutely, absolutely *hate* it when people say that Linux and open source software are "free" because it means that they've never managed an IT force themselves. This is a very naive perspective in that there are far more costs in maintaining systems than the up-front licensing and installation costs. In fact, I've always held the belief that the real costs with IT system are in the ongoing maintenance and support.
For internal IT systems (file servers, print, etc.) I don't see the technologies comparing equally mainly due to your clients are Windows. I've yet to see a successful internal use of Linux servers perform equally to user's expectations, but rather in a web farm environment I see Linux really doing well. As the front-line web-servers I've had great success. I recently redesigned the entire web-farm for a major US consumer electronics company's marketing/e-commerce site using Linux in place of the front-line web-servers, but still keeping the DB server as Windows 2000 / SQL Server 2000. It's worked well for us.
Anyway, I just wanted to add my 2 cents and to extend my appreciation for a good article.
