Headline FeedsLinuxInsider Talkback
|
|
Re: Open Source, the Recession and the Lower-TCO Promise
Posted by: Jeff Meisner 2009-02-27 13:53:37
See Full Story
Most segments of the technology market are hurting due to the recession, but one -- open source systems -- appears to be thriving despite the economic turmoil. Open source vendors such as Red Hat, SugarCRM and Vyatta say the recession has compelled organizations and corporations large and small to take a closer look at Linux-based software and hardware in an effort to reduce costs. As the global economic crisis worsens, it is likely that adoption of open source systems will increase.
Granted, it costs something to migrate but that is a one-time cost and not a lot.
The on-going costs for GNU/Linux are much less. What is the cost of a patch/re-re-reboot? What is the cost of needing one-third as many servers to provide your services? What is the cost of one person being able to manage hundreds or thousands of boxes from his desk?
A lot of mission-critical applications run on servers. M$ did not even have the facility to run a mission-critical app on a server without a GUI until 2008. One can rest a lot easier knowing there are many fewer points of failure in a GUI-less system. GNU/Linux has been able to that for us for many years.
When you get to malware, any question of running mission-critical stuff on GNU/Linux becomes a joke. When the stuff is coming hot and heavy, GNU/Linux is a safer fox-hole by far. If a vulnerability is found in GNU/Linux it can usually be fixed in minutes without shutting down.
When you get to performance, there is no doubt that GNU/Linux gives great value. I have never had any user say they preferred that other OS for performance. I have done many side-by-side tests of GNU/Linux and that other OS. There is no way I would want that other OS to run any mission-critical system. The priorities of its creators are to lock people in and keep the cash coming, not to provide good service at a reasonable price. In these times, it is no wonder people are turning to free software. I ask, "What kept them?". The reasons for migrating are just as compelling in good times as bad. I think it is that perceptions change in bad times. The bubble of comfort with the status quo has disappeared.
The on-going costs for GNU/Linux are much less. What is the cost of a patch/re-re-reboot? What is the cost of needing one-third as many servers to provide your services? What is the cost of one person being able to manage hundreds or thousands of boxes from his desk?
A lot of mission-critical applications run on servers. M$ did not even have the facility to run a mission-critical app on a server without a GUI until 2008. One can rest a lot easier knowing there are many fewer points of failure in a GUI-less system. GNU/Linux has been able to that for us for many years.
When you get to malware, any question of running mission-critical stuff on GNU/Linux becomes a joke. When the stuff is coming hot and heavy, GNU/Linux is a safer fox-hole by far. If a vulnerability is found in GNU/Linux it can usually be fixed in minutes without shutting down.
When you get to performance, there is no doubt that GNU/Linux gives great value. I have never had any user say they preferred that other OS for performance. I have done many side-by-side tests of GNU/Linux and that other OS. There is no way I would want that other OS to run any mission-critical system. The priorities of its creators are to lock people in and keep the cash coming, not to provide good service at a reasonable price. In these times, it is no wonder people are turning to free software. I ask, "What kept them?". The reasons for migrating are just as compelling in good times as bad. I think it is that perceptions change in bad times. The bubble of comfort with the status quo has disappeared.
