TCO study: Linux wins again

[Alexandru Ungur]

An updated Linux vs Windows TCO study has found that a 250-seat company can end up saving 36 percent if it were to equip its users with the open source operating system and applications that run on it.

The study, by Melbourne-based open source firm Cybersource, found that even use of a commercial Linux distribution such as Red Hat Enterprise Linux, would result in 27 percent lower costs.

Read the full story

Where is the rest of the money being spent so, Linux is free, I assume that includes hardware but not IT saleries,
Considering the software is free that should really be 10000000000% savings if they just compare software prices.
Staff saleries should be lower as well as linux admins are about 10-20% cheaper to employ on average than windows counterparts.

PS that article requires registration to view.
and I really couldnt be arsed.

[Alexandru Ungur]

Why on Earth would you assume that "a free operating system includes free hardware" ?!?

HARDWARE is *not* SOFTWARE,
Linux = Operating System = Software.

http://www.google.ro/search?q=define+hardware
http://www.google.ro/search?q=define+software

Happy reading...

[Alexandru Ungur]

Originally Posted by Darksat

Considering the software is free that should really be 10000000000% savings if they just compare software prices.

And oh, by the way: it's a TCO STUDY.... so they definitely *don't* "just compare prices"...

http://www.google.ro/search?q=define+TCO

I never said hardware was free, however if your just comparing cost effectiveness of linux and windows i dont think 36% is an accurate figure as it takes hardware , etc into account, which isnt really relative to the cost effectiveness of the software, wait actually I stand corrected, linux will run on cheaper machines better and faster.

[Alexandru Ungur]

Originally Posted by Darksat

I never said hardware was free, however if your just comparing cost effectiveness of linux and windows i dont think 36% is an accurate figure as it takes hardware , etc into account, which isnt really relative to the cost effectiveness of the software, wait actually I stand corrected, linux will run on cheaper machines better and faster.

Where is the rest of the money being spent so, Linux is free, I assume that includes hardware but not IT saleries,...

Seeing the above sentence I thought that's what you meant. My appologies. After seeing some of your other posts I have no doubt now you do know the difference between SW and HW
Getting back to the track, hardware does influence the TCO, as you said "Linux runs on older hardware", hence lower HW budget is needed... hence influencing - positively for Linux - the TCO. Take into account that the study considered the case of "buying" a commercial Linux distro, just to make the comparison harder for Linux, and you *still* get 36% off...
You also need to spend a bit of money on training etc. which is needed when you migrade Windows users to Linux... not much, true, but some definitely is needed,

[Paul_KY]

You know, Alex, I'm starting to believe you. The sky really is falling. And Microsoft will be going out of business very soon. :roll:

Here's a tip: It doesn't matter HOW GOOD your product is. If you SUCK at marketing it, well, you are what you are.

Debate all you want. Healthy debate is a good thing, right Alex? But you can't debate the FACT MS OWNS Linux, in regards to marketshare, can you, Alex? opcorn:

[Alexandru Ungur]

Originally Posted by Paul_KY

You know, Alex, I'm starting to believe you. The sky really is falling. And Microsoft will be going out of business very soon. :roll:

Here's a tip: It doesn't matter HOW GOOD your product is. If you SUCK at marketing it, well, you are what you are.

Debate all you want. Healthy debate is a good thing, right Alex? But you can't debate the FACT MS OWNS Linux, in regards to marketshare, can you, Alex? opcorn:

I was referring to technical aspects ratfer than the bussines aspects, since I'm more technical minded. But thank you for the tip, but I already got to realize that on my skin...

As for the "OWNS" part... I think that the markets are quite different: Linux targets smart customers that understand the benefits of a real OS, build to be secure, stable and extremely flexible, covering laptop OSes just as well as mainframes in a coherent manner. People who want secure and stable platforms to be able to do whatever their job is in optimal conditions.

You bet on MS just because they have loads of money, or you bet on MS because they have a technically superior OS? Oh, sorry... I forgot, it's all about marketing with you, isn't it?

Here, I give you this link for your marketing thirsty soul
http://www.ibm.com/linux/

[Paul_KY]

"Linux targets smart customers"

So anyone going with MS would be dumb, correct?

Also, how does the marketing dept. determine if the potential customer is, "Smart"? Do they perform IQ tests prior to the sales call?

Alex, go ahead, "Tech" it up, baby! :rock:

"You bet on MS just because they have loads of money, or you bet on MS because they have a technically superior OS?"

They market their product better. You only hear of Linux on geek/tech/webmaster related boards. That accounts for about .00000001% of the world's population.

Ok, now get back to sucking the Linux nipple. Or better yet, why not resort to your Google God...

:blue: :blue: :blue: :blue:

Linux or linux variants host nearly 80% of the worlds web servers, mail servers, etc, thats hardly .00000001% of the world's population.

The linux desktop percentage is nearing 15% in some countries like brazil, etc
hardly small change,
its a better product and will appeal to people who know better.