h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

On this page: http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/facts/default.asp there is a report from Microsoft that the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) of a Linux server is greater than that of a Windows server.

You will notice a link on the page that claims it will allow you to 'Read the Report' in PDF format. I have broadband and on trying to save that PDF file I find that the download speed is, on average, 3 kps.

I'm lost for words! First, Microsoft has the audacity to venture that their products are cheaper than free software (which suggests that they GIVE you money to use the software, i.e. negative TCO), and then to demonstrate the power of their servers they offer the justification for this claim at one of the slowest speeds in existence.

As I say, I'm lost for words. I'd like to hear what h2g2 people have to say about it.

Actually (and I'm kicking myself as I write this) they may, possibly, have a point. Probably not, but I can see what they're trying to say, and it at least makes *some* sense.

"Microsoft has the audacity to venture that their products are cheaper than free software"

They're not suggesting that their PRODUCTS are cheaper than free software. They're suggesting that the COST TO YOU of using their product is less than the COST TO YOU of the competition.

And given that 90% of people who use computers, use Windows, know Windows, and are comfortable with Windows, any thought you give to using Unix *has* to take into account the learning curve - which in business terms translates to a cost of training and a cost of lost productivity while people get used to the new system.

Factor in costs like service and support, given than Linux is still a minority system, and you could be looking at costs which are at least comparable. And also remember that Linux is NOT free for most people - sure, geeks can custom-tailor their own installation, but don't the majority of plebs just buy SuSE, Red Hat or some other packaged distro?

Microshaft have been making this claim for a few years now by exagerating the work required to set up and maintain a linux server. The simple fact is that a single peoson can maintain many linux machines as they generally need little to no work at all.

According to a poll I saw on the Internet recently, over 3/4 of people did not buy a commercial Linux - they downloaded it. I have just completed a download of SuSE 9 AND RedHat Fedora Core 1 for free, for example.

The training costs that Microsoft may be referring to are not feasible for people with a UNIX background though. And who does one turn to anyway when you need help with open source software? I never pay for my Linux technical support - it's all free too as far as I was aware.

To arrive at the conclusion that Windows has a lower TCO than Linux you would need to be a complete Linux newbie who was going through six year's worth of the most expensive training along with thirty thousand employees, ready to deploy a hosting service comprising forty million advanced Mandrake clusters bought at the full retail price along with membership to a paid technical support service on a monthly tarriff.

Approximately.

Did anyone get the PDF file to download quickly though? To me that's the most incredible part of their claim.

"To arrive at the conclusion that Windows has a lower TCO than Linux you would need to be a complete Linux newbie"...etc.

This kind of heavily qualified claim reminds me of that wonderful phrase "weapons of mass destruction... programme... related... activities."

Grasping at straws, eh?

Well, I was just so totally and utterly shocked to the point of speechlessness. Wasn't anybody else?

Every couple of years MS pays a company to prove this. It is not anything new. Until later....
BCNU - Crescent

Hang on, of we're just talking the software that's running on the server...the actual network users could be on Microplop workstations, Mac OS (any Mac OS, Unix based or none), Linux or anything! There's no actual argument

We're talking about the operating system that people use as a server. Microsoft is claiming that Windows Server 2003 has a lower TCO than a Linux server like RedHat Enterprise Linux.

So the people accessing or using the services of that server can of course be using any OS that they choose, as you say, but the argument is that the companies providing that aforementioned server of which the said people are attempting to access or make use of the services of could be led to believe that Windows Server 2003's TCO is lower than Linux where it's not, unless in exceptional circumstances.

As you also say: .