[118962] in Cypherpunks
Re: An article from Microsoft
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (J.A. Terranson)
Mon Oct 11 13:36:43 1999
Message-ID: <026c01bf13f6$a82a72e0$0cb3eecc@tika.mfn.org>
From: "J.A. Terranson" <sysadmin@mfn.org>
To: "Tom Vogt" <tv@wlwonline.de>, "mark galliart" <mark@wi-ks.com>
Cc: <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 09:40:33 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Reply-To: "J.A. Terranson" <sysadmin@mfn.org>
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Vogt <tv@wlwonline.de>
To: mark galliart <mark@wi-ks.com>
Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Date: Monday, October 11, 1999 5:35 AM
Subject: Re: An article from Microsoft
>mark galliart wrote:
>>
>> This article is from the Microsoft NT Server Web site.
>> http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/nts/news/msnw/linuxmyths.asp
>
>and it's got best chances to join the guiness book of records - as the
>most often refuted piece ever published. I've not yet seen the original,
>but the quotes I've seen are... ehm... "interesting".
"The cost of the operating system is only a small percentage of
the overall total cost of ownership (TCO).
In general Windows NT has proven to have a lower cost of
ownership than UNIX. Previous studies have
shown that Windows NT has 37 percent lower TCO than UNIX.
While I believe that TCO is [probably] lower than _UNIX_, I have a very hard
time believing it for any of the "free"
*nix's. We paid almost $2,500.00 per license for true [ATT] SVR3/4: we paid
*zero* for licensing *and* media
for FreeBSD. As for the hardware side of the TCO equation, on average, our
*nix boxen require less than half
as much RAM, *no* CDROM drives, approximately 1/3 less CPU power, 1/4 to1/3
less hard disk drive space, profoundly
lower quality monitors and video cards (most here are running on MDA or EGA
"throwaways", some are truly
"headless"), and [obviously] take less energy to run. Where is this 37%
savings???
"There is no reason to believe that Linux is significantly
different than other versions of UNIX when it comes
to TCO."
Selective perception???
"The very definition of Linux as an Open Software effort means
that commercial companies like Red
Hat will make money by charging for services. Therefore,
commercial support services for Linux will be
fee-based and will likely be priced at a premium."
Like the $199.99 per phone call "support" at Micro$loth???
"These costs have to be factored into the total cost model."
Agreed. And when you look at the *realities*, M$ _loses_...
"Linux is a UNIX-like operating system and is therefore complex
to configure and manage."
Ahem... NT is just as difficult to [properly] configure and manage: in
fact, I would venture that the
damn GUI makes it even *harder* to do correctly..
"Existing UNIX users may find the transition to Linux easier but
administrators for existing
Windows®-based or Novell environments will find it more
difficult to handle the complexity
of Linux. This re-training will add significant costs to Linux
deployments."
Of course! And the converse is also true: therefore, the entire argument is
totally irrelevent.
"Linux is a higher risk option than Windows NT. For example how
many certified engineers are
there for Linux?"
How many "Certified Engineers" with MCSE's can do even the easiest tasks
correctly? The MCSE
has been shown to be a worthless scrap in the real world. I have had
*numerous* MCSE employment
candidates who couldn't even describe common protocols: DHCP, TFTP, BOOTP,
etc... If something
is not Windblow$-centric, the MCSE will not know it. I'll happily take my
chances on an uncertified but
truly knowledgeable engineer, thank you very much!
"How easy is it to find skilled development and support people
for Linux?"
About as difficult as it is to find skilled development and support people
for Windblow$. Skilled folk are
really hard to find - on *any* platform.
"Who performs end-to-end testing for Linux-based solutions?"
Who performs it for Windblows$? This is a non-argument.
"These factors and more need to be taken into account when
choosing a platform for your business. "
Absolutely! What Micro$loth needs to reognize is that "Windows Everywhere"
is *not* a good solution. Each
of the various platforms excell at different things, and should be specified
accordingly. I get just as mad at the
*nix-Everywhere people.
Novell has a place. *nix has a place. Even Windblow$ has a place... A
"skilled" administrator will not be any
more interested in putting a M$ box in a mission-critical server application
that s/he will be in putting a *nix
box on a newbies desk...
