Win2K servers cheaper to run than Linux :-)

[David Kramer]

On Tuesday 03 December 2002 11:16 am, John Whitfield wrote:
> > Surprise news from a study sponsored by
> > Microsoft ...
> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/28408.html
>
> Unfortunately the Register tends to shoot too much from the hip, as shown
> by their use of the phrase "We haven't as yet seen the full study..."
>
> They're probably right and the study is probably flawed and biased, but we
> need to see the whole thing before we know where the bias is.  But I'm sure
> Microsoft funds a lot of these studies.  (Remember the "NT is faster than

I've been discussing this on another list.  Though I have not read the study 
myself, I've seen parts of it.  My stomache can only take so much.

1) Yes, this is an IDG study paid for IN FULL by M$FT.  

2) In every such study done to date, it has been proven that they left out 
substantial information needed to check the valitidy of the statements, have 
made gross assumptions and extrapolations, and have made those assuptions 
differently for their side than the other side.

For instance, there was also a report a few days ago showing that the number 
of CERT (or is it CERN?) security alerts for Linux surpassed the number of 
security reports for M$FT, so we should all shut up and sit down with our 
superior attitude.  What they neglected to mention is that they were counting 
security *reports* and not security incidents, and M$FT tends to list several 
different discovered vulnerabilities in the same report, while Linux folk 
tend to release vulnerability reports as soon as the information is verified, 
one by one.  So the number of vulnerabilities reported in M$FT software is 
much higher, even though the number of reports is lower.

3) Many of the numbers this report was based on were from polls of IT 
managers, not careful case studies where the costs were tracked.

4) It is not clear how they handled the fact that one Windows server is 
generally dedicated to one task, so you would have your domain controller 
separate from your exchange server, etc, while Linux boxen are often wearing 
several hats at once.  How do they allocate the costs across those functions?  
Do they charge the full cost of the server to both functions, a double 
jeapordy situation?

5) There are more Windows admins out there than UNIX admins, so the Windows 
admins cost the company less.  However, UNIX admins, like the servers 
themselves, often serve in more capacities.  I've never heard of a 
reasonably-sized Exchange server NOT needing a full person dedicated to it, 
but the sysadmin in a UNIX shop would also typically be the firewall guy and 
the email guy.  The Database administrator can probably do some sysadmin 
tasks too, like moving around disk hardware and backups.

I'm not saying there aren't ways where Windows is cheaper to run than Linux, 
I'm just saying that, at best, this report is not complete enough to back up 
its conclusions, and at worst, is a filthy stinkin lie.  Not that this is a 
new tactic for them.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
DDDD   David Kramer         david at thekramers.net       http://thekramers.net
DK KD  
DKK D  Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
DK KD  A: Why is top posting frowned upon?
DDDD