RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] cost of Linux vrs Windows?

["Ross, Matthew" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

> The point is that if I have to have windows desktops then it 
> makes sense
> for me to have Windows servers. The Additional cost is not that great,
> $5 for each machine and the cost of a server license. In 
> terms of what I
> can do with active directory on a Windows network I can 
> administer many
> computers very easily and do not need to be a programmer to write
> scripts to do that for me. So in effect I can get a windows
> administrator cheaper since that guy does not need to know 
> how to write
> all these specialized scripts and code you guys are always talking
> about.

Actually, you do much worse. Much of the windows platform isn't self supporting. Instead of having to copy and paste a line of code into a single file whenever you need to make a modification, you have to be trained to go through layer upon layer of menues, toolboxes, etc to get to most configurations. There is no search engine for it, you can't grep where the toolbox you need is, you have to go through the process by the book. 

> I have mentioned some places where I think Linux definitely has a leg
> up. Web server, mail servers, those are definitely cheaper to 
> put up and
> maintain. Exchange costs are through the roof, no way I am 
> going to pay
> for that when in effect it is not going to interact with my 
> machines on
> the network other than through Outlook. Web services are the same way,
> though there is some argument on the database end depending 
> on the size
> of your database.

Actually, databases are far more stable and scaleable on Linux than on Windows. The aforementioned GUI takes up memory that the database would otherwise be using, thus reducing the database speed, and the databases supported on windows include MS SQL Server, and a long list of databases that have been proven to run far better on *nix, including MySQL, Oracle, and Sybase. Linux has more options, including PostgreSQL, which is considered one of the top open source projects in existance, and is quickly gaining the capeabilities of MS SQL. Unless you're wanting a halfwit to make a convoluted database report in ugly fonts (ie. MS Access), then Windows is not the place for your database server.

> OK so well the debate continues. I see there is no way to calm the
> ravage Linux shills. The point is that there are CIO's from 
> fortune 500
> companies that will tell you the same thing I am telling you, and then
> there are some that will argue your point, there is not true clear cut
> and dry answer to it.

There is, but you have to look for factual information based off data to see the answer.

> That tells me that in every instance, 
> in each and
> every deployment there are more significant things to look at than the
> initial cost of buying the software which always seems to be the one
> thing that most of the die hard Linux crowd falls back on. 
> This has been
> my point all along.

You have brought up the other costs, we have explained that you've overestimated those costs, and in many cases, applied the cost to Linux without applying it to Windows.

And they say I don't read what other people say... sheesh.

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion