Windows(Apples) vs. Linux/Unix(Oranges) TCO
Recently there has been a lot of articles and posts about which platform has the lowest TCO. Many of these discussions perturb me including the latest
executive email from Steve Ballmer,
No Free Lunch an article in the latest edition of
Microsoft's Executive Circle, and a
recent study done by the
Yankee group. The reason these and many others perturb me is that they all make a similar remark to this one from the Yankee group study:
"And in large enterprises, a significant Linux deployment or total switch from Windows to Linux, would be three to four times more expensive and take three times as long to deploy as an upgrade from one version of Windows to newer Windows releases," the study found.
The real reason this perturbs me is that people are still comparing apples to oranges. I would really hope that an upgrade from one version of Windows to the next would have a cheaper TCO then it would to change an entire infrastructure from Windows to Linux or Unix. That's like saying it is it's a lower TCO to add an additional row of apple trees to an apple orchard then it would be to throw all of the current trees away and plant orange trees instead.
COME ON! Get on the ball, publish some facts and statistics at actually mean something and don't open your mouth bashing another company, idea, platform, etc. unless your facts are accurate.
I understand that we can probably assume that X% of the businesses out there are already running a Microsoft Windows environment and that it might make more business sense to push the thought that it is cheaper just to stay with the current platform. Though these facts just piss more people off.
If someone is going to publish statistics, figures and facts based on a Windows vs. Linux/Unix TCO I would like to see the following:
- Startup vs. Startup
- Windows Upgrade vs. Linux/Unix Switch
- Linux/Unix Upgrade vs. Windows Switch
- Windows Upgrade vs. Linux/Unix Upgrade