Mood: Headachy.
Music: Pulling Mussels from the Shell, Squeeze.
Game: World of Warcraft, Wipeout Pure, Untold Legends
Book: America's Longest War, The US & Vietnam 1950-1975, George C. Herring, and Mona Lisa Overdrive, William Gibson
Muffin: Raspberry-Mango.
Punchline: Far too foul-mouthed to repeat here. Take my word for it. It was funny.
Recently, Yankee Group published a report that basically said that, for companies, the total cost of ownership for Linux servers was roughly the same as Windows servers.
Anyone who runs a server farm knows that this is fundamentally true. Whether a box runs Windows, Linux, or any other OS, the feeding and watering of the box is the same, the cost of the box is about the same, and the cost of the IT guy is the same. The difference is in the initial outlay for software...and Windows is a couple hundred dollars more than Linux. So in a corporate environment, when you have a few dozen servers, whether you run Windows or Linux, you're spending about the same amount of money.
I don't see the problem with the statement.
However, the radical Linux userbase have treated the report as if it were packed full of the most horrific lies every told.
The woman responsible for the assembling of the report at Yankee Group has been threatened electronically and verbally, they have been calling her at home at 11pm or later, they've been slandering her in every forum from Slashdot to the New York Times, screaming bias and lies.
As an admin, I respect Linux' capabilities...but I also know its limitations. While Linux may be inexpensive, and capable of being run on relative inexpensive machines, it doesn't require less maintenance than the Windows servers I run alongside them. Largely, once set up, the servers do what they're supposed to do. I need to be slightly more diligent about virus protection on my windows servers. Other than that? There's no difference. The windows servers I have don't crash or lock up any more than my Linux servers fall over.
I understand that there's a strong anti-Microsoft sentiment...and always will be...but what's with the virulent hatred just because Linux is as expensive as Windows for a corporation? It doesn't change Linux' strengths. If you bought Linux only because it was cheaper than Windows, not because it was the right tool for the job, you're not doing your job as an IT manager.
People should just deal with the fact that the vast majority of businesses revolve around Microsoft Office and their correlated tools. In such a case, maximum benefit is gained by running Windows servers, from fileserving/sharing to mail.
Would I build a firewall in Windows? No. Would I use IIS instead of Apache? Probably not. Would I build a mailserver in Windows? If the instance required Exchange, I'd use that. If it was simple POPmail, no, I'd use Linux.
I guess I just get confused by ardent fanboyism. XBox vs. PS2. Mac vs. PC. Windows vs. Linux. They're tools, people. Choose the right tool for the job, for crying out loud. If all you have is a hammer, naturally, the world becomes a nail.
You can do anything Windows can do in Linux? Really? How much time would it take you to make a full-featured spreadsheet package? As quick as picking up the phone and buying a piece of packaged spreadsheet software? I didn't think so.
You think anything you can do in Linux you can do in Windows? Really? Build me a firewall that works.
I hate fanboys. Especially rabid, irrational fanboys. But then, are there any other kind?
Posted by Glenn at April 7, 2005 02:33 PM