Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 22nd Jan 2007 16:56 UTC, submitted by Robert
Novell and Ximian Novell might have signed a patent and interoperability deal with Microsoft Corp but it is not about to give up competing with the software giant and last week released a study that suggests its Linux desktop product is better value than Windows Vista. The company's competitive guide compares SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop with Windows Vista and claims that the Linux product provides 90% of Vista's functionality and 10% of the price.
Thread beginning with comment 204593
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

Yet, studies have shown that it requires less administrators to manage and maintain a the equivalent number of Linux servers compared to Windows...I imagine the same would be true of Linux desktops.

Reply Parent Score: 3

flanque Member since:

That depends on which study you read and whom it is sponsored or paid by. Blanket statements that either Windows or Linux is more expensive than the other are narrow minded. Additionally, comparisons of just maintenance and management costs do not consider other costs such as training, user resistance, user efficiency, software changes and alike.

There are a great deal more factors to consider. It depends very much on the organisation and its needs.

Edited 2007-01-22 21:54

Reply Parent Score: 1

archiesteel Member since:

That depends on which study you read and whom it is sponsored or paid by.

IIRC, this was an independent study done a couple of years ago. It is also reflected by personal experience, as well as basically every sysadmin I've talked to. *nix servers are just more stable and easier to maintain.

As far as desktop goes, of course user training costs exist, but depending on the apps used they are minimal. In any case, there is always cost involved in any migration; the benefits are usually long-term, and some may be hard to quantify (such as freedom from Microsoft lock-in).

Reply Parent Score: 2

kaiwai Member since:

Interesting, and those who complain about the perceived 'high cost' are those who never use the tools which Microsoft makes available to lower the cost of deployment and administration.

It would be the equivilant of me installing WIndows using all the tools provided by Microsoft, but manually installaing each copy of Red Hat Linux/Fedora rather than using Kickstart - then coming onto this forum claiming that Linux is more expensive.

What is holding Linux back is applications, applications, applications and applications; until you can get the exact same application on Linux as you can on Windows, companies aren't going to move - no matter how 'virus resistant' your favourite operating system is.

Edited 2007-01-23 00:46

Reply Parent Score: 1

archiesteel Member since:

All I indicated is that maintaining Linux servers requires less manpower than maintaining Windows servers, and extrapolating that one could expect the same thing on the desktop - something which I, as a "family/friends support" technician, can very well attest to.

The fact that you quickly changed the subject to applications availability tells me that you've basically conceded that point...

I'll add a precision to what you said: you don't need the exact same applications on Linux, you need applications that can do the same thing you need. After all, companies do switch from one app to the other even when they stay after Windows (like when we switched from Outlook to Lotus Notes).

Will this suit every company? Of course not, but it doesn't need to. The fact that the MS apologists have renewed their usual FUD with extra vigour is a good indication that Novell indeed represents a threat to Redmond's quasi-monopoly.

Reply Parent Score: 2