Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910
Results 91 to 94 of 94

Thread: Total Cost of Ownership less for Linux

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    3,270
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: Total Cost of Ownership less for Linux

    Question: How much training is necessary with Linux as a gui to do the companies work as opposed to Windows ?
    Using an application such as Excel on Windows versus Openoffice OOCalc
    Those who do not understand UNIX are doomed to reinvent it poorly.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    218
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: Total Cost of Ownership less for Linux

    Quote Originally Posted by Gillion
    Question: How much training is necessary with Linux as a gui to do the companies work as opposed to Windows ?
    Using an application such as Excel on Windows versus Openoffice OOCalc
    1 day for the basics - in the new version 2.0 the menu-structure should be the same as in M$-Office

    maybe interesting for this discussion but unfortunatly without "real" facts

    http://www-1.ibm.com/linux/news/milano.shtml

    About less hardware for linux or not, let`s compare service vs hardware , not minimum requirements. This is the interesting point - and - how many server do i need to get this services stable.
    I heard, that windows gets very unstable if you try to run e.g. a proxy, webserver, mailserver, db-server, dhcp-server, version-management, dns-server and file/print server on one server. This told me an friend who is a real M$-Freak - but please tell me if it isn`t true.

    We have realized this on a primergy L200 running under SuSE linux 7.3 (ca. 50 clients) with an uptime over 750 days without an crashed daemon.


    greets MOses
    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
    Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

    Home

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    812
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: Total Cost of Ownership less for Linux

    Quote Originally Posted by M0ses
    I heard, that windows gets very unstable if you try to run e.g. a proxy, webserver, mailserver, db-server, dhcp-server, version-management, dns-server and file/print server on one server. This told me an friend who is a real M$-Freak - but please tell me if it isn`t true.
    I can say for me this has never been a problem. We run all the above and more and they are rock solid. We have File and Print server with terabytes of data, DHCP server with hundreds of scopes, DNS with over 10,000 hosts.

    Most people think you can just take an old machine and through up and server in a business and everything is ok. Servers do not crash from OS failure only, hardware failure must be taken into consideration.

    I mentioned earlier that I installed a MS cluster which cost about $50,000. This cluster is a replacement for a previous one. The old one started out in 1999 with NT 4.0, 2 550 Mhz Compaq server, 2 Fibre hubs and 768 GB of disk space; currently the old cluster is on Win2k. It's been rock solid, when I say rock solid I mean rock rock solid.

    Couple of reasons for the upgrade are to add more disk space and the hardware is out of warranty for a long time. Remember this is an old machine with old technology, it would not make sence to spend money on old hardware to add more disk space.

    The new servers are ~7 times as fast and twice the amount of memory and 5 times the amount of disks space (~4 terabytes).

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,151
    Rep Power
    0

    Default Re: Total Cost of Ownership less for Linux

    Quote Originally Posted by Gillion
    is simply not true... and I am not going to point out the obvious flaw
    Please do, show me the obvious flaw as I fail to see it.


    Quote Originally Posted by juba
    These are the requirement2 for Win2k3

    PC with a 133-MHz processor required
    128 MB of RAM required
    1.25 to 2 GB of available hard-disk space
    VGA
    Really now, would you put win2k3 on that setup?

    Quote Originally Posted by juba
    I put together a MS cluster today where the hardware alone was $50,000. Would it have been less if it was a Linux solution, no it wouldn't.
    That is why I generated a specific scenario to show a single
    situation where the costs would be less. At no point in time I put forward the
    statement that the TCO for linux is less than a microsoft solution in general.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •