[TriLUG] microsoft ad

[William Sutton]

Hmmm...so what you're saying is that as long as all you want is a drop in 
place solution, Windows is cheaper.  That may or may not be the case, but 
I think a good analysis is required to make that determination.  From a 
quick off the top of my head thinking....I see the following:

Windows Pros:
-----
unpack, install plug in, off you go
gui admin interface for people who don't necessarily want to or need to 
know how things work

Windows Cons:
-----
cost:  licensing, training, retraining, certifications, maintenance costs 
(esp. if you sign up for Microsoft's advanced patching program)
vulnerability to virii, worms, etc.

Linux Pros:
-----
free (beer || speech)
can run on cheaper hardware
less vulnerable to worms, not (afaik) vulnerable to virii
the standard for reliable web and mail servers

Linux Cons:
-----
takes some knowledge to get up and running
does not have some of the fancy, slick things that Microsoft have (for 
example, WSDLs for SOAP services)

other thoughts on the list?

-- 
William Sutton


On Sat, 4 Mar 2006, Jim Ray wrote:

> we're talking highly compensated experts in the field that do a great 
> job.  it is not the linux install that increases the production rate.  
> it is the configuration of the applications once linux is installed that 
> takes the time (samba et al).
> 
> even if winders reboots 1,000 times during install, it still takes less 
> time to install than linux.
> 
> so, until the number of clients at a site reaches a point where the cost 
> of client access licenses exceeds the cost of linux server labor, 
> winders will be the most cost effective solution.  for that example that 
> microsoft uses (tommy hilfiger), i question the integrity of the linux 
> server installer on the basis that they *do* have enough clients to 
> effectively amortize the linux server labor.
> 
> me thinks that sales and marketing folks did tommy's analysis instead of 
> the engineers :-)
> 
> William Sutton wrote:
> 
> >How familiar are your associates with setting up Linux?  Seems to me if 
> >you have a familiarity with it, a standard patch process, and/or a 
> >standard install (a la a kickstart disc), you could set up a Linux server 
> >in considerably shorter time than a Windows server, not the least of which 
> >reasons is that Windows has a pathological need to reboot multiple times 
> >during the install process.
> >
> >  
> >
>