[TriLUG] microsoft ad

[William Sutton]

This is the sort of analysis I was interested in seeing on the subject 
(although it deals only with the installation process;  I suspect there is 
more involved in the cost than just installation).

I agree that for most desktop uses, Windows or Mac OSX make a more 
reasonable choice than Linux, mostly due to office productivity software 
interoperability (for example, go to a web page that contains a 
spreadsheet and it opens automagically; edit it, send it back).

My interest is in cost of setting up and maintaining servers.  I suspect 
you (Matthew Lavigne) also have plenty of relevant experience on that 
aspect as well.

-- 
William Sutton


On Sat, 4 Mar 2006, Matthew Lavigne wrote:

> As one that does both of these in a test environment, where setting up 
> consistently is more important then almost anything other then the 
> testing, and we set up quite a few of both boxes each week, I will say 
> the following:
> 
> Linux is can be configured (through kickstarts and scripting) to set 
> itself up and configure with zero interaction.  This is based on using a 
> kickstart, and then scripting in the postinstall to catch the system 
> prior to the normal redhat firstboot, and then redirecting to script the 
> remainder of any production software that needs to be installed or 
> configured.  Reboots required == 1, user interaction required= boot the 
> system and select the installation type (test type).  End result, a 
> completely configured system the next time that it is powered on.  
> Number of Configs or CDs required == 1
> 
> Windows can be and is set up about the same.  CD required == 1 per 
> system type, because the unattended installer has to have custom paths 
> for each separate system.  Number of reboots required == 3 minimum (1 in 
> the OS install, reboot and then one following patch installation).  User 
> interaction required is to login and execute the patch installer and 
> verify that applications are installed.  End result is a system that is 
> completely configured the next time that it is powered on.  Windows does 
> not have the same install flexibility that the Linux kickstart does such 
> as allowing multiple different config types and that is the primary 
> weakness.
> 
> Time on the installers,
> 
> Linux about 10 minutes
> Windows about 35 minutes
> 
> This is one the same system on a Gig network, so it is the 
> OS/Installer/Media (windows installs via CD not network).  But as Will 
> commented earlier, there are a multitude of ways to configure linux to 
> install and windows has quite a few similar options. 
> 
> 
> In closing I think that Magnus' point is that depending on the skillset 
> and the tools that the person installing/configuring has invested the 
> time in perfecting either windows or linux can be mass rolled out, and 
> configured relatively quickly.  The issue as I see it is that the end 
> user on the desktop is more likely to be able to keep a window box 
> running then a linux box (assuming standard exposure levels and not geek 
> exposure levels)
> 
> Matthew
> 
> 
> Jim Ray wrote:
> > i define "there" as taking less time to set up for operation for the 
> > customer and, therefore, costing less money due to less labor.
> >
> > using my own production rate, i can load a linux desktop will all 
> > patches and applications in an hour.  it takes at least twice as long 
> > to do so with winders.
> >
> > using the production rate of two different experts who have loaded 
> > servers for me, they take longer to get a server functional in linux 
> > than it takes me in winders.
> >
> > so, from a cost point of view, desktops in linux are ready to go.  the 
> > server side will probably come along in the near future.  it has come 
> > a long way yet still has a ways to go.
> >
> > now, when the law of large numbers kicks in (ie a thousand desktop 
> > PCs), the extra server labor amortized by the number of desktops makes 
> > it a no brainer.  for the small business environment, though, extra 
> > server labor is a bad thing.
> >
> > seeya,
> >
> > jim
> >
> > ps i hope all is well at yonderway :-)
> >
> > Magnus wrote:
> >
> >> On 3/4/06, Jim Ray <jim at neuse.net> wrote:
> >>  
> >>
> >>> key word is yet.  desktops are there.  when the server side comes
> >>> around, microsoft had better look out...
> >>>   
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Actually I think you have it backwards.
> >>
> >> Server side has been "there" for some time with Linux.
> >>
> >> Desktop is more painful for non-geeks.  Heck, desktop is painful for 
> >> *geeks*
> >> but geeks seem to be masochistic when it comes to Linux desktops.
> >>  
> >>
> 
> 
>