Total cost of ownership and acquisition costs
In the past few years it has been virtually impossible to open a computer magazine or visit a technology website without running into an article singing the praises of Linux or open source. Who would not like the idea of a "free" operating system that just about anyone can edit and contribute to?
But as the Yankee Group commented in the independent, non-sponsored global study of 1,000 IT administrators and executives, "Linux, Unix and Windows server TCO Comparison", things aren't always as they seem:
"All of the major Linux vendors and distributors (including Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Novell [SUSE and Ximian] and Red Hat) have begun charging high premiums for must-have items such as technical service and support, product warranties and licensing indemnification."
In large enterprises, a significant Linux deployment or total switch from Windows servers to Linux servers would be three to four times more expensive and take three times as long to deploy, as an upgrade from one version of Windows servers to a newer release.
And nine out of 10 enterprise customers said that such a change wouldn't provide any tangible business gains.
For larger organisations with complex computer networks, it's important to look beyond Linux's initial low investment cost and consider all of the TCO and ROI factors.
Another comprehensive, non-sponsored study by Forrester, entitled The Costs and Risks of Open Source, drew a similar conclusion: "The allure of free software is accelerating the deployment of open source platforms, but open source is not free and may actually increase financial and business risks."
In early 2004, Forrester conducted in-depth discussions with 14 companies that had been running Linux platforms for longer than one year to see what the costs really were.
Several key themes emerged:
- Not many of the companies questioned know what they're really spending. Only five of the 14 kept detailed metrics and each of those five found Linux to be more expensive (5% to 20%) than their current Microsoft environments.
- Preparation and planning activities took 5% to 25% longer for Linux than Windows.
- Training for IT employees was significantly higher for Linux than for Windows servers, on average 15% more expensive. The reasons: training materials were less readily available, and customers spent more on training to compensate for the lack of internal knowledge about Linux.
- All 14 companies said it was difficult finding qualified Linux personnel in the marketplace to support their Linux projects. When they did find third-party help, they had less leverage negotiating hourly rates than with Windows server consulting resources.
Click on the link for more information on the total cost of ownership of a Windows server, or request information online.
