Linux Vs. Win server 2003 - fastest ROI?

[DocHoliday]

My research on this is revealing mixed results. Although Linux seems to already deliver most of the enterprise applications in one scoop as opposed to Windows, Source (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1238672,00.asp), Windows seems to deliver faster ROI due to faster deployment of enterprise applications, Source (http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2002/dec02/12-17TCOstudy.asp)

Can someone shed some light on this?

[ewdi]

The speed of deplyment depends on the administrator itself, we deply linux server with groupwise within 3 days, 5 days faster than when we did groupwise with windows, why? because most of our admin does linux more than windows.

so one factor to consider is the administrator and how well trained your deplyment team is.

As for return on investment, i think in long run linux will save you more money or if you hire someone who already knows linux so you could save a lot of money sending them to training (we spent so much money on groupwise and novell training)

with tied up on licensing, it's hard for an organization to breath and have more range for their IT expenses.

Remember, on windows, pricing could goes up as high as microsoft wanted it to be. that is why i said in long term it will give an org more liability to spend their money on upgrade than other expenses such as human resources

[DocHoliday]

Good reply Tux, however long term investment seems to be an angle Linux application vendors vouch by however most IT projects base themeselves on FAST ROI, calculating this for Linux is such a daunting task because Linux is a "benefit-in-the-long-run" type of thing. There are too many factors to consider when doing a feasibility analaysis, deploying an application under Linux than Windows.

I agree with you that Linux is probably a better investment than Windows due to the fact that Linux seems to provide more flexibility and scalability than Windows server 2003, but if you are already running under a Windows Platform woudn't it generally cost more to implement change management than it would for Windows applications?

[ewdi]

yes, changing platform will cost a lot of money.
Application migration will not only cost money but give a big headache (my experience with groupware system- web based)

However teh cost of changing platform will cost around 55% (Ballpark from my experience) average compare to upgrading from NT to 2000 to 2003.

and what might microsoft put for longhorn server will even put us over the edge for cash flow :p

and upgrading from slackware 8.0 to 9.1 cost almost nothing for us in this campus :)

[DocHoliday]

Actually I've changed my mind. I think on an enterprise scale running Windows server 2003 would produce tangible benefits than Linux. On the ROI and TCO issues, I think that the majority of enterprises that run enterprise applications also believe that rather than lowering their costs, moving to Linux would actually increase them even more. For example in large enterprises, a significant Linux deployment or total switch from Windows to Linux, would be two to three times more expensive and take much longer to deploy as opposed to an upgrade from one version of Windows to a newer Windows release.

The biggest factor I think organisations consider when choosing a pltform is the hidden costs that Linux has. For example I think that a large enterprises with more than 5,000 end users would not need to install Linux as their primary server OS because it requires from 25 to 40 percent more support specialists than Windows or Unix. Additionally, skilled Linux administrators command a 20 to 30 percent greater salary than their Windows and Unix counterparts.

Based on analysis that IDC carried out, I'm predicting that Linux won't dethrone Windows as the leading server vendor for the next few years also, with Microsoft continuing to upgrade their server OS and also provide the right models for deployment, I think Microsoft wins hands down.

[ewdi]

But if you do an upgrade to the next 3 version of windows, you will come up with the same higher cost of ownership dont you think?

Linux already dethrone windows in non critical server such as web application server and most data center have more linux servers than windows.

[DocHoliday]

Originally posted by tux
But if you do an upgrade to the next 3 version of windows, you will come up with the same higher cost of ownership dont you think?

True, very true but the TCO will be a lot less that that of Linux. I mean consider this, a kernel upgrade on Linux as a desktop OS may cause several problems and may be solved within a few days, this on an enterprise scale will be larger and won't be acceptable. Although with Windows like you mentioned the next three versions may cost a substantal ammount but again Microsoft provides the correct models for fast deployment and TCO will be a lot less. With Linux it seems that it is up to the community, hence brings me onto another point - it's difficult to put a value on Linux since it's a community based project therfore in most enterprise projects it's difficult to do any serious feasibility studies.

Webservers, file and print servers are hardly enterprise. Oracle applications, SAP and Peoplesoft CRM are more enterprise applications. In that respect, Linux looses again.

[ewdi]

agree on that part, however there are some companies offering enterprise support, i myself personaly have not experience those kind of support company yet so i cant comment much on it.

our peoplesoft CRM is running under solaris (https://my.unt.edu/psp/papd01/?cmd=login) , we opt for solaris instead of windows because of the scabilities

[DocHoliday]

To be fair Sun Solaris as well as Unix System V compared to Linux are different classes of operating systems. Agreed if enterprise applications is a must then Solaris is the way to go. after all it has a large coorporation to back it (Sun Microsystem) but in the Windows Vs. Linux region, it seems Windows is the way to go.

[ewdi]

If i have tried RedHat Enterprise Server i would comment on your post, so far i only experienced community supported distro

[Jman]

I'm no expert at all at this kind of thing, but whenever you do research on this kind of thing you have to realise the bias of your source. The IDC study was commissioned by Microsoft and the eweek artice was written by an open source editor. Naturally they have their opinions.

What's amusing is that in the Linux friendly eweek article was an ad for Windows Server 2003 showing Windows beating RHAS running Apache by "276%". That is an apples to oranges comparison, as if I recall correctly Windows runs the server at kernel level and Apache does not.

[DocHoliday]

Hi Jman, as you can imagine it's a nightmare for an IT consultant to find any information that isn't biased in anyway. Regardless of what's being said to the public by the media facts are what are most important, and facts are what an organisation needs in order to provide the best cost-effective IT soloution.

There are several independant studies that have been carried out by independant analyst that provide a lot of evidence against Linux being the best ROI and TCO. ROI and TCO are just two of the basic items that are often queried, however it can go even further.

Currently all evidence seems to support the statement that in terms of global opperations and enterprise applications, Windows server, Solaris or Unix is the way to go. However for low scale opperation such as file, print serving Linux is probably a better alternative in terms of cost-benefit analysis. At the very momment, it seems the only real investment one can make in Linux will stem from the fact that Apache runs on Linux, but then again... Apache can be ported to other operating platforms.

I like the way Admins and moderators here don't feel shy and muck in, in actual debates. It's definately not like other forums where they seem to lurk around keeping an eye on everyone. Good stuff guys.

[ewdi]

yeah, i like linux and use linux, but we all have to think without being biassed in anyway, i like windows, i just dont like microsoft, i like linux, just dont like lack of commercial support (which seems to be changing since many companies offer commercial support now).

there is always a good thing for consumer when company compete, after all we will benefit from their competition :p

but we all have to keep in mind, a company will not work for the benefit of customers, but for themselves to make money, the only thing we will benefit is from the force competition for them to innovate better :p

[DocHoliday]

Originally posted by tux
but we all have to keep in mind, a company will not work for the benefit of customers, but for themselves to make money, the only thing we will benefit is from the force competition for them to innovate better :p

I disagree with that quote completely. Customer loyalty is very important for any organisation hence the rapid increase in organisations focusing more harshly on CRM.

I definately enjoy using Linux, not because of the hype but because it's easier to get my work done. However as a home user apart from the very basic applications such as word processing, spreadsheets etc, Linux doesn't really offer any advantages over Windows. This is of course due to ASP's providing little if at all any support on the Linux platform.

I've come to the conclusion that Linux lovers are mostly enthusiasts rather than actually using the platform for productive organisational work.