Although most analysts believe Windows administrators cost less than Linux systems admins, the real debate centers around
the cost benefits of consolidation, and the availability and quality of management software tools for the Linux platform.
 |
DOWNLOAD REPORT
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
“The operational savings vary wildly,” says Dave Dargo, vice president of Oracle’s Linux Program Office. “Customers [who]
simply adopt Linux side by side with their other OSes probably won’t see savings.”
He makes the consolidation argument: If you move wholesale to Linux and buy or build robust management tools, you can save
more with Linux than with proprietary Unix or Windows because Linux management tools and personnel skills can be leveraged
across a wider target (servers, mainframes, and desktops). Because Linux developers have unfettered access to the Linux OS,
fewer administrators are needed to manage more machines and greater workloads.
The only problem with this scenario for large Unix shops, says DuWayne Mutchler, director of enterprise hosting at EDS, is
that some of those tools don’t exist. “The argument that Linux is cheaper to operate is one we struggle with,” Mutchler says.
“The tools and processes and the automation capabilities have not evolved as far as they have for Unix, so we’re finding zero
cost savings in moving to Linux.” Of EDS’s 50,000 servers, less than 2 percent are running Linux.
Cedars-Sinai’s Duncan has also found some key cost-saving tools missing, although he’s generally happy with his organization’s
migration to Linux. “Backups have been a nagging problem,” says Duncan, who notes that the medical center had been using a
hot backup agent for Oracle databases on AIX and NT as part of IBM’s Tivoli Storage Manager but that this agent was not yet
available for Linux. “That is kind of annoying that we can’t use our standard backup methodology on Linux yet.” Duncan also
found that SAN support for servers could be problematic.
One management cost area where Linux seems to consistently trump Windows is the cost of managing security. A big driver for
Cedars-Sinai’s switch to Linux was “the tremendous amount of churn we have on our NT servers,” due to hot fixes, service packs,
and so on, Duncan says. “We did an analysis of the amount of time we were spending tweaking NT servers, and it really was
kind of terrifying. We should be able to set up a server and just leave it alone — we really got into Linux from that point
of view.”
Linux is “virtually virus-free,” Burlington Coat Factory’s Prince agrees, “and it’s pretty difficult for people to screw up
their systems.”
Support Costs
The final major cost item in the debate over Linux TCO is support. Linux proponents claim Linux support is cheaper and available
from a more diverse vendor population, and that Linux machines often run for years without so much as a reboot anyhow.
“Sun provides fantastic support on their equipment, and you pay dearly for it,” says Cars.com’s Olson. But when one of his
new Linux machines breaks down, his staff either replaces it because that approach is cheaper than a fix, or they turn to
what he calls “Google service,” looking on Web newsgroups and message boards for the solution. “People are willing to share
their experiences. You can find out a lot quickly.”
Enterprises are overcoming their initial suspicion of this support method. “Early on, Linux support was an inhibitor to enterprise
adoptions,” says Robinson. “Now it’s turning into a strong point.”
Users can choose support from their hardware or software vendor, distribution vendor, or a third party. “That’s possible with
Windows, but [with] the Microsoft solution, providers can’t actually make a change to Windows for you,” Robinson says. “All
of the [Linux] support vendors are equally empowered.”
Other Cost Contingencies
Although it is a factor hard to put into a spreadsheet, current and potential Linux users are also concerned about future
cost risks associated with Linux’s ownership and development path. Some worry about how the SCO lawsuit will play out. SCO
claims that Linux infringes on its intellectual property and is trying to collect license fees from enterprise Linux users.
Although few expect the outcome of this controversy to have an impact on Linux TCO, the surrounding uncertainty is affecting
how some enterprises might time their adoption of Linux.
Others worry that the Linux upgrade path will fragment as vendors develop proprietary flavors. “The Linux industry needs to
stay focused on what made it successful — the open source Linux platform,” says Anthony Hill, CTO of Golden Gate University.
If it fragments, “the economies of scale equation get diluted.”
E-mail
Printer Friendly
Reprints
(InfoWorld) - In the litigious world we live in, deploying a unified communications platform in your enterprise could...
