Microsoft: Linux isn't cheaper

Microsoft on Wednesday released the latest in a series of studies it has commissioned that show Windows to be as cheap or cheaper than Linux as part of its "Get the Facts" campaign. The latest study, conducted by BearingPoint, found that even looking at only the "hard costs" of licensing and support, Windows Server 2003 was often cheaper than Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Novell/SUSE Linux.

"While the acquisition costs associated with licensing and support should be evaluated, this study has found after comparing the cumulative costs within medium and enterprise scenarios over a five year period that those costs do not significantly differentiate Windows Server 2003, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 or Novell/SUSE Linux 8," BearingPoint said in the conclusion of its report.

More MSFT-sponsored FUD

Follow the money...Microsoft to BearingPoint:

http://www.bearingpoint.com/news/press_releases/2004/pr_05-17-2004.html

'nuf said.

This headline is misleading

The headline shouldn't read "LINUX isn't cheaper" - it should say
"Neither Red Hat Nor SUSE Is Cheaper" (or something along
those lines) because it's not Linux that is the question - it's
specifical Red Hat and SUSE distributions. Debian is
obviously cheaper.

Furthermore, it's not even fair to say "Red Hat & SUSE," because
in fact they're comparing enterprise server configurations, and
that's not the same as "Linux." Clearly, the $39 for SUSE 9.1
Personal Edition is much cheaper then the current price of a
brand new boxed version of Windows XP.

[cnetTookMyUserNameAway]

cough-bull****-cough

What a crock.

[i_am_still_wade]

An oxymoron

Hey Microsoft! What about the cost of worms, viruses, trojan horses, and other nasties that your OS is vulnerable to? Betcha didn't factor those daily cost in.

If MS commissioned it, it must be true!

Golly gee whiz, I guess we'd better stop deploying Linux and OpenOffice then! I guess Microsoft has nothing to worry about either, since MS Windows is not only cheaper, but BETTER, people will flock back to it when they go through the horrible ordeal of GPL software - which basically runs the Internet.

[bigduke]

Micro$loth vs Linux

It is instructive that the third fastest supercomputer is at VPI and consists of array of 1100 Apple machines. Cost about 10% of commercial super computers. The UNIX system is used.

[alexr186]

Come On, give me a break

It is a microsoft funded survey. And windows 2003 server goes for about 3 grand. Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 goes for about 300 dollars and you get a free year of tech support and 30 days of full install help. So what is cheaper?

Studies are generally difficult to believe

Companies tend not to commission studies that produce unfavorable results/findings. The methodology seldom includes all the related costs so I'm generally skeptical of whatever findings are publicized. That being said, I think the costs of deploying Linux (Microsoft activities not withstanding) need to be carefully scrutinized. With RedHat and SuSE in particular, the value proposition for the base OS can be uncompelling. But given that MSFT solutions all come with Anti-Virus, patch management, and other accompanying costs that are substantial and persistent, I find it hard to believe that MSFT can be cheaper than Linux in real dollars unless you start playing in unquantifiable areas like "value added" "user-friendliness" etc.

[Curious]

Who decides?

Basically, Microsoft can rant and whine all they want about lower costs. The IT managers will decide. Some may believe the FUD and some may not. Only the idiots will base their decisions on Microsoft advertisements. The rest will try things out and see how they fit. When that happens Microsoft loses in the long run

When Microsoft's competitor is a movement that has no time pressure and no revenue goals to meet by a particular quarter then that competitor will win or lose on its merits--not on the basis of Microsoft's well-known marketing tricks and gimicks and illegal arm-twistings.

Why can't this study be true

Has anyone that has posted here read the quoted studies. Probably not. How then can we determine if the study is accurate or not. The best we can say is that we do not believe it based on the information provided. Why do we get so worked up about this sort of thing. Do we feel that the people making decisions are so dumb that they need our comments to counter the assersion. By just saying "its wrong, linux is cheeper" you are getting out of a debate and into a slinging match. Lets look at the study and consider its flaws. So C/NET give us a link so that we can read the reports ourselves.

How Retarded is this.

We have purchased Servers here at work and have looked at the cost of Windows vs Redhat based systems. Visit Dell's site and compare buy a server with Redhat over one running Windows. Prices may have changed a bit, but if I remember right we saved like $17,000 (Canadian) by using Redhat over getting MS Licenses for the 3 servers we were getting.

Linux is far from perfect if you need specific server needs like exchange, but if you just need a web, file, other "basic" server why would you go with anything else really?

To say Linux costs more in the long run may be true in specific cases, but to say that generally if just a flat out lie.

[bjbrock]

Microsoft fails to include...

the cost of patching and down time due to their trash they call an OS. Cost or no, their products are dangerous and have cost billions in damage control. Did they include these cost in their TCO? No. Once again they outright lie to the consumer. I think the consumer has finally quit buying the BS, though. I don't think their numbers quite tally to those MS presents. Another nail in the coffin!

Yes, People actually believe this stuff...

I love to send Linux vs. Microsoft articles (the ones where Microsoft tries to bribe govt. into not switching over) to our IS Manager because it torments him totally. He is afraid of the learning curve, he believes that if he goes with Microsoft, no one can fault him because, after all, Microsoft rules, right? Just because a company switches over from something else to Microsoft (see the first reply article) and sees that they save money doesn't mean that Microsoft is cheaper than Linux. "Nuf said"? I don't think so! I've hated Bill Gates since he introduced Windows 95 before its time. BUGGY, unworkable, costing users millions and millions of wasted hours and dollars so he could beat out OS2. I refuse to use Microsoft mail programs because they are designed to suck in every last virus and worm out there. Answer me this: why does Microsoft offer such small rewards to catch the people who are programming these viruses and worms? My theory is that it is their own people doing this to keep themselves in business. Prove me wrong. Puleeeez...