Supporting Linux-based apps and systems: $10K/year.
Hmm, let me think about this...
Windows a virus?
-
Guest
That's complete bullshit...
...on both sides of the Total Cost of Ownership debate.
Do you wanna back those statements up, or are you just parroting someone else's propaganda?
You gotta bear in mind, that each of those "tco" studies, from both sides, are being done with an agenda.
Where I work, we have 8 high end workstations (plus another dozen or so machines for general office/administration, etc.) doing heavy 3d, animation and multimedia work, an ftp server, and the various support systmes for other stuff we do (running plotters, a laser-cutter, and a cnc milling machine) that run Windows, and we have yet to come close to even HALF of the 65K/year.
Our (relatively) small render farm has 64 nodes and is Linux powered. We've easily spent 10k per year on its support.
The point being, you can't just use blanket statements like "this system costs $x per year to maintain and that system costs $y"
Just how big are these systems you are describing? what are they doing? where are they? who is maintianing them?
Without a baseline, statements like that are complete bullshit.
If the Windows system cracks, I can get a dozen people in here to take care of it within 30 minutes.
If something happens with the Linux system...well, its not so easy. We pretty much have to rely on one guy, who set it up...thats another problem with the great latitude in the configurability of Linux systems...not just anyone can walk in and know how to navigate a very customized set up.
They both have there place.
Argue the strong points of your favorite system and drop the rhetoric of one being better in all ways over the other.
...on both sides of the Total Cost of Ownership debate.
Do you wanna back those statements up, or are you just parroting someone else's propaganda?
You gotta bear in mind, that each of those "tco" studies, from both sides, are being done with an agenda.
Where I work, we have 8 high end workstations (plus another dozen or so machines for general office/administration, etc.) doing heavy 3d, animation and multimedia work, an ftp server, and the various support systmes for other stuff we do (running plotters, a laser-cutter, and a cnc milling machine) that run Windows, and we have yet to come close to even HALF of the 65K/year.
Our (relatively) small render farm has 64 nodes and is Linux powered. We've easily spent 10k per year on its support.
The point being, you can't just use blanket statements like "this system costs $x per year to maintain and that system costs $y"
Just how big are these systems you are describing? what are they doing? where are they? who is maintianing them?
Without a baseline, statements like that are complete bullshit.
If the Windows system cracks, I can get a dozen people in here to take care of it within 30 minutes.
If something happens with the Linux system...well, its not so easy. We pretty much have to rely on one guy, who set it up...thats another problem with the great latitude in the configurability of Linux systems...not just anyone can walk in and know how to navigate a very customized set up.
They both have there place.
Argue the strong points of your favorite system and drop the rhetoric of one being better in all ways over the other.
-
Guest
I'm not going to get in a pissing contest with you luckymutt. I do IT/MIS for a living in a medium sized manufacturing enterprise and the the figures I posted are approx what I make a year doing my job, MS vs. "other" systems. I pull down about $100K /yr doing system administration, about 75% of it applies to software/OS, 25% to network and infrastructure support. I've been doing it for a bit over 15 years.
In simpler terms: if you want to look at it in a quantitative sense, I make more $$$ supporting MS machines than I do Linux/Unix boxes or ANY OTHER ASPECT OF MY JOB. Why? Probably due to the fact that most enterprises use MS-based products than *any* other. It's a simple, undeniable fact.
Why would MS-based machines need more tending to? In a word; "updates", Redmond's way of keeping your workstation OS "up to date". Automatic Updates tend to "break" existing software systems. Case in point, a VP in our company uses an accounting program on a daily basis to run a balance sheet. It worked flawlessly until his workstation received an Automatic update. Suddenly, when he goes to print a spreadsheet, it tosses a "Printer subsystem" error. I spent a couple of hours looking for the culprit only to find it was an updated dll from MS.
Or "Gee, why does my Office 2003 Word application lock up when I've got 4 other apps running in 8 different threads spread across two monitors using a dual headed video card?"
I fix this stuff every day.
I maintain over 200 MS-based workstations in 3 separate geographical locations and several mobile clients all of them running diverse MS-based applications. Our server farm consists of 12 Dual Xeon boxes running MS server and MS SQL server software, 6 3.2TB DAS disk arrays, a 24TB VTL and a remote IP-based 36TB iSCSI storage array. I use Linux in a email relay frontend to "scrub" it and remove spam and other crap. It runs on Debian Linux and uses a highly modified version of Exim that I hacked and configured. I also admin an HP3000 system that runs our current ERP software.
We operate stamping presses, CNC mills, rotary mills, lathes and other machinery that use real time sampling and control interfaces. Our engineering and CNC departments use AutoCAD and SolidWorks extensively.
Do the math...
So I CAN make statements like "this system costs $x per year to maintain and that system costs $y" because I actually do it.
In simpler terms: if you want to look at it in a quantitative sense, I make more $$$ supporting MS machines than I do Linux/Unix boxes or ANY OTHER ASPECT OF MY JOB. Why? Probably due to the fact that most enterprises use MS-based products than *any* other. It's a simple, undeniable fact.
Why would MS-based machines need more tending to? In a word; "updates", Redmond's way of keeping your workstation OS "up to date". Automatic Updates tend to "break" existing software systems. Case in point, a VP in our company uses an accounting program on a daily basis to run a balance sheet. It worked flawlessly until his workstation received an Automatic update. Suddenly, when he goes to print a spreadsheet, it tosses a "Printer subsystem" error. I spent a couple of hours looking for the culprit only to find it was an updated dll from MS.
Or "Gee, why does my Office 2003 Word application lock up when I've got 4 other apps running in 8 different threads spread across two monitors using a dual headed video card?"
I fix this stuff every day.
I maintain over 200 MS-based workstations in 3 separate geographical locations and several mobile clients all of them running diverse MS-based applications. Our server farm consists of 12 Dual Xeon boxes running MS server and MS SQL server software, 6 3.2TB DAS disk arrays, a 24TB VTL and a remote IP-based 36TB iSCSI storage array. I use Linux in a email relay frontend to "scrub" it and remove spam and other crap. It runs on Debian Linux and uses a highly modified version of Exim that I hacked and configured. I also admin an HP3000 system that runs our current ERP software.
We operate stamping presses, CNC mills, rotary mills, lathes and other machinery that use real time sampling and control interfaces. Our engineering and CNC departments use AutoCAD and SolidWorks extensively.
Do the math...
So *you* don't do IT/MIS yourself? You call someone. Oh, I see. You're an end user...If the Windows system cracks, I can get a dozen people in here to take care of it within 30 minutes.
So I CAN make statements like "this system costs $x per year to maintain and that system costs $y" because I actually do it.
I FULLY AGREE with the problem of the Automatic Updates from Redmond.
On more than several occassions, I've had to roll back to previous drivers because of those awful auto updates.(and that's just on my machine at home - they are indeed turned off now)
There are indeed problems inherent to MS systems and apps. And yes, their support leaves MUCH to be desired. (check the joke I posted back on page one)
All I was saying in the above post, is that without quantifying a cost comparison statement, it really doesn't mean anything.
There are far too many variables from one sector to the next...hell, even within sectors, depending on management. So, yes, blanket statement are bullshit.
So that was all based on personal experience. Great.
Hardly a market indicator, though.
And from what I've seen on my check ledger, the Windows system doesn't cost nearly as much as the Linux-sponsored TOC studies claims.
BY THE SAME TOKEN, it is NOT as cheap and easy as MS claims it is.
2. Yes, I am an end user. Similarly, I know how to use an oven to cook, but if the oven breaks, I'd just as soon call a repairman. I rather spend my time cooking.
As I said before, they all have their places, they all have their pros and cons.
I wouldn't trust a Windows system for the render farm. It needs the lean and mean of a custon Linux build.
The vast majority of the apps we use do not have a Linux port or equivalent.
On more than several occassions, I've had to roll back to previous drivers because of those awful auto updates.(and that's just on my machine at home - they are indeed turned off now)
There are indeed problems inherent to MS systems and apps. And yes, their support leaves MUCH to be desired. (check the joke I posted back on page one)
All I was saying in the above post, is that without quantifying a cost comparison statement, it really doesn't mean anything.
There are far too many variables from one sector to the next...hell, even within sectors, depending on management. So, yes, blanket statement are bullshit.
So that was all based on personal experience. Great.
Hardly a market indicator, though.
1. as an end user, I CAN certainly refute those statements, because I am the one actually PAYING for it.So *you* don't do IT/MIS yourself? You call someone. Oh, I see. You're an end user...
So I CAN make statements like "this system costs $x per year to maintain and that system costs $y" because I actually do it.
And from what I've seen on my check ledger, the Windows system doesn't cost nearly as much as the Linux-sponsored TOC studies claims.
BY THE SAME TOKEN, it is NOT as cheap and easy as MS claims it is.
2. Yes, I am an end user. Similarly, I know how to use an oven to cook, but if the oven breaks, I'd just as soon call a repairman. I rather spend my time cooking.
As I said before, they all have their places, they all have their pros and cons.
I wouldn't trust a Windows system for the render farm. It needs the lean and mean of a custon Linux build.
The vast majority of the apps we use do not have a Linux port or equivalent.