Low cost, high value
- Reduce text size Decrease text size
- Increase text size Increase text size
- Print article Print
- Jump to comments Comment
- Share this article Share
- Email article to a friend Email
The economic arguments for deploying Linux extend beyond mere matters of cost. But the case is controversial.
Like a free lunch, there is really no such a thing as a free operating system. The code is free to download from any Linux distributors' web site, and it is 'maintained' by a loose knit community of programmers, but the overall cost
| ||
How much higher depends on several factors. The Linux skillsets already within the IT department; the existing operating environment; and the nature of the IT applications to be run on it.
"TCO [total cost of ownership] is highly subjective," says Russell Coombes, Hewlett-Packard (HP) UK's Linux business development manager. "The economics will depend on the existing environment and migration costs, the existing skillset, which applications are packaged or bespoke, and scalability."
Although Linux TCO figures are now considered contentious, cost remains the number-one driver for its adoption. A 2003 study by Giga found that 80% of North American companies cited cost as the main reason for choosing Linux. Another study, by the Robert Frances Group, concluded that Linux web servers are more than 60% cheaper to run on Intel microprocessors than Windows on the same platform.
Microsoft, for its part, disputes such claims (see box). If a company is coming from a Unix environment, the shift to Linux is not a big leap. But if an organisation is a Windows development shop, it will need new skills, which could be a significant overhead, say Microsoft executives. "Training, services and support come with a hefty price tag," says Nick McGrath, head of platform strategy with Microsoft UK. "Increased management costs like these soon negate the upfront licence cost comparison."
Peter Bell, director of Microsoft's Technology Platform and Evangelist group, makes a more fundamental point: when organisations are choosing an operating system, they are really choosing a complete stack. Microsoft supplies a database and an application server with its Windows server products. With Linux, most organisations must buy a separate database and application server, and, quite possible, an integration hub, he says.
In other words, Bell argues, buyers should compare the costs of the whole stack, not just one layer. "IBM, for example, puts a value on Websphere, but not on the free Linux distribution," he says.
In practice, users could use the JBoss open source application server or the MySQL or Postgress database system. But the likelihood is that they will play safe and go with a proven application server and database - such as Websphere and DB2 from IBM, or WebLogic from BEA with Oracle.
That is the view of the anti-Linux camp. Then there is the anti-proprietary Unix camp. "Linux is not a panacea and it shouldn't be a case of throwing out Windows for Linux. It's not always cheaper, particularly if a company has made a heavy investment in its Windows architecture," says Andy Rhodes, Dell's European enterprise solutions manager. "But there is real payback from getting rid of proprietary Unix and performance is key. We are seeing Oracle on Linux perform 89% faster than on Unix." Chris Ward, an Oracle product marketing manager, agrees. "Enterprise class Linux does have associated costs such as licences, support, training, security and maintenance, but there is a massive skills transfer from Unix and businesses can move very quickly and cost-effectively," he says.
Many people argue that Linux is cheaper to support than Windows. Keith Misson, chief technology officer of Bluecycle.com, an online car salvage company that has been running its
| ||
"Linux is more flexible and is far easier to administer and support from a distance. We all know that any software will have faults and bugs but Microsoft issues patches and fixes irregularly. The open source community reacts more quickly to sort problems," says Misson. "The upfront costs are broadly similar to running Windows but the stability means we reduce the cost of business downtime and my support staff don't need to go to the data centre. There are far fewer problems with Linux and the remote support capabilities are superior."
Although free services and support has never been part of the open source model, the sheer number of people working on improving Linux means that simple improvements are often distributed for free. That is in contrast to buying from a single supplier - such as Microsoft or Sun Solaris - which effectively has control over all the improvements to its products. Although it may choose to distribute these free, it may equally decide not to.
Yet a choice to deploy a particular application or process on Linux should be dictated by business needs, as well as by an understandable desire to cut acquisition and support costs. For many organisations, Linux has proved a far cheaper option in terms of upfront licence and hardware costs, but it has also delivered real bottom-line benefits. "Six of the top eight Wall Street institutions are using Linux," says Sam Greenblatt, a senior vice president and chief Linux architect at Computer Associates, the systems management software company. "One does derivatives pricing and it's absolutely crucial to its portfolio. It was using Unix and migrated because horizontally-scaled [Linux] blade servers give it an extra three-and-a-half hour window in which to trade."
Analysts say that ultimately, IT managers should regard Linux as much more than a cost-cutting technology. Rebecca Wettemann, vice president of research for Nucleus Research, a US analyst company that specialises in ROI calculations, says: "You shouldn't be looking at IT on the basis of cost alone. If you needed heart surgery you wouldn't be looking at the cheapest surgeon, you would be looking for the best one." It is up to IT managers to decide which operating system is healthiest for their organisation.
