Windows7How

Why Has a Free Operating System not Eliminated Windows? Part II

May 22, 2010

In the first part of this series, we talked broadly about the reasons Linux is not often found as an option when you are purchasing a new computer. The usual obvious choice is between a Windows PC and an Apple. Most people get the Windows machine as it is the most prevalent in the world, and most everything is compatible with it. However, Linux is often free or very cheap, and you may not even know someone running it. Why is that? Let us investigate a little.

The first area of real concern is obviously the cost of use of the operating system (OS) as it pertains to each of these choices. One way to approach this is the old server approach to adopting an OS. We are only going here because this is the most likely area in an organization to switch to Linux. This allows the best comparison in overall terms as it is usually the case that the only people actually working on the servers are IT professionals. They are likely to be familiar with both OSes here and are more likely to want to adopt Linux for their use. Since the most popular Linux server platform is Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), we will use that. Of course, on the Windows side (currently) we have Windows Server 2008 Enterprise.

In this case – the server systems – any company running the systems will need support. There is just no question about having someone available to help you when your mission-critical servers are on the fritz. Just try working in an IT department and explaining that your servers are dead and there is no one to back you up (you might as well get in cue at the unemployment office). With Windows you simply pay them US$3,999 and you have Windows Server 2008, all the free updates, service packs and bug fixes for the life of the OS. Of course, phone support is extra, but you have access to a huge knowledge base, your IT people are very familiar with Windows, and Microsoft will back you up. Plus, you get a full-fledged server system with Server 2008; it has a very powerful range of features. Now, with RHEL, you don’t buy the software itself, but you do pay for your support. That will include patches, bug fixes and drivers and full phone and troubleshooting support. For this, you have to pay a yearly fee of US$1499 or US$4047 for three years. And, that does not include some other packages you will need to run the server such as a Directory Server; that costs more per year. All in all, the costs are about equal considering the way each of these packages is used. For instance, your IT staff often knows how to fix a Windows issue immediately. If not, they know someone who can. You will likely make use of the phone support of RHEL, though, as many issues with Linux are rather deep into the OS.

That is about a tie with the cost of ownership. The last few sentences there point to this even more directly. Windows Server 2008 is an easy server OS to use and manage. IT people in every part of the world know how to work with it and to alter it to suit their needs – they turn these experts out by the thousands, so they are less expensive to hire on one hand. On the other, they can usually solve Windows Server 2008 problems very fast, which allows them to be much more productive at work. The tools within Server 2008 are quite powerful. And, don’t forget that all supported Windows Server versions now have PowerShell, an easy way to get command-line access and for scripting. RHEL has this as well, but it is not as powerful and takes longer to simply type in the commands to get tasks completed in the OS. RHEL does not have (no Linux flavor has) the powerful tool set which comes with Windows Server 2008, the System Center. It’s a simple ‘push-button’ toolkit for the server OS.

In short, it will cost you more to hire a Linux specialist since there are fewer of them when compared to Windows Server experienced IT personnel. And, even if those Linux experts are in the category of a guru, it will take them longer to find, troubleshoot, and solve issues. That leaves them much less time to work on the systems in your organization which are mostly not servers. That could mean overtime. Of course, you can always hire more of them.

The cost of running a Red Hat Enterprise Linux server is higher than it seems, and this perceived advantage disappears rather quickly when cast in this light. Obviously, if you have an IT person who is a guru and only has to support a few servers – or, you are somehow able to pay them very little – this will not matter much. You will have to trust them quite a bit, though. In a small to medium-sized enterprise, it will not be that simple. Windows is simply an easier and much more well-known OS than is RHEL or any flavor of Linux. Having a Linux file server or a group of servers which only support a simple task is not a bad idea. But, the mission-critical systems are where you need something which is easy to use and can be repaired very quickly with little downtime. With Windows Server 2008, you get a decent advantage over Linux.

This is only a beginning on this path. Cost is but one reason Linux has not really triumphed over Windows in general use. Businesses are the ones most likely to adopt it in a server role, but the perceived savings over Windows is not really there. Of course, we could let this go as a tie and just move on to other arguments in this debate. Some will feel that they can find someone who will be able to ‘handle’ all of these issues with Linux. So, let’s move on to Part III and see what other potential hold-ups there are to Linux being adopted over a Windows system.

Filed under: Articles