Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:25:35 -0700 From: Johnson David <DavidJohnson@Siemens.com> To: Vulpes Velox <kitbsdlists@HotPOP.com>, freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: TCO and etc arguement Message-ID: <200310231125.35697.DavidJohnson@Siemens.com> In-Reply-To: <20031022233051.35334074.kitbsdlists@HotPOP.com> References: <20031022233051.35334074.kitbsdlists@HotPOP.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 22 October 2003 09:30 pm, Vulpes Velox wrote: > Well recently got talking with a MSCE about the total cost of > ownership of running something like FreeBSD. Any one have any > comments on this or any thing that would be useful to bring up? TCO is a largely meaningless term, IMHO. When comparing apples to apples, TCO has some small relevance, but when comparing Windows to Linux or FreeBSD, it's useless. The Linux guys started it by stating the obvious that Linux is significantly cheaper than Windows. Microsoft and its lapdogs responded with the TCO argument. Both arguments are focused on price. When someone asserts that Windows has a lower TCO than Linux or FreeBSD, counter with "TPG". My recently coined acronym TPG means "total productivity gained". Besides the total cost of an OS, you need to also consider the total productivity of the systems. Networks that are stable and robust improve productivity. Systems that don't have to have critical patches applied twice a week are less productive than those that don't. Anytime a system or network is down, productivity is hit hard. Another factor to consider is heterogenous environments. All the TCO studies I've seen calculate the cost for all Windows or all Linux. This is unrealistic for most corporate environments. It might make sense to deploy Linux or FreeBSD on the servers, and Windows on the desktop. Just my thoughts, David
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200310231125.35697.DavidJohnson>