Windows vs. Unix Revisited 435
dubious9 writes "Linuxworld has another TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) comparison of Windows vs. Unix. Note that is it not a Linux comparison or a specific Unix comparison at all. The comparison here is the Windows client/server model vs. the terminal/server Unix model. It discusses the needs of a school/university and considers such facts as what the students will have to run at home. It's written by a self proclaimed Unix evangelist, so don't expect it to be unbiased, but he makes points that are hard to argue with. All in all, it is a refreshing TCO comparison."
Being biased (Score:4, Funny)
I am shocked and appalled that Slashdot would ever report something from a source biased towards *NIX!
Re:Being biased (Score:2, Funny)
p.s. please also include a fake ^H or two in your post next time. I love seeing that refreshing, original joke.
p.p.s you forgot to use M$ or Micro$oft in your post. Please do so next time.
Re:Being biased (Score:5, Informative)
I've always used *NIX to mean every OS that is UNIX related (as in * is a wildcard). Since Linux is not UNIX, but is UNIX-like, a lot of people will flame you for implying Linux is UNIX. So *NIX includes Linux. It includes *BSD (notice the wildcard) and OS X. It might even include Minix if you wanted it to. IIRC, UN*X [astrian.net] was used to avoid the trademark issue. However, *NIX just means UNIX-like, and may or may not have anything to do with the trademark issue.
Re:Being biased (Score:3, Informative)
"So Linux is Unix.
Why should it not be?"
Because it isn't! Unix is a registered trademark and its holders don't like it used loosely.
More information can by found in the OpenGroup [opengroup.org] and Unix [unix.org] pages.
My internet connection isn't working well, so I couldn't check them for accuracy.
Re:Being biased (Score:3, Interesting)
There are tremendous differences between the Linux kernel and the Solaris kernel. Same with any BSD kernel vs. Linux vs. Solaris.
Trying to say that they are the same in "every way that matters" is seriously on par with saying that a fire truck engine is the same as a Honda Civic engine in every way that matters.
If you would like I can get a complete list as to the major differences between each of the kernels, and how it can effect you. My guess is you are not a low-level system user, nor do any programming in C or lower languages, otherwise you would understand this already.
Re:Being biased (Score:3, Insightful)
What you are talking about is the end-user applications that are Unix-like. When you are talking about the kernel (Linux is a kernel, and that's as far as it goes) there are kernels that operate in a very Unix-like fashion, which is System V standards (usually, I'm not going to get into SCO) which includes Solaris and the BSD family. Linux does things much different, with it's closest similarities to Minix which is considered a Unix-like operating system.
The differences you see as an end-user are slight, so that you cannot understand how different the underlying architecture is. A perfect example is driving a Rotary engine vs. a piston engine. From your average drivers point of view they will not know the difference. The actual mechanics beneath the hood are completely changed, so while both are engines they operate on completely different principles.
They still have the same end-user devices (pedals, steering wheel) just like Unix and Unix-like operating systems (shell, window manager/X, etc.)
Different kernels do different things better or worse, like Solaris Unix can scale very well, Linux can cluster very well. This is largely in part to the different architecture of the system.
Linux is a UNIX-Like kernel. Solaris is a UNIX kernel.
Re:Being biased (Score:3, Insightful)
Get over it.
Well it seems to me (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well it seems to me (Score:3, Insightful)
(I don't remember the final ratio of cost/work done for the two different guys, but I think they were fairly close).
Maybe the reason that the ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Not to insult you top end Windows admins, but lets face it. The ability of Windows admins has a larger varience then that of Unix admins. The learning curve is much higher and they don't have quite the popularity. I think the reason that Windows techs are cheaper on average is because, on average, the Windows techs don't know as much and don't deserve the high salary.
If you want a good, professional Windows admin, then you are going to pay as much as the same quality of Unix admin.
Re:Maybe the reason that the ... (Score:5, Interesting)
The advantage of a Unix admin is that (s)he can make much more efficiant use of their time.
Re:Maybe the reason that the ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Maybe the reason that the ... (Score:3, Interesting)
That's why when I arrive at a new jobsite I prefer not to make drastic changes for the first coupple of weeks while I get a feel for what is already there. By not reformatting everything right away I have a chance to learn how things were working, and will know what sucks and more importantly if they did anything I can learn from and adopt into my way of doing things.
Drastic changes for no reason(and even for a lot of good reasons) will not make my boss happy. Downtime is bad.
It's also been completely unavoidable in some cases. A mark of a good sysadmin is to know how his/her setup will handle growth. example: At one workplace I found a system that was with small / and
Thanks to people like that I tend to look good.. both jobsites went from weekly unplanned outages to rock solid.
Re:Maybe the reason that the ... (Score:5, Interesting)
In such cases, you're getting a good IT professional, period.
From an administrative POV, they aren't that dissimilar.
A good auto mechanic should be able to work on foreign and domestic vehicles. A good admin should be able to administrate, regardless of the operating system.
Where I am, we have a mixed bag of windows and unix software. We also routinely interface with big old-timey mainframes of all shapes and sizes. We dont hire based on "I know visual basic or I know perl", we hire based on "I know how to program, languages are just syntax to me."
Re:Maybe the reason that the ... (Score:2, Offtopic)
Except in this case, the cars are quite disimilar. One is petrol based internal combustion engine, the other is an electric car. They both do the same job, the internals will probably require different kind of mechanics.
Re:Maybe the reason that the ... (Score:2)
Re:Maybe the reason that the ... (Score:4, Interesting)
As a former Windows admin I am not offended by this comment. I think you're right. Windows does a lot of automatic stuff to get things running. As long as you play by MS's rules, you end up not having to worry about a lot of stuff.
There are pros and cons here. The obvious con is that when a real problem occurs, sometimes it's really difficult to find out why without the knowledge of how the underlying system works. The pro here, though, is that your employees don't have far to climb to fix their own problems. Windows exposes enough of the functionaltiy through the UI that you get hints on where to look. Most of the time I've been asked for help, my coworker's already taken some troubleshooting steps. That leaves you with a lot of free time on your hands!
I can honestly say that after working with Linux servers and in assisting the setup of a network that my Windows administration experience does not make me feel qualified to be a sysadmin. Fortunately, that's not my choice in profession.
Re:Well it seems to me (Score:5, Interesting)
My company of about 20 people has always been mainly a Windows shop. A couple of years ago, our sysadmin left. I absorbed his responsibilities, adding to my full-time job. Funny thing is, I've been able to keep up with it. I had to fix a server once in a while. But I really haven't had to spend a whole lot of time helping people with Windows/Office issues. We certainly were never interested in hiring a full-time sysadmin as a result of that.
That was until a couple of weeks ago. We recently migrated the servers over to Linux. Since then we've had all kinds of issues that have needed attention. Unfortunately I'm a newb to the Linux world so I haven't been able to handle that. So now we have a full-time admin. (Just as a note: Part of the reason we hired him was for a future project he'll be able to help us with, but right now he's running around cleaning up this mess.)
Is this post about saying Windows is great and Linux isn't? No, not at all. If you're to take away any meaning from my post here it's that you should use the right tool for the job. Just about everybody who's worked here has a computer at home that they use a lot. You can probably guess, they use Windows at home. That was coupled with a policy at work along the lines of "Treat the computer as if it's your own", meaning that there were no policies about what you can/can't install etc. The result? Not only were people familiar with their tools, but they also didn't have a crippling fear that they were going to commit some great offense that'd incur the wrath of the sysadmin.
So, for us, the Windows NT line has been wonderful. (Note: 9X and ME were HORRIBLE, I'm not defending those OS's under any condition.) The switch to Linux just for the servers has been painful, and I do not look forward to the day that we switch over to Linux. (If that ever happens.) My main concern, though, isn't that Linux isn't ready for us. It's that we're so used to Windows that Linux will be that much harder.
I'm not really worried about it though. Windows 2k and even XP is doing wonderful over here. Nobody's itching to change, and frankly a "Unix Evangelist" isn't going to change our minds when we've got experience backing us up.
Re:Well it seems to me (Score:5, Insightful)
That being said...... I do agree w/ your point about people being more comfortable w/ win machines b/c they have them at home.
I just think your expectations were unrealistic.
ej
Re:Well it seems to me (Score:5, Insightful)
In the short term, of course changing systems never makes sense. Never. Doesn't matter what you are running, if you think i "couple of weeks" time periods and always come up with "but we are used to it" excuses, stay with whatever you are running now.
However, in the long term, that all is irrelevant. It may take a month (if you have a very inflexible staff) to get used to the new system, but in 2 years, the "we are used to xy" argument is pretty worthless.
In the long term you get something from Linux that is very hard to understand for Windows-fans:
Freedom
From a business point of view, freedom means first of all, freedom to choose your supplier. Less than a year ago, Microsoft changed the license scheme which doubled costs for most business customers. What makes you think that that doesn't happen again? What will you do against it? Bitch around a bit, but in the end you will swallow whatever Microsoft wants. The same is with crazy anti-piracy schemes. WPA is just the beginning and not-so-important companies will probably soon have to accept WPA or even some "improved" new version, too. - Not with Linux, if your distributor makes you unhappy, just switch to another.
Microsoft introduces a single point of failure. Linux on the other hand is a very safe investment that nobody can take away from you.
This is much more important than some short-term license savings.
Re:Well it seems to me (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, some of it was Linux and some of it was the software we chose. Our mail package doesn't support some of the features that Exchange did. (or it requires more time than is available to put into it.) I don't remember which mail software it was, just that it's not PostFix or Sendmail. (We didn't exactly make a good choice there...)
I think we've also had some issues with Samba, but I can't be too specific because after the Apache migration I tried to stay out of it. Speaking of Apache, I didn't really have any problems with it, but it did get hit by a nasty worm. I wasn't experienced enough to lock that down. My bad.
Uhh other issues? Well the big one is that before we got the sysadmin we only had ONE person that really knew how to make those Linux computers sing. Unfortuantely, she was quite busy with othre stuff too. Not really Linux's fault, but my own attempts to learn what is needed to provide backup support turned painful.
I'm not sure how clear I was when I originally posted, but I wasn't poking at Linux, but rather making the point that I wasn't prepared for it. Since TCO was brought up, it was probably interesting to know that with Windows we didn't need to hire a full time admin. We're a small company so a single person's salary is rather significant.
Re:Well it seems to me (Score:2, Insightful)
If we could think objectively (little penguin on shoulder crys) they are both probably the same cost when you account for training, salary of sysadmin/support personnel, maintenance costs, etc.
Re:Well it seems to me (Score:2)
* I think the cost is not the same if you do an in-depth analysis. Unfortuantely nobody has done one which can be considered impartial. Personally, most of my expertise is as a Windows admin, but I think linux is cheaper mainly because of the costs of doing the extra work that a 'doze shop requires. Examples: Extra patching (yes, *nix requires patching as does everything, I just feel the frequency is higher with Win), researching cryptic BSODs and reimaging, and most of all doing extensive audits for the Bastard Software Alliance et al. Those are just to name a few but I am sure someone can argue the other side of my claims too... and on and on we go!
Re:Well it seems to me (Score:2)
Transferring (Score:3, Interesting)
But espousing a Kruschez doctrine of "Once on Windows, Always on Windows" is dumb. Granted that some shops probably couldn't migrate even if they wanted to, because they are entangled with too many closed apps that won't run anywhere else. But even there a long term plan should be in place to locate and install replacments as they are available and avoid locking into any more such anchors. Longterm, dependence on Windows is dangerous and anyone with vision will be making plans to escape the ship before it sinks with them.
Microsoft's financial structure is predicated on rapid stock value appreciation and they must do any and everything in their power to get that price moving upwards again soon. Market share growth is no longer possible (try doubling 90% market share) and to date their attempts to assimilate new markets aren't working. That only leaves dramatic increases in per customer revenue to boost earnings. And as the smarter folks leave that will only mean the sheep remaining will get fleeced that much harder to keep the cash flowing to Redmond. Eventually you WILL get fired for buying Microsoft because your company will be outcompeted by those with lower overhead and you will be 'rightsized' out or declared 'redundent' when your company gets bought by a leaner one.
Re:Well it seems to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well it seems to me (Score:5, Funny)
I know of one know-nothing "Exchange admin" (this is his only job, in a company of only 500 people or so) who makes $75k/year even now and spends half his day gaming.
Obviously not a very competent admin. He should be able to spend all of his time gaming.
Seriously, the sign of a really good IT person (Windows, Unix, etc) is that they can spend a good part of their time goofing off. Why? Because they designed the systems right in the first place and then fix any problems at the base rather than adding layers of ad-hoc patches. Thus, there are very few problem calls and a lot of UT2003.
Re:Well it seems to me (Score:3, Insightful)
You missed the point entirely. It's obviously not a technically-oriented company because all of those have fired people who only did one (or one half of) a job and made enough for two; Now the people who work for tech companies are doing the work of two and being paid for something between one and two jobs.
Re:Well it seems to me (Score:3, Interesting)
The unfortunate perception amongst much non-technical management however is that someone with four years of Unix systems administration but with no certifications is seen as being about as competent as someone with no experience but a couple of certs. This is amazingly dumb because this is not true of any job. I might take 18 units worth of auto paint classes and get a certificate that says I can paint cars but it doesn't mean I'm going to know half as much as someone who's actually been working in a body shop fixing and painting cars for three or four years. (Incidentally, there's not as much to it as you might imagine, until you get to major damage/frame repair, or spot repair/color matching. Mostly it's just learning to have the touch, and recognize what kind of damage something is, which tells you how you'd fix it. Mostly you just address things in the reverse order of damage.) A veteran body man can make upwards of $75k/year if he can do any kind of repair to an auto body, this includes auto electrical and air conditioning. Guess what I'm planning to do (at least in the short term) for a living now that I've fallen out of love with trying too hard to get one of the shitty, overworking tech jobs left after the dot-bomb?
Long term implications? (Score:2, Interesting)
Long term (I know, we are all dead) you always want to place your bet on the solution with the lowest human cost measured in Hours not Dollars.
That is how countries / Companies / organizations get to be and stay rich. Using lower labor rates is only an option in the beginning and is becoming less so at a rapid rate. Migration of manufacturing to the Far-East has more to do with efficient infrastructure as far as component availability is concerned than $/Hour.
Microsoft , SUN , IBM etc. knows this and this is where the OS / Middleware software batttle is heading.
Where does that leave Windows / *nix / Linux? Compare Germany with UK. Much stricter rules for adjusting workforce and higher labor cost in Germany is forcing a more rapid uptake of Linux than in the UK. Second I will venture that *Nix penetration is higher in Germany than UK, but I do not know for sure.
...and the article reflects it (Score:4, Informative)
That's probably $100k/year in salary and $20k/year in coffee, but hey.
Re:Well it seems to me (Score:2)
It makes me happy that you're wrong on that. You just haven't taken two points in your calculation.
There's more IT's that are pushing linux for one reason only. Since there is a financial regression in the market, there's a lot more of chances for cheaper product to succed.
When you account a solution that takes let's say $100000 in hardware and $100000 in software (and that's not really big company, about 50 people) there's a $100000 difference. Initial $200000 were acceptable but there is also one more money to account in.
Price of solutions and software being brought to work
So that would be about $50000 to $200000 or more. There's a big difference to say your price of making solution work is $100000 if you say that they'll save $100000 for software. It's much easier to promote that, than selling $50000 worth of work with $100000 worth of software and nothing saved.
So: there is Redmond money that lies on the street, you just have to pick it up.
Best market is IT will to make more money and that IT promotes what's better solution
Windows vs Linux revisited... (Score:4, Funny)
This should be good ;) (Score:2, Funny)
Re:This should be good ;) (Score:2)
Good thing Linuxworld is here to tell us *nix is better than Windows! I was just reading an equally unbiased comparison on MSDN the other day and I was getting worried that I was wasting my time with this whole Linux thing!
This Just In (Score:5, Funny)
Shoe on other foot (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Shoe on other foot (Score:2)
Just because it is about Linux an dnot windows, does not mean it is instantly credible. Let the readers decide for themselves, understanding the sources and it's possible bias.
But I think most of the posts are logical and realize this already.
I don't know about you, but ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I don't know about you, but ... (Score:2, Offtopic)
One of the factors for easy reading on my PC is how wide the column of text is. Two inches is too narrow, but 8 inches is too wide. I prefer 3 to 6 inches. Most articles meant for reading on the screen put side bars on the screen that cut down on the width of the text quite a bit. Most printer friendly versions do not. If I go to the printer friendly version I usually have to make my browsing window narrower. There is a reason that magazines and newspapers divide their text up into columns.
Wouldn't it be nice if html had a column display mode? You would specify the height of the columns (say height="100%") and a width for each column (say colwidth="4in") and it would format the page into 4 width columns with a horizontal scroll bar at the bottom. Text would flow between the bottom of one column and the top of the next.
give it a rest..... (Score:5, Insightful)
My company is a Windows shop. We have so much proprietary software that a switch to linux corporate wide would be far more costly than getting raped by M$. In our case, Windows is cheaper. The OS comes with the PC, so we're paying the OEM license cost rather than the shelf cost for the OS. I've done a TCO study. The cost in software and time would cost more than Windows, not to mention the increased headache of pissed off users who can't use their downloaded programs any more.
Another shop I consult for is ready for linux. They use an NT server as a file/print server, and MS Office is their primary application. I'm in the process of working with them to migrate to linux, because they have $0 for software upgades and hgave run out of NT licenses. My consultant time will be cheaper than the MS license. The software they need exists, is easy to use, and free. They will be happy with linux.
So, before you start reading all these TCOs by computer magazines, do one yourself, and figure out what the RIGHT TOOL FOR THE JOB is.
Re:give it a rest..... (Score:4, Insightful)
The point of these studies (which are, admittedly, of marginal usefulness) is to help people make the decision as to what OS to plump for *before* they get to the point where the time, money and other resources have already been spent on developing proprietary software on proprietary software. And the fact that your company would find it "far more costly" to switch to Linux is an indication of the hidden costs inherent in proprietary development.
Re:give it a rest..... (Score:2)
You seem to be determining what "the right tool for the job" is after the job is already complete.
Looks more like he's considering the costs of switching, which can be large when you're heavily invested in Windows and have little in-house competence in Linux. Of course, this also works the other way around. The TCO thing is still valuable - if you hit an upgrade cycle, you can weigh the cost of upgrading vs. switching and amortize it over the expected upgrades for the next 3 years.
But it hasn't ended (Score:2)
Maybe today. Maybe not. But keep in mind, M$ hasn't stopped. They will continue to jack up their prices, lock you into expensive long-term "support" contracts, force you to upgrade hardware/software on their schedule, not yours. They do it because they can and that's who they are.
Comes a time when you have to stop the abuse and fight back. Short term pain for long term peace of mind.
Re:But it hasn't ended (Score:4, Informative)
Right, because nobody else does that [slashdot.org], sure.
You don't need to pay Red Hat (Score:2)
Oh, and Red Hat and the other Linux distributors aren't Convicted Monopolists (tm).
Price cut as part of settlement (Score:2)
As for you compiles, how much money did they cost you? Were you forced to buy new computers to be able to run the newest bloatware put out by Linus? If you chose not to upgrade, would you find yourself unable to communicate with clients who had because their version of OpenOffice used a new proprietary format that your old version couldn't read?
Most importantly, your upgrades were for your reason (to get better functioning/support). They weren't artificially imposed on you by Microsoft, who needed to regularize their money flow.
Re:give it a rest..... (Score:2, Redundant)
I don't care how much people love samba, it cannot be a real domain controler, and even if it could, I really don't think it would be worth the effort. Why would you settle for 99% compatability? I work for a university and that is pretty much what windows servers do. (I've always called them password checkers
I prefer UNIX/Linux, its what I do. And I just think that its better for big "enterprise" kinds of apps like busy web servers, databases, number crunching, etc. Windows doesn't really run on a 64bit platform, which can be a showstopper.
As far as my personal computing, I use linux on an HP laptop. However, the TCO is the same because the laptop came with XP already on it, but I don't have office or any other $$ apps. And if I were to use office products daily, I surely would not use OpenOffice on Linux. Again, why settle for 99% compatability.
Re:give it a rest..... (Score:4, Insightful)
The article in question had squat to do with Samba. He was suggesting replacing PCs with X terminals. If the software available on Linux is "good enough" for your purposes then there is no cheaper way to provide functional desktops than X terminals and a fat Linux box. Not only do you completely remove client-side hardware support from the equation, but you drastically reduce client-side software issues as well. Not to mention the fact that software rollouts become a piece of cake, and hardware upgrades consist of upgrading a handful of servers instead of hundreds of client PCs. Even ignoring the fact that most software (and most software upgrades) are free such a setup has huge advantages for both the short and long term.
Basically Linux and X terminals is a winning combination, provided, of course, that your needs fit within the basic needs provided by the current crop of Linux software. That's a pretty hefty "if" for most folks. I know that I certainly wouldn't want to be the guy in charge of telling the professors that they were going to give up their Windows boxes and Macintoshes and that they were going to be replaced with an X terminals.
How about servers? (Score:4, Interesting)
Nothing says you have to completely migrate to linux - it doesn't really matter if the client/server run similar OS's. These days, samba does a better job at emulating windows than windows does anyway.
Re:give it a rest..... (Score:2)
I disagree. The most important point I think the author made in the study is the case for 1 (with redundancy) big iron server doing everything as opposed to several small servers each doing one thing. Sure, you'd have to read between the lines to get that, but the story does point out the case for big iron.
I especially liked his illustration of how PCs are akin to a millipede with 1000 autonomous legs. I can also see how serving with many small computers is more labor intensive than serving with big iron. But I don't think anyone would want to do his university setup with just one system admin.
Re:give it a rest..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, other than that "the right tool for the job" is not by definition "the tool with path of least resistance", have you considered using WineLib?
Ok, maybe you're not sure what that entails. I'm assuming these proprietary programs are fairly run of the mill business type apps. Porting them to WineLib is pretty easy (simply altering the build system). Once they are running via WineLib, they have been made independant of Microsoft, and you are free to run them on Linux.
Now, WineLib isn't perfect. It's possible that along the way, you may need to improve it. That should be factored into the costs. However, I think you'd find the sums favorable.
There are a few things Wine can't do. Apps based on ActiveX/Internet Explorer combos for one. There isn't a full replacement for IE. Luckily, you don't need one, IE itself can be run under Wine.
All out of jokes, sorry (Score:3, Funny)
Re:All out of jokes, sorry (Score:2)
What is the point of these cost comparisons? (Score:3, Funny)
Windows costs me money.
Linux doesn't.
Re:What is the point of these cost comparisons? (Score:3, Insightful)
Windows costs me money.
Linux doesn't.
Everything costs you money. You need to hire people to support the stuff, whatever you buy. Just because you're saving $150/seat on the OS license doesn't mean you're done. Anyway, a lot of proprietary software is being ported to Linux. That stuff sure as hell won't be free. What it comes down to is which platform lets you do you work best. Cost is somewhat secondary if your work generates revenue.
Back end v. front end (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't know what it's done TCO wise, but I do know the helpdesk are a lot more helpful now and seem to have more time than they did a couple of years ago. Roll on the desktop, say I.
Re:Back end v. front end (Score:2)
Unbiased (Score:5, Insightful)
I really think that anything that comes from a *nix or windows outfit is not worth printing if you want an actual objective review. It may give objective reviewers something to base their reviews on if they survey stories from all sides, but to the average person these sided arguements are just marketing. I'm not going to believe MS or <insert *nix outfit here> on this issue.
Re:Unbiased (Score:2)
I just know it is a biased source, and read it as such. Just like reading left-wing or right-wing news sources. Just know what you are reading and let the reader think it out for themselves.
These articles are kind of pointless (Score:5, Interesting)
There are lots of frothing-at-the-mouth microsoft people that are jsut as big as a zealot as some hardcore linux people.
I think the bottom line is still to determine your problem, then determine your solution. For many problems, Linux is the better and cheaper solution.
Example: say all you want to do is store and serve static web pages: I think it would be hard to argue that Windows would have a lower TCO than linux, and linux is trivial to set up these days to perform these tasks.
Another Example: For groupware, one may look at all the software out there, and then go with Windows because it runs Outlook. This is fine - if they need those features and Outlook is a better solution, then that's what they should go with. In another few years, linux will likely be veyr easy to set up like windows is, to do many common tasks. With this will come cheaper admins, and more linux. And at this point, the TCO of linux will have dropped even further, and Microsoft will have to continually adjust their strategy to compete.
Re:These articles are kind of pointless (Score:2)
You have a point, but a good IT person should be able to learn just about anything - and a good employer should give them the supplies (time, books, etc.) that they need to learn new skills.
This is true whether you are in a mixed, unix, or linux shop. New technologies evolve rapidly, even if you stay with the same platform. And because of this, I think IT workers should be flexible and learn any technology their employer needs them to.
Re:These articles are kind of pointless (Score:2)
Webhosting for static pages (on Linux) can be had for as little as $3.75 a month. Heck, your ISP would likely host your pages for free. The price of maintaining your own Win2K server, on the other hand, is pretty high. At least if you plan to keep up with the updates and such. In fact, I would propose that setting up a basic secure website is actually easier to do on a Linux box (even if you are a complete newbie).
Your best bet is to take the money that you would have spent on licensing and hardware and pay someone who knows what they are doing to host your site. Chances are good your site will end up hosted on a Linux box.
Schools? (Score:3, Insightful)
Fair Review? (Score:3, Insightful)
I use Win2k and Red Hat 8 in equal amounts. There are good points about both, and bad points about both.
YABTCOC (Score:5, Insightful)
This one has sooooo many problems it's hard to know where to start. Heck even from a "basics" point of view, he has the "Microsoft" clients have printers but the "Unix" systems not. Whatever happened to comparing apples to apples? This is just plain bad and rotten reporting. Every student "needs" a 2.8ghz Dell, err, not.
But the most egregious thing is the setup for the whole comparison. xterms vs full fledged clients. How is this somehow Microsoft vs Unix? You can adopt either topology for either OS. The very premise is absolutely flawed. That the article poster somehow considers this "refreshing" is laughable.
Re:YABTCOC (Score:2)
Re:YABTCOC (Score:2)
Hum.. as far as I know.. Apple was not even a part of the TCO... sorry
Every student "needs" a 2.8ghz Dell, err, not.
Totally agree on this point. Still, it might be cheaper go get your hands on those than older P3's.. especially if you intend to run the systems for 3-4 years, by the time a P3 will feel as slow as an old Pentium (Still usable, but breaking...). I mean.. if i in four years could choose between a P4 2.8 Ghz and a P3 500 Mhz.. im quite sure which I would choose.
Still I think the author misses the point totally. Has s/he ever heard the word "ergonomy?". Ever worked in a room with 25 P4 2.8 Ghz PCs ? Ever worked in a room with 25 SunRay 1 ?
Seriously.. i dont care about how fast [MS Word|Star Office|Open Office] runs, but i do care about the ambient temperature, atleast when its rising above 25C
In an educational environment, ergonomy is everything and performance is quite meaningless.
Re:YABTCOC (Score:2)
First of all, there is still no good way to stop a single user from monopolizing computing resources.
Second, you don't want users actually logging into machines that too many other users depend on, because there are more local root exploits (and more potential bugs leading to kernel panics, though that is a seriously minor issue even with Linux today) and thus one person can take down all the users. I mean, maybe YOU do, but I don't.
Third, each user consumes a certain amount of memory. Everyone running mozilla on the same system would quickly crater that box simply through using up all its memory :P Sure you can put more ram in the server, but in most cases, seriously high-density ram costs more than a cheap PC filled with lower-density ram, especially when you're comparing standard PC133 or PC2100 to whatever big wide DIMMs are used in high-end Sun servers now. I haven't looked so maybe I'm off base, but last time I priced memory for Sun systems (for SS20s and Ultra 1s and 2s) it was several times the cost of PC memory.
Anyway I do agree that xterms to PCs is silly. We stopped using xterms for many of the reasons I detailed above, even in Unixland. Most Unix shops I know use Unix workstations, not X-terminals. This was true when I got my first sysadmin job at Silicon Engineering (formerly Sequoia Semiconductor; Now Creative Silicon, a division of Creative Labs) as they had only one SS20, one SS10, and a couple SS5s as servers, with users sitting at servers (without crashing them or making them unusable!) and other users sitting at SS1, SS1+, SS2, IPC, and IPXen. No X-Terminals, and almost no use of remote X sessions. On the other hand, every sparc was used in a more or less clustered environment (via DQS) to spread circuit analysis jobs out across the network.
Re:YABTCOC (Score:3, Insightful)
One thing you might notice if you read the article is that on the Unix side he quotes 2x Sun Fire V1280s, each with 12 processors and 32 GB of RAM. That is plenty of horsepower to have 500 users simultaneously running Mozilla, OpenOffice, KDE or Gnome, and whatever other applications they want to run.
In other words, he's already budgeted the RAM and processing power you would need for this scenario.
Re:YABTCOC (Score:4, Funny)
Jobs and Wozniak actually invented them, so Apple vs Apple TCO studies kept coming back with the same conclusion, "yes".
Re:YABTCOC (Score:2)
I wasen't referring to anything that old. Over at Dell you can get a 2Ghz Celeron, 256MB, 40GB, 15" LCD, XP Pro, HK Speakers, 4year Parts and Labor with next day replacement, 3 years XP support, UPS, and PC Installation! So all that PLUS all the support for the same price he has for just the pc and a printer. His comparison is just lame.
Hmmm (Score:4, Interesting)
Well to be perfectly honest, I wouldn't employ a Unix evangelist.
Or a Windows evangelist.
I'd far rather an Best-Tool-For-The-Job evangelist. Evangelism is all very nice and well, but most of the Windows and Linux evangelists I know tend to completely fail to look at something objectivily because of their biasedness towards a particular platform.
If you're totally impartial, you come to an impartial decision, you haven't got clouded vision, you actually do make a difference, you don't waste money going down pointless changes but rather migrate because there are solid facts that tell you that you should and, best of all, you do actually save money for the company.
The Hard part is convincing people use it that way (Score:4, Insightful)
You have to feel it first hand.... (Score:5, Informative)
WE spent less than 20% of what it would cost for the SAME Thing but using Windows instead.
NCD terminals + server Linux is spend the money and you're done.
Windows?? I had to buy 2 licenses per workstation, plus licenses for all the MS apps per workstation. AND the server. it was horribly overpriced and then we add the cost of the citrix.
It's much cheaper to buy seperate computers and avoid any terminal server with windows. Buy $850.00 dells and call it done... peer to peer networking and hire 2 ms drones..
If you have talented sysadmins that actually know their job you can save massive amounts of cash using unix... even more if you didnt get fancy-smanchy NCD X terminals but used your old pc's as diskless terminals.... but we wanted the invisible PC+ sleek lcd on everyone's desk.
I no longer listen to the zealots (Either side) I know what is cheaper and better because I did it. Until someone SHOWS me a legal and working Windows example I'll ignore them as someone who has no clue.
Linux (not Unix) has the lowest TCO on the planet. and you CAN hire a linux expert for the same as a windows expert.
Re:You have to feel it first hand.... (Score:3, Interesting)
I think that the practicality of Xterminals is lost with many Linux users and almost all of Windows users. When people understand the efficiency of X over tcp/ip, it is like a big light turns on in their head.
Windows Terminal Server-Citrix/Metaframe environment is relatively slow and the licenses are so expensive that it really hasn't taken off as well as it could. TCO for that environment exceeds that of standalone Windows PCs.
There once was a time when Xterminals were more expensive than standalone PCs too. And old-line commercial UNIX software was/is always more expensive [adobe.com] than Windows apps on a per-seat basis.
It seems like the current generation of IT greybeards were the early risk-takers of the generation that replaced the mainframe with standalone PCs. Now they are the ones stuck in their old ways.
If you have talented sysadmins that actually know their job you can save massive amounts of cash using unix... even more if you didnt get fancy-smanchy NCD X terminals but used your old pc's as diskless terminals.... but we wanted the invisible PC+ sleek lcd on everyone's desk.
We white-boxed ours from a local clone maker. Micro-ATX Nforce boards, Durons, 128mb of memory. No CDROM, no hard disk, no floppy. Even in a real Micro ATX case, they are big, but they sure are fast! Many a time I've shocked an onlooker by telling them I was working on a terminal!
Is Catholicism better than Protestantism? (Score:4, Insightful)
Bad for students (Score:4, Funny)
problems with article (Score:2)
Also, where are they getting prices on Dell GX260s? Working for an academic institution that adopts the Windows PC model, we buy GX260s with CRT monitors and no printer for about $1,000.00, their cost should only be a couple hundred dollars over that per unit. And if they buy in bulk it will go down quite a bit. I don't think I would want 510 Canon bubblejet printers to feed/support either.
Lets the fires rage (Score:2)
Most of us have used both setups, and from the looks of this article, the author's audience is not as comptuer saavy as the typical
We know that fun difference of logging into the "server" and joining the users in the group. In the MS world, there is still that "my machine" thinking. Perhaps this is biggest difference I take from this report.
I must say, I agree here. The "my machine" aspect has caught quite a few of my users defending their files and setup much more earnestly than they should (we swipe their box and give them a new one - "network drive is your personal space, lowly user"). "Roaming profile" is an ugly add-on in the MS world.
I would be EXTREMELY happy to admin a *nix user group rather than an MS group. The endless capability for users to junk their machines, or for our own applications to crowd the machines is a bit of a hurdle to learn for each MS os release.
It's been posted, but more interesting to me are the admin/software maint. specifics between the two.
Interestingly, MS argues almost the SAME THING as the reason their process is more productive. They sell with the slogan that independence of machines overcomes the bottlenecks that centralized OS's can create. They say for those "down" numbers, that 1 or 2 crashes for a Unix box kill EVERYONE logged in, not just the single person who is hosing Access from...well, using it.
mug
Ideal setup - combination (Score:3, Interesting)
In this particular case, it is client/server, so I don't think there could be too much crossover, but I am sure in other applications it could. Of course, that integration would be much easier if MS played well with others. But what about setting up an infrastructure so that the client side could be anything? (Linux, Windows, Mac) In reality they usually aren't pure client/server but some kind of bastard stepchild.
Question (Score:3, Interesting)
I then went to work at a Unix shop, it took me awhile to get used to certain aspects(throwing windows, the process is running on the server), etc. Things that seems so obvious now. Quick note, ask a Windows user to bring up a share and run a program from the share, does the program run a the share or locally.) Windows users don't think like this everything runs runs locally.
No, I understand why my mother wants to use Windows, and most other lay folks. I think Windows does certain things very well(besides crashing
What I don't understand if why big business
and many colleges don't use a system with x-terminals and beefy servers in the back. Most students/workers only need e-mail, internet, word processing on lab computers. Those departments that have to have program that only run on Windows could get Windows machines.
It would seem to save alot of time and money. But I may also be naive.
So why isn't this more common(or is it and I just havn't noticed)?
Please don't answer that MS has brainwashed everyone, or everyone is just stupid, etc.
numbers are horribly way off... (Score:5, Informative)
5 full time staff members for $75,000.00 while 1 Unix staff full time $120,000.00??
he is on some really good drugs...
Unix/Linux staff can be had for $45,000.00 to $60,000.00 in the midwest... more if you live in the la-la-land called california. while Windows drones are not that cheap.... About the same price for good skilled windows admins. $45,000.00 to $60,000.00 less ($28,000.00 to $35,000.00)if you are a MCSE without a IT work histroy. (lesson for kiddies... expierience means LOTS more than that stupid cert.)
maybe the $120,000.00 is accurate for wages+ overhead. but the MS number is so far off it stinks horribly.
What about off campus impacts? (Score:2, Insightful)
But what happens when you have to support 200 people living off campus? What happens when you have to explain to Dad who just bought his kid a $2000 portable that he can't use all that software? What happens when you have to explain to the professors that they have to convert all their files?
The knowledge people have of how to use the tools they have is extrordinarily valuable. I've had people tell me "tell me to use Windows" and I quit. I've had people tell me "Linux and I quit". They have extraordinary loyalty to the tools. Sure it is emotional and not rational, but you sure better understand the politics when you advocate change. And figure in the education and lost productivity costs while people regain their comfort level.
I don't get it. (Score:2)
What about the guy who's playing MP3's at his desk?
What about the guy who wants to sync to his Palm Pilot?
What about the guy who's using Messenger?
What about the guy who *NEEDS* a specific piece of software to communicate with his peers?
What about the guy who's burning DVD's of classroom presentations?
What about the guy who wants to run mid-priced shrink wrapped applications like Mathematica or MATLAB or IDL (all probably less than $10,000 for a single user license, but could get expensive for a big machine).
What about the guy who runs small simulations -- the kind of thing a reasonable desktop could do in an evening or a weekend? People who run computer centers often complain about 40 hours of computer time on the big boxes.
In short, what about all the flexibility that the Personal Computer gives the user? Why ins't that included in their "TCO" at all?
Re:I don't get it. (Score:4, Informative)
That's what it seems. Yeah, I know. The compairison sucks.
---What about the guy who's playing MP3's at his desk?
What? Lopster and XMMS arent good enough for him?
---What about the guy who wants to sync to his Palm Pilot?
There's already good sync software for Linux. Just un-endorsed. Hell, They might actually make a "legit" tool if stuff like this happens.
---What about the guy who's using Messenger?
There's buttloads of tools for IM on Linux.
---What about the guy who *NEEDS* a specific piece of software to communicate with his peers?
In limited cases, WIndows is the only answer for now. But as sysad, you could put heavy pressure on a company who does such.
---What about the guy who's burning DVD's of classroom presentations?
Get him a Mac. Most unix dudes could get one working.
---What about the guy who wants to run mid-priced shrink wrapped applications like Mathematica or MATLAB or IDL (all probably less than $10,000 for a single user license, but could get expensive for a big machine).
OK... Your [wolfram.com] point [mathworks.com] ? [rsinc.com]
---What about the guy who runs small simulations -- the kind of thing a reasonable desktop could do in an evening or a weekend? People who run computer centers often complain about 40 hours of computer time on the big boxes.
Help his department build a small cluster for job crunching. COuld even be a "beowulf" cluster if his apps support it. Then he could 'job' out time to other departments. That'll avoid cpu munchers on the main system.
---In short, what about all the flexibility that the Personal Computer gives the user? Why ins't that included in their "TCO" at all?
How about the flexibility of "use the tool that works for the job"? Trust me, you really dont NEED windows anymore.Look at all 3 links at your Math program question.
TCO doesn't take into account TCODI (Score:5, Insightful)
Specifically, TCODI... Total Cost Of Dealing with Idiots.
Now I mean idiots in the nicest possible sense. Sometimes, computer idiots are just people who don't have the time, effort, or motivation to bother with computers, and view them as a magical source of evil powers which they must fight with on a daily basis.
In the article, he goes on to discuss how a student could easily translate a word document for use in Konquerer, or StarOffice, and back again. Yes, if the student possesses more than a mild understanding of computers. If that student has only a limited experience of using Microsoft Office, in a very limited manner, the cost and the effort to teach this user how to convert their documents to and fro before their 5 minute deadline passes will strain even the most patient of your student lab aides.
Most college students aren't computer enthusiasts. Some, like, I am ashamed to admit, my own sister, view the computer as little more than a calculator. When things go wrong, she promptly turns on her charm on the nearest nerd and thrusts the laptop into their hands... fix it! Make it work like it did before!
As a former network administrator, I think most of the university's students and professors fit this description. I used to administer the computers for the University of M----'s department of Zoology. Most - there were a few tech junkies and I treasured them - just wanted their computers to spit out the data it spat out last week, work exactly like it did last week, and most importantly, look exactly like it did last week. Anything different overwhelms them and gets in the way of doing what is important - to them - their research.
I got constantly called to fix non-working PC's (floppies left in drive), to revive dead hard drives, to find out why the printer wasn't responding. I had students hand me floppy disks with the only surviving copy of their thesis on it... after they had run in and out of the library's magnetic sensors with it in their backpacks.
When we finally did upgrade the administrative department's computers to Windows 95 after years of Windows 3.1 - in 1999, no less - I spent weeks explaining the basics, over and over, to frightened secretaries who were afraid of damaging their computer by clicking the wrong button! I had to explain what a double-click was to a mac user, not once, but three times.
And as for my sister... she's not stupid. She just doesn't want to bother with her computer, so she finds some geek to do it for her. If you try to force her into using Linux, with Konquerer, she'll only turn around and force some poor geek to translate all her papers for her prior to her deadline.
It's easy to get excited about computers. But ultimately, the computer is a tool, and as my father said, you use the best tool for the job. If a professor is getting along fine using a Apple 2 to do his data collection, then my job is to support his Apple 2. Forcing him into Linux, or Windows, or OS2 warp, just wastes his valuable time which could be better spent analyzing the brain chemicals in frozen mice (no, not making that up). Or the guy who analyzed mice breasts in petri dishes. I never did get around to asking him why....
This is why unviersities will continue to be a hodge podge of different operating systems. It works. Mostly. And it gets the job done. And when it doesn't, that's where the IT department is there for. Not to evangilize. But to make it work just like it did before, and get that thesis back, by the time they're done installing wires in that monkey's brain, preferably.
Just added it to my new site (Score:2)
Terminal Server (Score:5, Informative)
What I found when we used Citrix is that support cost dropped dramatically. The majority of the problems were either "I have my numlock on" type of problems or from the PCs in the marketing department. (They didn't like Citrix very much and had the political clout not to use it.) In general, users were happier and more productive since they couldn't mess up the system or access any software except the ones we put in their list of icons. If they did something stupid like moved all their icons off the screen, they'd simply log off and log back in and everything would be fixed. If they wanted a permanent change, a quick phonecall to IT would take care of it.
Now, the problem with Citrix/Terminal Server is scale. 40 users was about all you could handle on the machine before you went beyond the architectural limits of Intel hardware (i.e. 4 gigs of RAM). This meant that shops larger than we were, had to spread their users across multiple Citrix machines. Not too bad, but every machine increases support costs substantially. With hundreds of users, you'd be supporting tens of machines. Not good. On top of that, it was still a windows machine. Every time we needed to upgrade software, patch the system, or change just about any setting, the machine had to be rebooted. The system would also crash on occasion and have to be rebooted. Processes would run away and couldn't be killed and we'd have to reboot. As you can imagine, our users didn't like it much when halfway through the day they had to save their work and sit around until the machine was back up.
Before I left, we had several projects underway to look at the viability of using Unix to replace Citrix as a more stable, lower cost alternative to Microsoft's forced upgrade to Terminal Server. (Terminal Server, BTW, was over 3 times the cost of Citrix. And we couldn't go with a Citrix upgrade because the new version was an add-on to Terminal Server!) This was especially viable for us since our NeoWare thin clients supported the X protocol as well as the Citrix protocol. Although, that was not a huge problem since Citrix for Unix was looking to be a good alternative to the X protocol.
So what was the number one problem in our way? Office? Nope, StarOffice was fine. Email? Nope, we used low-cost POP3 mail. Proprietary software? We didn't use much and the stuff we did use could be relagated to the old Citrix machine and run as "Citrix Applications". No, the real problem was the web browser. We were using Netscape 4, but it was showing its age and we were beginning to have problems with sites that required IE (which we were unable to install correctly). So our choices were looking pretty thin. The best solution on the horizon was Mozilla/Netscape 6. Unfortunately, it really wasn't ready for prime-time.
If I was to do the study again today, I don't think there would be a single point against Unix that I could find. Netscape 7.2 is strong and stable, OpenOffice 1.0 is a decent MsOffice replacement, and more and more software is being ported to Unix. Initial costs can even be mitigated by buying used E3500s+ from companies like AnySystem [anysystem.com]. And I can just keep going with that system for years without worrying about the next major OS update.
So in closing... Die Terminal Server, Die!
Hard to argue with?? (Score:3, Insightful)
1) 2.8 GHz on every desktop? Ack. Cut that down to 1 Ghz and now you're talking. 1/2 the cost of a smart display.
2) Why is there a 36 month HW refresh for the Windows side and not the Unix side? 1.4 Ghz on the desktop seems like it would last a long time.
3) Why are there TWO refreshes for software in 4 years and zero for Unix? (Even solaris needs updating) Plus, i'm running just fine on W2k and it's 3 years old. I probably won't upgrade until the version after win 2003.
4) Why is staffing so much more? That seems just absurd. You could buy a management tool like SMS or Tivoli and manage every desktop remotely. Both numbers and cost of skill. And despite what the author says, maintaining 500 smart displays connecting to a server takes man power.
5) 4 dual proc machines doing what for 500 people? You can do plenty with half as many machines.
Why would anyone say these are hard to argue with? Oh wait, it's michael...
I will bite (Score:5, Insightful)
Does this seem a bit pricey for a school considering for $499 you can buy a
2.2 ghz dell? [dell.com]Schools are on a budget and its cheaper in the long run to just buy the cheapest now and upgrade every 2 1/2 years then buy the latest and greatest and upgrade every 4 years.
Also Linux lacks major software for students like games and MS Word and Excel. Yes openoffice can open some of the file formats but MS Word can check not only spelling but sentence structure, readability and Flecsh grade level, and ole ability to drop in an excel chart into a word document for example. Word 2003 even has Encarta integrated into it so you can highlight a word and research a topic. It's pretty nice when you're writing a paper.
Excel can do polynomial math while OpenOffice cannot which blows if you're doing anything accounting or scientific oriented.
Each operating has its strengths and weaknesses and is not better or worse then the other. As a basic operating system Windows blows goatballs. It's insecure, unreliable and not as programmable as Unix or Linux.
But for average joe users Windows is still king until openoffice catches up, Linux has a reliable package manager that's as easy to use as a Windows setup.exe program, and when we have more software ported. Also alot of gnu apps have been ported to Windows. I use Windows2k with perl, gvim, mozilla, apache, mysql, gcc with devc++ [bloodshed.net] and openoffice. Windows users can gradually get use to the idea of free software and switch when Linux is ready or when palladium comes out.
Last but not least Dennis Ritchie himself uses WindowsNT as his main desktop operating sytem. He just logs into plan9 and inferno servers from a client on his desktop. I agree on the idea of terminals and vnc clients on Windows boxes. I think unless the school is really cash stripped that Windows with vnc software for the occasional unix app is more appropriate and would lower support costs since students prefer Windows. Go to any college NT/Linux lab and NT is always loaded.
The only way to be unbiased (Score:3, Interesting)
Each side should demonstrate their costs based on a standardized set of criteria. Then each set of statistical information can be plugged into a format that allows some very clear side-by-side comparison of raw information.
This approach will help keep the playing field level and honest as there would be a minimum of the pro-side dissing the opposing side.
I believe this process would take a long time even to agree on what criteria is relevant and important, but I believe in the end, these facts will begin to spell out in clear and obvious ways where current strengths and weaknesses exist in the various platforms.
Re:Ugh... (Score:5, Funny)
For those of you who aren't familiar with the XXX distro of Linux, it's basicly just Red Hat with a various preloaded bookmarks for Opera directory structure like this:
usr/local/pr0n
usr/local/pr0n/buttsex
usr/local/pr0n/donkey
usr/local/pr0n/donkey/single
usr/local/pr0n/donkey/multiple
usr/local/pr0n/lesbians
usr/local/pr0n/milfs
Computers may not be worth the excitement... (Score:3, Interesting)
So it may be worth looking into discussions and issues that could have a real impact on that paycheck, you know? Anything that saves my company money--and me headaches (why yes, I am a support tech, how could you tell?)--it worth looking into.
But yeah, definitely get out and smell the freaking roses. It's going to be a gorgeous spring here.
Re:Anybody home? (Score:4, Insightful)
One of the main points of the article is that having a not so big server and a good number of cheap terminals (I think that in ebay you can have a bunch for few dollars), you have a good amount of workstations for a lot of students, with very centralized administration.
Even if you have buyed or have as a gift the terminal server licences to run all this terminals, the best way could be having a linux server running rdesktop and similars to run from all those cheap terminals (that normally supports the XWindows protocol) an application from a Windows server.
Re:Anybody home? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Linux TCO (Score:5, Informative)
I must be living right.... (Score:3, Interesting)
I have been using SUSe linux as my desktop OS for over 2 years and no data loss. We run many flavors of Linux and Apache web servers with no dataloss and no crashes. The guy next to me could not figure out why his Windoz PC kept giving him a BSOD every day - sometimes 2+ times a day. He installed WinXP and is now happy. His PC only locks up about once a week. My cube must be in some sort of zone...
The steep learning curve compared to about any other operating system out there is a major factor in Linux' cost.
I admit it has taken me a bit to learn my way around but I am not afraid to do it. Our help desk has had 0 calls from folks who moved to a Linux desktop.... PC's running windows, now that is a different story.
Oh, and if it is about servers, our 100+ MS servers don't have uptime compared to our Linux and HP UX servers. We have so many calls on our MS servers that we seemingly have an MS person in our data center 24x7.
real cost vs salary (Score:3, Informative)
Did you notice the text in there about "plus overhead costs"? That means little things like Employer Taxes (SocSec, Medicaid, etc), retirement contributions, health insurance, and other related.
The actual cost to employ someone is generally 50-70% more than their salary. A "cost" of $75k means the person is probably paid about $45-50k salary.
And this ignores the cost to actually hire anyone. For any large corporation with a serious HR department, it probably costs the company about $30k to go through the process of hiring someone. That's why large companies hate high turnover, the HR costs become unbearable.
Re:If opensource is so wonderful... (Score:4, Informative)
Instead of dealing with IE, I switched to Phoenix [mozilla.org]. The version 0.5 is kinda worrisome, but it is basically Mozilla 1.2 with a bunch of the excess junk stripped out. All the functionality for the browser, strips out the news and mail clients, and simplifies the user interface some. (Still supports all the configuration options through the CSS and js files.)
Try it, you may find you like it.