Novell: "Windows cheaper than Linux"

Novell: "Windows cheaper than Linux"

Summary: Novell makes a U-turn and now supports the claim that Windows has a lower total cost of ownership than Linux

SHARE:
TOPICS: Open Source
43

IT seems that Novell has now joined the "Windows is cheaper than Linux" choir.

In a recent joint Novell/Microsoft press release, HSBC, which is a customer of joint technology from the two companies, claims that Windows has a lower total cost of ownership than Linux.

In the release, Matthew O'Neill, group head of distributed systems for HSBC Global IT operations, states that the bank's existing Linux environment is more expensive to maintain than its Windows environment. "Some will be surprised to learn that our Windows environment has a lower total cost of ownership than our current Linux environment."

HSBC claims it will achieve cost savings by reducing the number of Linux distributions it uses and by improving the interoperability of its open-source operating system deployments with Windows. "Our decision to simplify our mixed-source environment with Microsoft and Novell will allow us to reduce the cost and complexity," said O'Neill.

This is a huge U-turn for Novell which used to claim that Microsoft was sucking cash away from innovative software projects. 

Thoughts?

Topic: Open Source

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

43 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Correct Headline: "One Windows Cheaper than 15 Linuxes"

    I am disappointed by the misleading headline.

    Going back to the source article on zdnet UK, it indicates that HSBC used multiple Linux distros and are now moving to one Linux distro, notable Novel Suse Enterprise.

    The EXACT same thing is true if you try to support multiple Windows distros, (Win95, 2000, XP, Vista, etc.).

    The article is completely lacking any context or useful detail.

    Perhaps the editors should put "Advertisement" at the top of the ad to not mislead your readers.

    Sad.
    caspianhiro
    • Its his story

      He can tell it any way he wants.
      DemonX
      • Educated Readers...

        ... such as the people who read commentary involving Linux and cost.

        There are all kinds of assumptions made in these decisions. Who is loading the software. What hardware is involved. Whether it is to be purchased or downloaded. Is Linux or Windows to both be run or is the system entirely consisting of one OS. Etc. etc.

        I service small and medium businesses. I give each business a personal descriptions of both current and ongoing costs. It is rare to see a business that cannot be setup cheaper with Linux.

        Medium businesses have to pay a little more for initial setup, but they save much more in multiple copy or licensing fees and software updates.

        Micro businesses that purchase single machines can keep the installed Windows that is included and add Linux afterward. I prefer Ubuntu, but all of the distros are quite easy to install.

        If they use the included features they can accomplish any common business related function. Older machines last longer. It runs with less issues and more security. Regular employees are less likely to be screwing around with Linux or installing their own software.

        Unless the business is networked and uses dedicated servers, the cost to try is very small. If you know a little about computers you can do it for free. I like Linux, but there are features I personally feel are better in Windows. Using both systems gives me the best of both worlds.

        Small businesses can avoid the several hundred dollar cost of Office and Vista. That is reason alone to try it for money conscious businesses.
        Information_z
    • Correct Headline "15 Linuxes required to do job that 1 Windows can do"

      And I'm not disappointed by your misleading headline. After all, its epected from you.
      BrutalTruth
  • That is quite misleading Adrian

    I don't see anything with a direct reference to a Novell spokesperson saying anything about TCO.

    The article is somewhat misleading and sensational and unfortunately your headline is too.
    D T Schmitz
    • Totally agree!!!

      What kind of farce journalism is this?? One of the few I'd begun to have some respect for recently in the ZD tent. Just shot that to pieces. Way to go, Adrian.
      Techboy_z
      • i no what that sounds like.

        u one of them dudes that only likes someone if they agrees with you? Now see i always herd the linix say they all compatibul. Standerds and what not you know man. I think we being jerked around a bit i'm afriad.
        April May
  • And nothing's cheaper than Novell

    Microsoft bought Novell's undying loyalty for a pittance. How long before they pull a SCO and start suing Linux vendors, claiming IP violation? When Microsoft is the puppet-master, every move is easily predicted.
    bidemytime
    • 5 words to you

      <p><b> YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH </b></p>
      code_Warrior
      • Pot

        meet kettle. MS has a documented history of bullying companies from their OEM
        licensing (declared illegal) to their clubbing Apple with Office. It is a reasonable
        assumption that a company which does an about face a few weeks after getting $$$
        from MS (Corel, and now Novell) has been bought off.
        frgough
        • so basically your entire analysis is based on that

          <p>No facts, No technical information.</p>

          <p>Infact you've even admitted that your analysis is on an <b> ASSUMPTION </b> ( It is a reasonable assumption ).</p>

          <p> No, its not reasonable. I want facts, figures, technical information and not your assumption.</p>
          code_Warrior
          • No sir. It's based on this.

            <b>Novell has issued a joint press release with Microsoft, in which HSBC, a customer of joint technology from the two companies, claims that Windows has a lower total cost of ownership than Linux.

            The press release, issued late on Wednesday, announced that UK-based bank HSBC has agreed to adopt technology from Novell and Microsoft's recently announced partnership.

            In the release, Matthew O'Neill, group head of distributed systems for HSBC Global IT operations, states that the bank's existing Linux environment is more expensive to maintain than its Windows environment. "Some will be surprised to learn that our Windows environment has a lower total cost of ownership than our current Linux environment."
            <b><br><br>
            seams to me the novell company wouldn't have been party of press release if it was nto behind was the man was saying. That is not asuming. that is real life man.
            April May
  • I agree... with everyone else!

    I agree with the other posts this is a totally misleading story. I'm sure if you look more closely at the details you will see some bending of the truth or out right lies! Lies are nothing new to Microsoft...
    tek_notes2@...
    • seems like no one is agreeing with you

      If you read the link provided by Adrain you'd see that the press release is from HSBC (a customer of both Novell, Microsoft and other Linux distros).
      So could you be a little more specific and tell me where Adrain has been misleading.


      Various independent studies have shown repeatedly that Windows has a lower TCO than Linux. However the only response was, Microsoft must have funded the studies and so its not impartial.

      Linux folks how about being involved in the studies and their response was "No thanks" and infact the then CEO of OSDL, could not give any valid reasons for not participating.


      Now a customer who has many Linux distros had to say this -->
      "In the release, Matthew O'Neill, group head of distributed systems for HSBC Global IT operations, states that the bank's existing Linux environment is more expensive to maintain than its Windows environment. "Some will be surprised to learn that our Windows environment has a lower total cost of ownership than our current Linux environment."

      What more evidence do you guys need.
      code_Warrior
      • Facts. Not Marketing.

        The problem with technical subjects is that they are not a matter of opinion.
        They are Fact driven. Reality is the key evaluator, Not marketing.

        Only those who know and actually work with the companies involved in big operations, namely HSBC and the banking sector, know about that.
        I do not expect you to understand, but Linux systems in Big Companies are At the Core of their Operation (Financial, Logistics, work flow, ERP/CRM, whatever) and therefore you can not simply compare Costs for both systems.
        The functionality of both is Hugely different. (No it is not 3D gaming ...)
        And the TCO is Highly superior in Windows servers or workstations, not to mention Exchanges and the like ... than it is on Linux for even that same functionality.

        So the comment mentioned:

        "Some will be surprised to learn that our Windows environment has a lower total cost of ownership than our current Linux environment."

        Just shows How HSBC comment can be misunderstood by the ignorant.
        The basic message is something like:
        Noticed that the TCO for a Linux ERP Server is bigger then the TCO for a Windows Desktop!
        Amazing discovery! And also very stupid and ignorant when not understood.
        The so called "Linux Environment" is one the worlds Biggest and constantly developing IT operations in the world.
        The Windows environment at question is a bunch of same sold functionality like email/groupware and desktop!

        How can anyone possibly compare Both!!
        It is simply ridiculous.

        "What more evidence do you guys need. "

        I think it is only you who need evidence. It is called IT experience, knowledge.
        I have actually Worked on both "Environment" and even made system administration on both.
        And yes, there is a place for Microsoft, just not on corporations.
        So please, let me know what and why in "Linux" makes it a superior TCO over "Windows".
        The simple phrasing above makes it ridiculous to the intended comparison.

        So the ignorant mentioning of:
        "Various independent studies have shown repeatedly that Windows has a lower TCO than Linux. However the only response was, Microsoft must have funded the studies and so its not impartial."

        Only shows that you did not understand Why the studies where not independent and where Highly partial and distorted actually contributing to the lack of credibility of those who actually thought they could get away with it only to secure their careers.
        And therefore the Linux community did very well in not getting involved with a fraudulent distorted comparison.

        Linux is in another League.

        It is like comparing a Formula one car with a common day to day low market segment car.
        And even like that it is like if the Formula one would cost about the same as a regular car!
        It is the Bargain of the century.

        Even if a company for the sake of _supposed_ fast implementation chooses an exchange server, several domain servers, and establishes a Windows network for the less technical operations like Office work, the Core Processes of operations, from ERP's, Banking transactional applications, all those that involve high Database and application servers work, are running on Linux/Unix.
        Namely Java based applications and J2EE environment.
        And this means a constant and continuous Development integrating more and more Core functionality, so setup is required to manage the Servers as this is an ongoing activity.
        So the Actual IT Work (local or contracted ) around Linux environment is Obviously the cost center -> When Developing the application/functionality.
        In the short term the return of investment is Way superior to any Windows based solutions just by the fact that the app is sitting on top of Linux.
        Also if one looks at the integral, long term spending on IT the Windows Environment is the key spending point.
        There is always this base IT Windows budget related spending without any new functionality what so ever for the company over and over again.
        This is money spent without any Return! Or more precisely, the normal operation return that could be achieved with Much lower cost solutions.
        Windows is "the cost". Linux is Investment.
        We are speaking of another league, but even like so, Even with this Tremendous difference in both services to the company and to the way IT works Windows is the key "burden" on any IT budget.

        Regards,
        Pedro
        p_msac@...
        • there are absolutely no facts in your entire marketing blog

          Not a single fact - nada, zilch.


          All a bunch of lines blah,blah,blah, no facts to back up any claims, only statment such as

          "Only those who know and actually work with the companies involved in big operations, namely HSBC and the banking sector, know about that."

          So basically whats your point. Are you saying HSBC is a small pop and mom store and Matthew O'Neil is the only employee at HSBC.
          Maybe you might want to read the following line again ---
          "In the release, Matthew O'Neill, group head of distributed systems for HSBC Global IT operations"




          "I have actually Worked on both "Environment" and even made system administration on both"

          So you know how to install an OS and know how to support. Being a system admin, you now are the expert on OS design, security, device driver. Can you tell me the difference between monolithic kernel and a micro-kernel. Most likely you can search the web and copy and paste a few lines without those lines making much sense to you.
          Can you write a few lines on the differences between the security model of Linux and Windows. Lets see how well you do on this.



          "How can anyone possibly compare Both!! It is simply ridiculous."

          So basically you are saying that you have no clue about programming and kernel development and no idea about OS design and other topics.
          code_Warrior
          • Facts.

            Maybe one day you can have the opportunity to work on a big company in the Banking, Insurance or related industry ... maybe.
            One industry where IT is Fundamental for their operation.
            Them you will understand.
            Until them ... you can only guess, and you are guessing wrongly at that matter.

            Now to the issue:
            To start you did not read What Matthew O'Neill said.
            You simply ignorantly and wrongly interpreted what O'Neill said.
            This is the result of low knowledge in IT and a hugely wrong preconception typical of those that only know how to work in a single home PC system.
            Hummm ... now I remember ... you are the guy that actually thinks Windows kernel is not developed in C and because Linux is developed in C it is not such a good OS ... :) :)
            I read your "famous" article .. it was really a great gathering of web search and ignorance combined.

            Now for the issue: What O'Neill said was, and I quote:

            "HSBC claims it will achieve cost savings by reducing the number of Linux distributions it uses and by improving the interoperability of its open-source operating system deployments with Windows. "Our decision to simplify our mixed-source environment with Microsoft and Novell will allow us to reduce the cost and complexity," said O'Neill.

            And this was Exactly what Adrian them commented!
            And I quote again:

            "This is a huge U-turn for Novell which used to claim that Microsoft was sucking cash away from innovative software projects."

            I do not agree with this Adrian's comment for many reasons.
            Among others it is really placed out of context and can be misleading.
            The implied statement that MS is making something for the interoperability ... I am not sure, but maybe MS is changing after the Novell deal. It really does not seem to me like that. But that is another issue that I prefer not to speculate about.
            If something MS is know for not letting no one have interoperability.

            But some readers had to be mislead not even reading what is at stake.
            Only the ones that know nothing about IT could possibly think that Linux as a superior TCO over Windows.

            The issue was: Reducing the number of Linux Distributions used AND improving interoperability with Windows.
            Not bigger Linux TCO by itself.

            About your Comment:

            "So basically you are saying that you have no clue about programming and kernel development and no idea about OS design and other topics."

            Not really.
            What is clear from my comments is that it is the other way around.
            What shows from your comments (past and present) is that I am right.
            But what I meant is that -> Even <- the Comparison mentioned By O'Neill in the case of HSBC is _ridiculous_ due to the differences in usage for both systems.

            The TCO -> difference <- WAS DUE To deploying 15 Linux Distros AND their Different interoperability With Windows.

            And yes, no one can compare a Linux Server ERP TCO with a Windows Desktop.
            It simply does not make sense.


            Regards,
            Pedro
            p_msac@...
          • again no answers - Hope this is simple enough that you can understand

            Can you write a few lines on the technical differences between Windows and Linux. Lets see how well you do on this.



            "Maybe one day you can have the opportunity to work on a big company in the Banking, Insurance or related industry ... maybe."

            Can you give one valid reason asto how you come to conclusions.
            code_Warrior
        • wheres your facts man?

          And the TCO is Highly superior in Windows servers or workstations, not to mention Exchanges and the like ... than it is on Linux for even that same functionality. <br><br>
          you mean by superoir, windows is better? And where ou get your info man. you no how HBSC is setup inside? you know they have windoww pcs only and linux servers only? <br><br>
          you's just being like a know it all here pal, but you don't no squat. Windows is the cost. Linix is investment? what da hell is that supposd to mean? They are both investments but windows has more value than thelinux. it's been proven time and time again. return on investing is quicker and higher in windows.
          windows has all of the core servers and serivecs you are running on about on very stable servers and higher value software by their measures.
          <br>
          Bottum line is Novel has agred to relese thie press release with MS, so it is Novells stance too. That too plain for you to understand? <br>
          where do you work man? Windows server cut in to the linux space/which it got given to it from uhix xpace held by the man fro decades.Yet with 40% of server space taken, the linix has not got 1% of the desktop spaces. nobody can cry monopoly here since linux has monopoly of servers till windows knocked a big hole in it with servers more cost effective to run so many companys went with windows servers and dropped linux servers. that hasn't happend the other way around. unless govenment made em do it.
          April May
    • Nor are lies

      beyond the realm of Linux vendors, right?
      John Zern