Re: Dell stops offering Red Hat on desktops

[Richard Fifarek <rfifarek@silug.org>]

On Tue, 7 Aug 2001, Tony Zafiropoulos wrote:

> > Financial:  At the high end, Linux is a good platform (like for SAP).
> > At the low end, I just haven't seen the software.  Maybe it is out
> > there, and I just haven't been paying attention...
> >
>
> We need examples, the ones that I am familiar with (small companies) like
> ILX and Reuters are all Windows platforms.

Example: Penguin Computing
	We run SAP on Linux and have been doing so since before I joined
(almost 1.5 years now), and we've had no problems that can be traced to
just Linux, although RAM and file size limitations have pinched.  I work
closely with the SAP Admins here, and they are in constant contact with
SAP.  SAP is very gung ho on Linux (as far as we can tell).
Unfortunately, they are behind the curve on kernel and OS versions
(currently only RH 6.1EE and SuSE 7.0 (?) is officially supported), mainly
because they keep having to hack the OS to support both the high end
hardware and huge resources that SAP needs.  As Linux continues to mature
(2.4 being a huge part of this), Linux will likely be more accepted as a
platform for SAP.

> Microsoft software is already essentially "free" in large
> projects-typically less than 3% of the hardware/software cost and less
> than 1% of the total project cost.

	You can't group hardware and software cost together.  Second,
while this maybe true, I don't know any manager that wouldn't like to
shave off 1%-3% of a project cost before sending it to the boss for
approval.  This 1%-3% only applies to server installations, and high end
server installations at that, where the hardware costs are seriously
inflated.  If you compare the cost of MS software to commodity (low end)
hardware, this percentage is much higher.

> where it counts: minimizing total cost of ownership and maximizing
> business value, making it less expensive for customers over the long haul.

	Wholeheartedly disagree.  I was hired at Penguin Computing when we
were primarily Linux-only company (i.e. 95% of the desktops had Linux
installed).  Unfortunately, too many MS trained folks were hired on at all
levels of the company, and thus we were forced to move to Windows for the
desktop.  The amount of time I spent supporting the desktop machines
jumped drastically with the switch from Linux to Windows.  My time is
expensive, and thus the TCO went up with that change.  Add to that the
nearly $750 dollars that we spend per machine to run Microsoft software,
whereas the hardware cost of our desktops is roughly $1100-1200.  40% of
the cost of one workstation in software.  Company of 100+ people =
$75,000.  The TCO goes up again.  My team and I could support 100+ people
with 3 people (myself + 2 others) with the desktops and servers primarily
Linux.  Since the change over to Windows, I have to add at least 2 people
to my team to support the increased demand for support.  Higher TCO again.
The numbers don't add up, and I know that other companies have similar
experiences.

	     -----------------------------------------------------
	     Richard H. Fifarek	       		rfifarek@silug.org
             -----------------------------------------------------

-
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@silug.org with
"unsubscribe silug-discuss" in the body.