The only open and fully transparent TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) study I know of that compares Linux to Windows has come to a fairly predictable result. Linux is cheaper then Windows. Of course Microsoft would beg to differ, and has done on many occasions, but never has a TCO report been issued that has really provided the full depth of their methodology such that anyone who wants to can recreate the study themselves. Until now. The study is based on the needs of a 250 user company over 3 years. The long and short of it is that Linux turns out to be up to 36% cheaper over the 3 years then Windows. Now put your hand up if this surprises you. (MCSE’s and MS employees need not bother, instead you should go and read some more of Microsoft’s sponsored studies, their results are more predictable and calming for you.)
Read the full report here. (PDF)
On a related subject, after a 4 year study of the Linux kernel, Security group Coverity has released a study that has shown that it (The Linux 2.6 kernel) has far less bugs then most comparable commercial programs. In the 5.7 million lines of code making up the Linux 2.6 kernel, they found 985 bugs. According to Coverity, the average with Commercial software is 20-30 bugs per thousand lines of code which amounts to 114,000 to 171,000 in an application the same size as the 2.6 kernel. Also, you might remember when Win2000 first came out, it was reported that they had found over 65,000 bugs in the code at that time. And judging from Windows update, they’ve found many more since then.
So there you have it folks, conclusive(?) proof that Linux is both cheaper and more secure then the alternatives. Oh, I should add that Coverity has disclosed the bugs it found to the Kernel folks who have already acted on the critical ones. Read more about it at InternetNews.
Franki
