Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

why linux?

0 helpful
41 replies

by jaqui

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

a good reason to use linux is demonstrated by the system requirements for this commercial virusscan software:
Vexira Antivirus Scanner
==============================
2. Minimal system requirements
==============================

The following system requirements must be available to execute the program:

Windows/Dos
Windows 95/98/Me/NT/2000/XP or Dos 5.1
Intel Pentium (or compatible) at 200 MHz
64 MB of RAM on Windows- or 32 MB of RAM on Dos system
10 MB of free hard disk space

Linux/FreeBSD/OpenBSD
LINUX: Linux (GLIBC 2.2.5, kernel 2.2.x)
FREEBSD: FreeBSD 4.9
OPENBSD: OpenBSD 3.2
Intel Pentium (or compatible) at 200 MHz
32 MB of RAM
10 MB of free hard disk space

Solaris
Sun Solaris 9 / SunOs 5.9
UltraSparc IIe at 500 MHz
128 MB of RAM
10 MB of free hard disk space

AIX
AIX 4.3.3 + Maintenance level 10
Power3 - II (G3)
256 MB memory
10 MB free hard disk space
=========================================

look closely at the hardware required.
specifically RAM.

linux, freebsd, openbsd require half the ram of windows.
windows requires half the ram of sun's solaris.
solaris requires half the ram of AIX

so linux saves you money by not using resources as intensly.
you can save money on hardware when upgrading, your hardware upgrades are fewer, saving even more.

guess anyone that says it's more costly to run linux doesn't understand not having to buy new hardware to run your os every time you upgrade your os is far cheaper.

41 replies

by tbragsda

.
This sort of cost, minimal cost of hardware has never turned heads in the corp world. This is not what will change desktops.

As a matter o fact, Linux at the desktops is NOT the way to get it accepted in the corporate enviroment at all. Go for servers first, much later it may make its way to the desktops.

We all know Linux can run on lesser hardware, its not news. I currentley purchase desktop wks with 512 for less than 600$. Its less than the cost of the chairs we buy for new employees!

Sorry for the rant, could just be the hangover.

TBR

Edit:
It is the hangover... Im not trying to say "don't try Linux its not going to save you money", what I was trying to point out is that the is not the argument that people are looking for to turn people on to it. If it gets accepted in business, it will make its way to the home. To make it in the biz inviroment we must make a case based on somthing more than "it will save us a couple bucks per wks!"

In our situation, it would cost thousands to convert custom software at the desktops to Linux. We would have to abandon long time vendors and find new. We would have to train people. The cost of hardware would be a blip compaired to the "other" costs. How do I get this sold to mgnt?

Wow, this is turning into a rant. Forgive me, its the scotch talking.

by jaqui

it's okay, when a company has invested in custom software, it is a huge expense to change.
if you are doing 3d work, while there are some good apps, I would not recommend linux, as the best 3d app on linux is limited, compared to same app on windows or mac. ( Maya as a matter of fact )
if playing video games is needed ( sic ) then stick with the os that was designed for that express purpose, windows.

but it's ready for all general office uses, from servers to desktop workstations.

by hal 9000

All you have to do to kill some thing off is to tell them that they are being brave by supporting this or that idea. Try it some time and watch them perform back flips so fast if you blink you miss the first 300 or so.

But having said that even the real people at MS {read that as anyone but the marketing department} do not believe the stuff that is put of about TCO and while they have to show the slide they either skip over it very quickly or go into a long winded explination of why it is there in the first place but on every occasion they always end up saying the same thing which is "Make up your own minds about this."

I know quite a few places who would benifit no end from a linix installation company wide but it is just too much of a corporate gamble for the powers that be to try it out. So I sneak in Linux on the server side and no one's any the wiser and they just rave about how reliable their servers are to all their contacts.

Col

by apotheon

There are actually a lot of companies migrating to Linux servers in a great many system roles within their organizations. It looks like your suggested action of slipping in the back door, by way of servers, is actually already in play. People are talking about replacing Windows workstations because Linux is already making inroads on the server side for the general corporate market.

Of course, Linux is not only strong in certain server markets. It has been a favorite development platform for certain engineering industries for years [b]as a workstation OS[/b]. Linux may not have the numbers that Windows has, but it certainly has a strong hold on certain markets.

by tbragsda

.
My simple point is that this cost argument is not the seller. We will not get Linux to the desktops based on price. It is not a issue on the server either. I go to the CEO and tell him im puting up a new server. The cost of the OS is the least of his concern. Its just not a big enought factor.

Linux has made big inroads everywhere. Is this in any case because of cost? I think not.

by dafe2

Linux makes sense at the firewall or as an embeded system somewhere.

The sheer cost of replacing existing OS's & Apps would kill off all the people I just had doing all the back flips though ;-)

mmmm now that I think about it.....most of em would be accountants anyway

by hal 9000

The very same people who complain about any down time and just how much it is costing. But let them think that something is a bit cheaper to work with and they will break their necks in attempting to purchase inferior hardware and then complain all the more when it breaks.

I only implement any Linux on new units and even then when it is on the unsafe side of the DMZ. They can keep their Windose on the other side of the DMZ where it can not hurt anything. I even know one company who insisted on running ISA because the CEO had gone to a MS do and was told just how good it was so he had to have it even if he didn't know what it actually did.

Actually come to think of it loading ISA on the "Safe" side of the DMZ I don't know what it does either! But you know what they say about Boys and their Toys!

Col :D

by hal 9000

I find it works just great on a Quad Xeon with 20 GIG of RAM really fast and nice to play with!

Mind you depending on what you want to actually use the machine for Windows "Valium for your computer" might be the better OS to use in some cases. And it is nearly as fast on the same rig as described above though no where as scalable as a Linux installation.

I'll wait for MS Unix before I really believe that MS is making a genuine effort to service the high end of the market. Of course they have a ready made test bed for any new MS Unix it's called Hot-mail as when they tried their Server OS on that it fell into a screaming heap that lost them a lot of customers.

Col :D

by apotheon

Running Linux with the X server on a machine with 32MB of RAM works just fine. You probably make the mistake of equating KDE or GNOME with X. Both of those graphical environments are resource hogs. Running the system with something like Blackbox or IceWM instead should help cut down on resource usage quite a bit.

Hell, I had a laptop running Slackware with X and FVWM, with only 8MB of RAM in it, until the LCD screen finally gave up the ghost. Maybe you should try keeping your mouth shut rather than making statements that don't help your MS-fanatical case at all.

by jaqui

a 386 with 32 megs of ram is all it takes to run linux.
including xfree, and any user interface but gnome and kde.

since I prefer enlightenment that isn't a problem as far as I'm concerned.
( and yes, I have a 386 with 32 megs of ram running linux, and xfree )

by apotheon

As I mentioned elsewhere in this discussion, I had a laptop running Linux with a graphical user environment installed (X with FVWM) that only had 8MB of RAM. 32MB isn't actually required: it's only suggested.

Now, of course, since the LCD finally died, the amount of RAM in that laptop is sort of a moot point. It's a shame, really. The thing worked fine as a development environment, especially since I tended to go to the console and use vim for writing code.

by hal 9000

Because it works plain and simple.

It doesn't have the licensing restrictions of either Windows or Unix and generally has better drivers for the most commonly used items.

Until the third party software developers start writing code to run on Unix/Linux Windows will have the desktop market sown up just because they need Windows to run that necessary application but other wise Linux is head and tails above any of the other OS as a general usage OS and it is far more scalable to boot.

Col

by tbragsda

.
Im not disputing the benefits of Linux. I personaly would love to see a larger desktop install base. The discussion was about cost. This is not a new "benefit" discussion of Linux, we have been talking about cost benefits till were blue. It is NOT the reason, or the right point to make to change minds.

I think we can all agree that Linux is makeing a impact on the server side. Did this happen on a cost basis? Not in my experence. We were able to "sneek" it in on occasion, others were nitch installs, but in no case did anyone I know of replace a Win/Unix/NetWare server with Linux based on price. It could be the inviroments I work in, or other factors, but I can say that the small cost differences of sutiable hardware, as this thread started with, will not get you a yes vote from CIO/COO/CFO/CEOs.

by dafe2

I couldn't ever see any SOUND reasoning to replace a Windows/UNIX or Netware Server in favour of Linux.....or the reverse for that matter.

Certainly cost is but one small, albeit important decision influencer.

Usually most people select the solution first then the platform that will host it.

So, if the CIO was wanting to resolve an issue with technology & Linux had the software to deal with it.....you'd have a business case for Linux at that time.

No one is going to re-tool their infrastructure just because a few people are praising Linux.

by hal 9000

On every occasion where I use Linux for a customer it is for security and cost just is not a factor unless down time is a consideration.

But to a small business like a 2 or 3 person operation with a file server costs then come into play. You have the option of a Windows 2003 SBE which here is about $3,500.00 AU for the basic 5 user license and zilch for a Linux installation. It is in places like this where Linux/BSD or whatever really is the only possible option as quite honestly MS just doesn't address this sector of the market.

Sorry but I'm not really in one camp or the other on this just what is best for my customer but I did start in computers using Unix so I have a bit more experience with non MS installations than most of the current crop of IT people.

Col

by tbragsda

.
Exactley. Where Linux will fit it will be included in the decision process, not shoehorned in because of cost, current press, our affinity for it.

This sort of conversation often seems to pit the stupid boss who knows nothing about anything makeing the wrong dicision because they are afraid of the "new" whatever. Again, I seem harsh in this thread, but the more Im involved in the process with the Cxx set, I find they DO understand. The stuff WE think is importian is not on the top of their lists. The small cost differences dont really concern them. Obcorse the cost figures in, but its only one part. If its importian to the business the cost will only figure as a fraction of the process.

From other posts, some may know my personaly fav is Novell and all the products they produce. When a business unit needs something that runs on HPUX, I put in a HPUX box.

Just to bring my rant to a close on this. My only point to make is, don't expect cost of hardware to be the trigger for people to switch.

by tony hopkinson

2 man years for a terminal emulator package update to connect to more than one host at the same time. Total rewrite of both ends, the windows one in a new development environment.
When I asked why they didn't do it as a web application, their reply was it was "too proprietry".
Enough to make you doubt your own sanity sometimes.

by hal 9000

As an escaped programmer I can assure you that those people just do not live in this world.

They live in a place where they are the Gods or whatever and only do as they please. But I must admit that with the advent of C Compilers and the like the general quality of the programmers who I now run into has declined remarkably.

The really bad ones are those who write in Basic or VB as it is now called and think that they are producing an elegant program all compiled out of Basic code.

When I was punching in code we had to write to a size and ability to be useful while remaining small using very little memory or CPU resources and not create endless loops to slow down the processor so the code could run.

What I see from programmers today is the ability to use as much as possible while not producing better results but just making the same thing using more code to take advantage of all the resources that are now available. Try as I did at a recent meeting to explain that I used to write engine management programs that only had 64K of space available and had a different engine map for every 500 RPM. The 64 K bit came from the size of the EPROM that was available at the time. Now the same program takes several MEG and has a different Engine Map for every RPM in 1 unit stages. While this might offer a slight increase in performance for something like an F1 application it really has no real life usefulness.

But on the up side they are now incorporating a complete package that covers both the engine, transmission, traction control, anti lock braking systems and climate control. The last while being nice isn't at all necessary but does have the advantage on not needing to change the switch from hot to cold when you get in the car and start it.

These people generally now days only look inside the square and attempt to get minor improvements to an existing package rather than start from scratch and design something completely new. At a recent meeting I began to wonder if I was at the right place when one of the people I was talking to asked me what I meant by a "Flow Chart."

Granted he was young but was being serious as he never learnt to construct a program in this manner. It's all the fault of those compilers!

Col

by tony hopkinson

that should get you an even blanker look.
LOL

Delphi's objectpascal is my favourite complex environment, but one of the learning exercises is how to put a simple database client together without a line of code.

You can do the almost the same in VB, but try to do anything complex in it is like finding out you've pi**ed off John Rambo. He's whupped my ass several times just recently.

by hal 9000

Cost of the OS is of minimal importance to most business when it comes to a new server or whatever. The reality of the situation is that the cost of whatever OS is planed on being used is only a minor factor and generally a very small part of the costings of the installation.

If there is any cost argument it is always over "Down Time" both planned and unplanned that is where the real money lies for business. Even a 10,000 node server farm is of very little consequence if the place is down for 24 hours because of a fault in the system.

It costs far more in lost production of whatever that may be, that far exceeds what all the hardware cost in the first place.

Not to mention the adverse affect to the appearance of that business to their clients and competition.

Then there are the small business who are setup by some so called professionals who have a vested interest in selling hardware so like one place I recently went into I found all 5 workstations on an ADSL modem feeding a hub no router, no security at all, no software on most of the computers other than the drivers for that hardware, no network {they where e-mailing files to each other instead of just transferring them across the network as that was the way it was setup} and my favorite No Spell Checker on the Word Processor which in this case was Notepad and every unit had XP Home installed.

I'll forget to mention the job of wiring the network as it just didn't exist, just a socket hanging out of the wall and not a cable tie in sight.

That was how the finished product was left and I was called in to install a DVD Drive and while I was there asked to connect a second monitor up to a computer which had no way of supporting it. The hardware vendor was told that this computer needed two monitors so he just sold them the two didn't worry that they might both be needed at the same time he actually told me he thought one was a "Spare."

My solution was to install an old $20.00 AU computer running Linux between the ADSL modem and Hub supply all the required software and fix the network cabling. But I never did get the spell checker to work on what they had been told was a Word Processor. I just installed copies of Office and transfered the problem elsewhere.

This company had paid in excess of 40K for a "Professional" and got this, naturally I had a hard time as by then they where of the opinion that everyone in IT was out to rip them off which in all fairness I couldn't blame them for.

But just to keep you happy I'll disagree with you on a different subject. :D

Col

by sysengineer

It seems that running Windows according to the info provided is a bit more expensive due to the hardware requirements needed but what about application support. How many apps are out there, supported by Windows as compared to Linux?? Either way, being familiar with both Operating Systems, in my opinion, is important for integration, engineering, oh (and resume advantages as well...)

by tony hopkinson

is a difficulty being addressed as long as you accept open source support is as effective as commercial, which many don't.
But it's still a piddle in the ocean compared to porting a large inhouse software application development. The money spent on one I did ten tears ago for a business area of one business unit cost upwards of 100k (GBP). That was only three machines.
Half of that at least was production downtime due to disruption. As soon as you get to core business software, your opportunities for a real integrated test are very limited, in this environment manufacturing they were nil.

by apotheon

What many don't realize is that the number of applications for any given task available for a Linux platform is generally much greater than for a Windows platform system. For instance, just doing a quick search of the official Debian free software archives for the phrase "word processor" turned up no less than seven office suites and word processors, and that doesn't even include OpenOffice (which is what I use, and can be found in the Debian archives with a search for the phrase "office suite").

What the Windows platform has going for it isn't the number of professional-level applications that are available. Open source OSes tend to blow it out of the water on that score. The only real point where Linux can't match Windows on ubiquity of applications is in how recognizable Linux-based applications are as compared to Windows-based applications. Everybody knows about MS Office. Not everyone knows about OOo (though basically everyone at TR does, we're not exactly representative of the end-user customer base at large).

By the way, another way of looking at the situation with hardware requirements, aside from recognizing that Linux applications can match Windows application functionality on far more limited hardware, is to recognize as well the impressive performance gains possible. The fact that you can do the same with less hardware resources (less RAM, slower processor, et cetera) is a result of the same root cause as the for the fact that you can do more with the same hardware resources. If an application tends to use 70% of the RAM that another application requires to do the same thing, having the same amount of RAM available increases the effectively available resources for your applications to use, thus improving performance. Since I don't skimp on the hardware for my primary workstation, this means that rather than saving me money on hardware Linux simply provides impressive performance gains over Windows.

By the way, my Windows workstation is running on an Athlon 1600+ XP with 512MB of RAM, and it performs at about the same level as my tertiary workstation, a Debian GNU/Linux box running a Pentium 2 350MHz processor and 256MB of RAM. This performance level, while I'm at it, is maintained on the inferior hardware Linux system despite the fact that I have roughly six times as much software running on the thing as on the Windows box. I keep a bare minimum of mission-critical applications running on the Windows box so that I can maximize performance from the thing when I work on it. I'm even better at performance-tuning a Windows system than I am at doing the same on a Linux system.

The more I use Windows, the more I like Linux.

by apotheon

Delphi is the development environment I've been using for Windows applications. It's not very common for me to run across someone else that uses that environment. Then again, I haven't really been looking, so I suppose it's not surprising that I don't usually find 'em.

by apotheon

Sorry about my snippy tone. I was quite harried and under a lot of pressure yesterday, and I'm afraid I let some of it sneak into my online attitudes.

Anyhow, looking back at my previous post, I'm struck by something interesting: That laptop to which I referred was somewhat limited in functionality, regardless of OS. A point worth mentioning, however, is that even Windows 95 required 16MB of RAM to install. The fact that a fully-functional Slackware Linux installation was shoehorned into it, complete with graphical user interface, boggles my mind.

by willcomp

If amount of RAM required is selection criteria, just use DOS. Look at requirements specified and DOS has same hardware requirements as does Linux.

I can't see anyone reverting to DOS to save a few bucks. Same for changing OS and applications to Linux to save a few bucks. No matter how enticing the technology, change is not always good.

Wonder how it will access that 32MB of RAM in DOS? Must use a bang-up good DOS extender.

Dalton

by tony hopkinson

Still using it at my current place
LOL
Actually it's not that funny, more like weird.
With overlays I think the limit was 1 gig, though the my old memory seem to have developed a parity error at the address of the information.

I can't remember ever trying to access that much through a memory manager though.
LOL

by tbragsda

.
The times they were much more simple. Things worked better!

OKOK, we couldent do nearley as much, but if I had a time machine, I would rather revisit my DOS/NW3.x life than HS again.

by apotheon

Yeah, I can see it now: I'll just go ahead and choose the neutered, broken-ass command-line OS that served as the mediocre man's answer to a real OS like Unix. Why not use DOS, a limited 16-bit OS (or 8-bit, depending on which version you use) that sucks up the same resources as a more powerful, more flexible, and generally more capable OS? Linux is arguably (note: I said "arguably", not "unarguably") a better OS than any Windows OS ever produced, but we should go back to DOS because you say so.

If you really loathe Linux that much, with an unreasoning, illogical hatred, you'd probably save us all a lot of time by simply saying so.

by willcomp

Apparently you took seriously what I posted in jest.

But to rebut your argument somewhat. We all owe where we are now to MS-DOS. At the advent of the PC explosion about 20 years ago, the average techie and small company could afford DOS systems while unix systems were expensive and proprietary.

Yes, Linux is now free or cheap and runs on inexpensive hardware. But Linux is only about 10 years old and vast improvements in the user interface and installation have been made in recent years.

So, like it or not, you probably owe your career to DOS, Microsoft, and IBM.

I have no axe to grind with Linux, but I make my living from Windows PCs and servers. Having been around throughout the PC era, I have a deep appreciation for those individuals, companies, and products that made it happen.

Dalton

by tony hopkinson

to a member of a diminishing community. Ones who feel there tools should help them write quality software, instead of encourage them to write total crap.

by apotheon

I appreciate the welcome.

Delphi's not bad. As integrated design environments available on Windows, in fact, it's kinda kickass. Too bad it doesn't work with Objective-C instead of (or as well as) Object Pascal.

by tony hopkinson

Which aspect, the ability to complicate code beyond reason, the remarkable obfuscation techniques, or the facility to cause some really cool run time errors.

Actually to be fair I use C as well and if you remember someone else has got to be able to read it in the future you can write some decent stuff.

But those guru types who use a couple of lines of puntuation and a bunch of macros to write a program ....

Off to find my stress ball, seem to be having an attack of some sort.

by apotheon

Actually, I said "Objective-C" which, while more closely related to C than C++, is still an entirely separate language. Besides, your complaints sound more like problems with C++ than with C.

In any case, I prefer tools that let me do what I want, even if I have to pay more attention to avoid hurting myself in the process. I like a bandsaw more than a hacksaw, in other words. Sure, a moment of inattention can with a bandsaw lose one a limb, while the hacksaw will probably only tear open a flap of skin, but the bandsaw will still allow me to do a helluva lot more cutting, and if I use it well I'll be able to do smoother, more precise cuts, too.

Based on this description of my proclivities and preferences, you might assume that I like Perl. You'd be right.

by tony hopkinson

Haven't worked with that flavour will have to look it up, a chap can't have too many tools in his box.
Was C I was talking about , particularly some of the stuff done to show just how clever you can be with it. You don't see it very often in business IT thankfully, on account of any development manager with more than two brain cells would boot the author right out of the building.

Perl is about the only scripting language I've got any time for. I've done a few bits and pieces but the concepts for manipulating strings and lists are still getting garbled by my brain. I understand the ideas but I haven't used it enough to pick up a sense of what the code is trying to achieve.

by apotheon

Regular expressions rule. Seriously. Learn regular expressions in Perl to a fair level of competence, and you'll have a severe overabundance of scripting power at your fingertips within any Unix environment.

by jaqui

c, objective c, c++, delphi.
my most common tool for coding is borlands kylix, codes with all of the above.

my only complaint about perl is there is so much it can do, with so many additions for extra functionality, it's hard to really get to know it.

waiting for 6 to start spending the time to really learn perl. ( since 6 is supposed to be drastically different )

This discussion is closed to new replies.