In the black: Why Linux makes financial sense

David M Williams
Wednesday, 28 November 2007 18:39

Opinion and Analysis

Last week I touched on some Microsoft backflipping over Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) when it comes to Linux. It had been claimed that although Linux was a free operating system, Windows had a lower overall cost with all factors considered due to its greater ease of administration. Yet, this is no longer the case, with Microsoft’s server line now using a Bash-inspired command line system called PowerShell. Not only is PowerShell somewhat cryptic, it’s brand new to all the legions of Windows admins who fumbled their way through installation wizards by clicking ‘Next’ each step of the way. I’d be willing to wager there are more Bash-savvy Linux admins than PowerShell-competent Windows admins, totally exploding the Microsoft line over which OS is easier to manage.

Anyhow, you can read about it here. I received positive feedback on this point, with some asking me to talk more on TCO – particularly, young, smart IT professionals who could see opportunities to rationalise their organisation’s server farm but needed ammunition when it comes to dealing with the board and persuading them a switch to Linux is risk-averse and cost-effective.

So, happy to oblige, here’s some views on why Linux isn’t just technically smart, but also a sensible business option too. These should help you put forth a case that will keep your chief financial officer happy. Preferably, it’ll also keep him away, too. I don’t know about your CFO, but mine bugs IT for help to change batteries and even requires instructions taped to the wall explaining how to fax. My tongue-in-cheek “Step 1: put document in machine. Step 2: dial number. Step 3: press big button” was perversely lauded as a masterpiece of concise precision.
The first thing to note is that TCO is a term bandied about but yet often with meaningless arguments. Regularly you’ll find advertising pamphlets which list a bunch of pros and cons about a product and its competitor, but the points aren’t necessarily relevant or meaningful. This isn’t restricted to technology; I saw a car brochure which listed among its standout features compared to the opposition that it was “Swiss designed.” Now, although it may well be a fact the vehicle was designed by the Swiss, I didn’t see why this was necessarily a feature or benefit over another type of car designed elsewhere. Perhaps I am showing my ignorance of all things mechanical here, but I can’t imagine making a list of car features I want and putting “Swiss designed” up the top - but I might put “anti-lock brakes” if I felt that was important to me.

So too, when a business selects technology it ought to be based on what the company’s business processes and requirements actually are. The technology choices need to support the way the company operates and what it needs; just like there’s only one election opinion poll that matters, this is the only list of features that matters.

Whilst previously working at a University, I attended a series of presentations by IT students engaging in their real-world group project.