City of Munich Now a Major Contributor to Open Source
-
@DustinB3403 said:
I think the savings could only easily be calculated at the cost of "I purchased X computers, at X price, and saved X dollars on said computers because they didn't come with an operating system cost $199.99"
Way higher than that. Not only do they not pay for a desktop OS license, they don't pay for other software too. The anti-virus cost is big. The Office price is huge. Think of all of the software that you often pay for on a typical desktop. So the savings per desktop is likely more like $800 - $1,000.
-
@scottalanmiller Even if they don't pay for antivirus(I don't care what OS you are running) you need something that at least periodically scans your system for nasties.
-
And that's before we start talking about licensing management. In the closed source world the management of licensing is a massive expensive - educating staff about them, time spent learning and researching (@DustinB3403 and I spent a lot of time yesterday on one minute point of MS licensing just for deployment practices!!!), the cost of tracking and reporting, convincing management to keep licensing correct, being audited and any fines that might be paid. Go all open source and all of that just goes away. One of the largest, most difficult and riskiest parts of IT (and one that has zero value and IT people are bad at and hate) is instantly eliminated letting IT people be technical instead of licensing accountants and lawyers. Things like audits go away because if you don't own closed source software, the audit companies have no legal right to request an audit even!
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
We've talked about that savings before though - is it real? Are they really not paying as much or more for the developers creating their software as they were for packaged software?
Any development that they are paying for is above and beyond what closed source CAN deliver. So there is no way to compare. You are looking for problems where there are none.
I'm not looking for a problem, I'm looking for a fair price comparison -
We've talked about this before. Sure you don't have the cost of the Windows licenses, and might not even have the costs of the DB license, but the cost of administration is noticeably higher that Windows admins would be.
-
@Dashrender said:
We've talked about this before. Sure you don't have the cost of the Windows licenses, and might not even have the costs of the DB license, but the cost of administration is noticeably higher that Windows admins would be.
Yes, we've talked about this before and how everything gets cheaper, not just the licensing. You keep repeating that the cost of administration is higher, where have you seen this? I've done UNIX for over twenty years and a key benefit is how massively cheaper it is to administer. What data do you have that the cost goes up?
-
@Dashrender said:
but the cost of administration is noticeably higher that Windows admins would be.
I think you are missing how many fewer staff you need. You keep stating that the cost is higher and then that Linux staff cost more than Windows. Yes, but if you had Windows staff of the same cost you'd find that the cost of managing Windows typically decreases too, just not nearly as much as UNIX.
Remember that while you pay a 20% premium to get skilled UNIX staff, you get a 100% or higher admin density jump on snowflake management and a 10,000% or more jump in the DevOps world. So the cost of admins being SO much lower in the UNIX space is one of the big drivers as to why UNIX is so much cheaper to run.
-
Find me any Windows shop running 10,000 servers with a single person. Yet in the UNIX world, this is still rare, but something we've been doing for a long time.
-
The cost savings in open source comes from nearly everywhere. The only aspects of open source, generally speaking in the current market, where there is room to argue that closed source is more valuable is:
- Users already know closed source software and it takes time to train them. This is valuable but assumes you have idiots as employees, learning the open source software is hard or even needs to be done and that turnover is high so that training is common. None of these are necessarily true, but certainly could be. Unlikely for the Bavarian government, though.
- That the closed source software is much more effective and efficient for end users. This is far more likely to be true. This is much more of a case by case basis and only applies to desktop software which is mostly limited to office products and LibreOffice, which Munich uses, is very good and does not have significant drop in productivity and could even improve it.
-
Also remember that as a government Munich has other, legal concerns like forcing citizens to use closed course, vendor selected software. They felt that this was not right and a key benefit that they are getting is that the government files and software used with the citizens that do not work in government is all free and open. Everyone with a computer has free access to LibreOffice and the OpenDocument formats. They felt that it was a moral obligation of the government to do that component of it and it results in benefits for the citizens as absolutely everyone, not just those people running Windows and MS Office tools are able to interact with the documents.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
We've talked about this before. Sure you don't have the cost of the Windows licenses, and might not even have the costs of the DB license, but the cost of administration is noticeably higher that Windows admins would be.
Yes, we've talked about this before and how everything gets cheaper, not just the licensing. You keep repeating that the cost of administration is higher, where have you seen this? I've done UNIX for over twenty years and a key benefit is how massively cheaper it is to administer. What data do you have that the cost goes up?
the fact that you cost 10x the normal cost of a Windows admin.
Now that said, perhaps they can fire 9 other Windows admins because they don't need them. But even big Windows shops don't have one admin for every 10 Windows machines, it's probably closer to 50 or 100, or more. But you're right in that you can have many many times that number of servers per admin for Linux.
-
@Dashrender said:
the fact that you cost 10x the normal cost of a Windows admin.
And that has what to do with it? This is completely misleading. Apples to apples, UNIX people cost about 20% more than Windows people.
-
@Dashrender said:
Now that said, perhaps they can fire 9 other Windows admins because they don't need them.
You are just making up numbers for effect. Real world, you need roughly half the UNIX admins and they cost about 20% more. So if you needed ten Windows admins, you need five UNIX at the pay rate of six of what you had before.
In snowflake shops, where UNIX has the least value, the common number is that you pay only 60% what you did in Windows administration.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
the fact that you cost 10x the normal cost of a Windows admin.
And that has what to do with it? This is completely misleading. Apples to apples, UNIX people cost about 20% more than Windows people.
Assuming you can cut down on staff by 20%, the cost of the Linux admins being 20% more makes it a wash - and I believe you've already stated that you think your savings should be a lot more than a 20% staff reduction in a large organization.
Just so we are on the same page, I am and have been agreeing with you for the last few posts.
-
@Dashrender said:
But even big Windows shops don't have one admin for every 10 Windows machines, it's probably closer to 50 or 100, or more. But you're right in that you can have many many times that number of servers per admin for Linux.
Actually that's not generally true. Only super high end Windows shops ever get above 30 per admin. More typically, even on Wall St. in a good shop I have seen around 35 per admin (and those admins are pushing $180K so don't start saying that the UNIX people are insanely expensive at $200K) and bad ones are around 5-10.
Same shop with 35 per Windows had 300 per UNIX. That's anecdotal, but a real world, 20% price difference in pay number shop.
In the low end shop on Wall St. it was more like 10 per Windows and 150 per UNIX.
-
@Dashrender said:
Assuming you can cut down on staff by 20%, the cost of the Linux admins being 20%
Right, so the 50% savings makes it a massive win.
-
And once you move to DevOps models, which nearly everyone does these days, the cost savings increases so much more as UNIX is so easier to scale up in that way that you don't even have the concept of servers per admin anymore.
-
And then going to cloud, the server density concepts make UNIX even that much more beneficial.
-
I saw that - I didn't think I was ignoring anything.
I don't recall the past (yeah well over a year ago) discussions saying that your staff reduction would be 50% compared to the 20% increase in individual staff added cost.
Which, you're right, is a huge win.
-
@Dashrender said:
I saw that - I didn't think I was ignoring anything.
I had misread the original post you had made, it was worded oddly.
-
@Dashrender said:
I don't recall the past (yeah well over a year ago) discussions saying that your staff reduction would be 50% compared to the 20% increase in individual staff added cost.
50% is kind of the assumption. I don't know of any shop first hand that was not way better than that, but assuming I'm only seeing really good UNIX shops. In the real world I tend to see closer to 80% reduction, but I don't think you will see that in shops converting from one to the other. You need to change a lot of underlying assumptions before you can hit those kinds of numbers.
