Comparison of Linux/unix and Windows Xp

Introduction

When an organization decides to invest in an operating system, there are many considerations to take into account. Cost-benefit analysis would play a large part in making such a decision. Market share could also play a part. A company, whose products are more readily available and supported, might seem like a more solid platform to go with. On the, other hand, market share is not all telling, and in some cases can hide the best kept Information Technology secrets. Another item an organization will take into account when making these decisions would be hardware requirements. Understanding exactly what will be required to run the operating system is absolutely necessary to make an informed decision. Other items to consider might include file systems supported, file processing, and backup capabilities. Programming and application software availability is another important feature that would play a role in such a decision.

This paper will discuss how the Windows XP and Linux/UNIX operating systems perform in terms of cost and market share. This paper will compare and contrast the two operating systems in the file processing, programming capabilities, user interface, and application software availability. The differences between the Windows XP and Linux/UNIX will be outlined, comparing and contrasting the two operating systems. The team will draw our conclusions from examination of a sample case where a decision is required between a Windows or Linux/UNIX architecture for a 500 person system.

Cost

Determining costs in the world of Unix/Linux with its mixture of proprietary and open source applications can be difficult. This is especially true when compared to Windows XP, which is so widely distributed. In the end the cost is primarily in the service, rather than in the product, and comparisons need to take long-term issues of maintenance and support into account.

In real situations, the makeup of total cost of ownership is unique, depending upon an extremely wide variety of factors, which include:

* Overall size of networks or systems in comparison.

* Application mix.

* Processor type, cost, and configuration.

* Upgrade requirements.

* Upgrade policy (and logic).

* Cost of administrators for the various environments (including local hiring costs and continuing training requirements).

* Number of systems per administrator, and other tasks that an administrator can perform.

* Efficiency of operation.

* User training costs.

* Software installation and configuration costs, including license and certification.

* Excess costs added by license (Microsoft's new licensing scheme demands a license for every processor THAT COULD RUN WINDOWS, which would also include most Linux units, as well).

* Software maintenance costs.

* Software upgrade costs.

* General support costs.

One total cost of ownership comparison study was undertaken by the Robert Frances Group in July of 2002 using real-world conditions. The study compared Linux, Solaris, and Windows. In comparing Linux and Windows, it tended to verify the consensus over the past several years that Windows is about twice as expensive as Linux in total cost of ownership (Dooley, 2004, p.17).

Another 2002 survey, by Cybersource, compared Linux and Windows in a 250 workstation network, finding that while salaries for staff running Linux are higher per annum ($376,000) compared to Microsoft ($345,000), the cost is more than offset by Microsoft licensing costs, at $282,973.50 against Linux' $879.95. The study assumed a three-year period. Linux also achieved savings through reduced downtime and improved performance. Results are given in Table 1 (Dooley, 2004, p.21).

Table 1. Linux and Open Source vs. Microsoft Comparison

Microsoft Solution Linux/Open Source Savings by using Linux Savings Percentage

Existing Hardware and Infrastructure used $733,973 $482,580 $251,393 34.26%

New Hardware and Infrastructure Purchased $1,042,110 $790,717 $251,393 24.69%

Source: Cybersource (Dooley, 2004, p.21)

To break this down for the desktop or home user, Linux is very cost-effective or even free while Windows can be expensive for the user. Microsoft allows a single copy of Windows to be used on only one computer and starting with Windows XP, Microsoft uses software to enforce this rule. In contrast, Linux, once purchased, can be run on any number of computers for no additional charge.

Cost estimates for the upgrade edition of Windows XP Home Edition is approximately $100; XP Professional, $200; the "full" version of XP Home, $200; and the full version of XP Professional is $300. Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition with 10 Client licenses is approximately $1,100. Wal-Mart while saving approximately $100 on the cost of Windows bundled into its computers, can sell an inexpensive Windows XP computer for approximately $300. However, it can sell a comparable Linux based computer for $200 (without a monitor).

Market Share

On the server front, UNIX has been closing in on Microsoft's market share for a few years. In 1999, Linux scooted past Novell's Netware to become the number two server operating system behind Windows NT. In 2001, the market share for the Linux operating system was 25% and other UNIX systems weighed in at approximately 12%. On the client front, as has been the case for a number of years, Microsoft is currently dominating the operating system market with over 90% of the market share.

Because of Microsoft's aggressive marketing practices, millions of users who have no in-depth knowledge of an operating system apart from seeing the branded icon when they turn on their machine, have been using the Windows operating systems installed in their purchased their PCs. Still, many others are not aware that there are operating systems on the market apart from Windows.

In the computing market, Windows is the most commonly used proprietary operating system, while Linux is the most commonly used open source operating system. Most desktop PCs are pre-installed with the operating system from Microsoft