Submitted for your consideration: There are some legitimate TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) reasons not to use Linux in the enterprise, or in smaller IT shops. That is, there are cases where it makes sense to use Windows or perhaps Solaris, or another vendor's Unix-on a per-application, server, project or group basis-or even, if feasible, for the entire enterprise.\n\nLet's look at some TCO reasons for staying away from the Penguin, even if it means hanging with the Borg-rather, sticking with a Microsoft Windows-based IT environment-or considering a vendor Unix. Think the argument in this article is a load of hooey? Believe that it's the most accurate examination of the Linux in the enterprise? Be sure to read the other viewpoint in Seven Financial Reasons to Use Linux in the Enterprise.The Distro with the Infringe on TopPatent infringement concerns could be an unquantifiable future TCO item for using Linux because Microsoft could potentially sue companies where there aren't indemnification deals in place, like Novell or SuSE."That's a potential exposure a company will face if they implement Linux themselves, as opposed to Windows, or a proprietary Unix," says Andi Mann, senior analyst at Enterprise Management Associates (EMA) (enterprisemanagement.com), an independent industry analyst and consulting firm 100 percent dedicated to the IT management market.Is this potential future cost enough of a TCO factor to sway companies into staying with Microsoft...or redirecting them toward, say, Solaris? Linux Licenses May Actually Cost MoreIn her January 2007 report, "Microsoft, Sun Strike Back by Making OSes Low-Cost Alternatives to Linux," Laura DiDio, a research fellow at analyst firm The Yankee Group (yankeegroup.com), states that proprietary operating systems from Microsoft and from Sun "may cost less than comparable Linux offerings from Red Hat and Novell"-10 percent to 100 percent less, according to DiDio, depending on the OS configuration and length of licensing contract. DiDio's comparisons are for Windows Server 2003, and Solaris 10, versus Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and SuSE Linux.RELATED STORIES \nSeven Financial Reasons to Use Linux in the Enterprise\nSeven Financial Reasons Not to Use Windows\n5 Business Reasons for Adopting the Windows Platform\nEight Financial Reasons Why You Should Use MacOS\nSeven Reasons to Think Twice About Macs in the Enterprise\nWindows vs. Linux vs. OS X: CIO John Halamka Tests Ubuntu\nDivining the Future of the Client Desktop Environment\n\u00a0\n\nBuilt-In\/Bundled Features Can Save Serious Money Most Linux distros come chock-full of free goodies, of course. But for the money you spend with Microsoft, you can get an impressive amount and range of valuable gifts and prizes-sorry, tools and services.For example, notes Yankee Group's DiDio, "If you buy Microsoft's Software Assurance, you pay a premium for it, but you get a lot. You get vouchers for free training. And you get access to online asset management for tracking licenses so you don't overbuy or underbuy, which can be a big saver. You get big discounts on home-usage rights."Microsoft's Software Assurance can be worthwhile for even a very small business, with as few as 10 people, providing thousands of dollars of savings, according to DiDio-"and for a large enterprise, it can be good for millions of dollars."Also, reports DiDio, "The improved patch management tools in Windows reduced the time spent by network administrators by an average of 50 percent to 80 percent, at no incremental cost. And Microsoft provides its Windows Server Update Services (WSUS) for free. You could eat up another 20 percent to 25 percent of your IT budget purchasing third-party tools like management and performance enhancers for Linux that are already included in Windows licensing."Windows isn't the only Linux alternative with useful goodies, either.If you're planning to use virtualization or virtualization-like environments on your servers, "To do virtualization with VMware can often add a thousand dollars or more to the cost of a CPU per server," says Marc Hamilton, vice president of Solaris marketing at Sun Microsystems. Solaris, Hamilton points out, includes Sun's Containers virtualization facility, at no additional cost.If You're Not Well-Equipped, Windows Will Cost LessFor acquisition costs, Linux systems may often be the price-beater. In his February 2006 study, "Get the Truth on Linux Management,"EMA's Mann saw acquisition costs-not including support-for Linux 10 percent that of Windows. For example, "For a 100-user Web application environment, a full Windows environment would be $60,000, while a fully open-source software one would be $6,000."\nHowever, that doesn't include the costs of management tools. "In my opinion, it's easier to administer a pure Microsoft environment," says Mann. "That's why having Linux management tools make the difference... It's recognized that without management tools, Linux is harder to manage."\nIf you're not managing the server environment well-if you don't have the right management tools-Windows will be an easier system to manage and less expensive," states Mann. "Things to manage provisioning software distribution, patch management... There are a lot more sophisticated management tools for non-Linux environments, specifically Windows, also Unix and Solaris."\nTools for managing Linux and Windows can cost anywhere from zero to hundreds of thousands of dollars for systems like IBM Tivoli or CA Unicenter. "But for smaller environments, cheaper tools will do," Mann acknowledges.\nLinux Staff May Cost More\n"There's a significant difference in expertise level for staff to support the operating system," says Chris de Herrera, who runs the TabletPCTalk (TabletPCtalk.com) site, and an experienced small biz IT manager. "Windows needs less, Linux needs more."\nWith Windows, says de Herrera, "Every application is already precompiled, so once it's installed, generally it will run. With Linux, that may not be the case. Plus there are some special requirements for staff to understand and accomplish, since they are having to compile on a regular basis. They need to understand source code management and versioning, which is like DLL hell. Some apps require certain versions of libraries that conflict with other apps."\nThe experience difference, according to de Herrera, "starts bordering on a junior developer, not just someone doing system administration. Plus, the update process for installations in Linux can be somewhat complicated, depending on what update methods are being used. If you choose applications that don't support them, you have to do it by hand."\n"Linux use requires a staff that's familiar with Linux integration and infrastructure," agrees Tom Henderson, president of ExtremeLabs (extremelabs.com). Henderson is an integrator with 25 years of experience (and principal operating systems reviewer for Network World (networkworld.com), an IDG subsidiary, as is CIO.com).\n"If you don't have staff familiar with Linux's foibles-and there are a goodly number of them-then you'll need to either train staff or acquire talent," says Henderson. "Linux talent comes at occasionally very high prices for seasoned Unix\/Linux\/HP-UX\/Solaris professionals that can manage the job."\nAccording to EMA's Mann, "Linux administrators are more expensive; there are more Linux administrators making over $77,000-about 22 percent, versus 17 percent of Windows administrators." \nNon-Linux Unixen May Be a Better Deal\nIt's easy to forget that Linux isn't the only non-Windows game in town for X86 hardware-Sun's Solaris, for example.\n"There are some very hard costs around support for Solaris versus a commercial Linux distro," according to Sun's Hamilton. Solaris 10 costs, Hamilton says, are typically somewhat lower, like 10 percent to 50 percent or more versus Red Hat Linux.\nSome of this can derive from specific features, such as Solaris' Fault Management Architecture. If a memory DIMM fails, "Solaris 10 will automatically reconfigure without requiring a reboot." While memory DIMMs don't fail that often, "If you're running a website with 100 or 1,000 servers, it can become a big concern," says Hamilton. For example, if you have 200 servers, at an off-site data center, "That could mean sending somebody in once a day."\nDrivers, They Said\n"Third-party support for hardware and drivers can be a concern, and Windows is often ahead here," says EMA's Mann.\n"Hardware compatibility concerns aren't unique to Linux," points out Stephen O'Grady, principal analyst of Red Monk (redmonk.com), an analyst firm built on open source. Linux's hardware story is getting better, he says, but there are still issues, especially on the desktop side.\n"Linux can suffer from a big cost when you look at drivers for anything but the most common items," says Alan Radding, an analyst at IndependentAssessment.com, who recently conducted a TCO analysis for retail systems. "If you're going to attach anything like credit card readers or point-of-sale devices, the cost of drivers can be a problem."\nThe Cost to Get There May Keep You Where You Are\nOf course, TCO that ignores the cost to get there isn't really a "total."\n"Key applications, such as Microsoft Exchange Server, can have high conversion costs, since e-mail, services and apps built on Exchange may need to be replaced, modified or reintegrated in a smooth transition," points out ExtremeLabs' Henderson.\nApplication availability can also be a showstopper, points out Red Monk's O'Grady. "There are decades of software built for Windows servers and desktops that aren't available for Linux or OS X, especially for small businesses. Something as simple as QuickBooks isn't available for the Linux platform."\nThe Answer Is Clear: It Depends\nAvoiding Linux may make the most TCO sense. Or it may not.\nThe TCO consensus appears to be, "It depends"-on the nature of your IT environment, your industry, how much you're prepared to invest in the associated tools and training, how Linux\/open-source savvy you already are. \nOther factors may influence or drive the decision more than TCO. For example, open-source projects reduce up-front licensing costs, which make experimental deployments less expensive in their early stages; needs for "agility and flexibility"; and ROI trumping TCO. Further muddying the bean-counter waters, of course, are to what extent companies have meaningful TCO data, and that TCO data from the past will accurately predict future TCO decisions.\nAdmin costs may be a wash. But the costs of licensing, support, and ancillary and management tools, plus associated support, training and freebies, may make Microsoft or a vendor Unix your best TCO bet. Driver availability, may also steer you around the Penguin, or specific features may make Windows, Solaris or something else the TCO winner.\n\nDaniel P. Dern is an independent technology writer. He runs\nWindows on his desktop and notebook, but still uses his shell accounts...and has written lots positive stuff about Linux and open source, and dined with Eric Raymond.