Dick Federle is a highly experienced IT systems manager and architect, having designed and supervised many custom development jobs. He currently works for OTB Solutions, a consultancy based in Seattle. Previously, he managed Ernst & Youngs Business Architecture practice.
Along the way, Federle noticed an odd phenomenon in the world of IT. He's seen many managers make one of their most critical decisions whether to opt for Windows or Linux &3151 on strictly personal grounds.
Many choose between Windows and Linux based on a gut feeling &3151 in an abstract, almost philosophical manner. This innermost intuition is not the way to go in what should be a straight-ahead business decision.
"There are any number of [IT] shops probably the majority, quite frankly that have a religious opinion about whether they should be on one platform or another," Federle said. "It really has little or nothing to do with the reality of the virtues of any of the platforms."
On the surface, managers carefully consider the Holy Grail of the platform debate: total cost of ownership, or TCO as it's known in the reams of reports that very rationally detail Linux vs. Windows. Then they weigh issues like security, reliability and flexibility.
But after all that, the gut kicks in. These managers, "read all the analyses, and all the articles, and they always boil it down to dollars and cents and everything else. But I wouldn't be surprised if fewer than 50 percent of the people out there are actually making an architectural decision based on business reasons," Federle says.
Instead, the Windows-Linux decision is driven by factors like whether "the CIO loves Windows, or hates Gates."
One Mans ChoiceAs for Federle himself, he attempts to remove the religious elements from the Windows-Linux debate. Based on his assessment of several key factors, he places himself in the Windows camp.
This is especially true when the decision between platforms takes into account initial development costs and ongoing maintenance effort. In this case, Windows is surely less expensive in his view.
"If you look at the Linux platform, its running on the Intel box, so your infrastructure cost isnt going to be that much different [than Windows], he says.
However, he notes that Windows allows custom development to be significantly less expensive because of the way Microsoft is commoditizing development.
"Theyre doing the same thing in the development world that they did in the desktop world, he says. "On the development side, the level of technical expertise that it takes to build a meaningful line of business applications is being reduced significantly.
The result: Fewer highly paid programmers are needed to design a companys IT infrastructure.
For example, Federle's consultancy recently built a Windows-based application that handles a blizzard of data flow for a large insurance company. Using complex ranking criteria, the app presents paid claims on the company can perform post-payment audits. It processes about 1 million claims per month.
As advanced as this application is, "we did not write a line of C# or anything above the database level, Federle says.
Furthermore, the Windows development platform enables companies to update applications themselves, eliminating the need to to hire an outside consultant. "You go in there, and you check the box saying 'I want to display field X, and I want to sort on field Y, and I want to group and total by this, and thats all just configuration buttons.
In contrast to the Linux OS, the Windows platforms easy configurability "reduces [the clients] future burden on the IT resources, he says.
Trillions of Transactions
Some industry observers, pointing to the countless bugs that bedevil Windows, claim the Microsoft platform is less secure than its Linux counterpart.
But Federle disagrees. "The idea that a platform is more secure by having the code actually visible to someone whos a hacker is an interesting concept.
He points out that virus writers can only create malicious code for machines they have access to. So less-common platforms appear safer only by virtue of their rarity. "The Linux and Unix platforms and the IBM mainframe are no more secure than the Windows platform, but someone whos writing a virus doesnt have access to an IBM mainframe.
Virus writers try to disrupt as many people as possible to get as much attention as they can. Theyre not targeting the biggest communities when they target Linux, Unix or Mac users. Hence, Federle points out, these users are attacked less but that doesnt mean their OSes are safer than Windows.
"There are people who say, 'Im not going to put my mission critical on the Microsoft platform because its not stable enough. Well, Verizon runs all of its billings systems on it and who knows how many trillions of transactions that handles.
Cost at High Volumes
In some cases, IT managers opt for Linux because they feel the open source model enables them to build out their systems without being limited by a proprietary model. Open source means lower license fees and fewer restrictions, or so the thinking goes.
But this belief is a fallacy, in Federles view. There are, he estimates, some 25,000 ISVs for the Microsoft platform, including the ones who also develop Linux software. Such an immense pool of developers provides great flexibility for a Windows-based enterprise.
Moreover, "Saying the cost of [Linux] software is 'free, or its 'freeware, well, no if youre going to run it in production you have to go buy the MySQL licenses, you have to buy the Oracle licenses. And while Red Hat software is "dirt cheap, it isnt free, he notes.
Windows server software is quite modestly priced, he says. One of the server software licensees is $3,000, a low sum, and if companies buy in bulk this can be lowered to approximately $1,500. An enterprise the size of, say, Boeing, might spend no more than $300,000 to $500,000, a minor cost given its corporate girth. "Theyre not going to save much money by going over to Linux.
Todays IT infrastructures, Federle notes, are highly heterogeneous. Windows sits next to Linux, which sometimes lives on a network with Unix or an IBM mainframe.
"If youre talking about a large organization, the likelihood that theyre going to be able to run a homogeneous environment is pretty slim, he says.
Yet this heterogeneity comes at a cost. Certain resources arent as easily leveraged when multiple OSes are cobbled together. Consequently, "you want to keep it as simple as you can, and you want to stick to your rules as much as you can.
And you want to (and this is where it gets tricky) make your decisions based on sound business principles rather than emotional preferences. Its best to avoid religion when choosing your operating system if possible.
This article was originally published on Datamation.