From: "Adam Flinton" 


"Geo."  wrote in message news:3e188e18{at}w3.nls.net...
> I thought we were talking about the bullshit TCO study that says unix
admins
> can handle 1000 machines but a windows admin is limited to 10? MS didn't
> fund it and it had nothing to do with initial cost so I'm kinda confused
> what you are going on about now.
>
> Geo.
>

That 1000 thing is bullsh*t & frankly how could someone admin 1000
machines unless it was a cluster is beyond me. It could be done at a high
level like centralised user management etc but nuts & bolts admin'ing
(e.g. more disk space required) would still occur & at a frequency that
if the comp
**needed** 1000 servers they could definitely afford to hire 2 admins..per
shift....

However what happens if you need 1 admin for 10 Windows servers but 1 admin
for 15 Linux servers? At the SoHo level (i.e. sub 10 servers) all is equal
( one each).

At the higher level it would only be a factor as server number increase

i.e.
2 Linux admins (LA) = 3 Windows admins (WA) 8 LA = 12 WA etc.

i.e. only at the large server numbers does it really kick in however....it
would affect any comparative server "TCO" figure (which ever way
it is (i.e. in Window's favour or Linux's).

So given lower initial costs + the same h/w costs & possibly (though
not proven) a lower running cost....

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4