Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

Windows cheaper to patch than OSS

Filed under
Linux
Microsoft

A Microsoft-commissioned study -- conducted by its business partner Wipro -- outlined the main areas of so-called "cost savings" by using Windows.

A survey of 90 organisations revealed that Windows database servers cost 33 percent less to patch than their OSS counterparts. Respondents said on average, Windows clients are 14 percent cheaper to patch.

The findings were criticised by several quarters, with some critics dubbing them unrealistic and outdated.

These sorts of studies can't be used as a real-world guide to the cost of patching or maintaining applications, said Frost & Sullivan Australia security analyst James Turner. "All organisations have different needs," he added.

"ROI [return on investment] and TCO [total cost of ownership] figures should be taken as a guide -- they are the vendor's estimates," said Turner.

Paul Kangro, Novell solutions manager for Asia Pacific, highlighted several problems in the research.

Although the study was conducted last year, it referred to problems faced by administrators during 2003 -- before significant improvements were made to Linux patching tools, Kangro said. "We didn't have tools like Xen for Linux then. When I patch my Linux box I don't need to bring it up and down any number of times."

There was also no mention of costs associated with rebooting systems after a patch is applied. "If I am patching a Windows box I typically need to find a time where I can bring it offline and reboot it. That is not mentioned anywhere in this report, which I find rather interesting," said Kangro.

However, Sean Moshir, chief executive of application patch specialist PatchLink, said that Microsoft's patches are in fact cheaper to apply than open-source platforms.

The open source community has retaliated with its own research showing proprietary software is more expensive to use and maintain.

Survey participants comprised companies in the United States and Western Europe with between 2,500 and 113,000 employees.

Full Story.

More in Tux Machines

Linux Kernel: Chrome OS, Direct Rendering Manger (DRM) and Char/Misc

  • Various Chrome OS Hardware Support Improvements Make It Into Linux 5.3 Mainline

    Various Chrome OS hardware platform support improvements have made it into the Linux 5.3 kernel for those after running other Linux distributions on Chromebooks and the like as well as reducing Google's maintenance burden with traditionally carrying so much material out-of-tree.

  • The Massive DRM Pull Request With AMDGPU Navi Support Sent In For Linux 5.3

    At 479,818 lines of new code and just 36,145 lines of code removed while touching nearly two thousand files, the Direct Rendering Manger (DRM) driver updates for Linux 5.3 are huge. But a big portion of that line count is the addition of AMD Radeon RX 5000 "Navi" support and a good portion of that in turn being auto-generated header files. Navi support is ready for the mainline Linux kernel!

  • Char/Misc Has A Bit Of Changes All Over For Linux 5.3

    The char/misc changes with each succeeding kernel release seem to have less changes to the character device subsystem itself and more just a random collection of changes not fitting in other subsystems / pull requests. With Linux 5.3 comes another smothering of different changes.

today's howtos

Android Leftovers

Spectre Mitigation Performance Impact Benchmarks On AMD Ryzen 3700X / 3900X Against Intel

AMD Zen 2 processors feature hardware-based mitigations for Spectre V2 and Spectre V4 SSBD while remaining immune to the likes of Meltdown and Zombieload. Here are some benchmarks looking at toggling the CPU speculative execution mitigations across various Intel and AMD processors. For this round of testing are some mitigation comparison tests on the Core i7 8700K, Core i9 9900K, Core i9 7960X, Ryzen 7 2700X, Ryzen 9 2950X, Ryzen 9 2990WX, Ryzen 7 3700X, and Ryzen 9 3900X. On each processor, the tests were done when booting the Linux 5.2 kernel with the default/out-of-the-box mitigations for Spectre/Meltdown/Foreshadow/Zombieload (all CPU speculative execution mitigations to date) and then again when making use of the "mitigations=off" kernel parameter for disabling these run-time-toggleable mitigations. Basically the tests are the equivalent of mitigations=off vs. mitigations=auto (default) comparison. Read more