Whether you are a company that
is still planning to deploy servers or currently have servers, Linux has
compelling benefits. We will show that aside from costing less, it is also
faster and more reliable.
Save from 50% to 80% by using or
switching to Linux. In terms of pesos, a typical Windows setup will cost you at
least P150,000.00 for the server alone. For every computer connecting to the
server, that is an additional P3,000.00 per Client Access License (CAL). You
also need a license for its operating system and will cost you at least
P7,000.00 per computer. Let’s say you have ten computers and a server, that is a
total of P250,000.00.
And that is not the end of it.
Let’s say you want an email server, you have to spend additionally at least
P70,000.00. Database server? Add P300,000. And so on and so forth.
By using Linux, you only pay
significantly less. Why? Because Linux is free and comes with all the necessary
software you need. You only pay for our expertise. A similar setup described
above would only cost around P100,000.00.
Although opinions in the
industry vary, there is a general consensus that there is little difference in
performance between Linux and Windows. In fact, in most internet-based servers
(web, email, etc.), Linux outperforms Windows on most benchmarks.
Stability and Reliability
Linux can run for years without
needing to be restarted. In fact, most Internet servers run Linux, and they
rarely ever need to restart. Of course, with any major update, it's inevitable
that a system should reboot to ensure it is operating properly. The point is, if
you use Linux, you could theoretically leave your system running for obscene
periods of time and never worry about those spontaneous reboots. The kind you
get with Windows.
Myth: Windows only gets attacked
most because it's such a big target, and if Linux use (or indeed OS X use) grew
then so would the number of attacks.
Fact: When it comes to web
servers, the biggest target is Apache, the Internet's server of choice. Attacks
on Apache are nevertheless far fewer in number, and cause less damage. And in
some case Apache-related attacks have the most serious effect on Windows
machines. Attacks are of course aimed at Windows because of the numbers of
users, but its design makes it a much easier target, and much easier for an
attack to wreak havoc. Windows' widespread (and often unnecessary) use of
features such as RPC meanwhile adds vulnerabilities that really need not be
there. Linux's design is not vulnerable in the same ways, and no matter how
successful it eventually becomes it simply cannot experience attacks to similar
levels, inflicting similar levels of damage, to Windows.
Myth: Open Source Software is
inherently dangerous because its source code is widely available, whereas
Windows 'blueprints' are carefully guarded by Microsoft.
Fact: This 'inherent danger'
clearly has not manifested itself in terms of actual attacks. Windows-specific
viruses, Trojans, worms and malicious programs exist in huge numbers, so if one
gives any credence at all to this claim, one would do better to phrase it 'Open
Source Software ought to be more dangerous'. But the claim itself hinges on the
view - rejected by reputable security professionals - that obscurity aids
security. Obscurity/secrecy can also make it more difficult for the vendors
themselves to identify vulnerabilities in their own products, and can lead to
security issues being neglected because they are not widely-known. The Open
Source model, on the other hand, facilitates widespread review and makes it
easier to identify and correct flaws. Modular design principles support this,
while the overall approach is far more in line with security industry thinking
than is 'security through obscurity.'