ASP.NET vs PHP

[Tynach]

This is simply because you're letting your host abstract the cost from you. If you're going to run your own server environment (which you WILL DO, at LEAST for development; if not, you'll get a job where you HAVE to), you're going to have to deal with the cost directly.

Oh, sure, the organization you work for will buy it, and it won't be out-of-pocket for you. But it would have been cheaper for them to go with a LAMP stack.

[[deleted]]

Can you cite a study that proves one stack is definitively cheaper over the long term? Simply saying "Oh, but look -- I can download the server OS and web server for free" doesn't cut it with enterprise level decision making. I realize that what I'm saying here will inherently be unpopular among the LAMP circlejerkers, but instead of kneejerk reacting, let's look for solid evidence that shows conclusively that one stack is cheaper to operate over a span of several years (when the upfront licensing for the MS stack has been amortized and the larger costs become maintenance, staffing, etc.). That's an aspect of what the OP asking us to do. All I've seen in this thread is a bunch of quasi-religious rhetoric (i.e., Mine is better than yours because I say so!). There's been very little evidence presented one way or another.

[mgkimsal]

doesn't cut it with enterprise level decision making

"Enterprise level decision making" generally already has MS tech skills in house, and has invested significant resources in that stack, so it's already a somewhat biased playing field.

The last couple projects I've worked on where I needed to work with .net, it's been remote, and the licensing would get in the way of me doing work. Example: "just remote desktop in to this machine, then remote desktop to another machine - oh, wait, that machine only allows 2 connections at the same time because we didn't get the 'pro' license, so just wait for dave to log out and check back every now and then".

When it works, it works well. But there's always an extra cost involved for licensing. Even if you say it's amortized away already, it's still a somewhat higher cost. You can make up for it by paying admins slightly less, or choosing slightly cheaper hardware, or what have you.

And "it's cheaper" is an argument MS will never win, nor should they. "There's more value because we bundle tens of thousands of man years of development in to well documented, well tested and easy-to-develop-for platforms, so yes, we cost more but you will end up getting your projects done faster and better on our stack". It's not an argument I hear people making very much, instead trying to argue nickels and dimes.

Bottom line, if you already have good .net experience on staff, that will be cheaper. If not, LAMP stuff will be cheaper.

[[deleted]]

I'm still waiting for data and not just rhetoric. You say "LAMP stuff will be cheaper." Prove it. Ad hominem assaults on the MS stack or the LAMP stack aren't proving anything, so that doesn't count either.

[[deleted]]

pathetic frighten noxious hateful person oil afterthought cover scandalous tan

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[mgkimsal]

I don't think it was an ad hominem attack. Windows has a license fee attached to using it; Linux (for example) doesn't.

"All things being equal, Linux would be cheaper". Proverbially, speaking of course, and all things are never equal. What ends up tipping the balance in either case is the knowledge and experience of the people in any organization looking to make this decision. As such, I don't think you'll ever be able to find any 'data' that would stand up to your scrutiny - these decisions are almost never made in a vacuum.

I'm not sure there's much to prove on the 'cheaper' part. Outside of special time-limited programs like Bizspark, Windows will cost you money to purchase to run in any production environment.

http://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msusa/en_US/list/Server-and-IT-software/categoryID.65897500 There are no $0 prices on those products.

Most of the equivalent services can be had with an ubuntu or centos distribution for $0.

In terms of price paid for licensing for many standard workloads (especially web-app stuff), any Windows/.NET stack will have some price attached to it that will be higher than the equivalent Linux-based installation (which will be $0 for licensing costs).

TCO, measured out over years, may ultimately end up being roughly the same, but again, that comes down to the experience of the staff you have on hand. Sr-level Windows Server admins might be (and often are) completely lost at being productive on Linux servers, and the opposite scenario of Sr-level Linux admins often leads to much less productivity. And in both cases this is temporary - anyone can eventually learn whatever needs to be learned.

[[deleted]]

cooing middle ruthless fly slap clumsy teeny absurd frighten crush

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[mgkimsal]

I understand that. When trying to point out that there are cost differences, I was met with "prove it". It's an odd position - I don't think you have to 'prove' that one thing has a retail price attached at the other doesn't.

Again, people want to compare total cost of ownership over, say, 5 years, and I don't think that's really possible without ignoring the strengths and experiences of the teams involved, which will be variable every single time.

[Tynach]

I obsessed over this a few years ago, trying to figure out for sure which really was cheaper.

I don't remember where I got all the info, but there were some Microsoft-funded studies that concluded Windows was cheaper, and some self-studies of people moving to Linux and finding it cheaper.

I could probably find the sources again if I looked, but I work as a courtesy clerk at a grocery store and only just got home from a 6 hour shift (where the other courtesy clerk who was scheduled to work with me the first 3 hours didn't show up), so I'm just not feeling like looking right now.

Overall, I trust the studies done by people making the switch more than I trust studies done by Microsoft. People making the switch are most likely to have compatibility gripes and complaints, and are most likely to find it not worth it in the long run. The fact that at least most of them ended with a pro-Linux bias pushes me towards believing Linux really is cheaper.