From: "Adam Flinton" 

I'm not making any claims. I am stating what I know.

Re support for a production web server...go ask Yahoo or Amazon what they
pay. I could tell you about the ones I know such as ocado
(http://www.ocado.com/) but frankly I'm not going to coz I don't have their
permission to do so.

Adam

"Rich"  wrote in message news:3e6933f0{at}w3.nls.net...
   You are the one making claims.  Spell out the support level you believe
is necessary for a production web server and the cost of this support.
Remember we are discussing the claim that one solution is cheaper than
another where Red Hat's price for their linux plus stronghold solution
costs more than four to six times as much for a one year subscription than
Windows Server 2003 Web Edition costs for a perpetual license.

Rich

  "Adam Flinton"  wrote in message
news:3e692e38{at}w3.nls.net...
  What? EDS/CapGem/IBM GS Support or direct support from the distrib owner?

  Adam

  "Rich"  wrote in message news:3e68c854{at}w3.nls.net...
     OK.  How much does this cost?

  Rich
    "Adam Flinton"  wrote in message
  news:3e6854e1{at}w3.nls.net...


    I don't know any major comp (there may be some, I jus don't know them)
  which
    relies directly upon MS for support. EDS yes...CapGemini yes, IBM GS
    yes....direct MS support?

    However I do know a couple which do have a direct channel into the
distrib
    comp whose distrib they're using (in Europe Suse are especailly good at
    this).


    Adam


    Rich

      "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
    news:3e681017$1{at}w3.nls.net...
      >  Can you be specific instead of hot air and hand waving?

      I just stated my opinion, that's all. I'm not here to list out
  everything
      possible.

      >   It's well known that Linux has less functionality.

      I'm not so sure that can be said any more, but no matter I wasn't just
      talking overall OS functionality, but what you can do with that
specific
      version of Windows Server -- with no Cal's, that means no NT
    authentication,
      files serving, or print serving, and I assume no domain
capabilities --
      that's 4 areas that Windows is strong on and Linux needs to catch up,
  yet
    I
      can put together a Linux box that does all 5 of these things for a LOT
    less
      money.

      >If you want to roll your own it can cost less for Linux, assuming
your
    time
      is worth >nothing.

      There's actually a decent amount of free support out there, and you
  don't
      have to roll your own version, you can use someone's distribution.

      >If you want to use a supported version, like from RedHat, expect to
  spend
      much more for your annual subscription.  They will sell you a
  subscription
      to red hat linux advanced server for $1499 per year.<

      I would *never* pay Red Hat that much, they don't have enough to offer
      support wise.  I have spent that much on Microsoft products several
  times
      over up to now, but things are a changin.  I might add that Microsoft
is
      quite costly for aftermarket support and I don't buy that either.

      >If you want their supported enterprise level web server you are going
  to
      pay another $395 to $895 annually.  That's more than four to six times
    more
      expensive than the Windows Server 2003 solution.<

      I got it beat -- I have a server here at home (always learning) that
  cost
    $0
      for the Linux and about $200 for the hardware.  (I also have a Linux
    client
      PC here that I paid $99 for and I'm not going to do that again, at
least
    not
      this distribution.)

      - Bob Comer



      "Rich"  wrote in message news:3e67d5e4$1{at}w3.nls.net...
         Can you be specific instead of hot air and hand waving?

         It's well known that Linux has less functionality.  If you want to
  roll
      your own it can cost less for Linux, assuming your time is worth
  nothing.
      If you want to use a supported version, like from RedHat, expect to
  spend
      much more for your annual subscription.  They will sell you a
  subscription
      to red hat linux advanced server for $1499 per year.  If you want
their
      supported enterprise level web server you are going to pay another
$395
  to
      $895 annually.  That's more than four to six times more expensive than
  the
      Windows Server 2003 solution.

      Rich

        "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
      news:3e67b7d1{at}w3.nls.net...
        Less functionality, higher cost. Ease of use is a draw, but it would
    have
      to be even cheaper just for a web server.

        - Bob Comer


          "Rich"  wrote in message news:3e67b63f{at}w3.nls.net...
             By what criteria and how so?

          Rich

            "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
      news:3e67ae88$1{at}w3.nls.net...
            That's not good enough to compete with Linux.

            - Bob Comer


            "Geo."  wrote in message
      news:3e67a4e1$1{at}w3.nls.net...
            > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/61/29567.html
            >
            > There will be no price increases (as such) when Microsoft
ships
    its
      next
            > server OS, Windows Server 2003, on April 24th, but there will
be
  a
      new
            > budget-priced version of the product aimed squarely at the web
      server
            > market. Server 2003 Web Edition comes without client access
      licences, with
            a
            > 2gig limit on memory, 2-way SMP, and is $399.
            >
            >

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