From: "Robert Comer" 

>  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