From: "Adam Flinton" 

Humm....OK then why are you comparing RedHat stronghold etc vs Windows
perpetual licence?
Why not choose a std Red Hat purchase (much as the Windows puchase is a std
Win2KS purchase)?

What is the perpetual licence cost for Red Hat? How does that compare to
the perpetual licence for Win2K3S WE?

Adam

"Rich"  wrote in message news:3e6946db{at}w3.nls.net...
   And so we come full circle.  Let's exclude what you pay to EDS or IBMGS
even though it likely dwarfs the cost of the software.  You have still
failed to refute or even respond to an annual subscription for red hat's
solution costing more than four to six times the cost of a perpetual
license for the Microsoft solution.

Rich

  "Adam Flinton"  wrote in message
news:3e694375$1{at}w3.nls.net...

  EDS, IBMGS et al will hold the relationship with MS or Red Hat that's why
  you pay em.

  Adam



  "Rich"  wrote in message news:3e694186{at}w3.nls.net...
     Can you remind us why you replied to this thread if you have nothing to
  add?

  Rich

    "Adam Flinton"  wrote in message
  news:3e693e89$1{at}w3.nls.net...
    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