From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0168_01C2E4C4.BE62E3B0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   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.
            >
            >





------=_NextPart_000_0168_01C2E4C4.BE62E3B0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   You are
the one making =
claims. =20
Spell out the support level you believe is necessary for a production = web server=20
and the cost of this support.  Remember we are discussing the
claim = that=20
one solution is cheaper than another where Red Hat's price for their = linux plus=20
stronghold solution costs more than four to six times as much for a one = year=20
subscription than Windows Server 2003 Web Edition costs for a perpetual=20
license.
 
Rich
 

  "Adam Flinton" <adam{at}NOSPAMsoftfab.com>">mailto:adam{at}NOSPAMsoftfab.com">adam{at}NOSPAMsoftfab.com>
=
wrote in=20
  message news:3e692e38{at}w3.nls.net...Wh=
at?=20
  EDS/CapGem/IBM GS Support or direct support from the distrib=20
  owner?Adam"Rich"
<{at}> wrote in message news:3e68c854{at}w3.nls.net...&nbs=
p; =20
  OK.  How much does this
cost?Rich  "Adam =
Flinton" <adam{at}NOSPAMsoftfab.com>">mailto:adam{at}NOSPAMsoftfab.com">adam{at}NOSPAMsoftfab.com>
=
wrote in=20
  messagenews:3e6854e1{at}w3.nls.net...=
 =20
  I don't know any major comp (there may be some, I jus don't know=20
  them)which  relies directly upon MS for
support. EDS=20
  yes...CapGemini yes, IBM GS  yes....direct MS =
support? =20
  However I do know a couple which do have a direct channel into the=20
  distrib  comp whose distrib they're using (in Europe Suse are =

  especailly good at 
this).  =
Adam =20
  Rich    "Robert
Comer" <bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>">mailto:bobcomer{at}mindspring.com">bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>
= wrote in=20
  message  news:3e681017$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
   =20
  >  Can you be specific instead of hot air and hand=20
  waving?    I just stated
my opinion, that's =
all. I'm=20
  not here to list outeverything   =20
  possible.   
>   It's well known =
that=20
  Linux has less
functionality.    I'm not so
=
sure that=20
  can be said any more, but no matter I wasn't =
just   =20
  talking overall OS functionality, but what you can do with that=20
  specific    version of Windows
Server -- with no =
Cal's,=20
  that means no NT 
authentication,    files =

  serving, or print serving, and I assume no domain capabilities=20
  --    that's 4 areas that Windows is
strong on and =
Linux=20
  needs to catch up,yet 
I    can put =
together a=20
  Linux box that does all 5 of these things for a LOT =20
  less   
money.    >If you =
want to=20
  roll your own it can cost less for Linux, assuming your =20
  time    is worth =
>nothing.   =20
  There's actually a decent amount of free support out there, and=20
  youdon't    have to roll
your own version, you =
can use=20
  someone's distribution.   
>If you want to =
use a=20
  supported version, like from RedHat, expect =
tospend   =20
  much more for your annual subscription.  They will sell you=20
  asubscription    to red
hat linux advanced =
server for=20
  $1499 per year.<   
I would *never* pay Red =
Hat that=20
  much, they don't have enough to
offer    support=20
  wise.  I have spent that much on Microsoft products=20
  severaltimes    over up to
now, but things are =
a=20
  changin.  I might add that Microsoft
is    =
quite=20
  costly for aftermarket support and I don't buy that=20
  either.    >If you
want their supported =
enterprise=20
  level web server you are
goingto    pay another =
$395 to=20
  $895 annually.  That's more than four to six times =20
  more    expensive than the Windows
Server 2003=20
  solution.<    I got
it beat -- I have a =
server here=20
  at home (always learning) thatcost  =
$0    for=20
  the Linux and about $200 for the hardware.  (I also have a=20
  Linux  client   
PC here that I paid $99 =
for and=20
  I'm not going to do that again, at least  =
not   =20
  this distribution.)    - Bob=20
 
Comer   
"Rich" <{at}> wrote in =
message news:3e67d5e4$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
      =20
  Can you be specific instead of hot air and hand=20
 
waving?      
It's well known =
that Linux=20
  has less functionality.  If you want =
toroll   =20
  your own it can cost less for Linux, assuming your time is=20
  worthnothing.    If you
want to use a supported =

  version, like from RedHat, expect
tospend    =
much more=20
  for your annual subscription.  They will sell you=20
  asubscription    to red
hat linux advanced =
server for=20
  $1499 per year.  If you want
their    =
supported=20
  enterprise level web server you are going to pay another=20
  $395to    $895
annually.  That's more than =
four to=20
  six times more expensive
thanthe    Windows =
Server 2003=20
  solution.    =
Rich     =20
  "Robert Comer" <bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>">mailto:bobcomer{at}mindspring.com">bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>
= wrote in=20
  message    news:3e67b7d1{at}w3.nls.net...&nbs=
p;    =20
  Less functionality, higher cost. Ease of use is a draw, but it =
would =20
  have    to be even cheaper just for a web=20
 
server.     
- Bob=20
 
Comer       
"Rich" =
<{at}>=20
  wrote in message news:3e67b63f{at}w3.nls.net...&nbs=
p;         =20
  By what criteria and how =
so?       =20
 
Rich         
=
"Robert=20
  Comer" <bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>">mailto:bobcomer{at}mindspring.com">bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>
= wrote in=20
  message    news:3e67ae88$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
         =20
  That's not good enough to compete with=20
 
Linux.         
- =
Bob=20
  =
Comer         
= "Geo."=20
  <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote =
in=20
  message    news:3e67a4e1$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
         =20
  > http://www.th" target="new">http://www.th=">http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/61/29567.html">http://www.th=
eregister.co.uk/content/61/29567.html    &nbs=
p;    =20
 
>         
> =
There will=20
  be no price increases (as such) when Microsoft ships =20
  its   =20
 
next         
> =
server OS,=20
  Windows Server 2003, on April 24th, but there will=20
  bea   =20
 
new         
>=20
  budget-priced version of the product aimed squarely at the=20
  web   =20
 
server         
> =
market.=20
  Server 2003 Web Edition comes without client =
access   =20
  licences, =
with         =20
 
a         
> 2gig =
limit on=20
  memory, 2-way SMP, and is=20
 
$399.         =20
 
>         =20
 
>

------=_NextPart_000_0168_01C2E4C4.BE62E3B0--

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