From: "Adam Flinton" 


"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.

Gone on then specify what you mean by that last comment. Can you be
specific instead of hot air and hand waving?


Adam

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