From: "Adam Flinton" 

Red Hat are but one distrib.

Adam




"Rich"  wrote in message news:3e6a49b8{at}w3.nls.net...
   I didn't include a red hat perpetual license because they don't have a
non-subscription server product.  Otherwise I would have.

Rich

  "Adam Flinton"  wrote in message
news:3e69c187{at}w3.nls.net...
  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