From: "Robert Comer" 

> If you are just making assumptions you should state that you are giving an
opinion based on assumptions and not making a statement based on facts.<

As I have stated before, when I say something I am stating an opinion, no
more, no less, if you want to take everything I say as fact  (or false
fact,) that is your choice, but I have no energy to argue such.  This is,
after all, a discussion group, not a scientific journal of some kind.

>It will avoid having your false statements pointed out.

You haven't pointed out any...

>If you care about facts, and I'm not sure you do, see
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/overview/default.mspx.
<

You're wrong, I'm tired of reading Microsoft propaganda like that.

>   As for your comments regarding the web edition's suitability for
something other than web server, maybe you should take a moment and ask
what the likely purpose is for something called the web edition.<

Well duh -- I was comparing it to Linux and I can do cheaper and more with
Linux, that's all I said.

>   In regard to free support, do you mean posting to a newsgroup or some
infamous IRC channel?  Is this what you use to support your critical systems?<

More than just newsgroups, but, that's how I support all our systems, even
the AS/400.  To phrase it another way, we have no software support
contracts on anything in my department. (Not saying I wouldn't want them
necessarily, but they didn't have sw support contracts under the old
manager...)

No IRC or IM though, I loath that kind of thing...

- Bob Comer


"Rich"  wrote in message news:3e681879{at}w3.nls.net...
   If you are just making assumptions you should state that you are giving
an opinion based on assumptions and not making a statement based on facts.
It will avoid having your false statements pointed out.  If you care about
facts, and I'm not sure you do, see
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/overview/default.mspx.

   As for your comments regarding the web edition's suitability for
something other than web server, maybe you should take a moment and ask
what the likely purpose is for something called the web edition.

   In regard to free support, do you mean posting to a newsgroup or some
infamous IRC channel?  Is this what you use to support your critical systems?

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