From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C2E41B.CC775DE0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   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.ms=
px.

   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.
        >
        >



------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C2E41B.CC775DE0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   If you
are just making =
assumptions you=20
should state that you are giving an opinion based on assumptions and not = making=20
a statement based on facts.  It will avoid having your false = statements=20
pointed out.  If you care about facts, and I'm not sure you do, see =
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/overview/de=
fault.mspx">http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/overvie=
w/default.mspx.
 
   As for
your comments =
regarding the web=20
edition's suitability for something other than web server, maybe you = should take=20
a moment and ask what the likely purpose is for something called the web =

edition.
 
   In regard
to free support, =
do you mean=20
posting to a newsgroup or some infamous IRC channel?  Is this what
= you use=20
to support your critical systems?
 
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 waving?I just =
stated=20
  my opinion, that's all. I'm not here to list out=20
 
everythingpossible.>  
It's well known that =
Linux has=20
  less functionality.I'm not so sure that can be said any more, =
but no=20
  matter I wasn't justtalking overall OS functionality, but what you =
can do=20
  with that specificversion of Windows Server -- with no Cal's, that =
means=20
  no NT authentication,files serving, or print serving, and I assume =
no=20
  domain capabilities --that's 4 areas that Windows is strong on and =
Linux=20
  needs to catch up, yet Ican put together a Linux box that does all =
5 of=20
  these things for a LOT lessmoney.>If
you want to roll =
your own=20
  it can cost less for Linux, assuming your timeis worth=20
  >nothing.There's actually a decent amount of
free support =
out=20
  there, and you don'thave to roll your own version, you can use =
someone's=20
  distribution.>If you want to use a supported
version, like =
from=20
  RedHat, expect to spendmuch more for your annual =
subscription.  They=20
  will sell you a subscriptionto red hat linux advanced server for =
$1499 per=20
  year.<I would *never* pay Red Hat that much,
they don't =
have enough=20
  to offersupport wise.  I have spent that much on Microsoft =
products=20
  several timesover up to now, but things are a changin.  I =
might add=20
  that Microsoft isquite costly for aftermarket support and I don't =
buy that=20
  either.>If you want their supported enterprise
level web =
server you=20
  are going topay another $395 to $895 annually.  That's more =
than four=20
  to six times moreexpensive than the Windows Server 2003=20
  solution.<I got it beat -- I have a server
here at home =
(always=20
  learning) that cost $0for the Linux and about $200 for the =
hardware. =20
  (I also have a Linux clientPC here that I paid $99 for and I'm not =
going=20
  to do that again, at least notthis
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 =
waving?  =20
  It's well known that Linux has less functionality.  If you want =
to=20
  rollyour own it can cost less for Linux, assuming your time is =
worth=20
  nothing.If you want to use a supported version, like from RedHat, =
expect=20
  to spendmuch more for your annual subscription.  They will =
sell you a=20
  subscriptionto red hat linux advanced server for $1499 per =
year.  If=20
  you want theirsupported enterprise level web server you are going =
to pay=20
  another $395 to$895 annually.  That's more than four to six =
times=20
  more expensive than theWindows Server 2003=20
  solution.Rich 
"Robert Comer" <bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>">mailto:bobcomer{at}mindspring.com">bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>
= wrote in=20
  messagenews:3e67b7d1{at}w3.nls.net...&nbs=
p; Less=20
  functionality, higher cost. Ease of use is a draw, but it would =
haveto be=20
  even cheaper just for a web server.  - Bob=20
  Comer   
"Rich" <{at}> wrote in message =
news:3e67b63f{at}w3.nls.net...&nbs=
p;     =20
  By what criteria and how so?   =20
 
Rich     
"Robert Comer" <bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>">mailto:bobcomer{at}mindspring.com">bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>
= wrote in=20
  messagenews:3e67ae88$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
     =20
  That's not good enough to compete with=20
 
Linux.     
- Bob=20
 
Comer     
"Geo." <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote in =
messagenews: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 be no price =
increases=20
  (as such) when Microsoft ships =
itsnext     =20
  > server OS, Windows Server 2003, on April 24th, but there will be=20
 
anew     
> budget-priced version =
of the=20
  product aimed squarely at the =
webserver     =20
  > market. Server 2003 Web Edition comes without client =
accesslicences,=20
  with      =
a     =20
  > 2gig limit on memory, 2-way SMP, and is=20
  $399.      =
>     =20
  >

------=_NextPart_000_0013_01C2E41B.CC775DE0--

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