| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft asks Linux users, "How can we get your business?' | |
|
||
| Time: 00:00 EST/05:00 GMT | News Source: E-Mail | Posted By: Todd Richardson | ||
|
Microsoft has started distributing two online surveys to Linux User Groups and Linux users in general, one asking primarily about home computer use, the other about business use. They apparently don't plan to release the results of their surveys, so we and other people in the open source community are asking you to look at them and post your answers and comments here and on other appropriate sites where, in open source style, everyone can see them. Read on for more information and links, and please help spread the word about these surveys; as far as we know, this is the first time Microsoft has asked Linux users why we use Linux instead of their products, and the more results, the merrier. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 239 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:03:58 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/22/2003 10:26:41 AM |
|
Because Linux is K-K00l RAD333ZZZZ!
|
| #2 By 7797 (63.76.44.252) at 12/22/2003 1:26:58 PM |
|
The sodablue Hall of Shame:
"Because Linux is K-K00l RAD333ZZZZ!" " Linux versions are so boring, they offer no new innovations or any real features that people would care about. Just not worth upgrading to." "Granted, my main issue with Linux is it's old technology and not very fun to work with." "It's funny, but actually Linux is too bloated to be used for embedded devices." "Linux which is motivated entirely from hatred of Microsoft products" "OSS development is cheaper... partly true, but since it's unreliable and slower you position yourself with a competitive disadvantage." "The large problem is really that most open source zealots do not have any understanding of the computer world." "The US should start investigating on whether Linux exists because of illegal dumping by foreign companies." "most GPL code is of dubius quality" "I don't have a problem with Linux but I do have a problem with the community's general lack of respect for other peoples work." |
| #3 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 12/22/2003 2:57:47 PM |
|
tgnb, I guess you missed this one late Thursday, but it has to be one of the best:
"Keep in mind that for Redhat to become profitable, they had to move away from the GPL and adopt a proprietary subscription/support model." According to soda, Red Hat is now violating the GPL and is now developing a closed source OS behind locked doors. Ha, ha, ha... ha, ha, HA! Please add to the Hall of Shame. |
| #4 By 7797 (63.76.44.252) at 12/22/2003 4:04:25 PM |
| sodajerk, its added .. will include it in the next post , when he makes his next brilliant remark. |
| #5 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/22/2003 5:50:32 PM |
|
dkg_ctc - I have many internet stalkers. Today over on another website, I had someone go through and moderate all my postings down as Troll, because I apparently pissed them off. And daz/parker will love this... it's a political website, and I'm regarded as a Republican. :)
sodajerk - You dispute my claim? If you can show me how I can obtain Redhat Enterprise Linux without paying for the support, I would love to know. This has always been a fact of life with Linux. Redhat can enclose a few pieces of software, like say their patch management system, under something other than a GPL license prohibiting redistribution... and bam! Suddenly you can't just give away copies of their distro. Actually I believe that's how they got started, by including the Metro-X commercial X11 server within their distro. |
| #6 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 12/22/2003 6:56:33 PM |
|
Locke, you aren't too bright, are you? You "debunked nearly every single complaint"? Strange, I was just saying what Real was claiming. If any of you fools had chosen to read the pdf document filing the case, you would see that these are exactly the claims they are charging.
I never said I agreed with them, I never said they, or I, could prove them, I never said there was evidence to support them, or that if they could support and prove them that they would win the case. So what did you debunk? In what way was I a liar? Do I agree with them? In some respects yes and in some respects no. But I never said that, did I? Or that there was evidence and a case to support, did I? So what the HECK did you debunk? Please read the filing and tell me Real isn't charging that MS has done the things I cited. I had MUCH better things to do this weekend so I just looked at these comments now (very funny stuff...I can't believe all of you are too lazy to read the filing, and that none of you were capable of following my logic: all I said is: these are some of the many things that Real is alleging MS to have done). Pretty sad and pathetic, really... but amusing. Thanks for making me laugh! I'm rather complex... apparently too much so for you to follow, so what, if anything, would you like to learn? Would you like me to teach you how to read or something? Because you have a long way to go before I begin wasting time on you to explain my comments about sodablue if you couldn't follow a simple statement from last week. Soda, why don't you first show me where Red Hat has moved away from the GPL? What about a subscription model "is moving away from" the GPL? What about what they are doing is proprietary? Red Hat supports a number of licenses, all of them OSI approved, but they primarily focus on the GPL... You are the one make ridiculous, unfounded claims. Show me first. Show me a single piece of proprietary, non-OSI approved code that Red Hat has created or contributed to. Until then I'm sitting back laughing at your silliness and complete mischaraterizations of RHs profitability. This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, December 22, 2003 at 19:00. |
| #7 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 12/22/2003 7:09:42 PM |
|
"Microsoft asks Linux users, "How can we get your business?'"
In most cases you can't, especially those users that choose Linux because they see it as being Free as in Speech. "They apparently don't plan to release the results of their surveys...." Unless they get a high percentage of users voting high on the following items: * The satisfaction of not giving Microsoft more money * I don't trust Microsoft * I don't want to use proprietary software * I don't want to use commercial software In which case the results will be out - 'communists and terrorists use Linux because of their hatred of Microsoft - what did we do wrong?' |
| #8 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 12/22/2003 7:42:48 PM |
|
I read your lame "statements" and by no means did you prove anything. (How the hell do you know what Microsoft has done in their OEM relationships, all of them, now and in the past? Each of your ridiculous "I prove that claim false" is completely based on your narrow perception of things. I have no interest at this time in getting into them. I'll simply state three of them: the previous agreement restricting certain behavior by no means proves that Microsoft has never and does not continue to do any of these things. Very flawed logic. It isn't logical at all. And secondly, you claim that SPA&D solves about 10 of the claims, but in each case, Real specifically cites scenarios where this is not the case. Thirdly, you claim all of MS's competitors provide their media system for free... which is not true at all; in this regard they are referring to codecs, which do have licensing fees. You are clearly focusing on player apps, and even here, clearly Real and Apple have a free and limited option and a paid option because these advanced/pro versions include codecs which have licensing costs. So... to keep it brief, I've already refuted the bulk of your arguments.)
But let's look at your statement: you claim that I am a liar. How so? All I did was state their claims. Are you suggesting these are not their claims? (Remember, I was only replying to Brian who was trying to act as if the only claim was that there was user confusion because of multiple players, and that this was the sole basis of their case.) As for soda's comment, I think it's very clear. He says they have moved away from th GPL, there is no proof of this. His assertion is based on the fact that they are requiring support subscriptions to receive their boxed binaries. How the hell does that mark a move away from the GPL when people have been using subscriptions and fees with the GPL for years? He also asserts they are now using a proprietary model. How so? Proprietary means: something that is used, produced, or marketed under exclusive legal right of the inventor or maker; specifically : a drug (as a patent medicine) that is protected by secrecy, patent, or copyright against free competition as to name, product, composition, or process of manufacture. Red Hat is adamently against patents. All of their code is OSI-licensed. There code is not exclusive to them as it is open source. Their code is not exclusively held as it must be released to the community for incorporation in anyone's code. I don't care if you attacked me or not. Did I say you did? I was basically stating that your previous posts support nothing, and that soda's comment is retarded and baseless. You, yourself, state that your extrapolations are false. I assert that my conclusions based on soda's statement are implicit in his statement. You may disagree with that, but tgnb sees how ludicrous soda's statement was. I'm sure others do as well. Soda cannot provide any evidence that Red Hat is moving away from the GPL or that they are moving to a proprietary system. And such a statement is retarded, false, and groundless. If soda would like to say, "I didn't mean that they were moving away from the GPL and that they aren't moving to a proprietary business model, I just meant they were requiring subscriptions to access the full packaged product that they sell." I'd be happy to heed that comment and accept it as truthful and not retarded. However, I bet he won't do that... And until such time, I will state that it is a retarded and baseless statement to make. This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, December 22, 2003 at 20:30. |
| #9 By 135 (208.186.90.91) at 12/22/2003 9:04:11 PM |
|
sodajerk - "Soda, why don't you first show me where Red Hat has moved away from the GPL? "
I think I have numerous times now. I guess I'm somewhat puzzled by your intransigence on this issue. The product is called Redhat Enterprise Linux. If Redhat were abiding by the GPL, I ought to be able to find this product for free anywhere on the Internet, but I can't. This leads me to believe that they've restricted distribution of it. So then I find the License agreement for Redhat Enterprise Linux, and it looks nothing like a standard Open Source license. http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html?country=United+States& You're licensed per installation, you can't transfer the license, you're subject to audit review of your installations. Sure the underlying components are covered under the GPL, but not the overall distribution. So yep, Redhat is profitable. But they got there by adopting Microsoft's business model of selling software and support. Which makes sense, the whole idea of making money by giving away stuff for free was never going to work. |
| #10 By 135 (208.186.90.91) at 12/22/2003 9:07:58 PM |
|
sodajerk - "How the hell does that mark a move away from the GPL when people have been using subscriptions and fees with the GPL for years? "
Simple. With the GPL, you buy a copy and you can give it to me without question. You can install it on as many computers as you want, etc. etc. etc. Can't do that with Redhat Enterprise Linux. So your assertion that everything is OSI licensed is patently false. Hey, you want to test this. I'll send Redhat an email saying I'm going to buy RHEL and install it on 100 servers and see what it costs. |
| #11 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 12/23/2003 2:17:10 AM |
|
#15 Disclaimer: I'm no fan of the GPL, but you seem rather confused by it - maybe you've been listening to Microsoft a bit too much!
"If Redhat were abiding by the GPL, I ought to be able to find this product for free anywhere on the Internet, but I can't." a) Where is the GPL does it say that you have to offer your product for free anywhere on the internet? Surely it just says that you have to make available the source code to your product! http://www.redhat.com/software/rhel/faq/#six "Q: You mentioned licensing - what does this mean? I thought Linux was free. A: Except for a few components provided by third parties (for example, Java) all the code in Red Hat products is open source and licensed under the GPL (or a similar license, such as the LGPL). So you always have free access to the source code. In fact you can download it from our FTP servers at any time. However, Red Hat does not provide free access to the binaries of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and these, combined with an annual subscription to Red Hat Network, access to upgrades, and a selected support services, are the components that Red Hat bundles into each Red Hat Enterprise Linux solution.... (read the rest by following the link above)" So there you have it, RedHat have done something which is fine by the GPL, they are distributing the source code as per the license, however if you want the binaries as well as all the other added support etc then you have to pay for it. And sure enough, if we take a look at redhat's ftp server: ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/3/en/os/i386/SRPMS/ we find all the source code to v3 (and 2.1) of RedHat Enterprise. You are completely and utterly free to download it, compile it and install it yourself.... BUT... if you want support then you'll have to pay for it. Althought the link I provided above is for the i386, going up 2 levels you will also find the source code for AMD64, ia64, ppc, s390 and s390x. "So yep, Redhat is profitable. But they got there by adopting Microsoft's business model of selling software and support." Microsoft's business model? Surely a few other companies thought about charging for software and support before Microsoft! "Which makes sense, the whole idea of making money by giving away stuff for free was never going to work." The GPL doesn't say you can't make money, it just fairly much says that you can't/shouldn't/whatever make money off software (this is the part I don't agree with the GPL). Therefore the way of making money with GPL software is to make money in other ways, the most obvious being through support. This is nothing new, RedHat have been doing this since the very start and other Linux companies do exactly the same thing. So how exactly have RedHat moved away from the GPL? They are abiding by it, you can get the full source code to RedHat Enterprise, they are just making money by selling the binaries (i.e. the full package) along with support etc. None of this goes against the GPL. #16 "Can't do that with Redhat Enterprise Linux." Sure he can, he can give you the source code (as per the GPL) and you can go and do whatever you like with that! |
| #12 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at 12/23/2003 4:04:58 AM |
| You have a link for the source to RedHat Enterpise Linux? |
| #13 By 12071 (203.217.70.212) at 12/23/2003 4:18:32 AM |
| #20 did you miss the link? |
| #14 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at 12/23/2003 4:56:57 AM |
| lol, whoa, I guess I'm more tired than I thought. |
| #15 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/23/2003 11:10:38 AM |
|
kabuki - Section 3 of the GPL states that "You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided you..." and then it goes on to explain how you need to give away the source. Section 1 refers to redistributing the source code. Section 2 refers to making modifications.
Section 6 states that "Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." My point is not that Redhat is violating the GPL. I don't think they are. The GPL only applies to pieces which have been licensed under the GPL. And so the Linux kernel, and variety of utilities are included, so Redhat has made the source code available. |
| #16 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/23/2003 11:19:26 AM |
|
kabuki (continued) - No, what I am referring to is that the Redhat doesn't use the GPL for it's own software. They take GPLed pieces, combine them together with proprietary licensed code and call it a distribution.
Thus, people are prevented from Free Redistribution of the entire distro, because of the proprietary pieces. That's by design, that's not an accident, that's not unintentional consequences of reality. As such, Redhat violates the spirit of Open Source as defined by the OSI zealots. http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php Here it is... "Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria: " and then it talks about Free Redistribution of binaries and everything. If you want to argue technicalities feel free, but the fact remains that Redhat is no longer a company making and selling Open Source software. They are taking advantage of Open Source software, sure. But that's not the same thing, is it? |
| #17 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/23/2003 11:23:25 AM |
|
parker - Correct. Patches for RHEL are only available if you pay for support.
Patches are not available for Fedora. If you run Fedora, you are at risk, unless you keep track of the thousands of available packages and then implement these patches youself, manually. Kabuki and the other zealots don't understand that I'm not opposed to this. I think it's a very creative way for Redhat to get around the anti-commercial limitations imposed by the GPL. It also violates the spirit of the GPL, and you can be certain that Stallman will be throwing hissy fits about this in the near future if this becomes the model that all linux distros follow. You're not supposed to make money from software. That is the purpose behind the GPL. It's ok if you make money from hardware, from working at McDonalds, from shoveling manure, but not from making and selling software. And I think it's funny that Redhat stuck a finger in Stallman's eye and said, "Tough! You can't stop us!" |
| #18 By 19992 (164.214.4.61) at 12/23/2003 12:41:24 PM |
|
#9 parker
Linux is not profitable as a free OS. agreed I think it is great that SUSE and RedHat are now charging more for their software than Microsoft. "Linux is free as in speech" ... unless you want support. Or you want it to run applications like Oracle. Then you need to run a "validated" version of the OS that costs more than Microsofts operating system. Let's examine these two statements for a second. Taking a quick look at cdw.com your statement initially appears to be correct. Prices from CDW as of 12/23 follow Red Hat Ent Linux v3 $749.00 Microsoft Windows 2003 Server Standard Edition $679.21 (Open Licene Level C) Based on these numbers Red Hat is about $70.00 more than Windows.. Now let's add a CD to actually install Windows for $31.37 (cdw.com prices) and we are looking at a $40.00 difference.... So why does Red Hat to cost an additional $40.00??? I know, the Windows Server cannot have anybody connect to it (no CALs), let's go with 20 users, an extremely small number, hardly worth buying a server - esp. one running Oracle - for so few people, but we'll go ahead and add 20 Windows 2003 Server CALs (Open License Level C) at $32.05 a piece for a total of $641.00 So our new grand total is MS Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition (Open License Level C) with install media and 20 CALs is $1351.58 Red Hat Enterprise Linux v3 new cost? $749.00 You need to try to look at the whole cost of the software procurement rather than the base OS cost when making claims that Red Hat (or SUSE, it shouldn't matter) cost more than Windows 2003 to procure. Windows may or may not be the right solution for a project based on technical merits, but it's a bit of a stretch to claim that the Windows software will cost less than enterprise editions of Linux. The total cost to deploy for Linux may be higher once you account for training, etc.. but the Linux software itself is still cheaper than Windows This post was edited by happyguy on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 at 12:44. |
| #19 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at 12/23/2003 7:30:09 PM |
| happy, you also aren't taking into account that you pay to get support from RedHat on a yearly basis. Those numbers you quoted for RH are yearly fees. The numbers for Windows Server is a one time fee. Nice spin job. |
| #20 By 135 (208.186.90.91) at 12/23/2003 8:23:24 PM |
|
X - "When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price."
Bizarre part of the Freedom argument is that the software is no charge. "You lost me somewhere. Redhat is not violating GPL, but taking advantage of it? Can you help me out? " I'm sorry you are lost. |
| #21 By 135 (208.186.90.91) at 12/23/2003 8:25:43 PM |
|
BTW... MandrakeSoft also says Redhat is not abiding by Open Source.
http://www.mandrakesoft.com/company/press/pr?n=/pr/corporate/2446 "At a time when some of the established Linux companies are turning away from their Open Source roots and progressively abandoning full-time commitment to Open Source Software, many people have asked MandrakeSoft to clarify its position regarding product-lifetimes and its Open Source development model. " Of course the difference is... Redhat makes money, MandrakeSoft does not. Microsoft was right. Selling software can be a successful business model. |
| #22 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 12/23/2003 9:01:21 PM |
|
#26 You are correct, you are given the original source code and all the patches, updates etc are available via the RHN only (which you must pay for). This is a service that they are providing you with, just like Microsoft provide you with a service called Windows Update except the difference is that MS don't charge for it. If you require the service then yuo will naturally have to pay for it, if you don't then you will still be able to get all those patches for all those standard packages that you compiled and installed yourself, it just will be from a different location other than RHN.
If you don't want to pay for RedHat Enterprise then you can get it for free (as in speech AND beer), you will just spend a lot more time compiling it all and applying the patches manually. So the apparent proprietary RedHat Enterprise (as you seem to think of it) is completely free, you just might be paying for the convenience of having a lot of things done for you! #27 "No, what I am referring to is that the Redhat doesn't use the GPL for it's own software. They take GPLed pieces, combine them together with proprietary licensed code and call it a distribution." Most of RedHat is GPL with only a few exceptions and this is true of many different Linux distributions, not just RedHat. Just because the contents of their whole distribution isn't GPL'ed doesn't mean that they don't use GPL! "Thus, people are prevented from Free Redistribution of the entire distro" True, the entire distribution (as if) cannot be freely redistributed, you would need to remove the non-GPL and non-BSD etc components first. If this really bothers you THAT much (which I somehow doubt) then choose a distribution that doesn't include ANY commercial licensed packages in it - there are several of them around. "As such, Redhat violates the spirit of Open Source as defined by the OSI zealots." Violates the spirit? Wow! This must really be important to you! In which case I suggest you get in contact with RedHat to let them know how you feel about them violating the spirit of Open Source. "If you want to argue technicalities feel free, but the fact remains that Redhat is no longer a company making and selling Open Source software." What are they making and selling now? Are they abiding by the GPL and other included licenses? yes. Are they taking advantage of certain "loop holes" (if you want to be harsh about it) in those licenses? yes. Are they in this to promote the spirit of open source? no, they are here to try and make money. The things you have mentioned is why, ethically, many Linux users will choose another distribution. But they aren't moving away from the GPL. #28 "Kabuki and the other zealots don't understand that I'm not opposed to this" Oooh I'm a zealot now, coming from you that's a compliment, thanks! "You're not supposed to make money from software. That is the purpose behind the GPL. It's ok if you make money from hardware, from working at McDonalds, from shoveling manure, but not from making and selling software." Correct, if Stallman had/has his way then this is exactly what the end result of the "spirit of GPL" is all about. And that is precisely why I have negative feelings/thoughts towards the GPL! #33 Windows Server comes with free phone, email and web-based support? As Locke said, TCO can be spun in plenty of ways, so let's just choose the technology which will suit our needs the best. |
| #23 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 12/23/2003 10:39:06 PM |
|
#38 "So you do admit the most current version of RedHat EL is NOT available from RedHat's site without paying for it."
No I do not admit that, you are completely and utterly wrong, and so was I, I assumed that the patches were only available via RHN which is not the case. If you want the latest copy of RedHat Enterprise, download all the source files from here: ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/3/en/os/i386/SRPMS/ Then go and get the latest patches using the links below: v3.0 AS ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/updates/enterprise/3AS/en/os/SRPMS/ v3.0 ES ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/updates/enterprise/3ES/en/os/SRPMS/ v3.0 PW ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/updates/enterprise/3WS/en/os/SRPMS/ v3.0 WS ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/updates/enterprise/3WS/en/os/SRPMS/ Now compile it all and install it. There you go! A completely free (as in Speech AND Beer) copy of RedHat Enterprise. |
| #24 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 12/23/2003 10:58:51 PM |
|
#40 "Hmph. I guess it's true, you do get what you paid for..."
Yes you can PAY for RedHat Enterprise and then you will not have to recompile code and install it manually.... or you can NOT PAY in which case you will have to do all of that manually. In any case the point is that you don't HAVE to pay for RedHat Enterprise and in both cases you get the source code. WindowsUpdate is great, and could be made even better by incorporating patches to all of Microsoft's other products. |
| #25 By 19992 (68.69.127.171) at 12/23/2003 11:33:53 PM |
|
#32 good point on the SBS package, hadn't thought of that. Although you have to once again, look at the required CALs for the platform to be truly useful. RHEL has no limits on the amount of users. SBS requires separate CALs for Windows and Exchange.
#33 happy, you also aren't taking into account that you pay to get support from RedHat on a yearly basis. Those numbers you quoted for RH are yearly fees. The numbers for Windows Server is a one time fee. Nice spin job. No spin job was intended. I seem to have overlooked that the RHEL was an annual subscription model. Irregardless, once you bulk up a Windows Server to handle a reasonable user load (purchase CALs) the pricing seems to swing back in RHELs favor, at least initially. Microsoft support isn't free (as parker stated above), so you really can't make the arguement that Windows is a one time fee. #36 Good point, I hadn't realized that the costs involved with the RHEL license were an annual subscription. Although (as stated above) Windows CALs would bring the cost for the i386 platform back into line - at least on a 1 to 1 comparison. CPU scalability is a very good point, as is the fact that support is not locked down to one server. Finally a question, Has MS even released 64-bit Windows yet? Last I had heard it was to be a separate member of the Windows 2003 family. This post was edited by happyguy on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 at 23:53. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 239 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:03:58 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
