Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 8th Nov 2006 19:59 UTC, submitted by Coxy
GNU, GPL, Open Source The theory behind open-source software is that it avoids many of the pitfalls - including cost - of closed alternatives. But Steven Buckley, who runs Christian Aid's common knowledge programme, prefers to buy software from the likes of Microsoft. Is this not odd for a charity? "Open-source doesn't mean free," he told BBC World Service's Digital Planet programme. "Quite often, if you install open-source software within an organisation, you have a support contract that goes with it - it's an essential part of operating that software. Over time, that can actually cost more than having Windows on an enterprise machine."
Thread beginning with comment 180133
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Right...
by beowuff on Wed 8th Nov 2006 20:13 UTC
beowuff
Member since:
2006-07-26

<sarcasm>
Right... 'cause MS's support contracts are free...
</sarcasm>

Reply Score: 5

RE: Right...
by NotParker on Wed 8th Nov 2006 22:04 in reply to "Right..."
NotParker Member since:
2006-06-01

Right... 'cause MS's support contracts are free...

They are very inexpensive as you pay per incident, rather than say a yearly RedHat tax of 2500$.

As I've said before, the organization I work for has 3000+ desktops and 200+ servers and we spend beteween 1250 and 2500$ for Microsoft support because we only call them 5 - 10 times a year.

Edited 2006-11-08 22:06

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Right...
by dylansmrjones on Wed 8th Nov 2006 22:49 in reply to "RE: Right..."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Compared with a yearly Fedora/Ubuntu/Debian/Gentoo/FreeBSD/NetBSD/OpenBSD tax of 0$ ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Right...
by beowuff on Wed 8th Nov 2006 23:20 in reply to "RE: Right..."
beowuff Member since:
2006-07-26

So, by your logic...

$1250 (minimum support from MS) + (3,000 (desktops) * $100 (I'm guessing in MS's favor for a discount for bulk purchase of XP Pro)) + (200 (servers) * $200 (I don't know what this number should be, but I figure for client access licenses plus discount it'd be at least this number. Probably much higher.)) = $401250.

vs

1 Redhat Enterprise linux destop extension pack (as many installs as you want) = $3500.
1 Redhat AS Server (as many installs as you want) + Premium support. = $2500 / year.
If you had to upgrade Redhat desktop every year, your looking at something like $6,000 / year. So, it'd take what... 66 years of RedHat support and systems to equal ONE year of MS support and systems?

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Right...
by Sphinx on Thu 9th Nov 2006 01:34 in reply to "RE: Right..."
Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

Problem is if Redhat were to use Microsoft's service contract model and charge only by the incident they would have gone bust a long time ago.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Right...
by Moulinneuf on Thu 9th Nov 2006 02:50 in reply to "RE: Right..."
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

"They are very inexpensive as you pay per incident,"

No , they are given to you and come with the hardware.

The service and additionnal software are not discounted as you falsely suggest and is where they make there money.

"the organization I work for has"

How many tech on site for how much each ?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Right...
by stestagg on Thu 9th Nov 2006 10:48 in reply to "RE: Right..."
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

As I've said before, the organization I work for has ...

What company is that? NorthWinds?

Try looking at the figures for Canonical/Ubuntu. Server support $750/year. OS Licence: $0. RedHat isn't the only commercial Linux company, only the most expensive. In a competitive market (The Linux OS market) rather than a Monopoly, some products cost more than others. It's part of what we call capitalism.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Right...
by Jody on Thu 9th Nov 2006 06:44 in reply to "Right..."
Jody Member since:
2005-06-30

Right... 'cause MS's support contracts are free...

I am curious, how many times have you used yours?

Reply Parent Score: 1