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 180237
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Right...
by beowuff on Wed 8th Nov 2006 23:20 UTC 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[3]: Right...
by flanque on Wed 8th Nov 2006 23:27 in reply to "RE[2]: Right..."
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

You've only included aquisition of software and support. There's many other factors involved.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Right...
by dylansmrjones on Thu 9th Nov 2006 06:56 in reply to "RE[3]: Right..."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Exactly.

I'd like to see some numbers on what costs companies actually have - like downtime, legal actions from customers due to missing or faulty delivery caused by system failure and anything else one could possibly think of.

Data from a few thousand companies could perhaps be enough to give a decent picture of the trend.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Right...
by NotParker on Wed 8th Nov 2006 23:30 in reply to "RE[2]: Right..."
NotParker Member since:
2006-06-01

1 Redhat AS Server (as many installs as you want) + Premium support. = $2500 / year.

2500 per year for each server if you want support. It would be a violation of your RedHat agreement to try to get support for a non-covered server. And your license gives them the right to do an audit.

Thats 500,000 a year right there.

And we buy about 20-40 servers a year. Which means we pay about 3000-6000 per year for server software total. (K12 discount)

RedHat WS is 299 per desktop for 1 year support. That would be about (3000 * 300) 900,000 per year. The other options only get you 30 days of support.

http://www.redhat.com/rhel/compare/client/

And I think they cost more than we pay for XP or close enough.

RedHat is too damned expensive.

You know, non-commies can do math too.

Most cultists assume people who use Microsoft are too stupid to be allowed anywher near computers.

On the other, we who use Microsoft can usually do realistic math in our heads better than the cultists can do since they live in a kind of never never land where everything is free ... except when you actually cost it out.

Edited 2006-11-08 23:33

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Right...
by dylansmrjones on Thu 9th Nov 2006 00:42 in reply to "RE[3]: Right..."
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

You know, non-commies can do math too.

More communist talk...

BTW: A license for RHEL costs me around 40$ while I have to pay 300$ for a Windows XP Home license.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Right...
by Moulinneuf on Thu 9th Nov 2006 03:13 in reply to "RE[3]: Right..."
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

"You know, non-commies can do math too. "

You are a McCartyst looser , your worst then those you attack , you know that Jail time for illegal actions like yours are still in effect today :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

"RedHat is too damned expensive."

Unlike Microsoft windows who as only one controling company behind it , GNU/Linux as more then Red Hat.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Right...
by hal2k1 on Thu 9th Nov 2006 07:04 in reply to "RE[3]: Right..."
hal2k1 Member since:
2005-11-11

//2500 per year for each server if you want support. It would be a violation of your RedHat agreement to try to get support for a non-covered server. And your license gives them the right to do an audit.

Thats 500,000 a year right there.

And we buy about 20-40 servers a year. Which means we pay about 3000-6000 per year for server software total. (K12 discount)

RedHat WS is 299 per desktop for 1 year support. That would be about (3000 * 300) 900,000 per year. The other options only get you 30 days of support.

http://www.redhat.com/rhel/compare/client/

And I think they cost more than we pay for XP or close enough.

RedHat is too damned expensive. //

Did you ever work out these sums if you replace all occurrences of "RedHat" with "Ubuntu" or "Ubuntu server"?

For example, it would become: "Which means we pay about 0000-0000 per year for server software total. (everypersons discount)"

Go here: http://www.ubuntu.com/support and you will find a lot of free support (especially for charities). Even if there are charges, it does not indicate if these are per-machine costs, I don't believe they are.

Reply Parent Score: 1