Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 12th Nov 2007 21:48 UTC
Windows The breakdown for the various editions of Windows Server 2008 was revealed this morning by Microsoft, and the big news there is the almost total lack of change: Retail server software editions for the next Windows Server will fall right in line with the current Windows Server 2003 R2 editions, including the number of client access licenses provided in the basic package.
Thread beginning with comment 284290
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Don T. Bothers
Member since:
2006-03-15

"Justifying any pricing based on a single purchase for *7 y years* I think highlights a major difference between Linux Distributions. On Windows Server+patches thats 7 years old and on Linux running a Current OS."

Huh??? WTF??? The less you touch a server, the better it is. If it works, why fix it? That is the Unix way of thinking so I don't get where you are coming from. That is the reason why RHEL is so popular, because it works and works great for 7 years. Now let's go back, and see the TCO of running RHEL for 10 years versus running Windows for 10 years, assuming that there will be an initial installation, and later an upgrade 7 years later:

RHEL: $1500 * 10 = 15000
Windows: $3999 * 2 = 8000

Now, where is your cost saving? As I said, I have nothing against RHEL nor Linux so I don't know why someone would mod me down for speaking the truth. In fact, we do use RHEL in the enterprise, and there are good reasons to do so. However, we have never deployed RHEL or Solaris with the primary motivation that it is "cheaper" than Windows.


" btw $3999 doesn't sound a lot, of course in many places where the costs of the OS outweigh the cost of people several times."

Hey, if your willing to come and work for me for $3999 over seven years, I have a position to offer you. And just because there is a lot of labor explotation in third world countries does not mean something is overpriced. I do not follow your logic.

Reply Parent Score: 1

cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

RHEL: $1500 * 10 = 15000
Windows: $3999 * 2 = 8000

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/howtobuy/licensing/calov...

Sorry ok first up check the article above...then check out the little *unlimited* after the redhat one, essentially the maths goes a little like this.

RHEL $1500 x years
Windows $4000 x (number of devices/25) + corporate disadvantage of running legacy software.

If you seriously plan on running windows server for 7 years good luck with that. Enjoy the incredible maintenance costs, downtime due to malware etc etc.

The thing is TCO costs are complicated, but you don't seem to get the basics. If your point is that in the well of west then the initial layout is neglagable compared to *other costs*, the reverse is true for less affluent parts of the world...the majority...but it wasn't it was based on some bizarre notion that the computing world remains static this is a very Microsoft centric view of the world, many companies live in the fast evolving world or GNU.

Reply Parent Score: 0

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Now let's go back, and see the TCO of running RHEL for 10 years versus running Windows for 10 years, assuming that there will be an initial installation, and later an upgrade 7 years later:

RHEL: $1500 * 10 = 15000
Windows: $3999 * 2 = 8000

Now, where is your cost saving? As I said, I have nothing against RHEL nor Linux so I don't know why someone would mod me down for speaking the truth.


Now do the same sums, but include a third option ... RHEL for 1 year, then replace it with the exact same Centos code after that.

RHEL: $1500 * 10 = $15000
Windows: $3999 * 2 = $8000
RHEL + CENTOS: ($1500 * 1) + ($0 * 9) = $1500.

There is your cost saving.

As you said yourself, if it works great, why touch it?

The less you touch a server, the better it is. If it works, why fix it? That is the Unix way of thinking so I don't get where you are coming from. That is the reason why RHEL is so popular, because it works and works great for 7 years.


I don't get where you are coming from, thinking that Windows + lock-in is cheaper. Anybody with even half a brain can work out that that just isn't so.

Oh ... BTW, speaking of half-brained accounting, how come you forgot about the CALs?

Edited 2007-11-13 21:51

Reply Parent Score: 3

Don T. Bothers Member since:
2006-03-15

I don't know why I keep getting marked down, I guess someone hates the truth and can only resort to childish behavior. Anyways, I don't care much, so go on and mark down. And let me state my view point again, there are many reasons why someone would choose to deploy Linux. Such reasons include performance, scalability, stability, configurability, vendor lock-in protection, philosophical viewpoint, to whatever. However, I would not consider "being cheaper" a valid reason to deploy RHEL.

"If you seriously plan on running windows server for 7 years good luck with that. Enjoy the incredible maintenance costs, downtime due to malware etc etc"

One would have to just look around his own datacenter and see how many instances of Windows 2000 server are still there. I still count many many instances. We will probably be retiring these servers during the next two years but they are currently alive and kicking and have been for seven years. In addition, in most of the companies I have worked for (enterprises between 200 - 1000 people), we have had little to no problems with malware/spyware.

"Now do the same sums, but include a third option ... RHEL for 1 year, then replace it with the exact same Centos code after that.

RHEL: $1500 * 10 = $15000
Windows: $3999 * 2 = $8000
RHEL + CENTOS: ($1500 * 1) + ($0 * 9) = $1500.

There is your cost saving. "

Good luck explaining to your boss why you cannot call Oracle, SAP, BEA, Sybase, NetApp, EMC, Dell, HP, etc. to bring your mission critical server back up. Sure, it might be a bug in their system/hardware, but I am sure you will be able to hack CentOS to just work. Oh yeah, you are losing a million dollars an hour during your downtime, but I bet the CEO is going to be really happy you saved them $1500.00 on licensing and whatever amount on salary when they fire you.

"I don't get where you are coming from, thinking that Windows + lock-in is cheaper. Anybody with even half a brain can work out that that just isn't so."

And buying alternatives just for the sake of alternatives is not cheaper either. You need to do an analysis of any solution you deploy, part of the analysis would include the dangers of "lock-in" to one vendor and potential risk/costs. But only a person with half a brain will go to his CEO/CFO and try to say RHEL is cheaper and leave it at that. For example, how difficult is it to migrate DB2 from Windows to Linux?

"Oh ... BTW, speaking of half-brained accounting, how come you forgot about the CALs? "

I did not forget about CALs. I just did not want to do an overly complex calculation of all possible scenarios. For example, how many CALs do you need, what exactly is accessing the server, do you need per server or per client CALs, how many servers are you using, how many workstations are you using, are you using RedHat workstation on the clients or are you running Windows, is it a fully supported environment, is it a completely Microsoft free environment, if not then do you already own per client CALs, do you have to pay extra for antivirus in the enterprise, do you have to pay extra for software by choosing one solution, how about support costs, how about training, planning, upgrade costs, how about employee costs, etc?

Reply Parent Score: 2

pgquiles Member since:
2006-07-16

You are stupid, aren't you? The $4000 for Windows 2003 Enterprise are WITHOUT support. Please compare Windows 2003 Enterprise with unlimited 24x7 support with RHEL with unlimited 24x7 support.

Without support, RHEL is *free*. It costs $0.

Reply Parent Score: 2