On MovieTome: The 10 worst movies of 2009 so far!
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 13 of 31:
Next »
« Previous
Exactly: are companies buying Linux or a distro?
You quoted the article:
"Windows Server 2003 was often cheaper than Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Novell/SUSE Linux."

and noted:
And then there is Fedora, Debian, Gentoo, Mandrake, Knoppix, Slackware, cAos. Yellow Dog, ...
All community supported GNU/Linux distributions without the fees of the commercially supported products (nothing wrong with them, if they're your thing).

Let's say that Linux came free and Company A sold its proprietary add-ons for $500,000. Cost of the package: $500,000.
Service extra.

My point is that a Linux package can get to be more expensive than Microsoft depending on what else you're paying for, leaving aside all other considerations.


You also observed:
Community support for patching the free distributions is very good especially for the core business components...

Would a business want to rely on community support, especially one without an experienced IT staff?

First thought is someone in an office commenting, "Well, we posted the problem. Usually somebody comments within about 15 minutes, though this situation seems pretty rare. I'll keep watching, let you know."
And: "Just heard back: somebody called me an idiot, said to solve it myself."

Okay, exaggeration for effect. But you get the difficulty I'm referring to.
Posted by: Anton Philidor   Posted on: 05/27/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use
Reply to Story Reply to Message

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

lol  eLurker | 05/26/04
Assumptions of study?  richard@... | 05/26/04
Assumption was, you say what we want or we don't pay you  oldskool | 05/26/04
Spin vs. reality  catlord17 | 05/26/04
For most, Linux is much cheaper. In some cases they might be about equal.  DonnieBoy | 05/26/04
I would go further.  doe_z | 05/26/04
The key is to use at least 5% Linux Desktop, or as much as you can.  DonnieBoy | 05/27/04
Reminds me of TV ads  STDog | 05/27/04
Ford: "Toyotas aren't cheaper!" (nt)  ryusen | 05/26/04
You know what is cheapest????  DonnieBoy | 05/26/04
basic math shows that MS is most costly OS ever  oldskool | 05/26/04
And then there is Fedora, Debian, Gentoo,...  Richard Flude | 05/26/04
Exactly: are companies buying Linux or a distro?  Anton Philidor | 05/27/04
Reply  MG_z | 05/27/04
Making a profit on open source.  Anton Philidor | 05/27/04
Re-read the "study" and your post  Richard Flude | 05/27/04
I think you nailed it...  Anton Philidor | 05/27/04
linux is better than windows in some ways  blahblahblah | 05/26/04
This is the wrong tactic  Linux_Developer | 05/26/04
Waaaa, Waaaa, Waaaa....  Da-Man | 05/27/04
Another INFOMERCIAL from Microsoft  George Mitchell | 05/27/04
Servers still are expensive, desktops called servers are cheap  oldskool | 05/27/04
Your point is???  MG_z | 05/27/04
Who Cares What You People Say!  Da-Man | 05/27/04
Proprietary SW was what makes IT work, turn the page  oldskool | 05/27/04
spare evengels...  ryusen | 05/27/04
5 years isn't long enough and assumptions are unknown  escoles@... | 05/27/04
excellent point, re-buying all the SW kills MS cost model  oldskool | 05/27/04
There is some truth  MG_z | 05/27/04
Simple Rules for Posting  jLindler | 06/10/04
Microsoft: Linux isn't cheaper  bear2bar@... | 05/27/04

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement