Re: RHL 9 - concerns
Gerald Henriksen <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.redhat.release.phoebe |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:37:25 -0800, you wrote: >Gerald Henriksen wrote: >> How much longer are they going to want linux though if: >> >> a) Linux is more expensive. Take a company looking at deploying >> either Linux or Windows XP to the desktop, for a 4 year period. While >> these companies expect to upgrade the applications over that 4 year >> period they would prefer to keep OS changes to a minimum (ideally just >> security updates and maybe drivers for new hardware if needed). They >> >> Microsoft Windows XP: $300. > >You forgot a few things here: > >Microsoft Office XP: $579 >McAfee Antivirus: $120 (60 + (3*20)) >McAfee Personal Firewall: $70 (40 + (3*10)) >and so forth... > >As you can see, just Office and Windows XP exceed your worst-case >senario for WS. No I didn't. You are assuming that those products are actually required. There are a great number of places where Office is not needed. Eliminating Office brings Windows to $490 vs $480/$720. Certainly someone doing graphic work with Maya/Houdini doesn't need Office, and a company that develops their own in house software for each machine (Bank, call centre, etc.) usually doesn't need Office on each machine. There are a lot of people who find Wordpad more than adequate, or who have moved to using OpenOffice/Staroffice on Windows. Assuming every copy of Windows XP has Office XP is clearly wrong, and once you correct that you see that WS is overpriced. >> Red Hat Enterprise WS: $480 (300+(3*60) * >> $720 (300+300+(2*60) ** -- Phoebe-list mailing list [email protected] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/phoebe-list