Re: RHL 9 - concerns

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.
>
plus virus protection utilities, plus apps,
plus yearly microsoft licensing costs -
and the hidden costs of worms, virii etc.

>
>Red Hat Enterprise WS: 
>
Optional -

There are always choices for savvy admins -

You can have relatively few, mission critical
servers in the server room running RHAS
or something like it -

On the desktop you could deploy RHAW if
you like it and think it's worthwhile, otherwise
you could run plain old consumer grade RH
if you prefer, or perhaps thin clients - or even
(gasp) S.u.S.E on the desktop, as some do.

Isn't choice wonderful?

On another note, lots of folks grumble about
Red Hat not being _that_ much cheaper than
ms windows, and threaten to go running back
to microsoft if Red Hat doesn't slash prices.

To me, price is the least of the reasons I use
Linux - if Red Hat and ms windows are at the
same price, guess what? It's a no-brainer, I'll
pick Red Hat  every time.

If Red Hat gets to be 10 times as expensive
as ms windows, that doesn't necessitate that
I move to a microsoft solution, but I will indeed
look for alternative linux vendors, or alternate
unixy OSes -

Bottom line for me is, it's not so much about the
price as it is the freedom, flexibility, the reliability
and the performance - I looked at Linux because
it was cheap - I stayed with Linux because it's
given me _far_ less grief than any other OS -

Best Regards,

Joe






-- 
Phoebe-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/phoebe-list