AsranielJoin Date: 2002-06-03Member: 724Members, Playtest Lead, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow, Subnautica Playtester, Retired Community Developer
Im just converting all my friend to linux. It works quite good at the moment. As long as they have no exotic hardware i just have to assist them over ICQ and it just works.
<!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+Feb 8 2004, 07:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Feb 8 2004, 07:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Can't speak on that as I can't afford the couple thousand dollars for a license, whereas Linux just required a download, configuration, and compile... and all my hardware was working just fine. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <b>Windows 2003 Standard Server, 64-bit Itanium edition: $1,199 Redhat Linux standard edition, 64-bit Itanium : $1992</b>
As I tend to harp, your hobby copy of Linux may be free, but if a company wants a supported product, they are going to pay. In this case, nearly double.
Oh, and by the way, that's annual for linux, not a one-time price. Did I mention that premium edition Redhat server is $2998? Yes, that's triple.
<!--QuoteBegin-MonsieurEvil+Feb 9 2004, 09:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Feb 9 2004, 09:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Windows 2003 Standard Server, 64-bit Itanium edition: $1,199 Redhat Linux standard edition, 64-bit Itanium : $1992</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Red Hat has some slightly surreal prices. I'm not sure what you get for that price, but I'd half expect a midget Linux administrator duct-taped to the side of the machine.
At least with Linux you can always shop around for a better deal. I've had a load of success with SuSE for low-end stuff, and if I was after some higher-level support, I'd definitely investigate their <a href='http://www.suse.co.uk/uk/business/products/server/sles/prices_ipf.html' target='_blank'>server stuff</a>. Their not-just-installation-support maintenance contracts seem to be priced in addition to the software costs, but they're still way cheaper than the Red Hat versions. No idea what the support quality's like for server-level stuff, but the consumer-level people <i>did</i> diagnose and fix a really weird, obscure problem I was having installing SuSE 8.1 on a decommissioned NT server... <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
It will be interesting to see how Suse fairs, now that it is owned by Novell. Odds are, your prices will be going up shortly, as the boys in Provo loooovvve to overcharge. You youngin's may not remember this, but 10 years ago Netware <i>was</i> the Microsoft in the server market - 95% share, in fact. 10 years later, they scrape by with something like 3% or less, and that's only due to their contracts with the government and schools. They thought that people would pay more, because their product was better than NT 3.51. Right about the product, wrong about the customers. As I just got off a contract doing some Novell work over the past year, I can say that they have not learned the lesson on pricing, and now make a substantially inferior server product line to MS.
Unfortunately for Linux, Redhat is <i>your</i> Microsoft, as far as businesses are concerned, and their pricing, kernel dev, and support agreements are what drive Linux in the Fortune 1000. When they cost more than MS, you have a very big problem with convincing people to not only recode all their applications from Win32, but to also pay more for the platforms to run them on. Ouchie.
fedora isos: eta 4 hrs linux book: eta 5-6 days new hdd: eta 6-7 days
we will see how it goes.
for the record. i, quite literally, grew up on os/2 and win3.1 no, i'm not planning on making 'the big switch' but we will see how this goes ... who knows, i might
on a side note, our school computers (9333mhz pIII, 256MB ram) can boot linux live cd's faster than windows from their hdd's
<!--QuoteBegin-MonsieurEvil+Feb 9 2004, 05:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Feb 9 2004, 05:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Unfortunately for Linux, Redhat is <i>your</i> Microsoft, <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, can't blame the community on that though, they just sorta snuck up and clubbed us in the back of the head while we were distracted by their shiny box...
Anyways, I don't think it will ever be like it is with proprietary OSs because someone can always come along and undercut. And with any luck <a href='http://userlinux.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl' target='_blank'>UserLinux</a> will take off...
Ok... The problem that I see here... Well... Better yet...
Someone mind telling me how many freaking linux distributions have been mentioned in only this thread? Or how about how many of those distributions will "go all the way"?
Am I the only one that sees that as a potential problem?
AsranielJoin Date: 2002-06-03Member: 724Members, Playtest Lead, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow, Subnautica Playtester, Retired Community Developer
Monsieur Evil, i dont see why you choose Redhat, there are cheaper and even free alternatives that are as good as redhat(if not better)
The distribution that is most used on servers is debian, wich is absolutely free. But when you make a server and you REALY want to pay, why dont take SuSe or mandrake? but mandrake you can also download it for free, there is also a 64 version(most distributions have one)
I think you dont realy understand the idea behind linux, you pay for the support. If redhat wants that much for support its theyr problem, there are distros that charge less for support.
But until tody i dont see WHY you need support. When you know linux and you install linux you will always get all security patches and so for free, i dont see the point in support. But well, im not a sysadmin, im a programmer and hobby sysadmin
Ehhh, you fellas are failing to read previous posts, and you know what that means for your posting privileges if it happens agin, right?
I chose Redhat because in the business world that most of you are too young to be a part of, it is the Linux standard. NOT Debian, NOT Mandrake, NOT Suse, NOT FreeBSD - RedHat.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yeah, can't blame the community on that though, they just sorta snuck up and clubbed us in the back of the head while we were distracted by their shiny box... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Trust me, without Redhat, Linux wouldn't even be a blip on the radar right now. They're the only company to make it commercially viable.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think you dont realy understand the idea behind linux, you pay for the support. If redhat wants that much for support its theyr problem, there are distros that charge less for support. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, you do not understand how corporations work, because you are a hobbiest. When a mission-critical database running on a linux server fails and the inhouse engineers cannot get it back up, they will need someone to talk to. When you are losing millions of dollars a minute, you don't have time to tinker and play and tweak. You want a solution and you want it right now. This is what a corporation demands.
For the past few days, having tried Knoppix, I've been trying to get Linux up and running. First I downloaded Lindows (free with a promotion) - it doesn't support my mainstream nVidia card full stop and I can't load the Linux driver because that means getting the thing loaded in the first place. End of that. Then I try SuSe, and that doesn't support my mainstream modem (which 80% of British broadband users own): there are no Linux drivers for that <i>at all</i>. Now I'm trying my luck with Mandrake, which has been reccomended to me. If that doesn't work I'm going to stick with MS because quite frankly, it's the only thing that will ever work on my computer and it does everything I could ever want perfectly well.
Conclusion: The majority of computer users have no need for Linux, therefore in it's current state it will never become popular
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
edited February 2004
MonsE, you misunderstand. That ~$3000/yr for RedHat (AMD64 Premium... only $1500/yr for x86 Standard) is not for the software. You can download Fedora freely, and use it as you like.
No, that ~$3000/yr+ is for a full support contract. Literally, you can call them up and have them talk your intern through installation and configuration of a central server. Your copy-boy. Your secretary. Someone off the street who looked like they had a hand to hold the phone, and a hand to hunt-and-peck type with. It's a Linux sysadmin sitting on the other end of the phone, pretty much 24/7. Packages precompiled for your architecture, and fully tested to be working properly. THAT is what you're paying for.
It's also not a single-machine license. The only thing that has an effect on is using the RHN Up2Date software.
Microsoft products, if you have a problem, they ask for your credit card number or company support account index before allowing you to even ask questions. Charging per-incident, by the minute. The $1200 fee is a license, paying for the software itself. Sure, they have support... but you have to pay extra on top for it, when it screws up.
With Linux.. you're just paying for the support.
Available in Premium Edition ($3000, AMD64) • Web and phone based comprehensive support • 24 x 7 • 1 hour response • Unlimited incidents • 1 year Red Hat Network 3
And Varsity, no distro comes with 3D accellerated modules for ATI/nVidia cards, to my knowledge. You need to simply go in, download and install them through the command-line interface. Though many come with a 2D module which will allow them to work, permitting 'casual' users to do the downloading at least in a pointy-clicky environment. Which brand/make/model of modem do you use, again? You never mentioned. And most USB-link broadband modems are unsupported. Almost ALL ethernet-link modems ARE supported, either through RP-PPPoE, PPPoA kernel modules, or simple tftp init/DHCP name resolution (in the case of many cable modems).
Yes, it takes a little work. It takes two brain cells to rub together. I understand that's more than most can spare, having lost them in the couch cushions while staring at the boob-tube. But it's worth it.
<!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+Feb 11 2004, 12:24 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Feb 11 2004, 12:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> MonsE, you misunderstand. That ~$3000/yr for RedHat (AMD64 Premium... only $1500/yr for x86 Standard) is not for the software. You can download Fedora freely, and use it as you like. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ah! I both understood and misunderstood - I realise that it was an annual support contract, but I didn't understand that they are not charging per-unit. Why was I confused? Because they say on the website:
"Orders of five or more units of any version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux should be made by contacting Red Hat Sales".
If it's a corporate license for all your servers, why exactly would you buy more than 1 unit?
As for Fedora, that's not an option for most companies, as Redhat themselves admit. It's not nearly as stable or supported as Server 3, nor is it intended to be - it's the truly hobbiest line.
As for your MS point, you're not precisely correct - if you do not buy an annual support contract, yes you are charged per incident (oh, and the same applies to redhat, btw). But if you do have one the scenario becomes the one that Redhat modeled itself after, which you seem to think is ok. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo--> The companies are no different in either respect.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
As noted, the licenses are to cover support for the machines. If you have unsupported machines, as far as I understand it, it's a 'go nuts'. But if they screw up or need to be updated, it's a good idea to actually have a Linux sysadmin on staff to deal with them.
Though I've never had to actually call in and use the phone support, nor the web support myself, the RedHat Network update system does require any machine logging in to auto-update itself to have a license.
Again, as far as I know, it's somewhat normal to have the mission critical machines under the Premium service, standard fileservers under Standard, and things like the MTX or NNTP, or workstation machines, either fully supported by a staff member or using bulk licensing.
Oh, and you'd mentioned a lack of groupware earlier in the thread. RedHat 9 comes with a groupware suite, in the default download-version. Not sure if they cut it in Fedora; may have to actually see what that thing can do.
Errr, ok I'm a confused old man again. Are you saying there <i>is</i> a per-server license for Redhat servers if you want to be patched, stable, and secure? How much is that? Are you going to note that there is no such fee for MS products, using any method such as SUS, webupdate, SMS, homegrown solutions, etc? Or do I have to. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
AsranielJoin Date: 2002-06-03Member: 724Members, Playtest Lead, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow, Subnautica Playtester, Retired Community Developer
MonsieurEvil gets interested in linux? ;-)
But its realy interesting to see your discussion here. Im just a hobbyst (as Mr.Evil says) and i have some knowledge as a sysadmin(im "computer scientist" dont know the right word, but in some years i could do the same job that Mr.Evil does) but no real experience, and i must say, im learning very much in this thread.
But i will make a little search to see if there are other distributions with 24/7 support, for less money,
The problem is that Microsoft created an Industry Standard when the computing world needed it most.
Lets look at a world without MS-DOS. It is highly likely that most of the PC world would be floundering in a state of unknown-ness. In fact using a computer would still be a "geek" thing and not understood by most people.
Take a look at everything you use. There is a high chance that it was designed to do the same job as an existing application. If it wasn't for the windows development platform we probably wouldn't have half the things that are great about using a PC. Things like Shockwave, Flash, Quake, Half-Life etc etc were created for the Windows environment. The fact they got ported over is not the point. They were developed for Windows.
Also the fact that Windows seems to have the most security issues is mainly because its the most used OS. Believe it or not THERE ARE SECURITY HOLES IN ALL OS's the other OS's just aren't used enough to find them.
And then theres Direct X, something which Microsoft have made and while it may be easilly ported over to Linux Direct X is one of the main reasons that games like Half-Life 2 can exist and look the way they do.
Linux is fine, I have no problems with it but I like to have a system that will work well from the install and doesn't require me to a.) Fiddle with a lot of crap or b.) have a guru to help me out.
To Be Honest I'd much rather move to Mac OS X than Linux.
AsranielJoin Date: 2002-06-03Member: 724Members, Playtest Lead, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow, Subnautica Playtester, Retired Community Developer
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The problem is that Microsoft created an Industry Standard when the computing world needed it most.
Lets look at a world without MS-DOS. It is highly likely that most of the PC world would be floundering in a state of unknown-ness. In fact using a computer would still be a "geek" thing and not understood by most people. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not true. Ever heard of Apple? Do you think Linux wouldnt have grown much faster? Your completely wrong here.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Take a look at everything you use. There is a high chance that it was designed to do the same job as an existing application. If it wasn't for the windows development platform we probably wouldn't have half the things that are great about using a PC. Things like Shockwave, Flash, Quake, Half-Life etc etc were created for the Windows environment. The fact they got ported over is not the point. They were developed for Windows. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Quake was made for linux AND windows, not only windows, you can also say it has been portet to windows. But why have the games been written for windows? because most of the people have it, its normal for a company to make a game for windows, they want to make money.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Also the fact that Windows seems to have the most security issues is mainly because its the most used OS. Believe it or not THERE ARE SECURITY HOLES IN ALL OS's the other OS's just aren't used enough to find them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I never said Linux has no security holes. The difference is, when they are found normaly after a few hours you have a patch, not like M$ where you have to wait 6 months for a critical security patch (just today we had that case). There are less holes and they are fixed faster.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> And then theres Direct X, something which Microsoft have made and while it may be easilly ported over to Linux Direct X is one of the main reasons that games like Half-Life 2 can exist and look the way they do. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You know very much about programming, do you? You could make this games with OpenGl (Doom3) and openGL runs also under linux.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Linux is fine, I have no problems with it but I like to have a system that will work well from the install and doesn't require me to a.) Fiddle with a lot of crap or b.) have a guru to help me out. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I just converted a newbie to linux. no problems so far, i just explaind him some things over icq
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> To Be Honest I'd much rather move to Mac OS X than Linux. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> *g* you know that Mac OS X ist a Unix? its not linux, but its a BSD, wich is also open source. Linux programs usualy run under MacOS X and the other way around...
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
There is a license required if a machine you have RH installed on goes south, and you expect them to support it. There is a license required if you want to use their Enterprise Up2Date. I'm not sure if Fedora still has a 'free' Up2Date registration, but RH used to offer one for their consumer-level, whether you bought it or downloaded it.
Up2Date is the thing that keeps the machine patched automagically. It's the RH analog of 'Windows Update'. I believe the Enterprise edition allows you to have a caching up2date server so you don't kill your bandwidth as all machines on your network try to update themselves over the WAN link, and just boot over to the local mirror. The non-enterprise does not have that.
Of course, if you have a sysadmin he can go around and manually update each workstation, one way or another. Which could actually be very, very simple, depending on how the LAN was configured. (Such as a cron job to run a remote script, with a network mount containing all of the updates, and have any machines that failed the update e-mail to a certain box <just in case of mass-failure so the sysadmin box wouldn't get spammed horrifically>... simple.)
Again, this is as I understand it. I may be wrong, but that's the way RH had worked in the past; you paid primarily for the support. The rest was mostly reproduction/media/printing costs.
But I still can't help but wonder how many companies using one server would be willing to shell out the $3K, and effectively pretty much outsource their sysadmin.
<!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+Feb 11 2004, 05:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Feb 11 2004, 05:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> There is a license required if a machine you have RH installed on goes south, and you expect them to support it. There is a license required if you want to use their Enterprise Up2Date. I'm not sure if Fedora still has a 'free' Up2Date registration, but RH used to offer one for their consumer-level, whether you bought it or downloaded it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ok, so how much does Up2Date cost? It's not like you can just leave all your machines unpatched to save money after all.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Up2Date is the thing that keeps the machine patched automagically. It's the RH analog of 'Windows Update'. I believe the Enterprise edition allows you to have a caching up2date server so you don't kill your bandwidth as all machines on your network try to update themselves over the WAN link, and just boot over to the local mirror. The non-enterprise does not have that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Cool, sounds like MS SUS server (freebie there, BTW).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Of course, if you have a sysadmin he can go around and manually update each workstation, one way or another. Which could actually be very, very simple, depending on how the LAN was configured. (Such as a cron job to run a remote script, with a network mount containing all of the updates, and have any machines that failed the update e-mail to a certain box <just in case of mass-failure so the sysadmin box wouldn't get spammed horrifically>... simple.)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ok, just lost all respect for you. You tell that to a CIO with 60,000 workstations. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Again, this is as I understand it. I may be wrong, but that's the way RH had worked in the past; you paid primarily for the support. The rest was mostly reproduction/media/printing costs.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Considering that your entire argument rests on this understanding, it would be mighty decent of you to find some documentation. I'm always interested in learning more about options and not just shutting everything else out, but I need facts.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But I still can't help but wonder how many companies using one server would be willing to shell out the $3K, and effectively pretty much outsource their sysadmin.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> We both know that is not what Redhat is offering with this licensing model. If you change it to system 'engineer' or 'architect' I would agree, but sysadmins are a dime a dozen. I can swing a dead cat here and hit 10 of them, but I wouldn't trust them to design anything or work beyond basic troubleshooting. That goes for all OS's - sysadmins maintain; system engineers and architects build.
<!--QuoteBegin-Asraniel+Feb 11 2004, 05:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Asraniel @ Feb 11 2004, 05:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The problem is that Microsoft created an Industry Standard when the computing world needed it most.
Lets look at a world without MS-DOS. It is highly likely that most of the PC world would be floundering in a state of unknown-ness. In fact using a computer would still be a "geek" thing and not understood by most people. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not true. Ever heard of Apple? Do you think Linux wouldnt have grown much faster? Your completely wrong here. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> In fact, even with MS doing their thing, it is likely that Apple would have become the dominant PC (as in personal computer, not x86 architecture) player. They were THE revolutionary company in the 80s and early 90s, but they had alot of big egos in the upper manaement positions who blew it for them. For instance, certain Apple big wigs were opposed to making a Mac for a low-end market, thus Macs were too expensive for alot of people. At one time a small group of apple programmers ported MacOS to the x86 platform, but all their hard work never got anywhere because the project was killed due to pressure on the CEO from other 'factions' within the comapny.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
Aha. Apparently they've added a number of proprietary binaries which are not GPL. The version lacking those binaries (Fedora, apparently) can be used freely, with the option of purchased support. Machines installed with the full Enterprise Linux have to each be licensed, due to those specific binaries' not falling under the GPL.
However, that still does mean that a single server could be licensed, while workstations continue to use the Fedora client. Still peering around for the status of Up2Date on that side of things, may have to end up installing it to find out for certain.
Sooooooo... it's back to being a couple thousand a server again, times your total number of servers? Please don't including Fedora in your argument, it is simply not a viable option for any serious large company. Hence why they make redhat WS 3.0 as well. I don't care about hobbiests, SOHO businesses, or anything small-potatoes. I'm a fortune 1000 playah. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
At this point I'm hoping to hear Talesin say 'yes, a Windows 2003 server is less expensive than a redhat linux server'. It's almost like watching a hidden camera show! Exciting! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Edit: and contrary to what you may be thinking, I'm not trying to make Linux sound bad. I'm trying to make large corporate infrastructure understood.
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
Okay. A Windows 2003 server is less expensive than a RedHat server. However, a Windows 2003 server with the same level of offered support contract would cost /more/ than a RedHat server.
And the reason they offer Workstation edition is for that same level of support. If you're just using Fedora, if an important employee's station goes down, it's up to your IT department to get it working again. With a WS license, RedHat will treat it (almost) just like a server, and get it back up ASAP, no technical knowledge needed beyond how to dial a telephone. Unlimited incidents per year, 24x7.
I think it comes down to what works best for the situation. Working on the cheaps and need power? Linux. Tried and true? Windows. <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo-->
any one ever heard of Debian <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo-->? its naerly the best Linux Server System i have ever seen and it is totaly free .
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
CWAG, not the point being discussed here. Linux has both of those. Windows has accountability. You can point at Microsoft if you suffer a major loss and blame it on their coding. Not really so, with Linux. If something screws up, it's your fault, and you need to fix it. That or hope you have a good support contract.. which again, is what RHL Enterprise3 is all about.
Mr. Tux, please read the entirety of a thread before responding to it. Yes, we've heard of Debian. IMO, apt-get is inferior to Sorcerer's 'cast' system. They tend to lag behind the times with their updated packages, going for stable, known code. Why it's colloquially recommended for servers, most often.
Correct me if I am wrong but why MonsieurEvil do you want to pay for LINUX servers when you can one for free?
Throwing in a different view I know some one who is an admin in a school built it up from almost nothing zero pretty much he uses Freebsd for servers mainly but had to keep windows 2000 for a few things that isn’t supported by Freebsd. All he says is he has to constantly maintain the 2000 box but hardly have to touch the freebsd.
But windows got the market corned in desktop OS just for the fact you can run just about any thing on it
<!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+Feb 12 2004, 07:44 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Feb 12 2004, 07:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Windows has accountability. You can point at Microsoft if you suffer a major loss and blame it on their coding. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> err not quite correct if you read the agreement it pretty much can be summed up to you can't sue us for any thing
<!--QuoteBegin-Talesin+Feb 12 2004, 07:44 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Talesin @ Feb 12 2004, 07:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> CWAG, not the point being discussed here. Linux has both of those. Windows has accountability. You can point at Microsoft if you suffer a major loss and blame it on their coding. Not really so, with Linux. If something screws up, it's your fault, and you need to fix it. That or hope you have a good support contract.. which again, is what RHL Enterprise3 is all about.
Mr. Tux, please read the entirety of a thread before responding to it. Yes, we've heard of Debian. IMO, apt-get is inferior to Sorcerer's 'cast' system. They tend to lag behind the times with their updated packages, going for stable, known code. Why it's colloquially recommended for servers, most often. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I know I should be on your "side" Talesin on this issue but I am agreeing with Monse, for the tens of reasons given. I said it because the argument is pretty much over.
Comments
<b>Windows 2003 Standard Server, 64-bit Itanium edition: $1,199
Redhat Linux standard edition, 64-bit Itanium : $1992</b>
As I tend to harp, your hobby copy of Linux may be free, but if a company wants a supported product, they are going to pay. In this case, nearly double.
Oh, and by the way, that's annual for linux, not a one-time price. Did I mention that premium edition Redhat server is $2998? Yes, that's triple.
Redhat Linux standard edition, 64-bit Itanium : $1992</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Red Hat has some slightly surreal prices. I'm not sure what you get for that price, but I'd half expect a midget Linux administrator duct-taped to the side of the machine.
At least with Linux you can always shop around for a better deal. I've had a load of success with SuSE for low-end stuff, and if I was after some higher-level support, I'd definitely investigate their <a href='http://www.suse.co.uk/uk/business/products/server/sles/prices_ipf.html' target='_blank'>server stuff</a>. Their not-just-installation-support maintenance contracts seem to be priced in addition to the software costs, but they're still way cheaper than the Red Hat versions. No idea what the support quality's like for server-level stuff, but the consumer-level people <i>did</i> diagnose and fix a really weird, obscure problem I was having installing SuSE 8.1 on a decommissioned NT server... <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Unfortunately for Linux, Redhat is <i>your</i> Microsoft, as far as businesses are concerned, and their pricing, kernel dev, and support agreements are what drive Linux in the Fortune 1000. When they cost more than MS, you have a very big problem with convincing people to not only recode all their applications from Win32, but to also pay more for the platforms to run them on. Ouchie.
linux book: eta 5-6 days
new hdd: eta 6-7 days
we will see how it goes.
for the record. i, quite literally, grew up on os/2 and win3.1
no, i'm not planning on making 'the big switch' but we will see how this goes ... who knows, i might
on a side note, our school computers (9333mhz pIII, 256MB ram) can boot linux live cd's faster than windows from their hdd's
go for Free BSD <3
Yeah, can't blame the community on that though, they just sorta snuck up and clubbed us in the back of the head while we were distracted by their shiny box...
Anyways, I don't think it will ever be like it is with proprietary OSs because someone can always come along and undercut. And with any luck <a href='http://userlinux.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl' target='_blank'>UserLinux</a> will take off...
Someone mind telling me how many freaking linux distributions have been mentioned in only this thread? Or how about how many of those distributions will "go all the way"?
Am I the only one that sees that as a potential problem?
The distribution that is most used on servers is debian, wich is absolutely free. But when you make a server and you REALY want to pay, why dont take SuSe or mandrake? but mandrake you can also download it for free, there is also a 64 version(most distributions have one)
I think you dont realy understand the idea behind linux, you pay for the support. If redhat wants that much for support its theyr problem, there are distros that charge less for support.
But until tody i dont see WHY you need support. When you know linux and you install linux you will always get all security patches and so for free, i dont see the point in support. But well, im not a sysadmin, im a programmer and hobby sysadmin
I chose Redhat because in the business world that most of you are too young to be a part of, it is the Linux standard. NOT Debian, NOT Mandrake, NOT Suse, NOT FreeBSD - RedHat.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yeah, can't blame the community on that though, they just sorta snuck up and clubbed us in the back of the head while we were distracted by their shiny box... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Trust me, without Redhat, Linux wouldn't even be a blip on the radar right now. They're the only company to make it commercially viable.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think you dont realy understand the idea behind linux, you pay for the support. If redhat wants that much for support its theyr problem, there are distros that charge less for support.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, you do not understand how corporations work, because you are a hobbiest. When a mission-critical database running on a linux server fails and the inhouse engineers cannot get it back up, they will need someone to talk to. When you are losing millions of dollars a minute, you don't have time to tinker and play and tweak. You want a solution and you want it right now. This is what a corporation demands.
Conclusion: The majority of computer users have no need for Linux, therefore in it's current state it will never become popular
No, that ~$3000/yr+ is for a full support contract. Literally, you can call them up and have them talk your intern through installation and configuration of a central server. Your copy-boy. Your secretary. Someone off the street who looked like they had a hand to hold the phone, and a hand to hunt-and-peck type with. It's a Linux sysadmin sitting on the other end of the phone, pretty much 24/7. Packages precompiled for your architecture, and fully tested to be working properly. THAT is what you're paying for.
It's also not a single-machine license. The only thing that has an effect on is using the RHN Up2Date software.
Microsoft products, if you have a problem, they ask for your credit card number or company support account index before allowing you to even ask questions. Charging per-incident, by the minute. The $1200 fee is a license, paying for the software itself. Sure, they have support... but you have to pay extra on top for it, when it screws up.
With Linux.. you're just paying for the support.
Available in Premium Edition ($3000, AMD64)
• Web and phone based comprehensive support
• 24 x 7
• 1 hour response
• Unlimited incidents
• 1 year Red Hat Network 3
And Varsity, no distro comes with 3D accellerated modules for ATI/nVidia cards, to my knowledge. You need to simply go in, download and install them through the command-line interface. Though many come with a 2D module which will allow them to work, permitting 'casual' users to do the downloading at least in a pointy-clicky environment.
Which brand/make/model of modem do you use, again? You never mentioned. And most USB-link broadband modems are unsupported. Almost ALL ethernet-link modems ARE supported, either through RP-PPPoE, PPPoA kernel modules, or simple tftp init/DHCP name resolution (in the case of many cable modems).
Yes, it takes a little work. It takes two brain cells to rub together. I understand that's more than most can spare, having lost them in the couch cushions while staring at the boob-tube. But it's worth it.
Ah! I both understood and misunderstood - I realise that it was an annual support contract, but I didn't understand that they are not charging per-unit. Why was I confused? Because they say on the website:
"Orders of five or more units of any version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux should be made by contacting Red Hat Sales".
If it's a corporate license for all your servers, why exactly would you buy more than 1 unit?
As for Fedora, that's not an option for most companies, as Redhat themselves admit. It's not nearly as stable or supported as Server 3, nor is it intended to be - it's the truly hobbiest line.
As for your MS point, you're not precisely correct - if you do not buy an annual support contract, yes you are charged per incident (oh, and the same applies to redhat, btw). But if you do have one the scenario becomes the one that Redhat modeled itself after, which you seem to think is ok. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo--> The companies are no different in either respect.
Update: and this just confuses me even more:
<a href='http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-5094774.html' target='_blank'>http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-5094774.html</a>
<a href='http://news.com.com/2100-1001-983546.html?tag=nl' target='_blank'>http://news.com.com/2100-1001-983546.html?tag=nl</a>
Though I've never had to actually call in and use the phone support, nor the web support myself, the RedHat Network update system does require any machine logging in to auto-update itself to have a license.
Again, as far as I know, it's somewhat normal to have the mission critical machines under the Premium service, standard fileservers under Standard, and things like the MTX or NNTP, or workstation machines, either fully supported by a staff member or using bulk licensing.
Oh, and you'd mentioned a lack of groupware earlier in the thread. RedHat 9 comes with a groupware suite, in the default download-version. Not sure if they cut it in Fedora; may have to actually see what that thing can do.
But its realy interesting to see your discussion here. Im just a hobbyst (as Mr.Evil says) and i have some knowledge as a sysadmin(im "computer scientist" dont know the right word, but in some years i could do the same job that Mr.Evil does) but no real experience, and i must say, im learning very much in this thread.
But i will make a little search to see if there are other distributions with 24/7 support, for less money,
Lets look at a world without MS-DOS. It is highly likely that most of the PC world would be floundering in a state of unknown-ness. In fact using a computer would still be a "geek" thing and not understood by most people.
Take a look at everything you use. There is a high chance that it was designed to do the same job as an existing application. If it wasn't for the windows development platform we probably wouldn't have half the things that are great about using a PC. Things like Shockwave, Flash, Quake, Half-Life etc etc were created for the Windows environment. The fact they got ported over is not the point. They were developed for Windows.
Also the fact that Windows seems to have the most security issues is mainly because its the most used OS. Believe it or not THERE ARE SECURITY HOLES IN ALL OS's the other OS's just aren't used enough to find them.
And then theres Direct X, something which Microsoft have made and while it may be easilly ported over to Linux Direct X is one of the main reasons that games like Half-Life 2 can exist and look the way they do.
Linux is fine, I have no problems with it but I like to have a system that will work well from the install and doesn't require me to a.) Fiddle with a lot of crap or b.) have a guru to help me out.
To Be Honest I'd much rather move to Mac OS X than Linux.
The problem is that Microsoft created an Industry Standard when the computing world needed it most.
Lets look at a world without MS-DOS. It is highly likely that most of the PC world would be floundering in a state of unknown-ness. In fact using a computer would still be a "geek" thing and not understood by most people.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not true. Ever heard of Apple? Do you think Linux wouldnt have grown much faster? Your completely wrong here.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Take a look at everything you use. There is a high chance that it was designed to do the same job as an existing application. If it wasn't for the windows development platform we probably wouldn't have half the things that are great about using a PC. Things like Shockwave, Flash, Quake, Half-Life etc etc were created for the Windows environment. The fact they got ported over is not the point. They were developed for Windows.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quake was made for linux AND windows, not only windows, you can also say it has been portet to windows. But why have the games been written for windows? because most of the people have it, its normal for a company to make a game for windows, they want to make money.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Also the fact that Windows seems to have the most security issues is mainly because its the most used OS. Believe it or not THERE ARE SECURITY HOLES IN ALL OS's the other OS's just aren't used enough to find them.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never said Linux has no security holes. The difference is, when they are found normaly after a few hours you have a patch, not like M$ where you have to wait 6 months for a critical security patch (just today we had that case). There are less holes and they are fixed faster.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
And then theres Direct X, something which Microsoft have made and while it may be easilly ported over to Linux Direct X is one of the main reasons that games like Half-Life 2 can exist and look the way they do.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know very much about programming, do you? You could make this games with OpenGl (Doom3) and openGL runs also under linux.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Linux is fine, I have no problems with it but I like to have a system that will work well from the install and doesn't require me to a.) Fiddle with a lot of crap or b.) have a guru to help me out.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I just converted a newbie to linux. no problems so far, i just explaind him some things over icq
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
To Be Honest I'd much rather move to Mac OS X than Linux.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*g* you know that Mac OS X ist a Unix? its not linux, but its a BSD, wich is also open source. Linux programs usualy run under MacOS X and the other way around...
Next time inform you better
There is a license required if you want to use their Enterprise Up2Date. I'm not sure if Fedora still has a 'free' Up2Date registration, but RH used to offer one for their consumer-level, whether you bought it or downloaded it.
Up2Date is the thing that keeps the machine patched automagically. It's the RH analog of 'Windows Update'. I believe the Enterprise edition allows you to have a caching up2date server so you don't kill your bandwidth as all machines on your network try to update themselves over the WAN link, and just boot over to the local mirror. The non-enterprise does not have that.
Of course, if you have a sysadmin he can go around and manually update each workstation, one way or another. Which could actually be very, very simple, depending on how the LAN was configured. (Such as a cron job to run a remote script, with a network mount containing all of the updates, and have any machines that failed the update e-mail to a certain box <just in case of mass-failure so the sysadmin box wouldn't get spammed horrifically>... simple.)
Again, this is as I understand it. I may be wrong, but that's the way RH had worked in the past; you paid primarily for the support. The rest was mostly reproduction/media/printing costs.
But I still can't help but wonder how many companies using one server would be willing to shell out the $3K, and effectively pretty much outsource their sysadmin.
There is a license required if you want to use their Enterprise Up2Date. I'm not sure if Fedora still has a 'free' Up2Date registration, but RH used to offer one for their consumer-level, whether you bought it or downloaded it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, so how much does Up2Date cost? It's not like you can just leave all your machines unpatched to save money after all.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Up2Date is the thing that keeps the machine patched automagically. It's the RH analog of 'Windows Update'. I believe the Enterprise edition allows you to have a caching up2date server so you don't kill your bandwidth as all machines on your network try to update themselves over the WAN link, and just boot over to the local mirror. The non-enterprise does not have that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cool, sounds like MS SUS server (freebie there, BTW).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Of course, if you have a sysadmin he can go around and manually update each workstation, one way or another. Which could actually be very, very simple, depending on how the LAN was configured. (Such as a cron job to run a remote script, with a network mount containing all of the updates, and have any machines that failed the update e-mail to a certain box <just in case of mass-failure so the sysadmin box wouldn't get spammed horrifically>... simple.)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, just lost all respect for you. You tell that to a CIO with 60,000 workstations. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Again, this is as I understand it. I may be wrong, but that's the way RH had worked in the past; you paid primarily for the support. The rest was mostly reproduction/media/printing costs.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Considering that your entire argument rests on this understanding, it would be mighty decent of you to find some documentation. I'm always interested in learning more about options and not just shutting everything else out, but I need facts.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But I still can't help but wonder how many companies using one server would be willing to shell out the $3K, and effectively pretty much outsource their sysadmin.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We both know that is not what Redhat is offering with this licensing model. If you change it to system 'engineer' or 'architect' I would agree, but sysadmins are a dime a dozen. I can swing a dead cat here and hit 10 of them, but I wouldn't trust them to design anything or work beyond basic troubleshooting. That goes for all OS's - sysadmins maintain; system engineers and architects build.
The problem is that Microsoft created an Industry Standard when the computing world needed it most.
Lets look at a world without MS-DOS. It is highly likely that most of the PC world would be floundering in a state of unknown-ness. In fact using a computer would still be a "geek" thing and not understood by most people.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not true. Ever heard of Apple? Do you think Linux wouldnt have grown much faster? Your completely wrong here.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
In fact, even with MS doing their thing, it is likely that Apple would have become the dominant PC (as in personal computer, not x86 architecture) player. They were THE revolutionary company in the 80s and early 90s, but they had alot of big egos in the upper manaement positions who blew it for them. For instance, certain Apple big wigs were opposed to making a Mac for a low-end market, thus Macs were too expensive for alot of people. At one time a small group of apple programmers ported MacOS to the x86 platform, but all their hard work never got anywhere because the project was killed due to pressure on the CEO from other 'factions' within the comapny.
However, that still does mean that a single server could be licensed, while workstations continue to use the Fedora client. Still peering around for the status of Up2Date on that side of things, may have to end up installing it to find out for certain.
At this point I'm hoping to hear Talesin say 'yes, a Windows 2003 server is less expensive than a redhat linux server'. It's almost like watching a hidden camera show! Exciting! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Edit: and contrary to what you may be thinking, I'm not trying to make Linux sound bad. I'm trying to make large corporate infrastructure understood.
However, a Windows 2003 server with the same level of offered support contract would cost /more/ than a RedHat server.
And the reason they offer Workstation edition is for that same level of support. If you're just using Fedora, if an important employee's station goes down, it's up to your IT department to get it working again. With a WS license, RedHat will treat it (almost) just like a server, and get it back up ASAP, no technical knowledge needed beyond how to dial a telephone.
Unlimited incidents per year, 24x7.
Mr. Tux, please read the entirety of a thread before responding to it. Yes, we've heard of Debian. IMO, apt-get is inferior to Sorcerer's 'cast' system. They tend to lag behind the times with their updated packages, going for stable, known code. Why it's colloquially recommended for servers, most often.
Throwing in a different view
I know some one who is an admin in a school built it up from almost nothing zero pretty much he uses Freebsd for servers mainly but had to keep windows 2000 for a few things that isn’t supported by Freebsd. All he says is he has to constantly maintain the 2000 box but hardly have to touch the freebsd.
But windows got the market corned in desktop OS just for the fact you can run just about any thing on it
err not quite correct if you read the agreement it pretty much can be summed up to you can't sue us for any thing
Mr. Tux, please read the entirety of a thread before responding to it. Yes, we've heard of Debian. IMO, apt-get is inferior to Sorcerer's 'cast' system. They tend to lag behind the times with their updated packages, going for stable, known code. Why it's colloquially recommended for servers, most often. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know I should be on your "side" Talesin on this issue but I am agreeing with Monse, for the tens of reasons given. I said it because the argument is pretty much over.