[NTLUG:Discuss] red hat server revisited

[Frag]

The yearly price I believe is based on RedHat offering support.  I have 
a Windows2000 server and when I set it up about 8 months ago and I was 
having problems with the removable storage service so I called 
Microsoft.  They said we don't have a contract so they can't help me.  I 
told them I had just bought Windows2000 2 weeks ago, they said "you need 
a contract or we can't help you"  Anyhow, we didn't buy a contract, and 
I managed to get things workable.  Once that first year is up, you can 
still use the OS, you just get zero support for it from RedHat, but the 
same applies to Windows, except you get no support when you buy it.

Or at least that has been my experience...

Dave

MontyS at videopost.com wrote:

>I hate to bring this up again...
>
>For the last year (yes, year) my company has been contemplating installing a
>database solution for one of our non-microsoft applications.  The
>application vendor indicated that the linux/oracle solution would be
>appropriate, although they prefer the Windows Server/Microsoft sql server.
>
>After looking at the options, it appeared that the Red Hat Advanced
>Server/Oracle 9i database was the way to go.  Much of this decision was
>based on price.  This is before Red Hat changed their structure and pricing
>policy.
>
>I just called Red Hat to get the purchasing information.  According to the
>phone call, the Red Hat server products are now based on a yearly
>"subscription".  The price for the subscription is the same as the full
>price of the software, currently $1499.00 (x86).  Windows 2003 with 30 CALs
>cost $1792.00 (www.pcmall.com).  This $1792.00 appears to be a one-time
>cost, as opposed to a yearly charge.
>
>What do you'all recommend I do?  Am I missing something?  I don't have to be
>sold on the fact that *nix is a better and more flexible operating system
>than Windows.  However, I must admit our Windows NT server has been quite
>stable over the 6+ years we have had it.  All of these servers reside behind
>a firewall, which helps with security concerns as well.
>
>I don't think I can get management to go along with Fedora, especially since
>I have been campaigning for over a year for Red Hat Linux.
>
>Am I missing something?  I guess I could look at SuSE, but with Novell's
>recent purchase of them, I am a little gun shy there as well.
>
>Please tell me I am missing something.
>
>As always, thanks for you time and help.
>
>Monty
>
>montys at videopost.com
>
>_______________________________________________
>https://ntlug.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>  
>