Red Hat Fedora Project
joe at spin.ad.jp
Wed Oct 1 19:47:01 CDT 2003
Thanks for the linds to the fedora list -- they were quite interesting.
(I am not on that list, but maybe I should be...)
> But guy, there is something very clear. How is it possible to get money
> when you are giving a product freely and also offering free maintenance
> *and* your potentials clients don't buy your services ?
Maybe its not -- but at the same time, while it might be possible to pay
$1 a day per large DB server if I only have 5 or 6 of them, its much
more difficult to pay $1/day for 100 little $1500 web servers. That
doesn't fit with MY company's business model.
>>That means owning the server for 3 years has gotten 20% more expensive!!
>>what looks so good about that???
> As I said before - 1$/day. It's more expensive than before, and
> too much if you compare it with free ISO/updates.
> But what you don't understand is that you are buying services not a
> a CD with software. It's not material like a machine, it's redhat people's
> work. If you only want software, it's freely avaliable in the NET.
I think you missed my point about percentage:
Its not very expensive if its on a big sever -- but if it increases the
TCO of a small server 20% over three years, thats going to seriously
change my purchasing decisions.
> And one questions about RHEL license , is it same price all years? or
> lower second, third...year :-?
Same price every year -- even if you buy the $1500 advanced server.
> In external CD but *without* support and maintenance!!!
> tell you to SUN that you want postgres support :-)
But the point is -- I *don't* want postgres support, from sun or from
red-hat. I just want security patches.
> You are trying to compare Red Hat OS with UNIX RISC OS and it is not correct.
> You should put in same bag OS_license + server + maintenance + ...
> Show me *real* data. Call Red Hat and then call Sun/MS/.... And say me what
> are lower prices, with same services, support, _performance_....
I did show you real data, in the last post! I *NEVER* intend to call
RedHat for support. We don't buy maint contracts on ANY of our solaris
Additionally, the "basic" edition of ES ($1 a day kind, $350/year)
doesn't include Phone or Web support... *just* security patches my RHN.
*That* is ridiculously expensive.
Compared to that, the $800 a year phone support option is a better deal,
if I wanted phone support... which I don't.
> tell me, which do others linux distributions have what you want?
> is there any?
There, is exactly the problem. RedHat was, IMHO, the best of the Linux
distributions. Only in the last year were we seriously considering
switching off Solaris for RH, because RH was low cost, high performance,
and had developed a track record of stability and good support. SuSE
might be good enough, but its not officially supported by Dell, and we
have much less experiance with it.
But, running the numbers, if I want a small web server, its now *much*
cheaper over three years to get a SunFire V100 than it is to get a Dell
650. And the gap between the advantage of a Dell 1750 over the Sun V210
has gotten MUCH smaller than it used to be.
Ironically, in high-end kit -- such as the 4 processor dells like to
66xx series, Dell/RH becomes much cheaper than Sun, because the OS
becomes a much smaller percentage of the Hardware cost (and the Sun
hardware gets very expensive)...
however, we don't buy much high-end kit compared to the low end -- and
when we do we usually have plenty of budget for it... and therefore the
slightly higher cost is much less bothersome. (erroding away the value
of the only place RedHat has an advantage)
I mean, how many people seriously run linux at the core of their network
or DC? People have started (as we were planning to start), but the
traditional popularity of linux is as an "Edge" server -- which is a
role that it fills very well, but is not servered by an even $350/year cost.
More information about the Linux-PowerEdge