On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 09:45:18PM -0500, Jason Dixon wrote: > On Tue, 2003-10-28 at 21:04, Ed Wilts wrote: > > > So...to answer the question about how this compares to RHEL WS, I > > believe the answer is simply this: it *IS* RHEL WS - the documentation, > > the CDs, everything says it is RHEL WS. The only difference is the level > > of support you get. > > Ironically, when all is said and done, it sounds like RHPW is actually > *more expensive* than purchasing WS. Particularly when you consider the > maintenance life cycle. Who wants to pay $99/year for one year of > patches when you can pay $179 up-front for 5 years of patches? Heck, > you might as well go with ES for SMP and server patches for $349. WS is $179 *per year*. ES is $349 *per year*. Even if I have to buy the full RHPW every year ($82 plus shipping), it's still cheaper than RHEL WS. RHPW is also SMP - it's supported for up to 2 CPUs, just like ES. I believe that whoever told you the lifecycle was only 1 year was mistaken and I'm working on getting that clarified. Since RHEL WS has a 5 year life cycle, it makes absolutely no sense for RHPW to have only a 1 year life cycle. -- Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA mailto:ewilts@xxxxxxxxxx Member #1, Red Hat Community Ambassador Program -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
