You're comparing Windows to Linux, so let's look at the total picture. Check out Microsoft's web site and see what it costs to log a single phone call. I believe it's between $200 and $300. If you're not going to be talking about the cost of Microsoft support, do not even look at the $300 EW annual subscription since then you won't be comparing apples to apples.
Fair enough, but I *was* basing the costs later in the post on the $180 option. The problem is that I don't call Microsoft for client issues, and I probably never will. (I've only called the 3 times for development issues.) I probably wouldn't call Red Hat either, BUT I HAVE TO PAY FOR THAT PRIVILEDGE IF I WANT THE SECURITY UPDATES that you so strongly feel I need. With Microsoft, I get all the updates for free. For a long time. And with their brand spankin' new SUS (look it up), I even get a Red-Hat-Enterprise-Network-like application... again, for free. (Have you priced that product? Whew!)
(N.B. This is NOT A TROLL!!! I have no intention of getting into a security debate. I'm only comparing the update strategy.)
OS only. No applications. Do you run Office? How about compilers or other Windows applications?
Sure we run Office. Almost all companies do. Did you think we leave the Unix users high and dry on that issue? Of course not. We're currently using Citrix servers (with their extra cost) and ALREADY OWN all the licenses we need for Office, and every other Windows application we need.
Why do a 3-year study? Why not 5, since Enterprise Linux has a 5-year
life cycle? During that 5-year cycle, there are free version upgrades.
Windows does not give you that. An upgrade from Win2K to XP to 2003 is
extra cost. Oh, you want an Office upgrade to go along with that? We'll
charge you for that too. Look at *all* the pieces, not just the OS.
You're barking up the wrong tree here. Microsoft already extracted their blood from this company. (Hey, no one asked me.) When the laid down their ludicrous new licensing scheme, we bought into it. Now when we pay for a license of Windows or Office, we're basically renting it, and can run the latest version as we see fit. So I *am* comparing all the costs, it's just that we, as a "big" company, have already paid those costs. Note that I'm not saying that's fair to Red Hat, but those are the facts for MOST of their target customers with Enterprise Linux. (Who else is going to be able to afford the Enterprise prices?) So 3 years or 5 years doesn't matter to me. The problem is only exacerbated in Microsoft's favor by doing the comparison over 5 years.
Every product has a target, and it's possible that it's not a good fit for you. That doesn't mean it's a bad product or that the pricing is wrong. You just may not fit the target audience. That's true whether we're talking about operating systems, cars, or fast food.
Well, there's no arguing about this point. It's just that I can't understand the strategy, I guess. If we're not the sort of target market that Red Hat is thinking of selling Enterprise Linux to, who is?
dk
