On Tue, 2003-04-08 at 20:37, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote: > At 07:01 PM 4/8/2003 -0500, you wrote: > >Well, I suppose when you look at it from an M$ point of view. I can pay > >$200 for a copy of Windows and still get updates for it for the next 3-5 > >years. Instead with RedHat I'll have to pay $179 a year for the next 3-5 > >years. > > I don't think you're being fair at all. The product you get for $179 a year > from Red Hat (Advanced Server, IIRC) does not compete with a $200 copy of > Windows XP Personal. Instead, it competes with a $1,000 copy of Windows XP > Server (with 5 clients, no database, no email, no messaging...) or a $3,000 > copy of Windows with a database and messaging. So break-even point is > either 5.5 years, or up to 16 years depending on configuration. > > Still looks waaaay cheaper to me to use Red Hat. And more robust and > stable, too. Where in there did I say *ANYTHING* about a server edition of Windows or Linux? Nowhere. I thought we were discussing the *WORKSTATION* edition of RedHat, yes? Geez. -- Shawn <drevil@xxxxxxxxxxxx> http://www.warpcore.org/
