For All IT Folks: Email Security Using Linux! (Helpful Vanity)

http://www.freespamfilter.org/FC4.html ^ | I Dunno | RoNNY Nussbaum

[N3WBI3]

GE Do the math 3 environments For 999 each over five years is about 15K, of for 920 for thee environments for five years is about 5K how is windows cheaper?

[Golden Eagle]

As usual I can't follow your English or math, but if you paid $15,000 for five years of your "free" Linux that is hilarious. You can get Windows Server Standard that supports 4 processors and 10 years of free security patches for $699 each. If I need to call support it's only about $250 a pop, so for $15,000 I could get about 20 servers for 10 years including a half dozen support calls. Or I could get 6 copies of Enterprise edition and on each of those run 4 virtual servers for 10 years. That comes to about 1/4 what you would pay to Red Hat for that many servers over that same time frame. Don't mention the crude open source apps you're using "for free" because I could use them just as easy, or use Microsoft equivalents like IIS and SQL Server Express.

http://www.microsoft.com/sql/editions/express/default.mspx

Bottom line your yearly tributes to Red Hat are ridiculous, 10 years of support I get for free would end up costing you an arm and a leg, not to mention the pain of paying your rent every single year.

[N3WBI3]

lol 10 years of windows patches! are you still running windows 95? Do you really expect to be running windows 2000 in 2010? sure sounds like a good deal to brag about patches for an OS only a fool or a piss poor engineer would be using in 2010, but then again at the rate MS is going VISTA might not be out by then.

What your missing is environments, on a prod server basis MS is very cost compariable with RedHat, where it falls apart is test, dev, qa, staging and training, which only coast 60$ a year with RedHat. You are playing the same game you always play narrowing down the question until you can make the numbers say something which favors you point but is meaningless in a real IT environment.

I sure as hell hope not to be using RHEL2.1 in 2010 and if your worth your spit as an IT professional you wont be using windows 2k.

[Golden Eagle]

Why not. if the product is fully paid for, does the job I need, and is still supported by the vendor then I don't have to switch. I've got a huge number of custom apps and a small development team, we don't have time to upgrade everything we have just beause MS came out with a new version of the O/S, do you go buy a new car everytime they release a new model? I doubt it, unless you've got money to burn, and some psychosis that you have to always have the latest and greatest.

Sure we upgrade some systems that might need the newer features. but in many cases W2K is still working perfectly fine. You're obviously just trying to poo poo on Microsoft's ten year support policy because you know Red Hat can't compete with it, and instead gives you crappy software that requires endless upgrading as it tries to catch up to the market.

[Golden Eagle]

BTW even on a five year cycle I could still afford to have upgraded ALL the server software to W2K3 for what you're paying in yearly Red Hat tributes. You're basically paying the full price for Red Hat upgrades every single year, some deal you're getting on that "free" software LOL.

Any admin worth his salt as you say would be using that CentOS and giving Red Hat the finger instead of letting them drain your bank account, exactly what will happen if Linux ever matures to a user friendly level like Windows which is probably why that's not happening. There is no incentive for Red Hat to make their priduct as good as Windows because they know anyone with half a brain would dump them for some free copy like CentOS. Bottom line you're paying top dollar for a crappy O/S because you need the support.

[antiRepublicrat]

Bottom line your yearly tributes to Red Hat are ridiculous

Tell that to Microsoft, with its Software Assurance program. Of course, with MSSA, millions of dollars of contracts for people who bought XP gave them no upgrades, just very expensive support.

You can get Windows Server Standard

Let's have fun and take this in a whole new direction, extremely high availability, and price the OSes for mainframes and Itanium-based servers. Oops, can't go there with Windows.

[Golden Eagle]

I never recommended Windows for high end computing, although they are realeasing products for that market so they may have something soon. For now I would recommend proven Unix vendors, such as Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, UNICOS, etc, or some IBM or HP/Tandem configuration, not some immature and possibly fly by night Linux duplicator.

[antiRepublicrat]

Sure we upgrade some systems that might need the newer features. but in many cases W2K is still working perfectly fine.

I really hope for your sake that you're not still using IIS 5. There it's not a matter of upgrade for features, but of replacing a fundamentally broken and insecure piece of software (a good chunk was rewritten for IIS 6) that's tied to your OS version.

[antiRepublicrat]

Any admin worth his salt as you say would be using that CentOS and giving Red Hat the finger instead of letting them drain your bank account,

And any IT manager above him worth his salt wants a legally binding contract with the supplier for support services.

[antiRepublicrat]

I never recommended Windows for high end computing, although they are realeasing products for that market so they may have something soon.

Windows used to be made for high-end architectures, but not anymore. Now MS is just trying to catch up with a cluster version for x86. Linux already has a huge lead over them on this of course. Microsoft is also trying to put a lot of cool management features in their clustering package, but as usual they are shooting for the place that Apple was at over a year ago.

For now I would recommend proven Unix vendors, such as Solaris, AIX, HP-UX,

Those are versions, not vendors. If you want vendors, you can get proven mainframe-ready Linux from IBM and HP with the usual guaranteed uptime.

[N3WBI3]

Are you still using windows 95? NT3.1? are you using any ten year old operating systems?

Sure we upgrade some systems that might need the newer features. but in many cases W2K is still working perfectly fine.

Has windows 2000 been out 10 years?

[Golden Eagle]

2000 has been out six years, and I wouldn't be surprised if I'm still using it on some servers four years from now. My boat is a 2000 model too and I know I'll still be using it. The lesson is, if you buy quality up front, it will last. If you buy cheap crap though, it probably won't. Which is why I buy my shirts at Polo and not Walmart.

[Petronski]

LOL

[Golden Eagle]

To finish that thought, noobi3 is paying Polo prices for Walmart shirts.

[N3WBI3]

GE, Every environment is different my 40 Unix servers cost me about 5K a year, 40 windows servers that provide web, email, terminal services, and database it would cost me close to 40K per year. so it would take me eight years to have windows be 'more cost effective' assuming I did not upgrade *at five* of my Windows servers over that time frame.

Beyond all that nonsense there is a concept of net present value. The 35K I save this year can be invest in other capital equipment or investments. In effect your throwing away 35K each year that could be invested elsewhere. You've proven you don't know squat about technology don't bother trying to pretend you know anything about corporate finance.

[N3WBI3]

ding ding ding... Who here gets the idea that despite GE's claims of IT grandeur he has no experience dealing with upper management (which would preclude him from even middle management)...

[N3WBI3]

My boat is a 2000 model too and I know I'll still be using it.

Hmm so boat = operating system? gee does building = operating system? our office building was built in the 70's so I guess I cant use windows because if the building is still good enough so is unix on a pdp7.

The lesson is, if you buy quality up front, it will last. If you buy cheap crap though, it probably won't.

So are you still using windows 95? anywhere in your company?

[Golden Eagle]

Since you obviously can't count, verify with someone else 1995 was more than ten years ago. Thx.

[Golden Eagle]

my 40 Unix servers

You mean Linux, don't glorify yourself or your operation, or try to shift subjects in the middle of the discussion.

In effect your throwing away 35K each year

LOL you're the one throwing away thousands of dollars for your "free" o/s not me.

[N3WBI3]

One more time for the very slow 35,000 dollars:

5K at one year 4.5 is 5,230
5K at two years 4.6 is 5,482
5K at three years 4.8 is 5,744
5K at four years 5.0 is 6,107
5K at five years 5.1 is 6,452
5K at six years 5.25 is 6,851
5k at seven years 5.25 is 7,220

--

So by paying 40K for windows rather than 5K a year for Redhat you have over eight years in effect threw away eight five hundred dollars or about 21% of your total spending. Its pretty bad to overspend by 20% (which is what you do with a large up front payment) and this 20% is using the surest and thus one of the lowest netting investments of all (bank CD's). A financial manager with more time could have easily exceeded the 5% I was getting.

So to sum up:

RedHat (8 years):

During that time I have made an additional 20% on the allocated budget for operating systems. I have had the ability to update my servers as needed for no extra cost. And I have had support on my production systems (telephone and email).

Windows (8 years):
I have not had a chance to use any capitol investments because MS took the whole wad at once. I have only been allowed a few SP's and security updates not the latest stuff, for that I need to pay more. I have had no support other than shelling out more money. On the plus side I have an eight year old OS that I can use for two more years before I have to upgrade.