Posted by: SAS70ExPERT
Linux versus Windows, Microsoft, Red Hat
Last week, SearchEnterpriseLinux.com editorial director Jan Stafford mentioned that the new Microsoft Windows Server 2008, which launched on February 27, has features designed to give it a Linux feel:
Any new Microsoft OS prompts Linux users to scratch their heads and ask, “Why pay lots to upgrade from one Windows release that doesn’t work very well to another that doesn’t work well either?” Users say that a Windows Server release launch is ultimately an opportunity for any Microsoft IT shop to evaluate Linux. Even a Linux-like Windows won’t provide the stability, flexibility and migration freedom of Linux.
We received several responses, including one from Steve Dasey in the UK who asks the immortal question, to be or not to be… proprietary:
Surely that is the question
Whether it is nobler to pay for support on an open source OS or for a proprietary OS.
Are either then free ?
How viable is it to run mission critical applications on a non commercially supported OS.
Are there price differences? – of course.
Are there advantages to both? – of course.
But the TCO is about a lot more than the cost of purchasing the boxed product.
I am pro choice, pro Linux, pro open source, but commercially apples need to be likened to apples
Alas, poor Tux. I knew him, Bill Gates. I think if Hamlet were running Windows Server 2008, he might remark “O, what a rogue and peasant slave am I…to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous pricing.” Server 2008 Enterprise will run $3,999 versus $0 for RHEL. The enterprise support package that Red Hat offers is still significantly less, too, at $2,500.
Got a rebuttal? Philosophize in the comment section.