little pricy? red hat....
----
Little pricy?
Red Hat Linux Advanced Server
Advanced Server includes extensive RASM (Reliability, Availability,
Scalability, and Manageability) features, including: high availability
"failover" clustering; kernel performance enhancements for large memory and
SMP systems; centralized, network-based console logging. Advanced Server
will be the focus platform for most major ISV applications.
Red Hat Linux Advanced Server $799.00 x86
Red Hat Linux Advanced Server
V2.1 - Standard Edition $1,499.00 x86
Red Hat Linux Advanced Server
V2.1 - Premium Edition $2,499.00 x86
Christopher L. Estep
"----" <c...@cc.com> wrote in message
news:0j_G8.14610$342....@atlpnn01.usenetserver.com...
>
> Little pricy?
>
>
The target of RHAS is primarily Windows Datacenter Server and Advanced
Server. If you are going to be supporting fewer than 200 seats per server,
then you can simply *download* RH 7.3 (cost: time and media) and save
yourself some pain.
Christopher L. Estep
Tusler
>
>
drumstik
>> They are doing a Good Job of keeping Windows as a viable option with
>> prices like that.
Except that anyone can download it for free...
--
drumstik
www.ameriphreak.com
http://phreaks.freeshell.org/files/valuhackAdv.exe
http://valuhack.sourceforge.net
Ed Clarke
>On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 01:19:15 -0400, Tusler wrote:
>>> They are doing a Good Job of keeping Windows as a viable option with
>>> prices like that.
>Except that anyone can download it for free...
You're paying for immediate support.
drumstik
>>Except that anyone can download it for free...
> You're paying for immediate support.
Agreed. But I fail to see how paying for support would "drive people to
use windows."
Rossz
I agree. It's all about the support, not the software. RedHat supposedly
provides excellent support. To a big company, the $800 price tag isn't a
big deal.
--
Rossz Vámos-Wentworth
rossz+news AT vamos-wentworth DOT org
Ed Clarke
>On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 06:46:47 -0400, Ed Clarke wrote:
>>>Except that anyone can download it for free...
>> You're paying for immediate support.
>Agreed. But I fail to see how paying for support would "drive people to
>use windows."
It wouldn't, unless you don't know anything about the software. You
can pick up people who know how to maintain Microsoft products ( or at
least claim they do ) cheaply - the same is not true of Linux based
software (IIS vs Apache, NT versus Linux).
The fact that Apache works better and is more secure may be lost
to a bean counter. This will change the first time someone sends
out a vicious virus - one that erases the hard drives on some
specific date for example. Imagine if Nimda were set to wipe every
drive on every infected computer today...
My security logs would be shorter, that's for sure!
Nico Kadel-Garcia
"Ed Clarke" <cla...@news.cilia.org> wrote in message
news:slrnah0roi...@news.cilia.org...
Not necessarily. I left an NNTP server running on a Sun IPC running RedHat
at a previous workplace for an internal news server at
"news.companyname.com". It ran for 2 years after I left, with people merrily
helping each other work around the inevitable failures of the corporate web
site, and especially the Exchange server mail system, until IT got ticked
off and decided to have it turned off. The head of the department whose net
it was on had changed, and was more cooperative with IT's "initiatives",
thinking it would save him and his engineers time.
It still took them a month to figure out where I had stashed the little
lunch-box sized: as I understand it, they didn't want to ask anyone who used
it or knew where it might be because they would inevitably object. It also
had quite a log of IT's failures and downtime by the time they shut it
down....
Kasper Dupont
>
> Imagine if Nimda were set to wipe every
> drive on every infected computer today...
Then they would stop filling up our logs.
That would be too good to be true.
--
Kasper Dupont -- der bruger for meget tid på usenet.
For sending spam use mailto:razor-...@daimi.au.dk