On Friday 09 February 2001 14:20, Timothy R. Butler wrote:
Tim,
I can't figure out why these detractors jump on the price of SuSE
Detractors - you make us sound like a hostile terrorist group or something.
Professional, comparing it to M$. Invariably they make the comparison based on the lowly client version of Win98. In truth, they should be comparing it to Windows 2000 Data Center, especially now with the 2.4 kernel. How much does Microsoft charge for unlimited seats on that
Well, that is TRUE. But I remeber a year or two ago other Linux people were always jumping on Micrsoft - they are soooo expensive. The OS is $89.99! Well, I don't hear any of them now, do you?
The more I read your posts, Tim, the more I'm beginning to believe that you are an M$ troll, or cursed with an extremely short of memory. For the umpteenth time (are you paying attention?): Compare what you get for $90 from M$ to what your get for $70 from SuSE. Or stated another way: HOW MUCH WOULD YOU HAVE TO PAY TO BILL GATES TO GET WHAT COMES IN A SUSE BOX? Want to setup a 5 client server? Sorry that's an extra $600 for Bill. No extra charge with SuSE. 25 Clients? $,2400 more to Bill, please. SuSE? nada. 300 clients? Bill requires over $25,000 but I'm sure he'll cut you a small deal. This is to say nothing of the other software and hardware that you will have to 'upgrade' when ever Bill decides to tweek a format or extend a protocol. Changed your hardware or had a crash and reinstalled Win2K and tried to install Win2K for the 3rd time? Bill thinks your a pirate and you have to buy another copy of Win2K. Now, Tim, what part of this picture don't you understand that requres us to repeat it to you over and over?
Why is that? It's because Linux is now the same price - to me it's fair to do the same comparison Linux users were doing. I'm not saying Linux isn't cheaper - but it ought to be for crying out loud. I would guess that at least 95% of the code contained in is developed by other people for no cost to SuSE. Now, I'm not saying SuSE isn't worth $79.99 or what ever price it is tomorrow. But! I think there are definately ways to make it more affordable for hobbists. For instance, I run a small consulting company, and keep a copy of Linux on my computer partially as a hobby, and partially because it's useful.
If your small company is uninetsoulutions.com, then how come you're running your web site on a Linux OS? Is your web site "partly a hobby"?
However, the useful part doesn't demand me going out and buying every release, and frankly the hobbist part says $79.99 is way too expensive for a hobby.
accomplish the job, for $79.99. All they can't do is take YaST, recompile it with their own name, and sell the result as their own distribution. That's it.
That's it? What do you mean "that's it"? That's one of the tenets of open source software. EVERY OTHER major distribution offers it's installer as open source (under the GNU Free Software definition), IIRC. Personally, this is disturbing to me.
Your concern about Linux purity is interesting. Why does your site specialize in selling PROPRIATARY software for the NT (and Win2000) OS? Why is your server running a mod_frontpage service? Why do you use Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) for your email package? JLK