PureBasic Forums - English

scurrier wrote: Look it up on redhat site for Corp. use you can't have a linux server without paying for the Lic.

Sean

There is no need of buy a RedHat License. You can use another distro like Suse or Mandrake. Personally, I never used RedHat, and I had a lot of servers.
There is some server which only sell it RedHat?

all linux distro say the same thing if you use it for personal use it's free but in busines you have to pay and it cost more for linux lic. then a windows lic. thats all i am saying yes free for home use not to use at work.

I thought linux itself was free. The boyos who distribute it could charge for added value stuff, support, docs and the CD it rides in on, but not for the OS itself.

Has this changed?

scurrier wrote:all linux distro say the same thing if you use it for personal use it's free but in busines you have to pay and it cost more for linux lic. then a windows lic. thats all i am saying yes free for home use not to use at work.

What do you say? If I use Mandrake at work, I have to pay to Mandrake? Or I have to pay to Redhat?
If I use Debian, I have to pay too?
And if I use X-evian?

Possible, you refer to some servers wich you have to pay for use in commercial applications, but there are lot of them.

if you have it setup as workstation i think thats FREE you might want to check but if your usering a Linux server then you have to pay for the lic.
and you pay what ever distro you are useing we used RedHat and Debian
servers and yes we had to pay them to have a Linux Server in our comp. and it cost a lot more for the equil NT box.


Sean

sorry Linux cost a lot more than the Window NT servers

I don't understand very well.
You have to pay to RedHat for your Debian distros???

you dont have to pay anything even to set up servers. (i think).
But if you want a version that have some more progs and a printed manual, and get it on cds you have to pay.

thefool wrote:you dont have to pay anything even to set up servers. (i think).
But if you want a version that have some more progs and a printed manual, and get it on cds you have to pay.

I know it, but I thought somebody could give scurrier wrong information, or try to take advantage of him. The strange thing is that he had to pay "Debian" or RedHat for use Debian distro, when there is no enterprise behind.

Sorry, but Scurrier's comments are inaccurate.

http://www.redhat.com/software/rhel/faq/#six

Q: You mentioned licensing - what does this mean? I thought Linux was free.

A: Except for a few components provided by third parties (for example, Java) all the code in Red Hat products is open source and licensed under the GPL (or a similar license, such as the LGPL). So you always have free access to the source code. In fact you can download it from our FTP servers at any time. However, Red Hat does not provide free access to the binaries of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and these, combined with an annual subscription to Red Hat Network, access to upgrades, and a selected support services, are the components that Red Hat bundles into each Red Hat Enterprise Linux solution. Since every Red Hat Enterprise Linux product includes support for the system on which it is installed, Red Hat supplies the products with a per-system usage/support subscription. This simple model ensures that systems which useRed Hat Enterprise Linux are able to access the maintenance, services and product upgrades to which they are entitled. Of course, as mentioned before, this has no impact on your access to the Red Hat Enterprise Linux source code.

The Linux source is free in every sense. Red Hats licensing is paying for the binaries and support.

However, if you don't need that level of support then you can obtain distros like Debain and use it completely free of any charged license.

However, NT can still be cheaper to run that Linux because of the Total Cost of Ownership.

Until recently Unix was very, very expensive. This mean that very few people would have it installed at home. The only place to gain exposure to Unix would be within a large corporation or at university.

The result of this is that there was a limited number of people with good Unix skills and experience. Supply and demand makes these people expensive.

Also, Unix was developed for this environment, requiring a very deep technical knowledge to kepp it running. Again, this bumps up the cost.

Windows, on the other hand, is available on almost every personal computer. There are a lot of windows users, many with advance knowledge. More supply means lower prices.

Also, Winodows was designed for home users and small businesses who could not depend upon the expensive support services that are taken for granted at the enterprise. Somebody with very little experience can install most Microsoft products using wizards, although the reliability and security of such installations is often lacking.

The overall result is that the total cost of installing NT and hiring people with sufficient skill to keep it going is less than that to keep Unix running.

As Linux spreads and evolves this situation is likely to change. However, that will take some time.

@GedB: Your comments are pretty inaccurate too my friend

@Everyone :

Lets start by saying that Linux is NOT an operating system. Linux is a kernel. There is a lot more to an OS than the kernel.

There are many distributions of Linux that try to pass themselves off as operating systems but they are really just collections of binaries running with a Linux kernel. If that makes it an operating system then the distros are operating systems, but not Linux itself.

Most distributions have paid ("enterprise") and free versions. linuxiso.org is your friend for downloading the free versions.

All the free version of BSD style Unix have been around for ages - www.freebsd.org www.openbsd.org www.netbsd.org

However, NT can still be cheaper to run that Linux because of the Total Cost of Ownership.

I don't think that is really true. There are many more free server applications available for unix-like platforms than Windows. When properly licensed, Windows server OSes are pretty expensive.

Until recently Unix was very, very expensive. This mean that very few people would have it installed at home. The only place to gain exposure to Unix would be within a large corporation or at university.

What on Earth are you talking about? There have been free Unix-like OSes for almost 20 years now. FreeBSD, OpenBSD,NetBSD, all the various Linux based OSes. I have no idea where you get the idea that you couldn't run a Unix-like OS for free until recently. I've been using FreeBSD for 10+ years now as a server and as a desktop OS and have never paid a dime for it.

The result of this is that there was a limited number of people with good Unix skills and experience. Supply and demand makes these people expensive.

I'd argue with that too. If you think there aren't many Unix-ish people out there then you need to pull your head out of the sand! There might be more Windows people now because of the vast marketing efforts of M$ but there are a LOT of people still using Unix-like operating systems. I believe Unix-like servers still out number the Windows based servers in production (could be wrong about that last statement).

Also, Unix was developed for this environment, requiring a very deep technical knowledge to kepp it running. Again, this bumps up the cost.

Just because something doesn't have a point n' click GUI attached to it doesn't mean it requires "deep technical knowledge". Though I would hope that an administrator of a production server would have such knowledge regardless of the server operating system used. Again, there are many free Unix-like operating systems.

Windows, on the other hand, is available on almost every personal computer. There are a lot of windows users, many with advance knowledge. More supply means lower prices.

When was the last time you saw a Dell personal computer come with Windows 2000/2003 server bundled with SQL server and such? Go price a Windows 2003 license with a 5+ user SQL server license and tell me that FreeBSD and PostgreSQL isn't cheaper (they are both totally free and released under the BSD license by the way).

The overall result is that the total cost of installing NT and hiring people with sufficient skill to keep it going is less than that to keep Unix running.

Just not true my friend, just not true. Go hire an MCSE+I certified guy and see the salary requirements. After that, go hire a Linux/FreeBSD admin and compare requested salaries.

Administrators *are* expensive. They need "deep technical knowledge" regardless of what operating system they know and that knowledge comes with a hefty price tag. Comparing just licensing costs of the operating systems and required software between Windows and FreeBSD / Linux based OSes - free is cheaper than everything!

Doot!

Mitch,

You are, of course, technically correct.

I am writing from the user perspective rather than technical.

For the majority of users the GNU/Linux operating system is a new development. For example is that, when companies were upgrading for Y2K compliance Linux did not even feature as a credible option for most companies.

My main concern was to correct Scurrier's comments about the OS licensing. Since the TCO argument for GNU/Linux being more expensive is a widespread one (thanks to Microsoft's marketing department, I'm sure) I wanted to make sure that a more accurate version was presented.

My personal opinion is that Windows costs much more, but it does a great job of hiding all those expenses. The longer they go undiscovered, the more they finally cost to fix.

sorry windows doe's not cost more than any other OS
and what hidden cost are you talking about
lets see at my comp. Windows NT Admin get starting is 40K a year
and max at 65 or 70K
and a linux Admin starts at 70K and maxes at 120K a year thats why my comp removed most linux servers and yes you are right it was not the OS but some of the compents we needed to run that was not free
sorry again i am a NT guy and only cought some of what my manager was saying and thats when he got rid of Linux and the over priced admins

as far as stability my NT servers have been up for years and the Linux server have crashed more often then the NT servers it all depends on how well the admin knows there system cause the linux admins couldn't beleive it when they say how long my NT boxes had been running without any problems

scurrier wrote:sorry windows doe's not cost more than any other OS

Really?
You mean those lovely people at Microsoft will let me download WinXP for free like most Linux distros?
Or let me copy it and give it to my friends?

Sure, Windows is cheaper than OSX, but to say it doesn`t cost any more than any other is false.

scurrier wrote: as far as stability my NT servers have been up for years and the Linux server have crashed more often then the NT servers it all depends on how well the admin knows there system cause the linux admins couldn't beleive it when they say how long my NT boxes had been running without any problems

I've been involved in computers for over 30 years and *most* of that time has been spent in Windows but for every windows NT server running (Complete with extremely knowledgable and swearing tech guys), I have seen Linux servers running for years without downtime while the same has not been true for NT.

I am sometimes very ashamed to be a Microsoft sales partner at some of Microsoft's lame attmpts to cover up their platform's inadequacies.

Notice please that I am talking about NT4 only. NT5.xx servers (Windows 2000 and up) are very much better and a different kettle of fish but I have NEVER seen an NT4 system run for more than a few weeks without some issues.

Just my opinion.