Have you seen what redhat are charging now for rhel ?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Porkster, Dec 10, 2004.

  1. Porkster

    Porkster Guest

    Porkster, Dec 10, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Porkster

    Alex Axolotl Guest

    Alex Axolotl, Dec 10, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Porkster

    Alex Axolotl Guest

    Alex Axolotl, Dec 10, 2004
    #3
  4. yes, well, kinda, my work uses it.
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Dec 10, 2004
    #4
  5. Porkster

    Alex Axolotl Guest

    What sort of value for money do they get ?

    Do Redhat give them good service ?
     
    Alex Axolotl, Dec 10, 2004
    #5
  6. I dont think that we have had to call them yet.
    Dont really know, it's not my area.
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Dec 10, 2004
    #6
  7. Porkster

    Chris Hope Guest

    I would assume the service would have to be pretty good as that is what
    you are paying for after all. You can get a rebranded version of RHEL
    without actually paying for it at http://www.whiteboxlinux.org/ so if
    you don't need the support you don't need to pay for it.
     
    Chris Hope, Dec 10, 2004
    #7
  8. Hi there,
    Why not? They are the undisputed market leaders in corrupt capitalism...

    http://www.redhat.com/software/rhel/purchase/index.html

    There are some prices for differing configs...if you had an x86 based
    server with 50 desktop clients it looks like around US$6000 per annum
    would be the damage for fairly comprehensive support. What would MS
    Server 2003 + 50 desktop clients sting you?

    The article was saying that cheaper distros are starting to eat into the
    market for RHEL, so until you can show cheaper pricing for an equivalent
    MS solution I'd say you're just trolling...
     
    Chris Wilkinson, Dec 10, 2004
    #8
  9. Porkster

    Enkidu Guest

    Enkidu, Dec 10, 2004
    #9
  10. Porkster

    David Preece Guest

    Difference is that if you don't want to use Red Hat, then don't. You're
    not locked in. Go use something else.

    Dave
     
    David Preece, Dec 10, 2004
    #10
  11. if you dont want to use Windows you dont have to either... only a moron
    would think that they are locked into using MS products.
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Dec 12, 2004
    #11
  12. ahhh gotcha, tired... need help with these things sometimes :)
    no need to answer "no-one" here really is there?
    although as most if not all MS products can be substituted for either
    other closed or open source products, someone could no doubt argue that
    Windows isn't a requirement either.
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Dec 12, 2004
    #12
  13. Porkster

    Guest Guest

    LOL - the vast majority of businesses are therefore staffed with morons.


    Divine
     
    Guest, Dec 12, 2004
    #13
  14. What he means is, Redhat are not the only source of Linux, even for the
    enterprise.
    Who else produces Windows, for any market?

    --
    Matthew Poole Auckland, New Zealand
    "Veni, vidi, velcro...
    I came, I saw, I stuck around"

    My real e-mail is mattATp00leDOTnet
     
    Matthew Poole, Dec 12, 2004
    #14
  15. not all business's think that they are locked in, some just dont know of
    alternatives, although that is also kinda their fault...
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Dec 12, 2004
    #15
  16. It's not like Linux is low-profile. Five years ago, yes, it wasn't
    unreasonable that a business operator might not have heard that there
    were choices beyond Apple and MS. Now, though, there's no excuse. A
    responsible business owner, and particularly responsible officers of a
    company, should know and should be looking.
    The expense of MS software simply cannot be justified for many staff -
    particularly productivity software, when OOo is quite good enough for
    all that most desk jockeys need to achieve.

    --
    Matthew Poole Auckland, New Zealand
    "Veni, vidi, velcro...
    I came, I saw, I stuck around"

    My real e-mail is mattATp00leDOTnet
     
    Matthew Poole, Dec 12, 2004
    #16
  17. Porkster

    Adder Guest

    yes - they stick with the tried and proven MS software

    you don't see them all rushing out to buy Macs do you
     
    Adder, Dec 12, 2004
    #17
  18. Given the price, no. But it costs nothing to trial OOo, if you give it
    to people who're willing to try it rather than bitching that it's
    different.
    Officers of companies have a legal duty to spend that company's money
    wisely. Buying MS just because it's MS could be construed as
    dereliction of that duty, if there's no specific reason for requiring
    the MS product - the majority of users will get no further into a word
    processor's features than changing fonts, columns and tabs. OOo can
    even handle mail merging, and is fully compatible with the majority of
    features in MS document formats.

    --
    Matthew Poole Auckland, New Zealand
    "Veni, vidi, velcro...
    I came, I saw, I stuck around"

    My real e-mail is mattATp00leDOTnet
     
    Matthew Poole, Dec 13, 2004
    #18
  19. Porkster

    Guest Guest

    Yup - tried and proven... to be buggy, virus-prone shite.


    Divine

    --
    Part of Every Woman:
    is a MOTHER,
    Part of Every Woman:
    is an ACTRESS,
    Part of Every Woman:
    is a SAINT,
    Part of Every Woman:
    is a SINNER,
    And Part of Every Man:
    is a WOMAN.
     
    Guest, Dec 13, 2004
    #19
  20. Porkster

    Adder Guest

    by communist whingers!
    plenty of reasons - like, best software on the market
     
    Adder, Dec 13, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.