Re: Controversial paper - Good response article on ZDNet
From: Mack (macckone_at_a_nospamjunk123_ol.com)
Date: 10/17/03
- Next message: Mxsmanic: "Re: Controversial paper - Good response article on ZDNet"
- Previous message: Bill Unruh: "Re: unprovability of the security of computational cryptography"
- In reply to: George Ou: "Re: Controversial paper - Good response article on ZDNet"
- Next in thread: George Ou: "Re: Controversial paper - Good response article on ZDNet"
- Reply: George Ou: "Re: Controversial paper - Good response article on ZDNet"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 15:09:40 GMT
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 13:54:08 GMT, George Ou
<533george_ou234@netzero234.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 12:45:50 GMT, Mack
><macckone@a_nospamjunk123_ol.com> wrote:
>>The figures for microsoft come DIRECTLY from microsoft.
>>Are you saying that microsofts own website doesn't know
>>what it is talking about?
>
>I'm telling you from personal experience. Go for the $250 per
>indident rate.
>
>>>>Windows 2003 server starts at $999
>>>
>>>Bull,
I like how you clipped off the figures and website responding to
this line.
>>>
>>>$430 for for most "Select" customers for Standard edition.
>>>$220 for Web edition (good for most things with fewer services
>>>installed)
>>And how many copies do I have to buy? Would that be 250?
>>I am certain RedHat will give a better deal. Try contacting them.
>>Web server (Select Level A) from the above web page is $349.
>>This requires 1500 points. How does that translate in real terms?
>>100 copies?
>
>No, probably quantities of 50 servers for most small to medium size
>businesses will get you a $460 and $250 rate. It's a sliding scale.
Not according to the literature I have. Four levels with A being the
lowest. That requires 100 copies of Web edition.
>
>If you're a small business, there is SBS 2003, which is a pretty sweet
>deal.
>
>For business users, you can now get a free home license if your work
>place is licensed.
>
>The security of Windows 2003 by most standards is pretty good. The
>feature list all of which I use saves me a lot of money, especially
>the RADIUS, Certificate Authority, and VPN server services.
>
>Of course, these prices and better products would probably not be
>possible without the pressure from OSS, and that's how I like it. Why
>mess up this equilibrium with stupid government or legal intervention?
Better prices and products maybe?
>
>>The web server license is really restrictive:
>> Installations of non-Web serving applications are prohibited.
>>from ->
>>http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/overview/web.mspx
>
>Just about anything could be "defined" as a web serving or application
>server application.
>
>"For non-Web serving applications, you should consider Windows Server
>2003, Standard Edition." doesn't sound too restricting to me.
>
Except that they want $779 more than than the $220 you quoted.
>>>>The enterprise edition is $3999 without a support
>>>>contract. This is cheaper how exactly?
>>>
>>>$1500 for "select" customers. I almost never use this edition unless
>>>I need to Cluster. Network load ballancing is included in the other
>>>2.
>>So what you are saying is the Enterprise edition is the
>>same price as Redhat Enterprise? That is if you
>>buy enough licenses.
>
>No. I hope you know better than that or are you being devious? The
>"Enterprise" edition of Windows refers to very high end features. The
>"Enterprise" in reference to the $1500 in Redhat is an enterprise
>support agreement.
No, you also get additional apps (not OSS) with that. There are
multiple versions of Enterprise RedHat the cheapest being $179
(no support except by incident charge). One year support is $299
including software. The $1500 version is similar to
the enterprise version of Windows 2003. 16 processor support,
64 GB memory support, and comes with One Year support service.
With your 4 incidents per year that is only $500 for the actual
software. Oh, and lets not forget clustering, which is appearently
available on the mid range edition as well as the high range.
I do think that RedHat should be responsible for providing critical
patches as required rather than by subscription. That is just plain
WRONG.
Same applies to the others selling the stuff.
>
>
>George Ou
>http://www.LANArchitect.net
Leslie 'Mack' McBride
remove text between _ marks to respond via e-mail
- Next message: Mxsmanic: "Re: Controversial paper - Good response article on ZDNet"
- Previous message: Bill Unruh: "Re: unprovability of the security of computational cryptography"
- In reply to: George Ou: "Re: Controversial paper - Good response article on ZDNet"
- Next in thread: George Ou: "Re: Controversial paper - Good response article on ZDNet"
- Reply: George Ou: "Re: Controversial paper - Good response article on ZDNet"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
