Board index » kylix » Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop


2004-01-27 08:45:21 AM
kylix0
Quote
Don't know about your side of the pond but very few businesses here pay "off
the shelf" prices for MS software. Package deals and subscriptions are
available. I pay $299 per year and get virtually everything that MS
produces with up to 10 desktop licenses for Office and XP.


m$ server software becomes really prohibitive when you resell software
that needs a dedicated server like I do. Basically to run my software
you would need server 2003 small business along with SQL server for
5-10 people. That's at least $2,000 per server. Figure at last
another $1,000 for a low end server. If I only charge 10k for the
server, that's a huge percentage of my revenue pie. This turnkey
system I install is never touched by anyone at the site because they
wouldn't know what to do anyway. I manage it all through SSH which is
another reason to go with Linux. Everything is configurable from the
command line. So instead of having to tack on $2,000 (at least) for
software, I'm using Mandrake 9.2 server which comes with support and
is $200. My gui app is still a windows app but the back end is
postgres/python with some custom middleware i've built.
The best part is I can offer them file sharing, pop access, ftp, print
sharing, VPN, etc and it costs me $0. I just install the service,
config, and done. Linux is an awesome server.
 
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >, XXXX@XXXXX.COM says...
Hi,
Quote
>Because Windows is much more expensive than Linux in terms of Licences,
>and in a lot of cases, people are not paying anything for Linux, so one
>Windows server sale is going to be a lot bigger, in terms of OS dollar
>value, than 100 Linux server sales.

A lot bigger?!? How much do you think a Windows license costs?
W2003 with 25 CAL's is approx ?700, 100 CAL's is approx ?800, so for a
server supporting 250 users, it comes in approx ?000 ($14400)
Quote
It is a very small part of the cost of a server.
I can buy a lot of server for $14.5K
Phil
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

On 01/27/04 08:55 +0900, Bob { Goddard } wrote:
Quote
JQP wrote:

>"Bob { Goddard }" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
>message news:bv3rtl$n5ode$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>>$300 for everything? As in MSDN? As in not to be used
>>for production?
>
>As in Microsoft Action Pack Subscription. As in "internal business use"
>is
>allowed. Here's the UK page.
>
>www.microsoft.com/uk/partner/sales_and_marketing/actionpack/.

Interesting.... Never seen it before.

However, this is not for end users, is it? The vast majority
of companies and individuals cannot use it. Your argument
is therefore entirely null and void.
Agreed:
"Restriction
You acknowledge that the Subscription is restricted to resellers,
consultants, VARs, value-added providers, system integrators,
developers, system builders, hosts, service providers or IT
professionals who sell Microsoft products or provide solutions
based on Microsoft products and technologies to third-party
customers, and whose Subscription applications have been
submitted to Microsoft as specified in this Agreement and
accepted by Microsoft. By submitting your application and
accepting the Subscription you warrant that you meet the criteria
to receive the Subscription."
In other words, the average company will spend heaps to get this
software.
trane
--
//------------------------------------------------------------
// Trane Francks XXXX@XXXXX.COM Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.
 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

"Bob { Goddard }" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
message news:bv49dv$o8sl1$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
Quote
Interesting.... Never seen it before.

However, this is not for end users, is it? The vast majority
of companies and individuals cannot use it. Your argument
is therefore entirely null and void.
Bundled packages and discounts are available to just about every business
with multiple computers to outfit. "Enterprise" level customers generally
get custom, individual deals at huge discounts. Smaller businesses have
bundles like Small Business Server.
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

JQP wrote:
Quote
"Bob { Goddard }" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
message news:bv49dv$o8sl1$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>Interesting.... Never seen it before.
>
>However, this is not for end users, is it? The vast majority
>of companies and individuals cannot use it. Your argument
>is therefore entirely null and void.

Bundled packages and discounts are available to just about every business
with multiple computers to outfit. "Enterprise" level customers
generally
get custom, individual deals at huge discounts. Smaller businesses have
bundles like Small Business Server.
You're changing the rules again.
I accept that enterprise level customers can cut special deals,
but SME's cannot, and remember that SME'e make up the vast bulk of
businesses. They also cannot get access to the Action Pack.
So the only thing open to them is SBS, this costs around 400ukp
here in the UK for 5 users. That is WELL over half the cost
of a small server.
Your argument that MS server software represents only a small
part of the cost of a server still does not stand up to
scrutiny.
B
--
www.mailtrap.org.uk/
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

"Bob { Goddard }" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
message news:bv56b6$o1m1p$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
Quote
I accept that enterprise level customers can cut special deals,
but SME's cannot, and remember that SME'e make up the vast bulk of
businesses. They also cannot get access to the Action Pack.
So the only thing open to them is SBS, this costs around 400ukp
here in the UK for 5 users. That is WELL over half the cost
of a small server.
You're paying way too much<g>. SBS is available for less than $450US. And
remember this is a bundle, not just the OS.
www.newegg.com/app/viewProductDesc.asp
Quote
Your argument that MS server software represents only a small
part of the cost of a server still does not stand up to
scrutiny.
Neither does the original statement that Linux has more marketshare than
Windows on the server.
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

In article <40167630$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >, XXXX@XXXXX.COM says...
Hi,
Quote
>So the only thing open to them is SBS, this costs around 400ukp
>here in the UK for 5 users. That is WELL over half the cost
>of a small server.

You're paying way too much<g>. SBS is available for less than $450US. And
remember this is a bundle, not just the OS.

www.newegg.com/app/viewProductDesc.asp
..and the another $1,995.00 for each set of 20 CALs, which makes the
difference between UK and US cost for the base package very
insignificant. A SBS with 250 CAL's is going cost you getting on for
$25k.
Phil
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

"Phil Shrimpton" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
A SBS with 250 CAL's is going cost you getting on for $25k.
Only if you're brain dead and buy off the shelf. Most businesses of this
size do not.
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

MM>No, I was refuting your claim that we should fire our admins because
MM>they cant lock down laptops in the wild. They got a good chuckle
MM>out of your post.
Was it nervous chuckle with afraid faces? :-)
Initially you was not said that virus letters income from outer employees.
Anyway if someone send letter from outside with virus and then your admins
should waste time to clear internal PCs it is their failure. While our
admins sit and enjoy, your admins cleaning PCs. That's the may be cause for
chuckle".>;->Ok, ok, don't fire your admins.
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

"JQP" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
"Phil Shrimpton" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>A SBS with 250 CAL's is going cost you getting on for $25k.

Only if you're brain dead and buy off the shelf. Most businesses of this
size do not.
SBS is limited to 75 users and the CAL includes a license for Exchange and
SQL Server (depending on the version of SBS you bought) as well.
There's a current promotion where you get 5 free CAL's so SBS + 10 Cals is
still under $500 -- pretty good value.
Dan
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

JQP wrote:
Quote
"Bob { Goddard }" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
message news:bv56b6$o1m1p$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>I accept that enterprise level customers can cut special deals,
>but SME's cannot, and remember that SME'e make up the vast bulk of
>businesses. They also cannot get access to the Action Pack.
>So the only thing open to them is SBS, this costs around 400ukp
>here in the UK for 5 users. That is WELL over half the cost
>of a small server.

You're paying way too much<g>. SBS is available for less than $450US.
And remember this is a bundle, not just the OS.

www.newegg.com/app/viewProductDesc.asp
An OEM version? I think not. There are far too many gotchas
when it comes to upgrading, and you cannot buy it on its own.
Quote, "*Must be Purchased with Hardware!*"
Quote
>Your argument that MS server software represents only a small
>part of the cost of a server still does not stand up to
>scrutiny.

Neither does the original statement that Linux has more marketshare than
Windows on the server.
It was your statement that the dollars earned by Windows XXX server
somehow proved that Windows had more market share than Linux. You
cannot use $$$ as an indicator of loaded servers.
You're still trying to rewrite what you said.
You're still trying to prove a point which you so obviously cannot.
B
--
www.mailtrap.org.uk/
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

JQP wrote:
Quote
"Phil Shrimpton" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>A SBS with 250 CAL's is going cost you getting on for $25k.

Only if you're brain dead and buy off the shelf. Most businesses of this
size do not.
The only option you have shown is to buy the software and use
it against the terms of the license (Action Pack).
I see little value in SBS, apart from the file & print services
and faxing.
B
--
www.mailtrap.org.uk/
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

"Bob { Goddard }" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
message news:bv6ef2$or952$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
Quote
It was your statement that the dollars earned by Windows XXX server
somehow proved that Windows had more market share than Linux. You
cannot use $$$ as an indicator of loaded servers.
Show me? I never said it "proved" anything. Here's what I did say:
"JQP" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
"The latest numbers I've seen (IDC, World Wide Server Tracker) for retail
server sales show Windows to be more than 4 times that of Linux in terms of
dollars."
"JQP" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
"If people are buying new servers to install Linux instead of Windows, I'd
expect the sales figures to show this in some way --- a decrease in Windows
sales if nothing else. And we are seeing just that --- but in terms of Unix
sales which are down, but not Windows."
.....
"If someone can state emphatically that Linux
has more marketshare than Windows, I would just like to see their survey
results."
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

JQP wrote:
Quote
"Bob { Goddard }" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
message news:bv6ef2$or952$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>It was your statement that the dollars earned by Windows XXX server
>somehow proved that Windows had more market share than Linux. You
>cannot use $$$ as an indicator of loaded servers.

Show me? I never said it "proved" anything. Here's what I did say:
"that" usually means paraphrased. You were giving credence to the
statement in response to a counter argument that "Linux has more
server market share than Windows and is gaining more everyday."
Quote
"JQP" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news:401119ef$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...

"The latest numbers I've seen (IDC, World Wide Server Tracker) for retail
server sales show Windows to be more than 4 times that of Linux in terms
of dollars."


"JQP" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...

"If people are buying new servers to install Linux instead of Windows, I'd
expect the sales figures to show this in some way --- a decrease in
Windows
sales if nothing else. And we are seeing just that --- but in terms of
Unix sales which are down, but not Windows."
Given that Microsoft are still engaged in the illegal practice of
forcing the manufacturers to account for a Windows sale regardless
of whether it does not does not, is it any suprise that the figures
show this?
Why do you continually assume that increased Linux sales can only
be shown by a decrease in Windows sales?
Quote
"If someone can state emphatically that Linux
has more marketshare than Windows, I would just like to see their survey
results."
This has always been shown to be impossible to prove since unlike
Windows, Linux can be installed on as many systems as you choose.
B
--
www.mailtrap.org.uk/
 

Re:Re: 2004 - Year of Linux Desktop

"Bob { Goddard }" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
message news:bv6itl$o61lt$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
Quote
Given that Microsoft are still engaged in the illegal practice of
forcing the manufacturers to account for a Windows sale regardless
of whether it does not does not, is it any suprise that the figures
show this?
You obviously know something that I don't.
Quote
Why do you continually assume that increased Linux sales can only
be shown by a decrease in Windows sales?
Why would I assume something that is obviously not true? Again, I quote
from my earlier post:
"JQP" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
"Yes, Linux is growing. Yes, Unix is shrinking. Windows seems to be doing
well on the server.
Do you have any *real* numbers that show a different picture?"