Which distro for the enterprise now?

On Mon, 2004-02-02 at 08:45, Thomas Cameron wrote:
> Answers inline, below:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Scott H" <scottlhenderson@yahoo.com>
> To: "PLUG" <plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us>
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 10:56 PM
> Subject: Which distro for the enterprise now?
>
>
> > I'm not naive enough to really think a particular
> > distro is "best". I am the SE at a mid-sized
> > corp, with about 1500 client machines and 25-30
> > servers. I began introducing Linux to this
> > company a couple of years ago and we now have 3
> > Red Hat servers and several of the junior admins
> > run Linux on the desktop. I am being encouraged
> > to do more with OSS. (Hurray!) I originally
> > suggested to my company that we standardize on a
> > Their new licensing is
> > of course now making us reconsider that choice.
>
> Why on Earth would it do that?
>
> > Now I'm all for putting money back into Linux
> > (especially when it's the companies, and not
> > mine! :)
>
> OK, lemme see if I understand. RH has been GIVING away a product for years
> which they have poured millions of development dollars into, and now they
> have the audacity to charge about a 10th of what M$ charges, you're opposed
> to paying them? I just don't get it. RH has done more for the F/OSS
> community in North America than anyone else, period. But folks are getting
> their panties in a wad because they are trying to do exactly what the F/OSS
> financial model suggests - make money by providing service for F/OSS. They
> are providing service in packaging and support. Why is this so damned
> objectionable?
---
wait a sec - they aren't giving anything away that isn't available in
some form or another elsewhere.

and just because Microsoft's model is to charge for software doesn't
make it reasonable for everyone to feel as though they need to pony up
money to use Linux. It isn't.

Red Hat provides a reasonably well configured package of integrated open
source software and the methodology to maintain it and through their
Enterprise Linux, they charge for this. They feel that the demand for
long term maintainability, single source responsibility is something
that both corporate and individual users will value enough to pay for.
I'm not in disagreement - and in fact, I have several clients that have
'purchased' the EL product on my recommendation. But I do feel that it's
a good idea to examine the other choices that are available and to see
if they can meet their needs.
---
>
> > I'm not looking for Linux for free
> > (beer).
>
> So why not pay for all the work that RH has done with RHEL? Even if you
> don't negotiate a better price, using RHEL is still a fraction the cost of
> Windows.
---
whether it is a fraction of the cost of Windows or no cost at all is
only part of the cost picture - far beyond the cost of acquisition, is
the cost of setup and maintenance over time. Total lifetime cost is the
real issue and I think that in this scenario (cost), that the RHEL
products probably are a great value - time always tells.

All of this focus on cost of course, neglects the other but certainly
more important issue of what truly constitutes 'free software' - not
free as in beer.
---
>
> > But my company wants to control costs,
> > and I can't really suggest going forward with
> > RHEL servers at $800+/yr a pop and rolling out
> > RHEL WS desktops at $150+/yr subscriptions.
>
> Why on Earth not? That's cheap compared to Windows!
>
---
I think that someone else has already suggested that there are volume
discounts and/or cheaper prices available to larger users either through
Red Hat or resellers
---
> > What
> > are other admins doing?
---
looking seriously at Debian
---
>
> Using RHEL, SUSE, or taking their chances with other distros which have no
> commercial support.
>
> > I have my own opinions
> > on what I like for my own desktop, and I don't
> > need hot-headed religious babble. But I would
> > very much like some reasoned discussion on the
> > options for business Linux! Thanks very much for
> > your comments.
>
> I am not a zealot. I am a fan of fair play. RH has supported, once could
> even say carried the Linux community in North America for years. They have
> added more value and credibility to Linux than anyone else. Why is it so
> terrible that they want to make money at it? I use and champion Linux all
> the time, but I have to make my house payment and pay for my daughter's
> school. Does this make me a bad person? If not, why is Red Hat suddenly
> cast as the bad guy because they are trying to make it easier for their
> employees to make their house payments and pay for their kids' school?
>
> RH makes a good distro. They are a good company, and a great member of our
> community. Why is it so tough to return that support?
----
he asked for opinions and not a hot-headed religious babble - seems fair
enough.

Personally, I like the concept of Debian - that there is no corporate
whim that the user(s) will ever be subjected to at all. Seems as though
if there were a distro at the heart of the 'free software' ideology, it
could only be debian. That being said, I am of course a coward and would
not typically suggest debian to a company willing to pay for the
'convenience' of commercial support.

Craig