Linux Server Pricing is Still Crazy
Category IBM/Lotus Domino Linux
In the process of upgrading and consolidating our Domino servers, I'm replacing the systems with Linux (where appropriate). It's not because of price.
Scott Klein did a price layout which touches on the "real-world" cost for Linux servers that most of us must meet. Commercial Linux costs more than Microsoft Windows. Weird, isn't it? After living with Ubuntu, Fedora, et al., it's easy to assume that because of the GPL everything Linux must be the least expensive, if not free. You're forgiven if you think that the Microsoft sticker price is highest.
When my company purchases a license for Microsoft Windows Server, they have no intention of adding on the Software Assurance tax. Even though the initial price for a Windows server is higher, without Software Assurance the Microsoft choice becomes cheaper, when measured over three years (or longer). Why?
Microsoft doesn't charge for updates.
Novell SuSE and RedHat charge annual "subscriptions" rates to keep the code updated. Kill your subscriptions, and your servers will slowly fall behind with patches and security updates. Year by year, those Linux subscriptions total up.
The pricing model is a donut. At the top end, a fully priced Windows infrastructure is quite pricey and at the bottom end, we have free Linux distros (which are beginning to capture more and more of the enterprise data center). In the middle, though, commerical Linux is being out-flanked by the no-cost upgrade policy with Window's servers. It's 2008, and our Windows 2000 servers are still getting patches.
Some engineers are converting over their RHEL installations to the CentOS repository. It's possible to make it work without a hitch, but I don't think that's a long-term solution.
My guess is this price structure is temporary. After all, there are a couple of commercial grade Linux releases (I'll add in Oracles Unbreakable Linux) and competition will bring a correction to the market.
At least, that's the theory.
Technorati Tags: Linux, Domino,
In the process of upgrading and consolidating our Domino servers, I'm replacing the systems with Linux (where appropriate). It's not because of price.
Scott Klein did a price layout which touches on the "real-world" cost for Linux servers that most of us must meet. Commercial Linux costs more than Microsoft Windows. Weird, isn't it? After living with Ubuntu, Fedora, et al., it's easy to assume that because of the GPL everything Linux must be the least expensive, if not free. You're forgiven if you think that the Microsoft sticker price is highest.
When my company purchases a license for Microsoft Windows Server, they have no intention of adding on the Software Assurance tax. Even though the initial price for a Windows server is higher, without Software Assurance the Microsoft choice becomes cheaper, when measured over three years (or longer). Why?
Microsoft doesn't charge for updates.
Novell SuSE and RedHat charge annual "subscriptions" rates to keep the code updated. Kill your subscriptions, and your servers will slowly fall behind with patches and security updates. Year by year, those Linux subscriptions total up.
The pricing model is a donut. At the top end, a fully priced Windows infrastructure is quite pricey and at the bottom end, we have free Linux distros (which are beginning to capture more and more of the enterprise data center). In the middle, though, commerical Linux is being out-flanked by the no-cost upgrade policy with Window's servers. It's 2008, and our Windows 2000 servers are still getting patches.
Some engineers are converting over their RHEL installations to the CentOS repository. It's possible to make it work without a hitch, but I don't think that's a long-term solution.
My guess is this price structure is temporary. After all, there are a couple of commercial grade Linux releases (I'll add in Oracles Unbreakable Linux) and competition will bring a correction to the market.
At least, that's the theory.
Technorati Tags: Linux, Domino,
- 
