Red Hat vs. Microsoft

[cuog]

http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...a/smallbus.pdf

This is a study found on microsoft's website the rest is self explanitory

[mairving]

Many flaws to the study.

1.) It was commissioned and paid for by Microsoft, so naturally bias would occur since if the results were not favorable to Microsoft, they might not spend any more money with this company.
2.) It also appears that Microsoft weighted the tasks in their favor so that it come out more favorably for them.
3.) Many steps were left out such as installing a virus scanner, spam filter, etc. Steps that are vital and take time and are not always needed in RedHat.

Even if the install time was greater, which I have my doubts on, the ongoing time spent deploying patches and sp's, rebooting, scanning for viruses would be greater. Plus you would have to pay the licensing fees for MS, which can be quite a bit more than RH.

I rebuilt a server on Saturday, running FreeBSD. I decided to just blow everything out, reformat and reinstall the OS and all of the programs. Total time to do so was less than 3 hours which including lifting the server out of the rack and carrying it back to my office, making the CD's, updating the system, installing the firewall, adding back the config files, and reinstalling it in the rack. That is a real world study.

[cuog]

yeah thats what i thought I was also wondering how does Linux cost more? I thought Red Hat was free just like all the others or am i wrong there

[mairving]

Originally Posted by cuog yeah thats what i thought I was also wondering how does Linux cost more? I thought Red Hat was free just like all the others or am i wrong there

RedHat now charges for it's distro although they have Fedora Core which is their free version.

[cuog]

Oh, OK I guess Red Hat isnt free like the others