> > You mean your laptop only used occasionally to print a label cost you
> > more than your 99.999% uptime server class machine? No way!
That was supposed to read "you mean your server...cost you more than your laptop..." I suppose if I intend to be a smart-ass, I ought to proofread more.
> Way. The laptop cost me nearly $3k in 1999, and the latest server about
> $2k in 2006. Moore's Law and all, you understand.
Well the point was software: you've paid more to Raleigh for an enterprise-class server license than you have to Redmond for a laptop which prints labels. I say: no kidding - those two examples you picked are in no way comparable.
> I compared vendors, and price was only one factor -- and it wasn't an
> important one. A LOT of other things went into the decision. I'm not
> saying it's cheap; I'm just saying that claims of predatory pricing by
> Wojtek are exaggerated (because it happens in the free-ish world, too),
> and the free-ish does not stand in contrast to the Windows-ish.
It is arguable whether even your RHEL/AL server with its maintenance agreement and tendrils into the [for pay] Redhat Network qualifies as FOSS. I would look at CentOS or Fedora as more representative.
For someone like Wojtek the fine points of server administration are irrelevant, though. For most people, their computing needs center on Internets and media and documents management.
> FWIW, the RHEL server also runs Windows Server 2003 (Small Business) as
> a vmware image :-)
Vmware is how I get at the Windows-only software I need for work: Excel, Project, Minitab...
Matt, one over-quota so done for the day
-- GnuPG Key ID: 0xC33BD882 aim: beyondzero123 yahoo msg: beyondzero123
Israeli settlement policy is the Amy Winehouse of foreign affairs.
-Juan Cole