I actually didn't mean to start a thread here. I just wanted the actual study modded up so the "Ask Slashdot" professional could see the study and share it with his client's CIO (it's still a 0 score, despite being exactly what was asked for ... sigh). I wasn't trying to make a case here on the list.
As far as "non-paid," there's a reason I use "EL" and not "RHEL" and often the phrase "EL rebuilds." There are many considerations, and the study is extensive, and I try to avoid both trademark issues and misappropriations or assumptions. I'm sure the study was doing the same. As far as "RHEL nice a very good stable OS, but for what you pay," I did post a comment regarding "Sustaining Engineering." Someone's gotta do it, and it ain't free or found elsewhere. ;) - http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2500906&cid=37896204 I'll leave all other discussions to Slashdot. ----- Original Message ----- From: Matt Brown (Sky Road LLC) <mbr...@skyroadasp.com> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 2:34 PM We have actually wrestled with this one the past two years. I don't understand what they are calling Non-paid Linux? (What are people running Slackware or Debian or something?) We don't call Redhat to fix kernel bugs or to provide better IO performance, we basically are happy with the vanilla RHEL and 80% of our support calls over the past 4 years have been on Satellite server. I would think we are the poster child for who leaves RH, we chose RH to avoid the finger pointing of "that app is not supported on the hardware with that OS" (or we have not certified that on the OS) that vendors do. RHEL nice a very good stable OS, but for what you pay unless you are one of those people who drinks coffee with their TAM, it is hard to justify to the CFO. Just my 2 cents Matt -----Original Message----- From: rhelv5-list-boun...@redhat.com [mailto:rhelv5-list-boun...@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Bryan J Smith Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 11:15 AM To: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 (Tikanga) discussion mailing-list Subject: [rhelv5-list] [Slashdot] "How Can I Justify Using Red Hat When CentOS Exists?" (IDC 2011 April TCO Study) Hate to do this, and I really hate Slashdot, but my client just pointed out this thread this morning. I decided to take the time to post (anonymously, so this isn't about anything for myself) the IDC 2011 April TCO study of non-paid Linux v. Red Hat. It's not getting modded up, hence the "bump" here (I know this is likely an abuse of hte list). So if you believe the study should be marked insightful, please +1 it up: - http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2500906&cid=37895636 -- Bryan P.S. I also want to make developers aware of this additional comment on the RHN Developer Subscriptions, which all professionals should consider in my opinion. If you have a TechNet (let alone MSDN) subscription, and you are subscribed to this list, you should probably consider a $99 RHN Developer subscription too. - http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2500906&cid=37895880 ___________________ _______________________________________________ rhelv5-list mailing list rhelv5-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list
