Torvalds: Software subscriptions doomed

[ral]

"A windows user switching becuase of licencing, activation or general public good will be detered by the inference that they then pay for more things. "

 

Have to agree. I still use RH9... and will continue to use RH I guess. Will buy a boxed copy every now and than and use RH demo (survey are short enough) and agt-get to keep up to date. Licensing costs vary from country to country... where I am though right now, Windows with OpenOffice looks cheaper if going the paid route.

 

Every new machine we get can come with WindowsXP Home at $80 or XP Pro at $135. Mandrake or RedHat will cost me $60 a year or nothing at all (for now at least, but dont knwo how long this will last)... If they are willing to give it for free... why cant I have a boxed version for $50-$100 with 3 years of ptach support.

 

Why is it free or $180 or higher for 3 years patch support... (and requires that a install a completely new version every year to 18 months to get continued support).

 

I guess its cheaper to go Linux on servers and similar stuff.

[Guest JaseP]

Linux is cheaper all the way around. If you have 40-50 machines, you don't have to buy 40-50 licenses to run a Linux box. If you have one and are happy with the way it runs, you don't have to upgrade (no one and no software will force you to). The vast majority of Linux users do not have to stay super-current with the latest patches (usually only if you are running a server connected to the net will you get a situation where patches are critical). That is not true for M$.

 

If you don't use the current version of Word, then don't share your documents with anyone who does, they won't be able to give you the changes. If you want to buy Word, then you have to pay an additional $150 or so (more depending on your situation) for Office. OpenOffice is free. StarOffice is cheap (like $30-$40 US). Both of them convert Word and Powerpoint documents. So, to stay current with M$, add the cost of the base software license to the cost of the upgrades to the office suite, also add in the cost of forced hardware upgrades, forced 3rd party software upgrades, and you have a total cost of ownership that is much less than Windoze.

 

In fact, I'd say that only in industries where you have limited choice in that a particularly critical piece of software only runs in Windoze, or you MUST have Windoze to interoperate with some particular 3rd party, do you have a situation where the total cost of ownership is cheaper.

 

Word processors in Linux function much like their Windoze ounterparts. Presentation software does too. Applications like CD burning software are free with most Linux distros.

 

Viruses do not attack Linux for the most part (what,... like 12 in the wild for Linux and like 35,000 for Windoze). Linux systems are more stable once set up. Linux systems are inherently more private, and more secure. You have to weigh in all the benefits. For example, if loss of productivity hits you once in 5 years because of a Windoze virus, then you may have lost 5-10 days of work because of it (2-3 due to the immediate problem, and another week or so why you lose productivity while re-creating your data). If your company or business makes $50,000 per year, that loss of one week just cost you $1,000. That's $200 every year if it happens once in 5 (a low estimate).

 

Your chance of losing the same productivity in Linux is less. If you partition correctly (a separate /home partition for your user accounts), a re-install will take a half-hours and all your user data is intact. Backups are easier and can be scripted to be automatic (both on small, single user machines and on big networks).

 

So the total cost of owning a Linux machine might be; 2-3 distros in 5 years,... $190 (US) maybe. The same thing with Windoze,... Win98-Xpee $120, New copy of Office $170, new software for media or CD burning $100, Loss of productivity due to outages, virus attacks, etc... $200,.. so maybe $590 (US) conservatively.