The cost of software

[zlow]

Re: The cost of software

You are asking if $5,000 are enough, and then you are saying you can't afford these software if it costs more than $200?

Certainly! The point of this thread is to not just for me to learn what things cost in the MS world, but to show just how (likely) unaffordable it is for a hobbyist and why Linux is a good choice.

As I said before, you want to purchase a Technet subscription for $199. It gives you evaluation access to the following: Technet Product List. No it isn't free as in beer, but if you want to compare as a hobbiest, this is the fair way to do it.

I know lots of people that don't pirate, and lots of people that do. I also own a copy of Technet personally, because it is never a good idea to limit your knowledge.

[Ole Juul]

Re: The cost of software

Are you just playing and don't plan on using the licenses for anything but playing? Sounds like you need Technet which is $199 and gives access to everything that they make for testing purposes.

That sounds interesting - and informative. I've heard of various licenses available, but don't know the details.

Yes, I am just playing around. Like very many other people, I collect all hardware from any era that comes my way. Then I see how I can do something with it. My personal philosophy is to revere what can be done with brains, and look down upon that which requires only money. Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of either - but I persevere. If it was only a matter of throwing money at something then I would just get someone else to do it and never touch a keyboard myself - of course then I would have nothing to be proud of. ... but I digress. Anyway, like lots of folk I take all the old boxes (1980's is best) and do unmentionable (in a Windows world) things with them.

Could the average bloke afford to do this with MS-Windows? Judging by the amount of Windows pirating, I think No. You, may have hit on a possible solution with Technet. Obviously the same price paid for a basic OS like Win7 doesn't allow to do even basic stuff like pppd, and probably excludes a lot of other stuff that I now have for free. Anyway, this is all theoretical to me as I have neither the money, nor the brains to figure out the complexities of the legal aspects of proprietary software.

[zlow]

Re: The cost of software

Are you just playing and don't plan on using the licenses for anything but playing? Sounds like you need Technet which is $199 and gives access to everything that they make for testing purposes.

That sounds interesting - and informative. I've heard of various licenses available, but don't know the details.

Yes, I am just playing around. Like very many other people, I collect all hardware from any era that comes my way. Then I see how I can do something with it. My personal philosophy is to revere what can be done with brains, and look down upon that which requires only money. Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of either - but I persevere. If it was only a matter of throwing money at something then I would just get someone else to do it and never touch a keyboard myself - of course then I would have nothing to be proud of. ... but I digress. Anyway, like lots of folk I take all the old boxes (1980's is best) and do unmentionable (in a Windows world) things with them.

Could the average bloke afford to do this with MS-Windows? Judging by the amount of Windows pirating, I think No. You, may have hit on a possible solution with Technet. Obviously the same price paid for a basic OS like Win7 doesn't allow to do even basic stuff like pppd, and probably excludes a lot of other stuff that I now have for free. Anyway, this is all theoretical to me as I have neither the money, nor the brains to figure out the complexities of the legal aspects of proprietary software.

Sounds like a case for using the right tool for the job, rather than a "can Windows do something that Linux can't" or vice versa, because they both have individual strengths and weaknesses.

[GreyGeek]

Re: The cost of software

...
It gives you evaluation access to the following: ....
No it isn't free as in beer, but if you want to compare as a hobbiest, this is the fair way to do it.
...

That is a fair comparison. No deception about the 402 offerings being "evaluation" copies. That 50 cents an app to "evaluate".

The big difference is that a FOSS app is not an "evaluation" app and it is totally and always free. Other costs not included in the "evaluation" is the price of the OS and of the auxiliary software needed to run the "evaluation" copy, the price of likely infections and recovery when infections occur. IOW, the big down side is needing to use Windows.

Also to be fair, not every app in FOSS is equal to its counter part in that group. Mono is not up to .NET, for example. But, QtCreator is, IMO, better than MSVS for rapid GUI development.

Other equivalents occur: Microsoft drops and app, FOSS developers do the same. BUT, apps are often picked up by other developers, or forked when a proprietary partner shows signs of hostility. When MS drops an app NO ONE can pick it up and continue on.

Give and takes on both sides. But, there are more gives in FOSS that takes.

[Ole Juul]

Re: The cost of software

Sounds like a case for using the right tool for the job, rather than a "can Windows do something that Linux can't" or vice versa, because they both have individual strengths and weaknesses.

Yes, even though I have almost no experience with Windows, I can see many advantages which I am not able realize with FOSS or DOS. One has to ask the question though, that if there is something that Windows doesn't do, then why not? People paid good money for it and it is unfair to ask them to figure out how to use Linux. Besides, in most cases that just isn't going to happen.

I make just under $10,000 a year and there are millions of us in that category. In fact that is typical of people with disabilities. So, in a roundabout way, what I am hinting at is that Windows is for rich people, or pirates. I am neither, so that limits my options.

The overall point here is that $200 is a LOT of money. Three or four times that is simply an unreasonable amount of money. When you consider that this has to be paid every few years, then I for one would expect there to be features far exceeding Linux and certainly including all of them.

[zlow]

Re: The cost of software

...
It gives you evaluation access to the following: ....
No it isn't free as in beer, but if you want to compare as a hobbiest, this is the fair way to do it.
...

That is a fair comparison. No deception about the 402 offerings being "evaluation" copies. That 50 cents an app to "evaluate".

They aren't time limited trial copies, they are full editions of software with retail license keys. They are unrestricted other than the promise that you make to use them for testing purposes.

The big difference is that a FOSS app is not an "evaluation" app and it is totally and always free. Other

This isn't always true. Look at RedHat Enterprise. Good luck getting updates for it without paying for a license. You can however get an evaluation copy that gets updates for only 30 days. I have a ton of them, all of them functionally useless without a support contract.

costs not included in the "evaluation" is the price of the OS and of the auxiliary software needed to run the "evaluation" copy, the price of likely infections and recovery when infections occur. IOW, the big down side is needing to use Windows.

To be fair, the infection rate isn't as bad as you make it sound. Responsible computing is platform agnostic.

Also to be fair, not every app in FOSS is equal to its counter part in that group. Mono is not up to .NET, for example. But, QtCreator is, IMO, better than MSVS for rapid GUI development.

This is very true. Mono is up to the published .NET spec, however Mono also includes things not found in MS .NET and vice versa.

Other equivalents occur: Microsoft drops and app, FOSS developers do the same. BUT, apps are often picked up by other developers, or forked when a proprietary partner shows signs of hostility. When MS drops an app NO ONE can pick it up and continue on.

Actually, a lot of FOSS apps die just like proprietary apps. Look at Sourceforge, there are thousands of dead apps for example.

Give and takes on both sides. But, there are more gives in FOSS that takes.

I won't argue that point, you are absolutely right.

[zlow]

Re: The cost of software

The overall point here is that $200 is a LOT of money. Three or four times that is simply an unreasonable amount of money. When you consider that this has to be paid every few years, then I for one would expect there to be features far exceeding Linux and certainly including all of them.

If $200 is a lot of money, then you shouldn't be buying computers or software, you should be worrying about more important things like paying rent or mortgage. As for it being a lot of money, RHEL is $1,499 per year for 1 server, unlimited sockets. Windows Server you purchase once.

Really, when you move away from the desktop into the server realm it's a wash.

[vinnywright]

Re: The cost of software

The overall point here is that $200 is a LOT of money. Three or four times that is simply an unreasonable amount of money. When you consider that this has to be paid every few years, then I for one would expect there to be features far exceeding Linux and certainly including all of them.

I agree that's a week's unemployment for me

I "own" installation disks for M$ 95,98 & XP-home (dont remember what thay cost at the time) but for most practical purposes thay are now junk........unsupported non upgradeable junk.
you would think an OS you pade for and kept using would keep geting upgraded as long as you'r using it.

even my XP has been on line registered to meney times and wont allow me to re register it on the newly rebuilt P.O.S. box it was on. ...........sorry P.O.S.box=old trash box I rebuilt= pice of s**t
yes I'm pore barley able to keep food in the house ....NO way to by good/new equipment OR (in my mind ) to repurchase a OS or software .....so my equipment brakes down now and then and I rebuild and reinstall .........so now my payed for XP is no good.........I'm mad > at M$

as long as I can run a free linux OS I will jump through hoops and hack away all night if necessary to stay away from the windblows world :P

wheeeuu OK got that rant out my head ........

VINNY

[GreyGeek]

Re: The cost of software

....
This isn't always true. Look at RedHat Enterprise. Good luck getting updates for it without paying for a license. You can however get an evaluation copy that gets updates for only 30 days. I have a ton of them, all of them functionally useless without a support contract.
....

RH is not an exception, or CENTOS couldn't keep developing. Every time RH updates, those files spread through the web nearly as fast. All one has to do is remove the branding from RH and you have RH without the branding, to do with it what ever the GPL allows. RH MUST abide by the GPL and make source available to any user of their distro upon request. People make legal copies of RH CDs all the time. When I was running a RH server ($1,500 first year, $795 @ year thereafter when I was using it at the Dept of Rev -- ALL for support) there were 842 or so separate files. Each was rpm'd, then tarred, then gz'd, then they were tarred and gz'd together in a single file. What they didn't have to supply, and didn't, were the files and infrastructure necessary for development: resource scripts, CMakeText or PROject files, file structure, Makefiles, etc... So, only highly skilled programmers can make use of them.

As it turned out, I used RH support only once during the first year, and none there after. I submitted a support request and then googled for the answer myself, which I found in about 20 minutes on two websites. Three days later I got an email back from RH citing the same exact two websites I found.

I'm glad RH is making money selling support, which is what they are doing, because most corporate types believe they MUST have support, and if they only hire $30,000/yr admins they'll need RH support.

What I want to know is where does Linux admin Oshunlovr work?

[Ole Juul]

Re: The cost of software

If $200 is a lot of money, then you shouldn't be buying computers or software, you should be worrying about more important things like paying rent or mortgage. As for it being a lot of money, RHEL is $1,499 per year for 1 server, unlimited sockets. Windows Server you purchase once.

Really, when you move away from the desktop into the server realm it's a wash.

Hehe, well I'm not worried about rent or mortgage, it's more like water pumps and firewood. But you are right, software purchases are not in the picture. However, I do need servers at home so I can move files around. I also need a test server so I can test stuff before I put it on my shared public server. That, by the way, only costs me $6 per month for more space and traffic allotment than I know what to do with. So, together with my ISP cost, I spend just over $40 per month on communications. No phone, no TV. Hardware is roughly on a 6 year plan, as that's about as long as a MB/CPU will service contemporary needs.

I assume that RHEL gives you something for your money that is worth it in a commercial environment. I expect Windows Server does the same. For non commercial use, if you play with computers, it does sound like you still need to be fairly flush once you move out of the world of free software.

[zlow]

Re: The cost of software

....
This isn't always true. Look at RedHat Enterprise. Good luck getting updates for it without paying for a license. You can however get an evaluation copy that gets updates for only 30 days. I have a ton of them, all of them functionally useless without a support contract.
....

RH is not an exception, or CENTOS couldn't keep developing. Every time RH updates, those files spread through the web nearly as fast. All one has to do is remove the branding from RH and you have RH without the branding, to do with it what ever the GPL allows. RH MUST abide by the GPL and make source available to any user of their distro upon request. People make legal copies of RH CDs all the time. When I was running a RH server ($1,500 first year, $795 @ year thereafter when I was using it at the Dept of Rev -- ALL for support) there were 842 or so separate files. Each was rpm'd, then tarred, then gz'd, then they were tarred and gz'd together in a single file. What they didn't have to supply, and didn't, were the files and infrastructure necessary for development: resource scripts, CMakeText or PROject files, file structure, Makefiles, etc... So, only highly skilled programmers can make use of them.

You completely missed the point. Few if any pick up a RedHat evaluation, and update it using CentOS binaries. RedHat abides by the GPL and releases source RPMs that CentOS picks up and builds for their distribution. My point remains that you can't pick up binary updates for RedHat FROM RedHat without a support contract.

As it turned out, I used RH support only once during the first year, and none there after. I submitted a support request and then googled for the answer myself, which I found in about 20 minutes on two websites. Three days later I got an email back from RH citing the same exact two websites I found.

RedHat is actually really good at supporting their distribution once you get past L1, but that's not a point I attempted to make in my comment at-all.

I'm glad RH is making money selling support, which is what they are doing, because most corporate types believe they MUST have support, and if they only hire $30,000/yr admins they'll need RH support.

$30K/year admins? Where? Offshore staff, perhaps.

What I want to know is where does Linux admin Oshunlovr work?

Silicon Valley, or New York City. Those are the only two markets in the US where that kind of income is likely. Unfortunately in those markets, most of it goes right back out. I am much happier working in a smaller city and making half his claimed take.

[zlow]

Re: The cost of software

I assume that RHEL gives you something for your money that is worth it in a commercial environment. I expect Windows Server does the same. For non commercial use, if you play with computers, it does sound like you still need to be fairly flush once you move out of the world of free software.

Indeed you do, non-free software is non-free. I don't have any issue with RHEL and their company provides lots of value if you have up to date contracts, but then I don't have any issue with my Windows admins using Windows either.

[GreyGeek]

Re: The cost of software

.....
You completely missed the point.

Ditto.

Few if any pick up a RedHat evaluation, and update it using CentOS binaries.

Didn't say that.

RedHat abides by the GPL and releases source RPMs that CentOS picks up and builds for their distribution. My point remains that you can't pick up binary updates for RedHat FROM RedHat without a support contract.
....

It doesn't matter if one cannot get binaries from RH when they can get the same binary from CENTOS. The "File:device-mapper-multipath-0.4.7-34.el5_5.6.src.rpm" released two days ago will compile to give the binary which RH released. The GPL guarantees that.

From the CENTOS website:

CentOS is an Enterprise-class Linux Distribution derived from sources freely provided to the public by a prominent North American Enterprise Linux vendor. CentOS conforms fully with the upstream vendors redistribution policy and aims to be 100% binary compatible. (CentOS mainly changes packages to remove upstream vendor branding and artwork.) CentOS is free.

You can get RH source files from here: ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/5Server/en/os/SRPMS/
The most recent update showing is 09/30/2010, so those sources aren't antiquated.

I mentioned the RH support experience because in my experience I found that freely available online support is equal or better than RH's support...

CENTOS makes a viable claim:

CentOS has numerous advantages over some of the other clone projects including: an active and growing user community, quickly rebuilt, tested, and QA'ed errata packages, an extensive mirror network, developers who are contactable and responsive, multiple free support avenues including IRC Chat, Mailing Lists, Forums, a dynamic FAQ. Commercial support is offered via a number of vendors.

EVERY customer who gets a binary update must be given the source code that produced THAT update if they request it. You know that. And, even if CENTOS, or anyone else, is not a customer of RH, they can get it from the source files made publicly available by RH, a requirement of the GPL. The ONLY things that the RH support contract does is restrict the support to clients who purchase the contract and to restrict the support to the single server on which RH was installed using the CDs. This is to prevent the customer from buying a support contract for one machine and then installing the CDs on, say, 10 severs and using that ONE contract to support all 10 servers by claiming that the problem they are having on one of the unsupported servers is occurring on the supported one.

[PatrickDickey]

Re: The cost of software

I run FOSS, but could I afford to run MS-Windows even if I wanted to?

Linux, and other FOSS, is available for free. That is an important factor for me. I like to play with computers and generally have a dozen or so loaded with some OS or other. Could I afford to play round like this if I were to use Microsoft Windows?

I don't know what the different Microsoft components cost, but I think that to play around at home, like I do, would require buying quite a few different licenses. Since I am mostly ignorant of the Microsoft software world, I am wondering what other people know about this or have experienced.

Here are my basic needs and what I have come to expect for free:

A dozen, or more, copies of the basic OS. Quality CD/DVD writing software, image manipulation software, and some other programs to take care of things like word processing, and PDF document generation.

I also expect to run a PPP server so I can connect vintage equipment which only has serial output. In other words, I need basic ISP capability. FTP, HTTP, SSH, and other servers need to be available on all machines. From what I can see, that will require Server 2008 since Win7 does not do even such basic networking as pppd. I see that Windows Server requires Super VGA and a DVD drive so I might need additional software to overcome those shortcomings since I use older (free) equipment. Other servers which I must have are PHP and SQL. A dozen copies of each will probably be enough, but I'd make do with half as many if they charge for them.

Like I said at the beginning, I don't know what is available for free, or what is included when you buy Windows operating systems, but my guess is that I will require 12 copies of most of the following:

Windows 7
Windows Server
SQL Server
Microsoft Office (with pdf support)
A few other programs will probably also be required in order to make the experience functionally comparable to Linux

How much does that cost? Is $5,000 enough? My point here is that I like to play with computers. I am also on an extremely limited income. If the above is going to cost more than $200 then I'm out of the game. Free is better.

If you're using it for testing, then the Technet sub is the way to go (as was mentioned previously). In general though, if you have that many computers (and software requirements) you'll want to get a Volume Licensing sub (through a reseller).

Things to note though. You could use FOSS products that meet your requirements on Windows (MySQL or LibreOffice for example). PHP is a free product. What will get you is hardware, unfortunately. Even with the Technet sub, you'll probably need a DVD drive to use for installing the OS (unless you use VirtualBox, VMWare, VirtualPC/Server).

So, if you're testing and can afford the Technet sub, then $5,000 is way more than enough. If you're doing this for real (whether it's for home use or in a business setting, $5,000 is probably not enough. After all the Server 2008 licenses would probably run you $750 to $1,500 each (depending on which "version" you purchase), and the Windows 7 Licenses are between $200 and $500 each. Same with Office 2010. SQL Server is another $1,000 or so at least.

Have a great day
Patrick.

[GreyGeek]

Re: The cost of software

That's an expensive set of TCO's .... IF you are paying the bills yourself just to mess around.

When I was running my consulting business the contract my clients signed stipulated that they must buy all necessary development tools and keep them installed on a development computer. I'd keep one or two 5 user license packages around to get them set up quickly but they paid for replacement costs. Toward the end of my business clients already had tools installed and my major task was to add to existing projects or attempt to recover and repair projects the low bidder had won.