__/ [ BearItAll ] on Tuesday 23 January 2007 09:36 \__
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> Can Red Hat rival Microsoft?
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | In the previous post we saw that Oracle's Linux initiative has so far
>> | failed to make a serious dent in Red Hat's business or even in its stock
>> | price. Red Hat is actually worth slightly more today than it was when
>> | Larry Ellison launched his apparently not-so-scary RHEL clone the week
>> | before Halloween.
>> `----
>>
>
> The problem there is that it would be very unlikely to be a quick win. They
> are targeting IT who don't jump from contract to contract on a whim, they
> can't do their job like that.
>
> You wait until the current one is running out, and start planning the next,
> so many that Oracle are targeting will currently be in contract. It is when
> those contracts are running out and you are budgeting for the next where a
> large difference in costs will almost certainly make a difference.
>
> Particularly if you take into account that you don't actually get much for
> your money, you do get tried and tested updates which of cause can easily
> be argued is worth the money, because it is so solid that you could even
> update the live server (if the pessimist in you would allow it).
>
> I paid support for RH, I never once got in touch with them, true that it
> was a nice cushion to have but actually when RH did the dirty and cancelled
> the previous system part way through the contract. I never got another one,
> when I did a new RH server I paid that first year, but never extended them
> since that time. It doesn't make the slightest difference to me. In fact,
> rather than stay a few versions behind on everything, I went ahead of what
> would have been under the support banner. Newer MySQL and other
> bits-n-bobs.
The fact that you didn't need support is indication of satisfaction though,
no? Even when covered by RHAT (now RHT), any problem you may face costs you
time (and at worse scenarios --- downtimes).
> Many IT'ers were very angry with RH when they did the nasty with those
> license contracts, when IT'ers get together it still comes up in
> conversation.
>
> Then in the budget meetings when you put down the proposals for the next
> year, the numbers stand out a bit, "So Rob what your saying is we can
> either pay RH $xxxx or pay Oracle $xxx, but we get the same updates etc
> which ever one we go with?", they'll look at you as if your stupid (and may
> well be right). Besides, if you pay $xxx then you have $x000 to spent on
> other IT toys, I wonder if I can get a Wii through the budget, what do you
> think?
You need to explain to them that IT workers must get a share of exercise.
Yesterday on the Register (maybe Inquirer) there was an article about a guy
who lost a lot of weight by playing 'Wii sports'. Rather than companies
paying for gym memberships for their staff they could throw over a hundred
quid on a box that plugs into a TV. You could take turns and share the
machine. :-)
> So don't go thinking that Oracle have lost on this one, RH still need to do
> something radical to ensure that when renewal date comes that they are in
> the list of options.
Oracle's product is said to be unreliable and unattractive. maybe this will
change in the future. They did a lot of PR (paid for) yesterday. It flooded
the RSS feeds that I follow.
--
~~ Best wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Nothing to see in this sig, please move along"
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
roy pts/3 cg001a.halls.man Tue Jan 23 01:59 still logged in
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
|
|
