Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on January 18, 2004 12:06 AM
Over a 10-year period, what we often found was that the TCO of Free Software, even computed through standard means, was about 1/2 to 1/3rd the TCU of comparable proprietary software. That was before we looked at all the additional liabilities that proprietary software burdens the enterprise customer with, such as losing the right to resale, the possible unexpected costs of license audits, and many other risks too numerous to enumerate here.
I haven't looked at the license for RHat Advanced Server lately, but since RHat AS bundles support with it and since it is a rather restrictive license, I would carefully read it to make sure there is a "right to resale". Also, as we are talking about enterprise software, be aware that unexpected audit costs also exist in RHat AS. That license is similar to the proprietary licenses in the kick in the door style audits. It wouldn't suprise me to see SUSE/Novell/IBM adopt the same terms in their licensing. The same doesn't currently exist for Fedora, but I doubt that RHat would be recommending Fedora for the clients. They either already have or will have an enterprise client solution they will be pushing to AS customers. Whether they make it mandatory or not for AS customers (or can make it) I can't tell you.
For those businesses using RHat AS for their servers, and Fedora or some other Gnu/Linux distro that comes with a more traditional free license, the audit costs will be easier and cheaper to deal with because they only need to audit their servers as long as the client systems remain locked down, and they aren't using other proprietary applications running on the OS that aren't also subject to the same style audits.
Number of years before paying for licensing again is crucial to tco/tcu studies, as this is how the proprietary world and "analysts" cook the numbers. Throwing in hardware upgrade costs as is often required in proprietary solutions and less often required in free software solutions would again more accurately move the numbers in favor of free software. But then how to cook the numbers? What "analyst" or "consultant" would dare show a true tco/tcu study that took these factors into account, risking upsetting the clients that pay for their studies and surveys? While they may say that such things don't happen, or that they are insulated from who <A HREF="http://www.informationweek.com/shared/printableArticle.jhtml?articleID=15800394" TITLE="informationweek.com">owns their firm</a informationweek.com>, it is very easy for their customers to decide to purchase one or two less reports or surveys this year, and throw a bit more business to a competitor for a while. Considering the number of reports and surveys they pay for yearly, it won't show up due to variations over a long period of time, but in the end they still will have sold fewer reports or surveys. And they are already aware that reports and surveys favorable to their customers sell far better than those their customers would rather not see.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Audits not exclusive to proprietary
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 18, 2004 12:06 AMI haven't looked at the license for RHat Advanced Server lately, but since RHat AS bundles support with it and since it is a rather restrictive license, I would carefully read it to make sure there is a "right to resale". Also, as we are talking about enterprise software, be aware that unexpected audit costs also exist in RHat AS. That license is similar to the proprietary licenses in the kick in the door style audits. It wouldn't suprise me to see SUSE/Novell/IBM adopt the same terms in their licensing. The same doesn't currently exist for Fedora, but I doubt that RHat would be recommending Fedora for the clients. They either already have or will have an enterprise client solution they will be pushing to AS customers. Whether they make it mandatory or not for AS customers (or can make it) I can't tell you.
For those businesses using RHat AS for their servers, and Fedora or some other Gnu/Linux distro that comes with a more traditional free license, the audit costs will be easier and cheaper to deal with because they only need to audit their servers as long as the client systems remain locked down, and they aren't using other proprietary applications running on the OS that aren't also subject to the same style audits.
Number of years before paying for licensing again is crucial to tco/tcu studies, as this is how the proprietary world and "analysts" cook the numbers. Throwing in hardware upgrade costs as is often required in proprietary solutions and less often required in free software solutions would again more accurately move the numbers in favor of free software. But then how to cook the numbers? What "analyst" or "consultant" would dare show a true tco/tcu study that took these factors into account, risking upsetting the clients that pay for their studies and surveys? While they may say that such things don't happen, or that they are insulated from who <A HREF="http://www.informationweek.com/shared/printableArticle.jhtml?articleID=15800394" TITLE="informationweek.com">owns their firm</a informationweek.com>, it is very easy for their customers to decide to purchase one or two less reports or surveys this year, and throw a bit more business to a competitor for a while. Considering the number of reports and surveys they pay for yearly, it won't show up due to variations over a long period of time, but in the end they still will have sold fewer reports or surveys. And they are already aware that reports and surveys favorable to their customers sell far better than those their customers would rather not see.
#