Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Dell Calls For Red Hat To Lower Prices

Posted by timothy on from the free-as-in-dollars dept.

VaultX points to an article on CNET (linked below), writing "According to Dell, Red Hat needs to lower pricing. 'We believe Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3, for the small and medium-sized business market, was out of the price range of these customers.' With Dell's strong presence in the Linux server market, Red Hat may want to listen."

4 of 526 comments (clear)

  1. i'll never trust dell for a lot of reasons but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    here's one of them. It's a personal account of working inside of the "dell beast." Written by the site maintainer of www.amdzone.com it was written only a few days ago. Most of the thoughts reflect my sentiment and experience with dell..

    here it is

    John Allen Mohammed

  2. Re:They could be lower but not by much by IANAAC · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The prices are a little bit on the high side, but you are buying support not the software for the most part and they are certainly not higher that Windows Server 2003 which they are setup to compete with.

    A better comparison would be with something like SUSE Enterprise server - their direct competition.

    The price difference, as well as the number of options available is an eye-opener.

  3. RHEL ES vs. W2K3 SBS by Dink+Paisy · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I think these are the two products we're talking about when Dell says that Red Hat Linux is too expensive. Comparing prices...

    RHEL ES has two versions, priced at $350 and $800, depending on the support level. W2K3 SBS (Small Business Server) is available at different prices from different vendors, but is typically around $500. All prices in US dollars. The prices are quite similar. If you need support for more than installation and basic configuration, Windows 2003 is actually cheaper.

    If small businesses find Windows easier to setup and maintain, then it could be worthwhile. I'm not able to personally confirm this one way or the other, but various people I know who have configured both Linux and Windows 2003 as servers claim that Windows is easier to configure and tune for performance.

    Perhaps Dell simply means that for the market they are selling into and the price they are charging, there is a better product available from Microsoft. It's hard to see how Red Hat could compete on price; they really aren't charging a huge amount. For businesses that can't afford a full time server administrator and don't have any Linux expertise, it is quite possible that Windows just plain is a better choice.

    Going off topic, Red Hat's website has the Ghandi quote that Slashdot loves: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." A year ago, Microsoft was fighting Red Hat. Now they are laughing at Red Hat. Linux still has a chance, but this battle definitely isn't going the way that Red Hat planned.

    I hate to say it, but with IBM preferring Novell and SLES, I think Red Hat has lost.

    --

    Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult;
    whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse.
    --Proverbs 9:7
  4. Re:Don't Write Home About RH Support by RollingThunder · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've seen HP fly out a new motherboard from Toronto, then the two they kept in the city were found problematic.

    I've seen Microsoft fly up people to help with Exchange servers.

    I've been on the phone with top level Sun techs within five minutes of the event.

    I do, however, work for a very big customer. I don't even pretend that anyone a tenth the size would get this support.