Slashdot Mirror
Dell Calls For Red Hat To Lower Prices
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."
'We believe the Ferrari F430 Spider, for the small and medium-sized automotive market, was out of the price range of Mr. Coward.' With Coward's strong presence in the local Ferrari dealership, Ferrari SpA may want to listen.
Yeah, the college I worked at balked at the prices too, until I told them about the $50 .edu price (workstation is $25) ... Couldn't find anything on their website, but a email to the sales department took care of it.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
Couldn't/Shouldn't Dell look into other Linux server packages? After all, that is the nature of the free market. If Dell drags Red Hat and, say, Turbolinux, or god forbid... SCO... into the fray, that would make the bottom line for companies looking to switch to Linux even more appealing.
I'm the Devil the Windows users warned you about.
I imagine it'll happen. I have a feeling RH gets most of their sales from Dell, it's the ole'Walmart syndrome, where they either lower their prices, and go out of business, or go out of business because they lose their main client.
Damned big companies.
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
Timewarp?
Version 3 is the current version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL). RHEL is different than Red Hat Linux (RHL) which was end of lifed after version 9 to be replaced by Fedora Core.
Isn't RedHat Server cheaper than Windows 2003 Server? And RHS is supposed to compete with Win2k3.
RedHat ES -- $349.99
RedHat WS -- $179.99
Win2k3 -- At least $400 from what I can pick up.
BTW, if Dell doesn't like RedHat, why don't they use something else? People vote with their dollars.
~Ilyanep
To get message, take amount of carrier pigeons at each stage mod 2. Then decode binary.
Someone better tell IBM that then:
Deploying Red Hat Enterprise Linux on xSeries is now even easier. I November 2003, IBM introduced bundles of Red Hat Enterprise Linux with xSeries servers. Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS 2.1, Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES 2.1, or Red Hat Enterprise Linux WS 2.1 may be ordered when purchasing BladeCenter and xSeries servers. Offers are available with a "No Support option", which will allow the customer to purchase support from IBM Global Services. Also available are offers with 1 year of Red Hat support. Every copy of Red Hat Enterprise Linux includes a one year subscription to Red Hat Network. Now, customers can buy either Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES or WS 2.1 pre-loaded on x205, x225, x305, x335, and x345 servers in the US. For all other models, Red Hat Enterprise 2.1 Linux will be included with the server and installation will be performed by the customer. In 2Q04, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 will be available via similar offers.
I completely agree with Dell's views on RHEL's overpricing. I bought a Dell PowerEdge server for a small business back in August but Red Hat's Enterprise Linux was overpriced and we felt uncomfortable buying a subscription at the rates we were offered from Dell. Instead I recommend we choose Suse's offereing which was a far more viable option for the company. I can see why Dell went for Novell a month or two back. Let's not beat about the bush though, it could be construed that Dell spoke to Novell so they are now in a better bargainig position with Red Hat.
The price is too high, that is why some of us have been using White Box Linux for some time. It's 100% binarily compatible with RH, and it works.
From the above linked website "This product is derived from the Free/Open Source Software made available by Red Hat, Inc but IS NOT produced, maintained or supported by Red Hat. Specifically, this product is forked from the source code for Red Hat's _Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3_ product under the terms and conditions of it's EULA."
So far - and 10's of servers later - no complaints, works like a charm. Since it works so well. Why pay? For their support? Lets be honest, we generally find the bugs before RH does, and our staff can handle anything - including figuring out the undocumented changes that RH makes to their own products (example: static routes anyone?).
cluge
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
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.
disclaimer 1: i used to work for Red Hat
disclaimer 2: I have done contract work for Dell
Dell always will badger vendors to shave prices wherever/whenever/however possible. Every dollar they can save somewhere equals X% increase in marketshare or volume for them. Dell is a ruthless selling machine.
Up until recently, Dell really didn't care so much about Linux for the SMB market, only in the way that their customers wanted it (and it gave them an option). I would imagine that:
1. Dell has done the math, realized that SuSE isn't penetrating the way they had hoped
2. without serious competition (which was supposed to exert price pressure on RH) Dell has resorted to publicly whining about RH prices
3. This public whining is supposed to snowball and "force" RH into reducing prices.
The problem is that the SMB market is actually more resource-intense in terms of support. As such, Red Hat has never really liked it (compared to Enterprise), but Dell's volume volume volume absoultely depends on it.
If Dell agrees to shoulder more of the support burden, I would imagine they could get very good deals with RH.
davejenkins.com |
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.
Windows Server 2003 prices are here.
The RedHat recommended version for a small business webserver is here.
Microsoft policy is that business products will be supported for a minimum of five years (10 for hotfix security support) after they are released.
Windows Server 2003 Web Edition is $399. Per year that's $79.80 for 5 years or $39.90 for 10 years.
RHES for x86 is $349 per year for updates, installation help, and support with a 2 day response time. Over 5 years you're paying $1745 total. Over 10 it's $3490. These figures also assume that RedHat does not raise the prices higher in the future and does not change the contract.
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
That describes my situation six months ago exactly. Then I had a problem with up2date.
So I called RedHat for the first time in the decade I've been using it. I found out:
I challenged them that there was no indication on their website that RedHat Linux upgrades were unsupported (they always were in the past so it's not unreasonable to assume they still would be) and they conceded the point and offered to get a notice up within a week, but weren't any more helpful.
So, what kind of support are you getting for that money? It's alot like Microsoft support. Completely useless so a waste of money by definition.
It's too bad - I was 3 licenses into a 30+ server effort over multiple clients, and that's as far as I got. There's a huge base of installed RedHat Linux users they're completely ignoring. I want to help pay Alan Cox's salary, but they don't make it feasible for me.
Instead of throwing good money after bad, I ditched it and put Fedora Core 2 on. Yeah, I'm out $300 but yum will set you free. Plus firewire works perfectly in the current kernel releases.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
RHEL: Annual subscription, unlimited clients
Win2k3: Outright license purchase, CAL cost per-client.
You can't effectively compare the prices of the two without a context, such as the lifetime of the server and the number of clients that are expected to be connected to it.
Windows Server 2003 Web Edition is $399. Per year that's $79.80 for 5 years or $39.90 for 10 years.
Except that those prices don't include any support contracts. If you call Microsoft with a problem you'd better have a credit card ready.
I can download Fedora Core for free and get free updates if I wanted to go the cheap route.
On Novell's SuSE Enterprise 9 page they say that it will only cost you $35 for a single-CPU copy of SuSE Enterprise 9. Wow, nice deal, eh?
Then they give you a link for complete pricing. After you start to claw your eyes out, you'll find you're in a twisty maze of horrid excel files (no, really, worse than your average excel file by a LOT). Finally you get to pricing. Support is listed in the file, on line 3488 (I can't make up stuff this silly, really), you will find the entry for "SUSE LINUX Server Support per Server". It's not clear which price is the one you pay, but it lists $900 and $1010.
So, you can get a shrink-wrapped box of free software for $35... and support is $900.
They do offer a "small business support" package for $3,800 and a 5-incidents pack for $1,900 as well (which might be more cost-effective).
For little companies that just want to buy a shrink-wrap box, and are never going to call for support SuSE is fine. For the enterprise, Red Hat is price and service competitive in the extreme.
Due to corporate policies, we are generally a Windows shop as far as the global infrastructure is concerned. If I want to setup a mail server with Windows, I am looking at purchasing Windows 2003 Enterprise version, Exchange 2003 Enterprise Version, Client access licenses for the servers, and possibly Terminal Server licenses as well. Figure the server hardware will cost around $10,000, and to get fully decked out with an Enterprise Level OS and Email system from MS will cost me around $5000. That is 50% the cost of the hardware. This doesn't even begin to address support costs.
I have switched from Dell in the server room to HP, so I am not sure what the Dell server prices are like in terms of dollars, but I do know they tend to be cheaper (at least in Asia). I recently compared a similar hardware Dell quote and an HP quote for a Korean associate and the Dell quote was 40% cheaper. So, if we say a Dell server is around $6000 and the enterprise level OS that runs on it is $359, we see that the software is priced at roughly 6% of the hardware. Even the $799 version is only 13% of the hardware price, and this is assuming the hardware is 40% cheaper than the Microsoft comparison.
Not exactly over priced in my opinion in. In fact 2 support calls to Microsoft cost this much. Once we get into the higher level offerings from Redhat then the ratio changes a little, but the point to remember here is that this includes support!
RHEL AS Server is $2499/year and includes Web and phone based comprehensive support 24 x 7 1 hour response Unlimited incidents 1 year Red Hat Network
1 hour response time costs! You have to have higher prices to even begin to offer this. For environments where you do not need 1 hour response (the best Dell offers is 4 hours -- in Japan ;) ) time from your vendor, you do not need to pay for it. With the Microsoft offering, I am paying large sums of money without any support included.
I personally run Debian at home for my mail/web server (and Gentoo when I feel like getting frustrated) but if we were ever to switch to Linux in the server room, one of the biggest deciding factors would be the quality and availability of support. Red Hat's target is certainly not the geek home user who balks at a $359 price tag and doesn't require support. It is the Corporate Enterprise market where when the server is down and the company's business is impacted people are glad to have paid for support. In that market, their prices are excellent in my opinion. If they were charging peanuts, they would not be taken seriously by the people making the business decisions for a company. Businessmen tend to understand that you can't get something for nothing, especially service.
How much crack does one need to smoke in order to mod parent Interesting?
"Wow, he thinks Sun sucks! How interesting! Especially since the article has *absolutely nothing* to do with Sun! If only I had more mod points i'd mod this guy Insightfull too! w00t!"
I'm trying to improve my English. Please correct me on any spelling/grammar errors in this post.