System administration and GPL

[Hacktarux]

I have to write a paper about the pros and cons of using a GPL software in the point of view of a system administrator. I'm currently trying to have as many ideas as possible but as i'm progressing into my work, it seems harder than i though. It's especially hard to find cons. So i though i should try doing a little brainstorming about this on emutalk, say whatever intelligent idea you have about this here (remember it has to be in the point of view of an administrator, not a programmer). And if you have an interesting link that isn't FSF propaganda, feel free to post it here

Thanks

 

[blight]

for cons try to look at www.microsoft.com or www.sco.com ;-)

 

[pj64er]

con: you dont usually get support from the supplier of the software. If you do, its usually quite expensive, cuz thats their whole business model most of the time. Or so I hear.

redhat annual costs: http://www.redhat.com/software/rhel/purchase/index.html
suse annual costs: http://www.novell.com/products/linuxenterpriseserver/pricing.html
windows (one time?) costs: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/howtobuy/licensing/pricing.mspx

Its true that if you are some arcane UNIX wizard, you can probably use a Slackware/Debian and depend on your own knowledge. But assuming you are administrating for some big company, management probably wont let you go without support.

 

[Eagle]

con: you dont usually get support from the supplier of the software. If you do, its usually quite expensive, cuz thats their whole business model most of the time. Or so I hear.

True, but I've gotten more accurate support from forums for linux than I have from Microsoft support for Windows anyway. Lets face it, microsofts tech support employees are merely a pass through from a computer screen to your telephone/email. They don't know anything about windows. They just ask you questions, type them into a computer and spout back an automated response.

 

[Hacktarux]

Windows administration support costs ranges from $8000 to $50000 per years as far as i remember. Microsft says it's comparable to linux support costs there : http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/facts/analyses/comparable.mspx

And i believe it is... I don't think any of the two system is better than the other in the price area.

Another thing i have to compare is pros and cons of using GPL softwares and other open source licensed softwares.

For me, the main advantage of using a GPL software is that you have the right to modify the software. If you need a specific tool, it will costs far less to take a GPL software that nearly do what you need and add the feature it misses. It'll be cheaper and the tool will be more efficient than if you pay for a big generic software that's not doing exactly what you need anyway.

Another thing: there are many little specialized GPL tools that can be easily gathered together to do a customized application. Sometimes it will only require some clever scripts, sometimes ti will need minor source code modifications.

GPL is good for this because you're sure you can use the source code and modify it freely, with other open source licenses, you don't necessarily have the right to use it in a commercial application or with some conditions.

And i still haven't found any disadvantage.... am i too biased ?

 

[pj64er]

I was going to read your link...but all of Microsoft seems to be down atm... :/

edit: its back up. from the Licensing and Support Acquisition Costs doc, RedHat is much more expensive, while Win2003 and SuSE are about the same. Fair enough. This support thing was a pretty big point before Novell came in :/


edit2: I hear the BSD license gives you complete freedom over the code. None of the share-source-if-release-binary business that the GPL has.


edit3: eagle: I think if it was obvious that they cant help you (ya know, when your problem is not in their database), they would pass you to the guys who actually know their stuff. Besides, WE may know they arent much help, but its a big selling point to the people who dont (ie, the people who pays the system administrator).