6 ms·

Microsoft also charges per core for a licence, linux does not

jaboutboul 2y ago
I think this is oversimplifying things a bit. There are many workloads running on Linux that also pay licensing for RHEL, SLES and Ubuntu Pro. It really comes down to the requirements for your app as defined by the vendor and/or the internal team.
- imran-iq 2y ago
  Licencing exists for enterprise support if you want or need it, but it is absolutely not required for linux unlike windows.
- AshamedCaptain 2y ago
  Really? Any numbers? Cause I aleays comented that for allnthe companies I've worked, even the ones thatnloterally developed proprietary desktop software for Linux and thus had RedHat on all workstations... they never sent a single dime to RedHat.
  - progmetaldev 2y ago
    Were they actually running RedHat Enterprise Linux, or was it something like Fedora or CentOS? CentOS was basically RHEL with the branding stripped, but I don't believe they had any kind of support agreements.
    - AshamedCaptain 2y ago
      That is the point.
bongodongobob 2y ago
That's one option of many but not the only way to license.
number6 2y ago
Microsoft charges, Linux does not.
- Rinzler89 2y ago
  >Linux does not Red Hat, Suse and Canonical do charge.
  - crowcroft 2y ago
    This is a valid point, but I wonder how many installs are managed through a commercial contract. My assumption is that it would be a small number of high value contracts, but the bulk of installs are just free Ubuntu/Debian/Fedora installs.
  - tcmart14 2y ago
    They do charge for extra benefits, if you need them. But you can deploy a server to production today on Debian and be fine. Unless your in the case where you need to pay for support (regulatory). Just because RH, Suse and Canonical charge, does not mean those are requirements. You can always opt to have linux and not pay for their support.
    - firesteelrain 2y ago
      > Just because RH, Suse and Canonical charge, does not mean those are requirements You are leaving a gaping hole in your servers if you are not patching them (the distro's that charge and you decide not to pay)
      - pxc 2y ago
        If you can handle the churn of building against a new platform every year or two instead of every decade or more, you can keep all your stuff patched without an extended support license.
    - pxc 2y ago
      Right. Linux vendors charge for services; Microsoft charges rents.

I think this is oversimplifying things a bit. There are many workloads running on Linux that also pay licensing for RHEL, SLES and Ubuntu Pro. It really comes down to the requirements for your app as defined by the vendor and/or the internal team.

imran-iq 2y ago
Licencing exists for enterprise support if you want or need it, but it is absolutely not required for linux unlike windows.
AshamedCaptain 2y ago
Really? Any numbers? Cause I aleays comented that for allnthe companies I've worked, even the ones thatnloterally developed proprietary desktop software for Linux and thus had RedHat on all workstations... they never sent a single dime to RedHat.
- progmetaldev 2y ago
  Were they actually running RedHat Enterprise Linux, or was it something like Fedora or CentOS? CentOS was basically RHEL with the branding stripped, but I don't believe they had any kind of support agreements.
  - AshamedCaptain 2y ago
    That is the point.

bongodongobob 2y ago

That's one option of many but not the only way to license.

number6 2y ago

Microsoft charges, Linux does not.

Rinzler89 2y ago
>Linux does not Red Hat, Suse and Canonical do charge.
- crowcroft 2y ago
  This is a valid point, but I wonder how many installs are managed through a commercial contract. My assumption is that it would be a small number of high value contracts, but the bulk of installs are just free Ubuntu/Debian/Fedora installs.
- tcmart14 2y ago
  They do charge for extra benefits, if you need them. But you can deploy a server to production today on Debian and be fine. Unless your in the case where you need to pay for support (regulatory). Just because RH, Suse and Canonical charge, does not mean those are requirements. You can always opt to have linux and not pay for their support.
  - firesteelrain 2y ago
    > Just because RH, Suse and Canonical charge, does not mean those are requirements You are leaving a gaping hole in your servers if you are not patching them (the distro's that charge and you decide not to pay)
    - pxc 2y ago
      If you can handle the churn of building against a new platform every year or two instead of every decade or more, you can keep all your stuff patched without an extended support license.
  - pxc 2y ago
    Right. Linux vendors charge for services; Microsoft charges rents.