Red Hat News: Edu Prices, Progeny Support for 7.X 221
thx2001r writes "According to News.com, Matthew Szulik (perhaps driven by recent slashdot questions in this regard) of Red Hat has set educational pricing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux Workstation ($25 per year for students) and (RHEL AS) server ($50 per year for the schools). Here are the details of the versions available at educational discounts." And for business users wary of Red Hat's high-priced Enterprise version (and happy using an older version), iroberts writes "Beginning January 1, 2004, Progeny will offer software updates for users of Red Hat(R) Linux(R) 7.2 and 7.3. Pricing is $5 per machine per month; or a flat rate of $2,500 per month for unlimited machines. The Fedora Legacy Project is discussing how this will impact their work."
Why pay? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why pay? (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure, the OS is free, but the Red Hat ultimate admin controller dohickey costs $2500.00. You want the CD, you compile from source and make your own distro.
Re:Why pay? (Score:2)
Re:Why pay? (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as I remember, RedHat has never shipped non-OpenSource software on there core disks. They have included supplemental stuff, which has been clearly marked as such and is never needed to install or use RedHat. RedHat has actually been one of the best contributors for admin tools to the Open Source community. Take a look at their PostgreSQL tools, all Open Source, which ship with their Postgres based DB Server. Unlike Suse, they never used any gimmicks like shipping a closed source admin tool to keep the iso's from being copied. Debian is the only other major distro that has upheld the Open Source community spirit as well as RedHat in my opinion, and Debian is non-profit.
I'm making that statement on the amount of work contributed to the community balanced against "offenses" to the Open Source ethos. RedHat's track record does not deserve such harsh cynicism, I think they've earned the benefit of the doubt.
If RedHat is changing this in their new Enterprise class distro's I'd like to know, but quite frankly I've yet to see RedHat do anything that wasn't friendly to the Open Source community. BTW, you know if any other distro had contributed as much as RedHat has they'd crow a lot more about it.
For the record, I've been using various distros since '95 and though my memory isn't always the best, but you're going to have to dig up some cold hard facts to change my opinion of RedHat.
Thank you (Score:4, Insightful)
They may be distro specific (kudzu) but they have always been open-source.
Now what they are doing is using trademarks & support. You can redistribute, use, etc etc Red Hat Enterprise, but if you don't pay for it, and/or if you put it on more than one computer (period, they had a problem of multiple installs, and the one with the problem was always the paid for one.) If you do however, you can't call it RedHat, due to trademarks. Also, no binary RPMs are provided to non-paying customers, but source RPMS are.
I would add in gentoo, as it is also all based on OSS/GPL. It is also one of the easiest to use with new software that often there isn't a rh/deb/etc package, and if there isn't writing ebuilds is easier than writing rpms. (Honestly can't comment on debs, except by heresay which is that they are tougher than both.)
Slack may be included as well, but I can't say I am positive about that.
Red Hat has always been a good Open Source Company. I always figured it would come down to a RH ("Always Open") vs Caldera (bundle proprietary) some time in the US, just not in the way it has.
Re:Thank you (Score:2)
Gentoo was in the same boat as Slack as far as I'm concerned. Their emerge stuff seems to be a very popular contribution, but I don't think the amount of contributions that Gentoo has made is as large as RedHat.
Re:Thank you (Score:2)
Re:Thank you (Score:2)
.debs are easy, good .debs are harder (Score:2, Informative)
Just FYI, making
Any tarball which you can do "./conf
Re:Why pay? (Score:2)
Argh! How many times is this FUD going to be repeated on slashdot? YaST is NOT CLOSED SOURCE! It simply has the same sort of license agreement as RHEL, i.e. you cannot redistribute it -- FOR MONEY -- with the SuSE branding left in place. So you can still copy any number of disks for your buddies, but you can't sell them.
Sheesh.
Re:Why pay? (Score:2)
What? The YaST license is listed on GNU.org as a non-Free license. It's not listed on opensource.org as an OSS license. Including it in another distro would restrict how you could distribu
Re:Why pay? (Score:2)
Re:Why pay? (Score:2)
Looking at sites like linuxiso.org or cheapbytes.com, you'll see RedHat 9 iso's but no Suse iso's other than live evals. Cheapbytes sells "Pink Tie" linux th
Re:Why pay? (Score:2)
Again, sigh. Apparently, I have been trolled, but for those following along at home, I hope the point is now clear.
Re:Why pay? (Score:2)
I'm still not sure what I'm going to do, but paying $300 per server isn't an option for us.
Re:Why pay? (Score:1)
Re:Why pay? (Score:2)
If you want to distribute Red Hat's software, you need to first remove the Red Hat pieces that are not GPL. You are free to share Red Hat's version of the kernel, for example.
Re:Why pay? (Score:2)
Re:Why pay? (Score:3, Informative)
As RH makes the binary packages publicly available (up to RHEL), which is not a requirement of the GPL but they were nice to the community in this respect. Becasue of this there's absolutly NOTHING stopping you me or anyone else from assembling our own iso layout and di
Re:Why pay? (Score:5, Informative)
If you want to get the source, strip out the RH trademarks, compile/build everything, etc., you are free to so do.
Re:Why pay? (Score:2, Informative)
suprnova.org... (Score:2)
...has a complete copy of Red Hat Enterprise Advanced Server v3 available for download via bittorrent.
You're not supposed to distribute RedHat products unless you remove all their logos, but otherwise there are no redistribution restrictions (but the suprnova copy does appear to be in violation).
I guess that tells you where I stand.
I guess I'll be going for it... (Score:4, Informative)
I remember that it saved me the hassle when sendmail bug was discovered a while back...
Re:I guess I'll be going for it... (Score:1)
Re:I guess I'll be going for it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I guess I'll be going for it... (Score:5, Insightful)
they sure do. i bought boxed versions of 5.1, 6.2, 7.1, 7.3 and 8... and i bought bob young's mediocre book "under the radar".
but now that they've yanked the standard distro to try to force me to upgrade to rhel or downgrade to fedora, they'll never get another cent from me.
sorry. my consumer dollars are earmarked for gentoo and freebsd now.
Re:I guess I'll be going for it... (Score:2)
I don't begrudge them revenue, after all they are a business with fiduciary obligations to their shareholders, but since I don't own a share of their stock, I have no loyalty to them.
Re:I guess I'll be going for it... (Score:2)
A few is $10, or $50, or $50 per year.
A few is not $349 PER COMPUTER, PER YEAR.
They've gone greedy, and as a result, those charlatans will never get another dollar of mine.
Re:I guess I'll be going for it... (Score:3, Insightful)
beside apt-get works better, and is free
Re:I guess I'll be going for it... (Score:2)
beside, i dont trust pre built packages for my kernels, even on apt
Re:I guess I'll be going for it... (Score:2)
Re:I guess I'll be going for it... (Score:2)
that machine had a uptime of 10 months before that. it's also VERY busy. the only "new" process on it was up2date. sure points to rhn to me.
maybe it triggered a kernel bug, but it's rhn fault for triggering it.
i would expect a company like redhat (that supposedly do thorough QA) to have caught such a glaring bug.
either way, i built a new machine based on debian (like all of our new servers) and they lived happily ever after.
Re:I guess I'll be going for it... (Score:2)
It's quite possible the bug only occurred on your system, and of course it only happened with RH update because the Debian app code is different.
Re:I guess I'll be going for it... (Score:2)
Chris
Re:I guess I'll be going for it... (Score:3, Informative)
And since Redhat is moving to have the APT repositories for Fedora, it makes it even easier to update code.
AND up2date in Fedora supportes APT respositories, as well.
What about swaret? (Score:2)
Linux in a Lab (Score:5, Interesting)
I've only been using 8 because it's more user-friendly than 7.3, and the software still works on 8 (it doesn't on 9... still testing Fedora). Of course, I asked them about Educational pricing a few weeks ago, but they never bothered to give me a REAL price... they actually told me that for 17 computers, it would be over $3500 per year. So, of course, once I spend a couple weeks testing Fedora and making sure almost everything works on it, they announce this, and now it looks like I might not have to upgrade after all.
BTW, I'm VERY happy with Fedora so far. It's very user-friendly (priority #1), secure (#2), and compatible with the software (#3). However, the University [psu.edu] I work for is preparing to have a meeting for which version of Linux to standardize on and get support for... Red Hat (I'm assuming Enterprise), SuSe, or Fedora. Does anyone think SuSe would be a better choice than Fedora? I'm not really even considering RHE...
Re:Linux in a Lab (Score:2)
Re:Linux in a Lab (Score:3, Informative)
Short answer: yes. Since you are testing Redhat 8 and you mentioned that you aren't considering Redhat Enterprise then you don't care about long-term vendor support; a SuSE release is supported for 2 years. You can easily purchase one copy of SuSE professional for $80 and install it as many times as you want wherever you want.
It's very user-friendly (priority #1), secure (#2), and compatible with the software (#3).
SuSE is all of the above. S
Re:Linux in a Lab (Score:2)
It's not the long-term vendor support I'm looking for... it's the community support, the brand name, and the program support that I'm more concerned about. I've never called Red Ha
Re:Linux in a Lab (Score:2)
Yes it does. It's called SUSE YOU (YaST Online Update), scroll all the way down here [suse.com] for their description. Like I've mentioned before in this thread you can create a local ftp or http mirror with all the suse packages and do as many installs without paying anything. I can justify paying $80 to
Re:Linux in a Lab (Score:2)
http://www.suse.com/us/private/products/suse_linu x /i386/professional.html [suse.com]
Pay for the boxed set which has " 5 CD-ROMs, 1 double DVD, 2 manuals (Administration Guide, User Guide), 90 days of installation support" or do a free FTP install. [suse.com]
Re:Linux in a Lab (Score:2)
Why not consider RHE? (Score:4, Informative)
It says quite clearly in the firstboot app when you load RHE that redistribution of RHE is allowed as long as you remove all Red Hat logos.
I downloaded RHE from suprnova.org. I like the new LVM changes very much.
Re:Linux in a Lab (Score:2)
You should check out radmind [radmind.org].
That's interesting. So's the University [umich.edu] that I work for. Some people have even suggested working on a distribution supported by universities, e.g., EduNix.
Re:Linux in a Lab (Score:2)
Re:similar situation.. (Score:2)
There are several methods. Pay a subscription for one machine, have it `up2date -df` ever hour or every night or whatever, then have a cron job ship those downloaded RPMs to a local server that the rest of the machines will update from. You can set up a local
Free Enterprise Route (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.whiteboxlinux.org/ was the first freely distributable RedHat Enterprise 3.0 Rebuild
http://www.caosity.net/ was the second project to finish and distribute.
The mailing list archive is @ http://www.mail-archive.com/rhel-rebuild-l@uibk.a
Frankly, all it takes is a quick script to download, rpmbuild --rebuild updatepkg.src.rpm and install. I would recommend against doing this on machines that will be running Oracle or what not, but for most uses, this is an awesome approach the likes of which is impossible with proprietary software.
Re:Free Enterprise Route (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.caosity.org/
Re:Free Enterprise Route (Score:2)
This is why all the sold versions of RedHat that weren't official had funny names, like Pink Tie Linux, etc.
Good move (Score:4, Interesting)
Okay, so that sounds weird. Specifically, I was disappointed when RedHat announced that 9 was the last of the bunch. Not that I didn't understand, but I've relied solidly on them for some time.
There was no way I could afford Enterprise, at least not up front; after all, I run a very small personal server. With this announcement, it's a good feeling to know that I'll have future upgrades to look forward to and not have to pay through the nose to make them happen. Here I was looking for a new open source distro (you know, planning for the future) and the RedHat team came through again.
Bravo!
Damon,
Nice news. (Score:4, Interesting)
7.3 is a strong, stable platform (IMO) and updates for $5
Free Software will have support if demand exists (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Free Software will have support if demand exist (Score:2)
Does that include.. (Score:5, Funny)
Mind share is important espec. for education (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, I do understand producing their "Red Hat Linux" product was expensive, and hurt their bottom line. They should have never split their product in two to begin with. Maintaining both RHL and Enterprise Linux was too much of a burden on the company. It reeks of bad management, much like the Mozilla project does (They are trying to develop no less than three different browsers at the moment, possibly more depending on how you count--and Netscape just cut them lose, so they're severely understaffed... you'd think they'd make consolidation efforts--but this is another tirade).
What they should have done is modularize their base product, and sell add-ons. They retain all of their users, all of their mind share, only have to develop one product, AND it can act as a stepping stone into your Enterprise-level services. Hell! They even had the infrastructure to do a single core product all laid out with Red Hat Network. Sell an Enterprise Web Server channel add-on to Red Hat Linux 10 for Enterprise-level prices, and so on. It would have been beautiful. Really.
It would have also provided their Enterprise customers with ten-times the amount of testing of the core OS. This is not to be underestimated. Much as Linus renames a kernel from e.g. 2.5.79 to 2.6.0-test1 when he wants (free!) wider testing, Red Hat now has a user base one-tenth the size to "test" their releases on. And problems that aren't caught in relase QA (many just can't be) will now HAVE to affect (high-)paying customers. There's no free users to take 90% of the falls.
Red Hat produced the de facto Linux distribution in the United States AND they were in the black. There was nothing to stop them. They provided a free, high quality alternative OS. People were switching to Linux, and switching to Red Hat. It was working. But apparently not fast enough for them.
Windows users have no highly visible, high quality alternative now. (No, it's NOT necessary to chime in with your favorite distribution.) What's good for Linux was good for Red Hat, and this is unquestionably bad for Linux, medium-term, at least.
Fedora does NO ONE any good. It's pseudo-managed by Red Hat, but with no guarantees, no support, no Red Hat Network, no Enterprise add-ons, and regular Joe-Schmoe developers fucking it up (cf. Debian). And the mix of open development and corporate bureaucracy, neither with any vision, is sure to pull and tug at it in no general direction, making it nothing more than a poor Debian clone. I wonder how long until Red Hat cut's it lose completely.
Re:Mind share is important espec. for education (Score:5, Insightful)
um..no...It was profitable, ie it did not hurt their bottom line. It just wasn't growing fast enough. I belive this was stated in the interview here on slashdot. They maintain the idea that Growth is what is important, not profitability. A steady income won't make you rich, you need growth so your stock price will rise. I think the harm that they have done through confusing the community will far out weigh the money they weren't losing to the RHL division.
Re:Mind share is important espec. for education (Score:2)
Microsoft, Intel and AMD got to where they were because they sold first to the low end then gradually worked their way up, without abandoning their roots. For one, RH stands to loose their brand recognition because IMO they've never truly established themselves as high end player and I think SuSE will eat them alive on the low end and the high end.
I also object to killing a solidly profitable yet slowly growing product simply because i
Enterprise Add-ons. (Score:4, Interesting)
As I understand it, the whole Enterprise Linux push was not about adding in additional software. It was more about creating a slow-moving target for enterprise software developers like Veritas and Oracle. Developers could feel more comfortable that whatever product they were pushing would be deployed on the same platform in their customer's data center as was used to develop the product.
Sure - there were also some tweaks and bits of different software involved. But that didn't seem to be the push.
But then, I never looked under the hood of RedHat Enterprise Linux. Maybe the salespitch I heard didn't tell the entire story.
Re:Mind share is important espec. for education (Score:2, Flamebait)
I disagree.
I fail to see why redhat thinks they need to charge anywhere from $350 to thousands of dollars, per year, per cpu, for a collection of software of which they contributed at most 5%. This is something slashdot readers will eventually have to come to terms with and accept as fact: RedHat is fucking you. Period. They are flat-out lying to you by saying that they need to charge thousands of do
$5/month? (Score:3, Interesting)
IMHO, anyone who thinks it costs anywhere near that much to provide binary updates is still thinking in VC-inflated, height-of-the-bubble dollars.
Advantage of Open Source (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're a student... (Score:1)
RHEL is only for servers and workstations that perform *mission critical* tasks and have specialized requirements.
Yack, still cost prohibitive... (Score:2)
Nope.
The $25 and $50 price is for individual (that is, student/faculty/staff) academic purchase only. If you're an institution, it's $2,500 for a base package (so you can run your own RHN and save redhat's bandwidth) and then add on WS at $25 each and AS for $50 each -- OR -- add on a site license for $7/FTE for WS and $7/FTE for servers.
Re:Yack, still cost prohibitive... (Score:2)
Re:Yack, still cost prohibitive... (Score:3, Informative)
Incidentally, I got the ($7+$7)*FTE speech as well.
It is obvious they'd like universities just to pay $14*FTE as it is actually vaguely in the noise for a large university. However..
It makes absolutely
Re:Yack, still cost prohibitive... (Score:2)
Student run RedHat ES ftp sites (Score:3, Interesting)
RedHat just keeps trying to sell stuff that eventually has trouble selling.
Still feeling abandoned by RedHat (Score:1, Insightful)
But I can't help but feel abandoned. It feels like my choices are to upgrade to Enterprise, which is more than I need and expensive, or find another distro, which I don't want to do either. It kind of pisses me off, because I chose RH because of up2date (among other things).
And now Progeny can keep me up to date for $5/month. OK, I'll consider it, but that's still 10 times w
Re:Still feeling abandoned by RedHat (Score:3, Informative)
Progeny cost = $5/month
RHN cost = $60/year
12 months x $5/month = $60/year
Did I miss something on the website that's screwing up my math?
Re:Still feeling abandoned by RedHat (Score:2)
I don't get it. (Score:2)
What do you mean, RH would send a package? Do you mean they'd release new software, or newer versions of software?
For the most part, RHN gave me a lot of backported fixes, but rarely (if ever) a new version of the software itself.
I think I'm getting lost in the semantics here.
Re:I don't get it. (Score:2)
Re:Still feeling abandoned by RedHat (Score:2, Interesting)
I decided to cut bait and go with SuSE 9.0, which I find that I like better. They have basically the same update mechanism and there doesn't seem to be a maintenance fee (yet?).
Sigh... (Score:3, Funny)
In higher education, apparently only widgets cost money.
complete package lists for RHEL WS, ES and AS? (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't mean a relative listing, like a table of information that includes a short line of "includes this, this, and that" I mean a complete listing of all packages and versions, such as was provided with previous versions of Red Hat Linux.
I know Red Hat Linux and Red Hat Enterprise Linux are different products, but how can one make an informed choice about the three versions of RHEL without knowing exactly what p
Re:complete package lists for RHEL WS, ES and AS? (Score:2, Informative)
have a look at this [nluug.nl] (this is actually one of the mirror sites as ftp.redhat.com was busy).
Fedora Switch Awkward (Score:2)
As it is, it's still awkward to contribute to the distro, they may are may not be using these giant queues, etc etc. I actually think that the fact that RH engineers are still involved means it could have really rocked, but the at the moment I don't have the greatest of feeling
don't quite understand (Score:2)
Fedora is potentially everything and more of the free Redhat Linux distro... give them some time, but I have faith this is going to be a GOOD move.
How about an upgrade path, Fedora? (Score:2)
If I have to rebuild a new OS, and move my webserver to that, then I will probably go with Debian or Slack.
Can anybody list the distros that will allow version upgrades both remotely and without having to format a drive?
Thanks.
-S
APT-GET DIST-UPGRADE (Score:4, Informative)
1.Get apt-rpm
http://apt4rpm.sourceforge.net/
2.This following will be the contents of /etc/apt/sources.list.d/fedora.list:
#--
# Apt sources.list from http://www.xades.com/proj/fedora_repos.html
# Fedora Core
rpm http://download.fedora.us/fedora fedora/1/i386 os updates
rpm http://download.fedora.us/fedora fedora/1/i386 stable unstable testing
# Livna 3rd party packages with questionable licenses -- use at your own risk
rpm http://rpm.livna.org/ fedora/1/i386 stable unstable testing
# Dag Apt Repository for Red Hat Fedora Core 1
rpm http://apt.sw.be redhat/fc1/en/i386 dag
#--
Now do apt-get dist-upgrade
And you will have Fedora Core 1 from Red Hat 9.
Progeny's Support is Late (Score:2)
Now, maybe they announced this awhile back, and I am just now hea
Was Fedora even viable to begin with? (Score:3, Informative)
Oh dear.
After insulting the intelligence of their entire developer base (not to mention openly scoffing at their hard work and commitment) did Red Hat honestly expect people to flock to Fedora in droves? You've got to be kidding me..We're penguins, not friggin' LEMMINGS.
The whole damn thing with Red Hat stinks like ass and catfish, to the point where I will intentionally avoid doing what Red Hat would like for me to do. I'd even go so far as to say that anyone who pursues contributing code to Fedora is performing the equivalent of dropping their pants, spreading their cheeks, and hanging a sign on their nutsack saying "FREE AS IN BEER" with an arrow pointing up. Anybody who comes along, particularly Red Hat, is gonna take advantage of your willingness to get porked.
By {participating in/contributing to} Red Hat's 'Cousin Oliver' pee-on project, you're effectively agreeing to be kicked out of a playground you helped build, and forced to make do with a cat-shit filled sandbox down the street. Red Hat is our work, not theirs.
I can't speak for anyone but myself, but, if someone comes along and says "Oh, hey, thanks for building our skyscraper, kids! It's really quite lovely. As a thank you, we've graciously provided you with a cat-shit-filled sandbox down the street so you can continue making us rich, giving us beautiful things while getting nothing in return, not even the right to say you contribute directly to the project you helped build. Have a nice day, security will escort you to the parking lot."
Remind yourself that without us, they wouldn't even have a product to sell in the first place.
My advice? Let Red Hat go stale. Literally. Don't make an effort to contribute to Red Hat's distrib, or any other distrib which Red Hat directly benefits from (i.e. Fedora)..Move your efforts into helping build a competing distribution, one who's popularity would ultimately detract from Red Hat's dick-play. Ultimately, you cant prevent them from taking your work, obviously, but you can sure as hell make life difficult for them.
I never thought i'd say this, but, fuck this sandbox bullshit. I'm going Debian.
Cheers,
Re:Was Fedora even viable to begin with? (Score:4, Insightful)
1- Bullshit.
2- don't do that
Keep pretending that RedHat has, until now, all about the community, making things free, and not out to make money. While you're at it, make sure you pretend that throwing a desk on a kid's throat is self-defense, and that the easter bunny will bring you a hanakuh gift, too.
The fact is, RedHat did nothing more than raise prices and change their direction. You don't think Suse and others will do the same ? RedHat has made more inroads in terms of credibility than any other distro, and that means good news, whether you admit it or not.
Don't be so dramatic. Fedora *is* RH9, and for the people who had support contracts for their enterprise version, nothing has changed. Complain all you want, but don't be so hyperbolic about it.
Agreed, Suse will start chasing RedHat big time (Score:2)
Re:Agreed, Suse will start chasing RedHat big time (Score:2)
Yet Fedora is arguably superior for most of us (Score:2)
As to your assumption of RedHat living off of community work, note that much of this work (GNOME, etc) was funded (in)directly by RedHat. It is they who have often given to you, not the other way around.
You don't seem to understand what RHAS is and how it is marketed in any case. Since the emphasis has been placed on stability over freshness, the distro would likel
Re:Yet Fedora is arguably superior for most of us (Score:2)
Hi Ars,
The thing that pisses me off about Red Hat is not that they're trying to make money...Hell, God bless them, they're doing what alot of other companies can't...turn a profit.
My beef with Red Hat comes in the form of their moving the Red Hat name out of reach of the Red Hat developer
I don't know about the rest of you, but the fact that i've been a contributor to Red Hat's distrib since May of 1998 was not only something I was personally proud of, it was something I put on my
Re:Yet Fedora is arguably superior for most of us (Score:2)
This sounds like more whining about nothing. You HAD no "rug" to be pulled with redhat, only one that you imagined.
Re:Yet Fedora is arguably superior for most of us (Score:2)
Nothing says you can't claim on your resume that you contributed to RedHat until now, and I highly doubt that changing it to "RedHat/Fedora" is really going to make a difference to a perspective employer.
you whi
Re:Yet Fedora is arguably superior for most of us (Score:2)
I don't know what FAQ you were reading at that time, but, I had no problem whatsoever having my work included in RH. They were always receptive to the idea, even to the point of working with me on adding the last-minute "shine and polish" prior to release.
Regardless..Why should developers be given that opportunity, only to have the game reset, and have to rebuild name recognition for our work again, from scratch?
Cheers,
Re:Yet Fedora is arguably superior for most of us (Score:2)
It's not my resume' i'm worried about..I'm fine. I just used my own as example. I was talking about and referring to everyone else, who may not be as fortunate as me. Being able to claim you're a contributor/developer for Red Hat Linux may have been the only leg up for alot of people out there had.. and it's wrong for Red Hat to take that away from them, considering everyone worked for free. Thats all.
PS.. Being a "completely certified crackpot" actually pays pretty well. Look into it.
Cheers
Re:Was Fedora even viable to begin with? (Score:2)
Hi tre4lien,
RH9, or more specifically, Red Hat et al, is the mother of all distros. It may not be the best distro out there, but, in terms of numbers, RH is king of the hill right now. Also, no other Linux distribution has anywhere near the same degree of name recognition and installed user base. It may not be the BEST distro out there, but, neither was VHS the best videotape format. Whether we like it or not, it's not what we prefer that matters. It's what the consumer prefers...and consumers prefer Red
Re:Frost Psist (Score:5, Insightful)
Jobs has APPROPRIATED free software for his own personal enrichment
Damn me for replying to trolls but..
Apple has used BSD licensed code within the BSD license. Actually, the fact that they return code back to the open source community goes beyond the terms of the BSD license.
Re:Still too much where I come from (Score:1)
Re:Still too much where I come from (Score:2, Informative)
At many universities Microsoft gives a very large academic discount to students studying IT (if the university computer labs have a Microsoft academic partnership). The CDs typically look like OEM versions, but they are upgrade/oem with really weird license restrictions (you can only install the software once, you can't reinstall it -- AFAIK you can reinstall normal XP distributions around 5 times before you have to call the Microsoft activation
Re:Still too much where I come from (Score:2)
Re:Still too much where I come from (Score:2)
It's a great program from IT administration's point of view.. it's cheap and provides great access to MS's resources..
on the other hand however, it's a lot like crack dealers handing out the first hit free. Students use all of MS's crap at university and then when they hit the real world, they want to keep using it, thus it works as a marketing tool for microsoft that the university ends up paying for.
Re:Still too much where I come from (Score:2)
CB
Re:Linux is way out of hand now with companies suc (Score:4, Insightful)
You sound like somebody who doesn't have a clue as to how many developers Red Hat has. If I remember correctly, 7 out of the top 10 kernel developers work for Red Hat. Many, many other packages have *significant* contributions made by Red Hat employees. Red Hat does a *lot* more than just take Joe Blow's GPL'd package and package it into an RPM.
Do you also realize that Red Hat has more developers working on Fedora than they did on Red Hat Linux?
Let's also not forget that Fedora IS free. RHEL isn't, but you are getting a level of support that Fedora doesn't give you.