Red Hat Releases Enterprise Linux 5

An anonymous reader writes "Red Hat has a new release out for Enterprise Linux, reports Ars Technica. Along with several anticipated new features, Enterprise Linux 5 marks the rollout of the RedHat Exchange (RHX), which will be a source for commercial third-party software applications. 'RHX will allow consumers to buy software support services for third-party open-source technologies like MySQL database software and SugarCRM customer management systems directly from Red Hat ... Linux vendor Novell, which recently partnered with Microsoft to provide stronger Windows interoperability, is already carving out a growing portion of the enterprise Linux market. Red Hat also has to contend with proprietary database vendor Oracle, who now offers commercial Linux support for Red Hat users.'"

wow

[mastershake_phd (1050150)]

A new release already, seems like just yesterday they released one.

Re:

[rm69990 (885744)]

Ummm...I think he was referring to the fact that this is the second announcement on Slashdot for this release...As in, a dupe...

Enterprise Operating Systems

[Professor_UNIX (867045)]

Let me be the first to say I'm very very very excited about this milestone and look forward to the first stable release of CentOS [centos.org] version 5.0 so us cheapskates can enjoy it as well.

Re:

[Professor_UNIX (867045)]

Son of a bitch. Not only was this a dupe, but my snarky comment about being the first to mention CentOS was a dupe from the other thread as well. pwn3d.

Re:

[krbvroc1 (725200)]

Personally, I run Centos at home and on a server for a non-profit hobby. However, for work, I purchase the license and support RH. They have pretty much priced themselves out of reach for the non-corporate user. Prior to the Fedora project, I always ran Redhat on everything. The fact that Centos can provide the builds they do is a testament to OSS movement.

Re:

[shmlco (594907)]

The basic version of RHEL is $349. I assume that's for as many servers as you want to put it on, so how is that priced "out of reach for the non-corporate user"?

Re:

[CronScript (936442)]

$349 covers RHEL for a single, dual socket machine, 30 days of phone support and one year of updates. Support and updates for subsequent years are an additional $349 per year. It is $349 for EACH machine.

Here are more of Red Hat's terms:

5 Reporting and Inspection

5.1 Reporting. Client will promptly notify Red Hat if the number of Installed Systems exceeds the number of Installed Systems for which Client has paid the applicable fee. In its notice, Client will include both the number of additional Insta

Re:

[killjoe (766577)]

Isn't that pretty much in line with windows support? In fact it probably costs less then windows 2003 server and support by a wide margin.

Re:

[negative3 (836451)]

I'm pretty sure that the pricing for RHEL only allows updates and support for installation on a single PC or server if you buy one copy. If you install your purchased copy on numerous machines, you may violate the support agreement.

Of course, I freely admit that I may be wrong. Red Hat's website explains it all, I leave the legal deciphering to you. I just use Fedora instead - I can get the same server packages (I especially like RH's BIND config utility, system-config-bind) without the worry. I think I

Could be the next step...

[kosmosik (654958)]

I can imagine most posters will say "dupe" cause this relates to RHEL5 release. But the real news is this RHX thingie.

I think it is a good idea but it should be vendor neutral. How about something like SourceForge but focused on providing a platform for comercial support and stuff like this (stuff that organizations with money *will* to pay for).

I'm so bored

[HomelessInLaJolla (1026842)]

I have plenty of free time today to finally try RedHat. Please contact me to negotiate an appropriate laptop.

No waves in the pool.

[TihSon (1065170)]

Whatever the technology crowd might think of Red Hat's new toys, the markets sure don't seem to care. Their last five days [yahoo.com] show a large amount of "who cares" on Wall St.

Between the big 'O' and it's 'unbreakable' RH distro, and the advent of Nicrosoft, I think a lot of people are doing a lot of watching and waiting.

Re:No waves in the pool.

[lawaetf1 (613291)]

Because the market is such a reliable judge of what makes a good technology. Every time the market beats up on RHT (which it loves to do) I buy and I've yet to go wrong with that strategy (granted I will only use this approach so long as I retain faith in the company). Consider the pummeling it got when Oracle announced Unbreakable. Anyone with a clue laughed at Oracle's move but the market reacted by pounding the stock.

So Novell has allied themselves with Microsoft which is questionable at best. From all what I've read the whole bit about cross indemnification was a last-minute "oh yeah, we'll also need you to sign this" from Microsoft. To which they replied, "yes, boss" while staring hungrily at the $240 million check.

Face it, Redhat *is* enterprise linux in the US. It got #2 in CIO magazine in terms of customer satisfaction and that's saying a whole hell of a lot (Novell came in at 23). As far as the Oracle Linux bit, I can't find the article but there was a recent piece about how nobody is adopting the rip-off OS. Even the enterprise clients that Oracle listed replied when contacted that they were either NOT using it or were doing a small pilot project. And who knows how many free licenses of 10g oracle had to give out to get even that much traction.

Re:

[rayvd (155635)]

Well said. Coming from more of a corporate environment, I was genuinely surprised (OK, I really shouldn't have been) to read some of the comments here poking fun at Red Hat as irrelevant. In the business world, the de facto standard is still RHEL, and likely is going to continue that way. RH has been around long enough that even the suits are willing to trust its name (and to a lesser extent, SuSE)... RH is far from irrelevant, and are still the #1 private company contributing to the Linux kernel.

Re:

[tobiasly (524456)]

Whatever the technology crowd might think of Red Hat's new toys, the markets sure don't seem to care. Their last five days [yahoo.com] show a large amount of "who cares" on Wall St.

That's because this isn't news. Everyone has known for quite a while that RHEL5 would be released in this timeframe. Wall Street is controlled by big money, and big money doesn't wait until they read something in the newspaper before they act on it. They are continually in contact with the companies in their portfolio and they know what direction the company is headed in long before the general public does. This "news" was already built into the price of the stock.

Re:

[crsm (21260)]

Wall Street doesn't care about about a new release that have been planned for a long time. You can compare it to the reaction [yahoo.com] to Oracle's surprice announcement of their RedHat rip-off in october. RedHat suffered a 25% loss in a few days, but recovered in two months anyway.

If you wan't to see what Wall Street thinks about RedHats business strategy in general, you should take a look at the longer trends [yahoo.com] instead.

Wall Street certainly do care about RedHat

Troll alert, but my question is...

[octaene (171858)]

...they still make Red Hat Linux? That's cute.

RHEL should have a free version, Should Axe Fedora

[rainhill (86347)]

RHEL should have a free version. And what about CentOS? you might say, I am sure RedHat can get (needs and deserves) a better karma, and a better name recognition by distributing RHEL for free, instead of CentOS doing that for them.

I would like to see that Fedora is axed or merged back into RedHat EL, rename it something like RedHat EL Beta or RHEL Express or.., at least it will give new users (kids that are being attracted to Ubuntu) a name recognition right away.

Currently it's confusing, when people spea

Re:

[wwwillem (253720)]

Auch, I had mod points last week. I would have given you all five!!

Re:RHEL should have a free version, Should Axe Fed

[xappax (876447)]

it will give new users (kids that are being attracted to Ubuntu) a name recognition right away.

Ubuntu and RHEL are miles apart. It would be extremely difficult to get the people who are attracted to Ubuntu's user friendliness, modern feature set, and broad driver support to be turned on to an operating system whose primary niche is in a server rack. RHEL is primarily a reliable industrial strength server OS, and they put out a desktop distro on the side. Ubuntu is primarily a well designed, Mac OS-lik

So much to say

[XB-70 (812342)]

This release will be an interesting test of ORACLE's knock-off capabilities - let's see how long they take to do it. CentOS will be challenged to get it out there too. I wonder which will be first.

Red Hat should not be slagged for it's efforts. This is a major accomplishment. The virtualization aspect to this release is the wave of the future. Fundamentally, we are seeing the evolution of the server platform to a new level with radically improved capabilities. I'm very disappointed that so many of y

Re:

[ettlz (639203)]

Let's aid and abet their efforts and not demean what Red Hat has achieved.

Indeed. There's an awful lot of misplaced and, let's face it, downright ungrateful anti-Red Hat FUD flying about (especially in regards to Fedora which is a good distro for the more experienced user who wants cutting edge). Red Hat is one of the biggest kernel contributors. They have a high level of commitment to Free Software (especially with Fedora). I think many of those who slag off Red Hat do so for — horror of horrors!

Re:

[rohan972 (880586)]

They have a high level of commitment to Free Software (especially with Fedora).

Putting src.rpm available for public download deserves a mention also. They could be GPL compliant without doing that, yet some people whine because they enforce their trademark. Red Hat make CentOS possible ... deliberately.

the business model Linux was waiting for?

[Bloke down the pub (861787)]

Maybe this is the business model Linux was waiting for? Look at this way, the OS isn't a goal in itself - it's just a tool that lets you run applications. And the suits just love one-stop-shops.

I like this idea. It seems so obvious - afterwards.

Re:

[dbIII (701233)]

It's not that sort of stuff - it's things like complex and expensive geophysical packages from companies like Halliburton where you can only get support if it's installed on a certified platform. When you have a known problems list that stretches to fifty pages and you will find a few unknown ones before the next patch (now on a yearly patch schedule!) you need support. Ironicly the licencing software (flexlm - a version about 8 years old now that uses the abandoned linuxthreads implementain from back th