Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

Is CentOS Hurting Red Hat?

Posted by CmdrTaco on Sunday November 04, @12:20PM
from the can't-imagine-it-would dept.
AlexGr writes "Jeff Gould raises an interesting question in Interop News: Why does Red Hat tolerate CentOS? The Community ENTerprise Operating System is an identical binary clone of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (minus the trademarks), compiled from the source code RPMs that Red Hat conveniently provides on its FTP site. It is also completely free, as in beer. CentOS provides no paid support, but it does track Red Hat updates and patches closely, and usually makes them available within a few hours or at most a few days of the upstream provider, which it refers to for legal reasons as "a prominent North American Enterprise Linux vendor." Free support for CentOS can be found in numerous places around the web, and a few third parties offer modestly priced paid support for those who want it."

Related Stories

Is CentOS Hurting Red Hat? | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 370 comments (Spill at 50!) | Index Only | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • nope, doesn't hurt RH (Score:5, Insightful)

    by yagu (721525) * <yayagu AT gmail DOT com> on Sunday November 04, @12:21PM (#21232519)
    (Last Journal: Wednesday August 15, @03:36PM)

    I'm going to have to go with "doesn't hurt Red Hat" on many counts.

    • There's no such thing as bad publicity.
    • CentOS users are likely users who were looking for free anyway so the alternative would have been some other free distro.
    • A natural migration path for free CentOS users would be to require more support and since their universe is Red Hat-centric, the "pay for" version they'd likely choose would be Red Hat.

    I doubt too many sales are lost here.

    And the article's example doesn't really prove the point. So a shop of Red Hat users balked at upgrades and associated fees, and decided to go CentOS because they were a seasoned Linux shop. If it weren't CentOS, it would have been something else. The veteran shops will run Linux for free because they don't need the support, period. And they will find the distro that lets them do that.

    (And I'm not quite sure what the referenced Google graph is supposed to demonstrate. I suspect he's claiming the higher count and increase in hits for CentOS indicates more popularity, and lost revenues for Red Hat, but I see it as those needing to do their own support pretty much start with Google. Red Hat licensees will start with Red Hat support.)

  • Because they don't have any choice? (Score:3, Informative)

    by ThrobbingGristle (62723) on Sunday November 04, @12:23PM (#21232555)
    (Last Journal: Tuesday January 20 2004, @02:26PM)
    I would have thought that would have been obvious... maybe I'll go RTFA now.
  • Simple: Support (Score:5, Insightful)

    by emgeemg (182902) on Sunday November 04, @12:24PM (#21232575)
    (http://slashdot.org/)
    The type of organizations that want Red Hat Enterprise Linux want it for the support Red Hat offers. Take that away and there's not really any competition.
  • It is helping Red Hat by uuxququex (Score:1) Sunday November 04, @12:25PM
  • why??? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by WwWonka (545303) on Sunday November 04, @12:26PM (#21232603)
    "Why does Red Hat tolerate CentOS?"

    um...because they have too?!

    "open source" look it up on wikipedia...on second thought...
    • Re:why??? by ynososiduts (Score:2) Sunday November 04, @12:38PM
    • Re:why??? by empaler (Score:1) Sunday November 04, @01:53PM
    • Re:why??? by Bitmanhome (Score:2) Sunday November 04, @03:11PM
      • Re:why??? by HumanPenguin (Score:1) Sunday November 04, @03:16PM
        • Re:why??? by harlows_monkeys (Score:2) Sunday November 04, @05:30PM
      • Re:why??? by Dahamma (Score:2) Sunday November 04, @03:41PM
    • Re:why??? by just_another_sean (Score:2) Sunday November 04, @04:27PM
    • Re:why??? by rainhill (Score:1) Sunday November 04, @09:17PM
  • RH lost 10k licenses from us by mikek2 (Score:1) Sunday November 04, @12:27PM
  • by jimicus (737525) on Sunday November 04, @12:27PM (#21232615)
    (http://www.whitepost.org.uk/)
    CentOS essentially acts as advertising for the Enterprise RedHat editions. It allows sysadmins to stick with the same familiar set of tools on both systems where it is considered desirable to have a support contract and systems where this is less of an issue.

    RedHat can't do much to curb this anyway - most of what they produce is standing on the shoulders of other GPL software - but if they did, I'd imagine we'd see a commensurate rise in the use of Debian, Ubuntu and (gasp!) SuSE/OpenSuSE.
  • It's the license, stupid by rjamestaylor (Score:2) Sunday November 04, @12:27PM
  • A little matter of the GPL (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Lulu of the Lotus-Ea (3441) <mertz@gnosis.cx> on Sunday November 04, @12:27PM (#21232619)
    (http://gnosis.cx/)
    It is a bit of an asinine question why Red Hat "tolerates" CentOS. Red Hat has no option here--nor should they. By distributing code or binaries that were created by people other than Red Hat, and licensed under GPL, Red Hat has explicitly agreed that CentOS (or anyone) has the right to do the same.

    Red Hat is welcome to hold whatever opinion they want on whether they *like* CentOS to do what they do... but in the end, it's none of their damn business how someone else decides to distribute GPL'd code (within the license terms, of course... Red Hat is also a creator of a significant body of GPL code).
    • No it isn't by scheme (Score:3) Sunday November 04, @12:41PM
      • Re:No it isn't (Score:5, Informative)

        by Danathar (267989) on Sunday November 04, @01:08PM (#21233111)
        (Last Journal: Sunday August 20 2006, @09:16PM)
        Not entirely correct. Installation scripts and interfaces definition files must be included. Access to CVS/CVN of the code without these would not satisfy the GPL (v2).

        "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
        making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
        code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
        associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
        control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a
        special exception, the source code distributed need not include
        anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
        form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
        operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
        itself accompanies the executable.
      • Re:No it isn't by eldepeche (Score:1) Sunday November 04, @01:17PM
      • Re:No it isn't by Antique Geekmeister (Score:2) Sunday November 04, @05:09PM
        • Re:No it isn't by Daniel Phillips (Score:2) Sunday November 04, @05:46PM
    • Re:A little matter of the GPL by kasperd (Score:2) Sunday November 04, @01:30PM
    • GPL works several ways by kitgerrits (Score:1) Sunday November 04, @04:08PM
  • I looked into RHEL when they dropped support for RH 8/9, and they wanted far more money than I was willing to pay to kick around the tires at home or on my development box. When time came to look at 'enterprise' grade distributions, SuSE made it much easier on the developers. Fast forward and I found that I never bothered to even try RHEL 3, 4, and 5. Same went for Oracle's branded version. With no easy way to patch and having to deal with accounting to get a license, meh.

    What changed it for me was Centos. I found that I could use the free as in beer versions for all my personal/internal needs, and it was so dang close to OEL and RHEL it became a no-brainer for testing and some dev work. With the internal blessings from our side that our code would work, QA did the formal testing on the branded versions of Linux. Folks running our product, of course, would want OS support - so they purchased the formal 'supported' OS from the commercial vendors. I suspect Centos is saving RHEL/OEL sales that might have gone to Ubuntu or other variants.
  • Doesn't hurt them at all..... by budword (Score:2) Sunday November 04, @12:29PM
    • Re:Doesn't hurt them at all..... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Tuoqui (1091447) on Sunday November 04, @01:14PM (#21233163)
      (Last Journal: Saturday May 19, @06:02PM)
      Yeah when I was doing a Computer related degree in College they used CentOS because of that fact. The thing is you're more likely to encounter RHEL than Debian, Ubuntu and such for server work. They exploited the fact that CentOS was a free version of RHEL and now RHEL has about 20-30 more people with college degrees that have been introduced to their work.

      Myself I've used Ubuntu series of Linux on my home machine because its better for desktops but if I were to run a server I'd probably choose CentOS for myself (or a small business), RHEL if I had a big budget in a major company.
    • Re:Doesn't hurt them at all..... by Lord Kano (Score:1) Monday November 05, @01:46AM
  • Umm, that's the point (Score:5, Insightful)

    by allthingscode (642676) on Sunday November 04, @12:30PM (#21232641)
    Did we miss the point of the GPL? The instance of the software is owned by the user. They can do what they want with it. If they feel like doing everything on their own, they can do so (CentOS). If they want to pay someone else to make their life easier, they can do so (RedHat). RedHat knows this. "Choosing" to tolerate is the one choice RedHat doesn't have: If RedHat wants to use GPL'd software, they have to let other people play by the same rules they do. CentOS isn't going to hurt RedHat any more than Debian does.
  • Red Hat has no choice by rice_burners_suck (Score:2) Sunday November 04, @12:31PM
  • What CAN Redhat do about it? by Digital Pizza (Score:2) Sunday November 04, @12:31PM
  • CentOS to RH migration (Score:5, Insightful)

    by caseih (160668) on Sunday November 04, @12:31PM (#21232677)
    One of the things that makes CentOS a clear winner is that because it is a completely compatible recompilation of RH, going from a test CentOS install to a fully supported RH entitlement is very easy. Thus I install CentOS initially on all my servers initially and then when I put them into production, I convert them to RHEL and buy an entitlement for them. Some of my less important servers remain CentOS. One of the main reasons for converting my servers to RHEL is that I can watch over them all, in terms of patches and security eratta, from the RHN.

    In other cases, I can convert a RHEL box to CentOS, then build the replacement server with its entitlement, allowing me to keep the original server in production for a few weeks or months while the new server is ramped up.

    So if anything CentOS actually increases RH usage because it is so easy to, at any time, buy entitlements from RH, convert the CentOS machines, and get whatever level of support you deem necessary at the time.
    • Re:CentOS to RH migration (Score:5, Insightful)

      by merreborn (853723) on Sunday November 04, @01:09PM (#21233115)
      CentOS also has a much larger set of available binary software packages than redhat.

      Of course, you can use those packages with either redhat or CentOS. So while CentOS benefits from all of redhat's core OS work, Redhat benefits from all of CentOS's package maintenance work.

      Without a doubt, each project benefits the other directly.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Licensing costs by c_g_hills (Score:2) Sunday November 04, @12:33PM
  • Big companies will buy redhat anyway... by SynFlood (Score:1) Sunday November 04, @12:34PM
  • It works both ways by bjkrz (Score:2) Sunday November 04, @12:34PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Hurting who..? by Wowsers (Score:1) Sunday November 04, @12:35PM
  • Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rindeee (530084) on Sunday November 04, @12:36PM (#21232751)
    That's like asking why I "tolerate" the speed limit, or why I tolerate my bank demanding I pay my mortgage after signing the contract to do so (okay, so those are kind of crappy examples). Their product is licensed such that CentOS can and (I must say I am very grateful for) does make use of the source code. What's the problem? It's not as though RedHat has any say in the matter. The article even points out; "After all, the vast majority of the packages in RHEL were not created by Red Hat, and they are all governed by the GPL, which is absolutely clear about the obligation to redistribute code." Well duh! Someone could just as easily claim that MySQL is losing money because distro XYZ includes it when the end user could be paying MySQL for installation and configuration support. And so on. The article is basically drivel IMO by someone who comprehends what the GPL is, but doesn't "get it" or the real value it represents.
    • Re:Huh? by iggy_mon (Score:1) Sunday November 04, @01:52PM
  • Because Red Hat isn't MS by webmaster404 (Score:2) Sunday November 04, @12:37PM
  • Redhat support (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SolusSD (680489) on Sunday November 04, @12:38PM (#21232771)
    (http://www.solussd.com/)
    I work from a company that runs most of its products on top of Redhat EL3 and EL4. While there is something to be said about Redhat's quality of support- for inhouse development wortk it isn't so important. Its value comes form supporting our customers at an OS level alleviating us from supporting the OS. (We require our customers to purchase Redhat support contracts). What I believe _is_ hurting redhat is how their sales department insists that making copies of Redhat is illegal. We have been told time and time again that it is illegal for us to run copies of Redhat that are not paid for within our support contract. The truth is- as long as you aren't expecting support for the unpaid for copies and you are not selling them to other companies (alone or as part of your product, because of redhat trademarks) it is fine to use as many inhouse copies as you want. It took me monthes to convince management at our company that Redhat Licensing is completely different beast than, say, Windows Server licensing while at the same time fighting a battle with the software programmers trying to convince them that Linux is _not_ freeware. The concept of GPL'd software seems to be lost on members of the IT management sector. CentOS has become a good inhouse alternative to redhat since it is binary compatible, but it does not displace any copies of Redhat sold with our product. So, while Redhat may be losing some marketshare for inhouse deployments, they are only losing cusotomers that didn't want the support or that they were essentially *lying* to by requiring them to purchase licenses they were not obligated to purchase.
  • Wrong question (Score:5, Informative)

    by rrohbeck (944847) on Sunday November 04, @12:41PM (#21232809)
    You might ask just as well why the Linux community tolerates RedHat.
    It's the way it's supposed to work.
    On the other hand, the only reason why CentOS exists is that RHEL can't be downloaded for free like the older versions. If RedHat wanted to kill CentOS they would just have to allow that.
  • by BlueParrot (965239) on Sunday November 04, @12:44PM (#21232827)
    Red Hat probably realises that people using CentOS are people who may just like it so much they they come back for more, and since they don't make their money on the software, but rather supporting it, CentOS just means more potential customers in the long run...

    Some companies are control freaks who prefer to sue potential customers, Red Hat has picked a slightly more sane aproach.
  • A Very Tough Business (Score:5, Interesting)

    by RobBebop (947356) on Sunday November 04, @12:49PM (#21232895)

    RHEL, CentOS, and Fedora are all competing brands under the same umbrella. Fedora is great for cutting edge developers and home users. CentOS is good for people who desire the better tested software. RHEL is targeted at enterprises (hence the 'E' in the acronym) who need things working all the time (99.9999%). The three different markets are comparable to the different brands offered by Microsoft (Server, Workstation, Home). The only difference is that Red Hat doesn't make any money from CentOS or Fedora.

    But take a step back and think about Microsoft a bit more. Imagine you have a business laptop which was provided to you by your company. It runs 2000 or XP or (god forbid) Vista and the company has a site license for you to run that software. Microsoft is happy to slash margins for the individual site license which you have as long as they can continue to service the servers and infrastructure which run the business critical systems of your company. Similarly, if you are a developer or home user... your copy of Windows came from an OEM or you pirated it. Sure, Microsoft gets money from Dell and the other OEMs... but (I imagine) so do the Linux companies who have been able to get involved in that method of distribution.

    In the end, you help Red Hat by using CentOS or Fedora just like you help Microsoft by using pirated Windows. Simple enough?

  • $50,000 a year? by iknownuttin (Score:1) Sunday November 04, @12:49PM