Red Hat Announces Enterprise Linux 440
OldBen writes "RedHat has announced the product stable to replace the mainstream releases for enterprise use. RedHat Enterprise Linux AS replaces Advanced Server (with quite a price hike to go along), ES is targeted at "entry-level" servers, and WS is for workstations. See the details at RedHat's website."
Neato (Score:4, Interesting)
Corporate (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Neato (Score:4, Interesting)
Enterprise AS (Score:4, Interesting)
Clarification requested (Score:5, Interesting)
What parts are not open-source?
What's to stop someone from just posting ISO images online?
I'm just a little fuzzy on what's being paid for.
Thanks in advance for the answers
Re:Price Hike? (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally, I download the free version and subscribe systems I manage to the RHN service, which makes updates simple, and is well worth the $60/year.
Re:Neato (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Neato (Score:0, Interesting)
There's simply no place in the mainstream for Linux.
You're paying for.. (Score:4, Interesting)
I think it's a good move (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a serious question (Score:3, Interesting)
Do they do heavy system modification to change how Advanced server handles memory or threads or something? Sorry, I'm ignorant here, I have always used redhat from the ISOs and pay for entitlement.
Cheating? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Clarification requested (Score:2, Interesting)
Support.
Slightly on another topic -- you could be really rude in something like this and intermix different pieces and parts that are GPL and are not GPL (at the package level) to make it virtually impossible to figure out how to redistribute only the GPL parts. In fact, you could even group the packages so each package has both GPL and non-GPL pieces, so you couldn't break it up by packages and distribute some of them.
That would be really rude.
Re:This is a serious question (Score:1, Interesting)
The reality is that it really sux - very unstable and moody. We have another Oracle box running on stock redhat 7.3 - no problems. The AS box has to be rebooted about as often as Exchange server does
Per machine? (Score:2, Interesting)
Can anyone clarify for me whether these "subscriptions" are explicitly licensed for exactly one machine? Am I allowed to download the workstation product for $179, create CD's, and then install it on 100 machines? I understand the problem of only having purchased 1 entitlement for the Red Hat Network; the question is am I permitted to install it on N machines for $179, or am I required to pay N times $179?
The Red Hat WWW site is surprisingly uninformative about this question.
Re:Pricing themselves out of the market? (Score:5, Interesting)
Adding to your comment, another factor is that Linux can GENERALLY run a bit faster on the same hardware, assuming you run a server at init 3 (who wouldnt?) This gives you a little more horsepower per server.
Also, a company MAY pay the $800 for a few boxes, but install a free version of Linux for other boxes. Maybe their dedicated DNS boxes don't need the support, or their POP boxes. As you stated, they don't have this option with windows. They can PAY for support on the ones they need, get the other free, and run the same basic OS on all of them.
Personally, I have a few servers, all running Linux, and I pay $60 from Redhat for up2date priority access (a freaking bargain). It also keeps with with ALL my servers, telling me what servers need what patches, i just have to download and install the other servers manually, which is no biggie. I gladly have the $60 annual on autorenew, because I have the choice to run one for pay, the others for free. From my experience, RedHat offers good value.
Does Enterprise offer Indemnity protection? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Clarification requested (Score:4, Interesting)
Can RedHat enforce this considering the software they're selling me is under open source licenses?
If so, then it seems that the costs are per year, per server. For RHL ES, at $350/year/server, my modest 4 server shop would cost me $1400 USD/year, or over $2200 CAD/year. I just don't have the budget for this.
Really, all I want is access to errata. I don't need phone support, or email support, or any fancy RHN monitoring. Just let me download errata binaries so I can upgrade my servers and I'm happy. I'm willing to pay for that, but not to the tune of $2200 a year. There doesn't seem to be such a solution offered by RedHat.
Jason.
Re:Clarification requested (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Red Hat is inching up (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, I sort of agree with you. However, Sun/HP/IBM were calling their Unix offerings five years ago 'enterprise' without having any of those features (even though the mainframe mostly did). I've never seen a really firm definition, although I certainly have my own views about what the phrase should mean. While I agree a bit with your point, it's also not quite fair for the 'enterprise' guys to constantly redefine the enterprise feature set to include whatever the low-end guys don't have.
You may of course disagree. The important thing is recognizing what Red Hat's enterprise solution does and does not provide.
The real question to me is, do Red Hat's 'enterprise' enhancements effectively help Linux extend dominance beyond the web-server niche which Microsoft can, should, and will try to position it into. (Promptly before Microsoft offers a low-cost version of NT server with IIS-only.)
--LP
Mindshare (Score:3, Interesting)
If the free download and the "Enterprise" what-ever are too different, it will have an impact.
I wonder what situation this leaves Cheap Bytes and other CD copiers in?
Re:Enterprise AS (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Clarification requested (Score:3, Interesting)
So let me recap what you're saying:
Are you serious? Is RedHat serious? I've got to be missing something.
Re:What price hike ?? (Score:3, Interesting)
1) ES will work for most people (those who do not need extra large memory, cpu, or clustering support). In fact, most of our servers do not use OS clustering and have 4 or less cpus, so ES would seem to work. But, we do run a fair number of 6gb ram Oracle boxes. And we would have to pay the AS prices for these boxes, even though we really do not need the greater support/features. We could build our own kernels with the necessary mods, but that gets troublesome with any large number of boxes, and we want them to take care of revisioning after all.
2) For those of you saying you can use apt-get, or freshmeat or whatever else, remember that the binaries for AS 2.1, for example, are not available via these means. If you do not want to compile yourself, you have to have the correct entitlement (and RH seems to have prevented advanced users from switch machine to machin at rhn.redhat.com, like you can do with workstations or demos). All is fair in love and war, and since I have been playing in the UNIX world for quite a while now, I am not too surprised. I would like the "download binaries/updates for $60 a year with no other support for the AS versions" option, though. Many of the 7.3 packages work for AC 2.1, but enough of them do not to make it a pain.
Re:Pricing themselves out of the market? (Score:3, Interesting)
Mike