Programmers bypass Red Hat Linux fees

(continued from previous page)

uses CentOS at his employer, a Washington-based Internet service provider. "I find that I can usually provide the answer to a technical problem using a Google search."

That's also enough support for Claire Connelly, a systems administrator who helps run 66 Linux servers at Harvey Mudd College's Mathematics Department.

"Convincing me to run RHEL on more of our systems would require Red Hat to add some significant value over community rebuilds or other distributions," Connolly said. "I don't have a problem with giving Red Hat some money, as they do a great job contributing code and support to the community. The problem is that their current pay-for-support structure doesn't work very well for our situation. As an academic institution, we don't have tons of money to throw around for 'enterprise-level support.'"

A year and a half after Red Hat introduced the first version of RHEL, it announced deep discounts to education customers that had been alienated by the pricing choice.

But those educational discounts haven't been steep enough for some others, either. The University of Manchester uses Linux on a "couple hundred" workstations and servers, said Niels Walet, a professor with the university's School of Physics and Astronomy. His main concerns with Red Hat are support and fees, he said. He's moving several CentOS systems under his purview to Scientific Linux to maintain compatibility among university groups.

Some clone users could be drawn into the Red Hat fold, though. One is Maciej Zenczykowski, a CentOS user and student in Poland who runs Linux on three university servers and four Internet servers for his own and three other apartment buildings. He'd be willing to pay $50 to $100 per year for software support, and he needs the RHEL compatibility to ensure that software from Hewlett-Packard works properly.

"Frankly, I wanted to go with RHEL 4 on (an) enterprise-level server at the university. I even had the $50 ready for an academic license," he said. But Red Hat's Polish reseller was charging about $120, and trying to coax longer-term support payments out of the university's financial department was frustrating, so CentOS won out.

Freedom from bureaucracy is one of the reasons Dave Parsley, an administrator at Alfred University in New York, founded Tao Linux.

"It's always easier to pop a DVD into the drive to install it and not register and not do any paperwork," Parsley said. "It's like the old days of Linux--just install and go."

[tocam27]

Mandrake

Am I way off base or didn't Mandrake used to be a repackaged version of Redhat back in the day? I seem to remember when I ran RedHat 7 (or maybe it was 6.1) that the two were unbelievably similar, right down to the installer... It's probably not the case anymore but I could have sworn that's how it was about or six years back...

[acrider]

Re: Mandrake

Yes, Mandrake was originally more or less Red Hat plus KDE, back when Red Hat would not include KDE in their distribution. Like most other distributions that originally started with Red Hat Linux, they eventually began building their own packages and doing other things to distinguish themselves from Red Hat and others. I haven't used either one very much for several years, so I don't know how different they are by now.

[George Cole]

could have sworn

http://www.analogstereo.com/subaru_baja_owners_manual.htm

[tocam27]

Mandrake

Am I way off base or didn't Mandrake used to be a repackaged version of Redhat back in the day? I seem to remember when I ran RedHat 7 (or maybe it was 6.1) that the two were unbelievably similar, right down to the installer... It's probably not the case anymore but I could have sworn that's how it was about or six years back...

[acrider]

Re: Mandrake

Yes, Mandrake was originally more or less Red Hat plus KDE, back when Red Hat would not include KDE in their distribution. Like most other distributions that originally started with Red Hat Linux, they eventually began building their own packages and doing other things to distinguish themselves from Red Hat and others. I haven't used either one very much for several years, so I don't know how different they are by now.

[George Cole]

could have sworn

http://www.analogstereo.com/subaru_baja_owners_manual.htm

[unoengborg]

RPMS needed

If redhat decided to stop shipping source rpms their value would be diminished to their existing customers as this makes it simple to make customizations or optimizations e.g. for a specific processor family.

[unoengborg]

RPMS needed

If redhat decided to stop shipping source rpms their value would be diminished to their existing customers as this makes it simple to make customizations or optimizations e.g. for a specific processor family.

[jamie.p.walsh]

aren't all distros of linux the same

I mean, in theory, if everyone uses the same kernel, what in the hell is the difference. I bet there are people out there who buy a version because it's version's logo is prettier than another.

[David Arbogast]

No.

No, they aren't all the same. And assuming they are all using the same kernel is also no guarantee. Linux can be modified in any way by anybody and rereleased as a new distro. But hey... since its open source, you can get the source code for each distro and compare them line by line to find the differences! Won't that be fun?

LoL.... Fragmentation and splintering were things that the GPL people claimed would not be a problem in the future. Looks like now it is cutting into the profits of the largest Linux company. You have to wonder if the GPL authors didn't know and anticipate this.... after all, they generally have a very anti-capitalistic attitude. OTOH, RedHat should have seen this coming a mile away.

"Hey, I have an idea! Lets charge large sums of money for a product that can be obtained freely!"

Red Hat reminds me of Eric Cartman when he was trying to represent Token in the music industry... "We need to convince him that he needs us, when really, he doesn't."

No

Even if two distros use the same kernel, they often have different file layouts, different configuration tools, different packaging methods, and different sets of optional patches applied to software.

So yes, there ARE very important differences.

[George Cole]

everyone uses the same kernel

http://www.analogstereo.com/daewoo_musso_owners_manual.htm

[jamie.p.walsh]

aren't all distros of linux the same

I mean, in theory, if everyone uses the same kernel, what in the hell is the difference. I bet there are people out there who buy a version because it's version's logo is prettier than another.

[David Arbogast]

No.

No, they aren't all the same. And assuming they are all using the same kernel is also no guarantee. Linux can be modified in any way by anybody and rereleased as a new distro. But hey... since its open source, you can get the source code for each distro and compare them line by line to find the differences! Won't that be fun?

LoL.... Fragmentation and splintering were things that the GPL people claimed would not be a problem in the future. Looks like now it is cutting into the profits of the largest Linux company. You have to wonder if the GPL authors didn't know and anticipate this.... after all, they generally have a very anti-capitalistic attitude. OTOH, RedHat should have seen this coming a mile away.

"Hey, I have an idea! Lets charge large sums of money for a product that can be obtained freely!"

Red Hat reminds me of Eric Cartman when he was trying to represent Token in the music industry... "We need to convince him that he needs us, when really, he doesn't."

No

Even if two distros use the same kernel, they often have different file layouts, different configuration tools, different packaging methods, and different sets of optional patches applied to software.

So yes, there ARE very important differences.

[George Cole]

everyone uses the same kernel

http://www.analogstereo.com/daewoo_musso_owners_manual.htm

[Chung Leong]

If they make money from service...

...then they have no incentive to make the software easier to use and maintenance-free.

[Shankland]

From the author: I beg to differ

Red Hat indeed makes money from service, but because services are sold in the form of annual subscriptions, not per incident, there is a powerful financial incentive to minimize technical support calls. The more that customers never need to call Red Hat for support, the fewer employees Red Hat has to hire to help them.

And far more important, a customer that bought software that turns out to be buggy or difficult to use isn't likely to be a repeat customer. Auto dealerships make lots of money off service, but nobody likes buying a lemon.

[Chung Leong]

If they make money from service...

...then they have no incentive to make the software easier to use and maintenance-free.

[Shankland]

From the author: I beg to differ

Red Hat indeed makes money from service, but because services are sold in the form of annual subscriptions, not per incident, there is a powerful financial incentive to minimize technical support calls. The more that customers never need to call Red Hat for support, the fewer employees Red Hat has to hire to help them.

And far more important, a customer that bought software that turns out to be buggy or difficult to use isn't likely to be a repeat customer. Auto dealerships make lots of money off service, but nobody likes buying a lemon.

[kxmmxk]

Why not SuSE

I currently use SuSE 9.1, and it's great. It does wireless networking very nicely. It automatically mounts USB flashdrives. All that kind of thing.

They've developed a very nice system for desktop with lots of applications.

I haven't tried using it as a server, but that isn't the market they are specifically going after either. They are pursuing the desktop market, and therefore adding all the value that Red Hat doesn't have in that market for a typical user.

Plus it's price is comparible to MacOS or Windows XP.

[System Tyrant]

Linux Servers

Don't be fooled, Novell (who now owns SuSe) is working hard to make Suse Linux the #1 server choice. They have one major advantage over other linux distro's. eDirectory. I don't really know of any other directory services that is a good as eDirectory (that includes Active Directory). I think that Novell is going to make it available to all compatible linux distro though.

As far as splintering goes. I have to agree that one of the major downfalls to Linux at the moment is the many variations. Without some kind of unification I fear that linux is always going to have problems growing in the desktop market. It can be to costly for developers to try and make their software work with 100 different version of linux. I know this goes against the idea of linux, but they really need to make a core linux that all distro's use that allows a programmer to create one version of a program that doesn't require multiple builds.

[kxmmxk]

Why not SuSE

I currently use SuSE 9.1, and it's great. It does wireless networking very nicely. It automatically mounts USB flashdrives. All that kind of thing.

They've developed a very nice system for desktop with lots of applications.

I haven't tried using it as a server, but that isn't the market they are specifically going after either. They are pursuing the desktop market, and therefore adding all the value that Red Hat doesn't have in that market for a typical user.

Plus it's price is comparible to MacOS or Windows XP.

[System Tyrant]

Linux Servers

Don't be fooled, Novell (who now owns SuSe) is working hard to make Suse Linux the #1 server choice. They have one major advantage over other linux distro's. eDirectory. I don't really know of any other directory services that is a good as eDirectory (that includes Active Directory). I think that Novell is going to make it available to all compatible linux distro though.

As far as splintering goes. I have to agree that one of the major downfalls to Linux at the moment is the many variations. Without some kind of unification I fear that linux is always going to have problems growing in the desktop market. It can be to costly for developers to try and make their software work with 100 different version of linux. I know this goes against the idea of linux, but they really need to make a core linux that all distro's use that allows a programmer to create one version of a program that doesn't require multiple builds.

[bobby_brady]

Come on CNET

"On the other, though, they help cement the dominance of Red Hat's software and spread it to those who might eventually decide Red Hat's services and reliability are worth the price."

Red Hat could have released their own "trial" version if they wanted too. This will hurt Red Hat, but they have it coming to them anyway. Red Hat wants to monopolize on Linux services.

[bobby_brady]

Come on CNET

"On the other, though, they help cement the dominance of Red Hat's software and spread it to those who might eventually decide Red Hat's services and reliability are worth the price."

Red Hat could have released their own "trial" version if they wanted too. This will hurt Red Hat, but they have it coming to them anyway. Red Hat wants to monopolize on Linux services.

[quasarstrider]

The talk was about Linux kernel forks

It didn't happen. Linus's kernel tree is still the authoritative source. Regarding distributions, there have been more than one even before 1.0 was out. Red Hat, Debian and Slackware being some of the oldest.

Existing binary incompatibilities are between different library or kernel *versions*. Linus is against keeping backwards compatibility with old kernel versions if it makes things easier. Binary incompatibility is irrelevant for open source apps, because you can just recompile your app. Linux is POSIX, so any app targetted at that will compile, on any Linux version or platform. The problem only exists for closed source apps. Like Oracle.

[Sboston]

But

But how does that help your standard user?

Thye won't even know what the term 'Recompile' means, much less on how to do it.

[quasarstrider]

The talk was about Linux kernel forks

It didn't happen. Linus's kernel tree is still the authoritative source. Regarding distributions, there have been more than one even before 1.0 was out. Red Hat, Debian and Slackware being some of the oldest.

Existing binary incompatibilities are between different library or kernel *versions*. Linus is against keeping backwards compatibility with old kernel versions if it makes things easier. Binary incompatibility is irrelevant for open source apps, because you can just recompile your app. Linux is POSIX, so any app targetted at that will compile, on any Linux version or platform. The problem only exists for closed source apps. Like Oracle.

[Sboston]

But

But how does that help your standard user?

Thye won't even know what the term 'Recompile' means, much less on how to do it.

[quasarstrider]

Supposedly. But!

But they get paid a flat-rate for support, not per issue. So the relation is not linear.

[quasarstrider]

Supposedly. But!

But they get paid a flat-rate for support, not per issue. So the relation is not linear.

The premise of Linux

Lets not flame or fight over this as the point here is open source. Red Hat is complying very nicely with the GPL. I am a SuSe linux user who used to be a red hat user. I didnt like the fact that i had to pay for something that other distribs give for free. SuSe is free as long as you dload the ISO/DVD yourself and live without support. Red Hat removed this and thus lost me as a user.. its ok though.. because the premise of Linux is still there and string. This is what makes this OS great.. competition here spurs inovation by the community to develop to a need.. the corporates can have their paid Red Hat and SuSe and the rest of us can have the free SuSe or copy cats.. either way.. we all come out head.. and without big profits driving it.. linux has developed by leaps and bounds compared to the Windows advancements.. look at windows changes for the last 5 years.. then look at linux due to the community doing the deveoplement and distributions based on needs and goals.. rather than the bottom line..

We all win here.. in the end.. Its Linux..

The premise of Linux

Lets not flame or fight over this as the point here is open source. Red Hat is complying very nicely with the GPL. I am a SuSe linux user who used to be a red hat user. I didnt like the fact that i had to pay for something that other distribs give for free. SuSe is free as long as you dload the ISO/DVD yourself and live without support. Red Hat removed this and thus lost me as a user.. its ok though.. because the premise of Linux is still there and string. This is what makes this OS great.. competition here spurs inovation by the community to develop to a need.. the corporates can have their paid Red Hat and SuSe and the rest of us can have the free SuSe or copy cats.. either way.. we all come out head.. and without big profits driving it.. linux has developed by leaps and bounds compared to the Windows advancements.. look at windows changes for the last 5 years.. then look at linux due to the community doing the deveoplement and distributions based on needs and goals.. rather than the bottom line..

We all win here.. in the end.. Its Linux..

What about Fedora Core

is it not true that Fedora core is part of Red Hat? Last i checked they just released FC4 test 1, i am downloading it as we speak by torrent. Core 3 was great very clean.

[Richard G.]

Yep -- FC3 is 99% RHELinux

I also am a Fedora Core 3 user. I like it a lot. It's very developer friendly, and Red Hat did a good job providing tools to easily update all the install packages.

I'm not sure why this article was even written -- Linux has always had many distributions. I guess tech journalists don't have much "tech" background. If they did, they would realize this kind of thing has been going to for what, a decade now? In fact, isn't this basically the same story of how Mandrake came into existence? They took other existing distributions, added a nice installation front-end, and released it as their own. This CentOS doesn't appear any different.

What about Fedora Core

is it not true that Fedora core is part of Red Hat? Last i checked they just released FC4 test 1, i am downloading it as we speak by torrent. Core 3 was great very clean.

[Richard G.]

Yep -- FC3 is 99% RHELinux

I also am a Fedora Core 3 user. I like it a lot. It's very developer friendly, and Red Hat did a good job providing tools to easily update all the install packages.

I'm not sure why this article was even written -- Linux has always had many distributions. I guess tech journalists don't have much "tech" background. If they did, they would realize this kind of thing has been going to for what, a decade now? In fact, isn't this basically the same story of how Mandrake came into existence? They took other existing distributions, added a nice installation front-end, and released it as their own. This CentOS doesn't appear any different.