Find the answer to your Linux question:
Results 1 to 7 of 7
I think Redhat does not honour the 'open source' attitude. Well, technically they do but it is obvious by their copyright policy "You may only sell Redhat uncommercially and must ...
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
  1. #1
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3

    Redhat...The next Microsoft?


    I think Redhat does not honour the 'open source' attitude. Well, technically they do but it is obvious by their copyright policy

    "You may only sell Redhat uncommercially and must not charge more than the cost of the media and p+p"

    that they are not too keen on you getting their product without them getting your money (and lots of it too, Redhat costs almost as much as Windoze now!?)

    What do you think?

  2. #2
    flw
    flw is offline
    Linux Engineer
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    1,025
    They are a business with employees who like you, and me like to get paided a decent wage on a regular basis. They have to have a product they can sell to pay the employee, let alone a profit which is only reasonable if you invest in a company that is more likely to fail than succeed.

    But the are not alone. Many of the other popular distrubution of Linux are not practically free as you point out and burning a iso using a burner than is capable not a absolute.

    If charging $40 or 50 dollars for a solid and semi-friendly OS with some limited tech support for install or 30 days is wrong then I disagree when M$ wants $200 for a upgrade with CD verification of the qualifying base product like 98 or win2k. Then to only to have installed crippleware until activated is crap. M$ has continued to underminded itself with one bad move after another with the customers.

    Examples:

    After a install requiring a key long and complex enough that it exceeds in total possible combinations, the total amount of humans currently living then additional Activation required-need I say more?

    Self impose Licensing police

    Sending threatening letters on licenses to any business customer thats every made the mistake to registar one of M$ products with them.

    Most IT people couldn't explain what .Net server was all about so they changes the name at the last minute to Windows 2003 Server.

    Selling the same product to different vendors for different prices and varing price if the same vendor sold any competing product like IE vs Netscape issue.

    I could go on ranting the example both current and historical all from the same management but I have to go to work.

    /RantOver
    Dan

    \"Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer\" from The Art of War by Sun Tzu\"

  3. #3
    Linux Guru sarumont's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    /dev/urandom
    Posts
    3,682
    I'd have to agree with flw here...You're not paying nearly as much as you would for Windows when you buy RH. And you're basically buying the CDs and tech support.

    Why pay $200 for an upgrade from an unstable, unsecure and comparitively ****** OS where the tech support workers just take their cues from the same "Troubleshooting" guide that you can browse with Windows Help to the exact same thing with a purdier GUI?
    "Time is an illusion. Lunchtime, doubly so."
    ~Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

  4. #4
    Linux Engineer Nerderello's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    North East England
    Posts
    1,190
    mind you, ther are some similarities.

    Microsoft got its big break when the giant IBM took MSDOS for its own PCs (re-badged as PC-DOS), and now IBM supports Redhat Linux !!!!!!

    Okay, okay, so it also supports other Linuxs as well. I'm only playing devils advocate.

    have fun

    Nerderello

  5. #5
    flw
    flw is offline
    Linux Engineer
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    1,025
    Ok Nerderello I'll play couterpoint with you

    So would it be a good thing for linux overall and Redhat specifically, if no mfg directly supported any distro of linux? If so why?
    Dan

    \"Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer\" from The Art of War by Sun Tzu\"

  6. #6
    Linux Engineer Nerderello's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    North East England
    Posts
    1,190
    Okay, Dan, you've got me. I was only playing.

    I was really happy when I heard that IBM had taken Linux on board, as it took Linux clearly away from the niche nerd market into the business market (where it has an important role to play). I belive that Linux will only really prosper when businesses see it as a valid alternative to Uncle Bill's stuff. Only then will it become common place.

    To answer the first question, no, I don't think Redhat will be the next Microsoft. Nobody could be that bad!

  7. #7
    Linux User Mado's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    255
    I doubt RedHat will become the next Microsoft due to the open-source side of linux. Even if they went like microsoft, there would still be other distro that would not. It would be hard to form a monopoly when there are lots of other distros using hte same kernel, most of the same programs, and that are free.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •