Red Hat Screws Open-Source Community?

Where do they get off charging $150 for single cpu version? $350 for 2 cpu? $1500 for 3+ cpu?!!!!

Honestly, what percent of Red Hat only code makes up the Red Hat Enterprise version? Are they claiming they wrote the SMP code?!

This is ridiculous.

I'm tempted to buy one copy and set up a site where people can download it for free...

Red Hat has officially been added to my sh*t list...

they can charge that because they offer very good support. if you were running an enterprise you would want professional support for your machines. since you aren't download fedora or redhat 9.

So, they are just bundling their support with the distribution of open-source software.

Why can't they just sell support seperatly?

they also have a distro that is thoroughly tested for the normal enterprise user. I would compare it to a specialty car dealership. they make a certain type of car and do it extremely well. however that car is based off of other less expensive cars. sure you could make your care look and run like the specialty car, but you won't have the certification that the car will work from the dealership. the dealership also provides support and mainenence for the car. You don't have to pay for redhat enterprise. you can download and compile its source. however they don't want you downloading isos for it. they sell the isos as cds and support the cds. by selling it as cds they don't have to support normal users who would download it for free. If they offered the isos it for download many people would consider them somewhat responsible for it. If I offered them for download I would consider myself responsible for it. But they sell to a specific client base who needs their support and that is who they want to give their support to.

That's not true.

What support does Microsoft really offer end users? You have to pay per issue to get things resolved.

I see no reason why Red Hat cannot seperate support from download.

They are being greedy. They have already seen an increase in revenues, so, they figure they can bilk the entire industry by stopping support for the downloadable version...

Our program *had* a seperate support aggrement. However, we cannot afford the new pricing fiasco...

Seriously, we had 5 dual-processor boxes in a suite with 10 sites... 50 boxes at $800/year each!

Bye, bye.

microsoft isn't redhat. if you don't like the way redhat does its business go elsewhere. that is part of capitalism.

RedHat may have written code which is not GPLed and included it in the Enterprise version. If this is the case, then you couldn't offer RHEL for download.

Red Hat aren't actually selling the version of Linux that they distribute - they are selling dedicated support for a particular version of Linux (the distribution they make). The only reason that they supply a version of Linux with the support they are actually selling is so that they can support it properly (try getting support from a company for a product they don't make....)

If all the code in RHEL is GPLed, they there's nothing to stop you getting a copy of it from someone for free. Just don't expect any support from RedHat.

RedHat are a business. They've been supplying high quality Free Software to people for free for years, and all they've done is make a product (and that means the distribution and the support) which is well suited for businesses. Expecting them to pay for bandwidth for you to download their product and not pay for it is just not reasonable - with Fedora you are paying for the software (whether you realise it or not) by testing it for RedHat. Download that instead, that's what it's there for.

Dave

P.S. Sorry for the thread hijack

Perhaps no linux distro can go on for long without making money somehow. i mean, people only give away stuff so long before they get tired of it and want more.

There are those who say that their will come a time when the gnu gpl is given up and if you want free software you'll be developing it yourself.

#7:

From GPL:

"b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."

Um, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a 'derived' work of Linux. They can't charge for it.

They're 'screwing' the open source community that has produced the product they are trying to sell!

#8

Open Source will never make you as big or rich as Billy Gates or Microsoft!

It can make you some money, but it will never be the lotto...

Red Hat has some how brainwashed themselves into this theory...

#7b

"Expecting them to pay for bandwidth for you to download their product and not pay for it is just not reasonable"

I bought the Red Hat CDs... < $100 is a 'reasonable' price.

$1500/year is not 'reasonable' by any means...

Originally posted by mnewcomb #7: From GPL: "b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License." Um, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is a 'derived' work of Linux. They can't charge for it. They're 'screwing' the open source community that has produced the product they are trying to sell!

RHEL may indeed contain non-GPLed programs. Just because the software's on the same CD doesn't mean it has to be GPLed. As an example, SuSE use YAST as their installer, but it was only *very* recently that this software was GPLed. As another example, several distributions bundle Macromedia's Flash plugin, and this is definitely not GPLed.

I really don't understand why you seem so irritated about this: RedHat are offering Fedora free, and compared with a Windows site licence, $1500 a year which includes support and software for RHEL is an absolute bargain for large businesses. I wouldn't buy a Windows site licence for the three PCs in my house, the same way I wouldn't buy a full support package from RedHat.

Also, RedHat can hardly be accused of 'screwing' the FOSS community - who developed the RPM system and released it under the GPL? They did a lot of work to get KDE and Gnome to look and behave the same (via Bluecurve), they're involved in the SCO lawsuits to the point where they're suing SCO when they really don't have to.

You might want to check the prices for SuSE's enterprise server solutions as well - I think you'll find they're charging $1419 for theirs. Are they 'screwing' the open source community too?

Dave

RedHat not only provides the support, but they do alot of work with partner vendors such as Oracle and Dell/EMC to provide a solid "works everytime" product. I'm thoroughly impressed with RedHat as an enterprise product. I however, prefer Debian or Gentoo at home. And granted they kind of emulate Debian's philosophy with Fedora, there's your Free RedHat. They've done much for Linux whether or not you want to admit it.

The GPL allows Red Hat to charge for Linux just as it allows you or anyone else to offer a distribution for free.
If individual/company A creates a Linux distribution and charges $20,000.00 for it, it had better really offer something someone wants or no one is going to pay that much. End of that story.
If you want to do yourself what Red Hat provides for a fee, you may do so.
If one wishes, they may compile as much available GPL software as they choose to build an OS more to their liking. Perhaps another solution is wiser given the reality of ability, time, and economy.
I am not a big Red Hat fan at all, but no one is under an obligation to provide all their services for nothing just because they wish to distribute Linux. If they charge too much and offer too little, they will go down.
Personally, I am much more outraged about what SCO wants to charge people for than I am with what Red Hat wants to charge for.

I agree that RedHat is overpriced, but if they can get some PHB to pay that, that's fine. For my personal use, I'd use Fedora or Mandrake or SuSe before I'd use commercial RedHat.