James J. Ramsey wrote:
There is a vast difference between a hint that can be
misunderstood or misinterpreted and being direct.
References to names being changed for "legal reasons"
could be considered a sign that something is fishy
about the CD. As long as Red Hat has its own retail
distribution, that works to Red Hat's advantage, since
confused users looking for a canonical distribution of
Red Hat Linux could just buy a box clearly labeled
"Red Hat" from Red Hat. THAT WILL NO LONGER BE AN
OPTION.
The issue wasn't that Red Hat was losing sales to the other distributers but
rather that customers from the other distributers expected the same level of
technical support(free) that the people who bought an official boxed received.
Sorry to shout, but it makes no sense to me for Red
Hat to rely on third parties for CD distribution
I don't imagine that Red Hat does *rely* on third parties for CD distribution.
They still have their FTP site open so that uncle Bob can pull them down and
burn them for everyone that wants them. Besides, purely from a commercial
standpoint, customers who don't buy boxed sets, support or RHN subscriptions
are not *customers* and Red Hat doesn't have to protect themselves from losing
that nonexistent income.
(SINCE IT WILL NO LONGER SEL ITS OWN CD-ROMS **gasp
after shot at top of lungs**) while forcing them to
tap dance about what they are distributing.
Let's be honest. Red Hat has, does and probably will continue to do a LOT to
support and promote the Open Source community. They don't strike me as some
petty little empire builder bent on "owning" their users.
--
(¬_ Some days you're the windshield >o)
//\ Some days you're the bug... /\\
V_/_ _\_V
Charles Bronson
