--- Preston Crawford <me@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 2003-12-08 at 08:57, Chris Spencer wrote: > > On Mon, 2003-12-08 at 10:14, Preston Crawford > wrote: > > > That's why I went with Fedora instead of buying > this. I'd love to > > > continue to support OSS with my dollars, but not > if I'm going to be told > > > I can't run Samba or MySQL or Apache for > development on my box. This > > > kind of arbitrary breakdown in licensing is what > Microsoft does and is > > > part of why I prefer Linux instead and don't use > MS any longer. > > > > They aren't telling you that you can't run Samba, > MySQL, or Apache for > > production on that box. > > > > They are just not rolling out the packages or > offering the superior > > service options. > > Is it just service or is it that they don't offer > the packages? Because, > see, that's what I used to pay for when I paid for > Linux distributions. > I paid money (over $700, I think, over the years > just for me) so that > the distributor would provide me with updates and > patches for all the > software I ran. If some company is going to suddenly > decide that > something is a server and something is a desktop and > leave me on my own > to update Samba, MySQL, Apache, etc. then I might as > well just go with > something like Fedora and save my money. That's my > rationale. But once > again, part of the problem is that I don't know as > much about what is > being offered any longer, because I can't walk into > the store and pick > up Red Hat and compare it. Even if I could with > companies changing their > minds about how long they're going to support > products, etc. I'd prefer > to sit with Fedora for a while and play it safe. It > works for me. > > > RedHat is a good company trying their best to do > the right thing and > > walk a tight rope. They need to charge enough to > continue their service > > and to help open source as well as to make some > return for their > > shareholders...etc. > > Well, this is part of the problem. I agree that > they're trying to do > their best. I agree that they give back to the > community. That's why > I've been more than happy to support OSS, having > bought a couple > versions of Red Hat 6.x, Red Hat 7.0 - 7.3, Mandrake > 8.0 - 8.2 and SuSE > 8.0 - SuSE 8.2. I've supported OSS. I've bought Star > Office once. I own > a license to use Quanta Gold. I put my money down in > support of the > products. But I won't do it while these companies > are trying to sort out > what I get for my money. By the way, for the record, > as someone who > jumped from sinking dotcom ship to sinking dotcom > ship, you're not going > to see me shedding any tears for "shareholders". > > > RedHat has gone above and beyond this call of duty > by offering a free as > > in freedom and beer OS to us and restraining all > of their distributions > > to only include free software (as in freedom) in > their base. > > I agree. That's why I went with Fedora. I like > Fedora and I like what it > stands for. However, I don't really understand the > differences between > their lines of software above Fedora, frankly. Let's > put it this way. I > like Fedora so much and I support free software so > much that I'd gladly > *pay* for Fedora if they'd let me. It's that good > and it's of that high > of quality IMHO. But I'm not going to jump into a > product that might not > have the same freedom of use that Fedora does, which > I don't know if > RHEL Desktop does or doesn't. > > > So in summary...just give them a break, they are > trying to be as > > responsible and respectable as they can. > > Give ME a break. I didn't jump on Red Hat for > anything. I simply stated > that Fedora was going to be my choice because I > don't understand what > makes something a desktop vs. a server, which is an > important question > to someone who does development work on his desktop. > I apologize for > invoking Microsoft. I wasn't meaning to say Red Hat > is like Microsoft, > but rather that this idea that one product is a > server and the other is > a desktop is something I don't understand in Linux > land. Maybe you could > explain it to me. > > In Microsoft's case, they make the arbitrary > decision to cripple > essentially the same codebase so that you can't run > a server on a > desktop. Linux has always been different. Linux has > always been this > cool OS you could buy (or not buy) and do whatever > you wanted with it. > Whether it be a file server or a web server or a dev > box or a desktop > for email, web browsing and MP3s. Same with FreeBSD. > So you have to > excuse me if I don't understand the difference > between desktop Red Hat > and server Red Hat and bristle at the idea based on > past experience with > how other companies decide which is which. > > Preston > > > -- > fedora-list mailing list > fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list -------------------------- I've been watching this argument from the sidelines, and here's my two cents, for what it's worth. I believe the difference between the "desktop" and the "server" version is the applications that you get "out of the box". I.E. "Server" version comes with X, Y, and Z application bundled in, and "desktop" version doesn't. However, you can add them to the "desktop" version, they just aren't supported by the company. I could be completely off base here, but that's my take on what I've seen and read over the past few months. And, oh yeah, Red Hat's been doing something similar to this for years. Depending on which "package" you bought you got anywhere from three to 6 CDs worth of stuff. ===== -------------------------------------------------------------- "Never memorize what you can look up." -Albert Einstein
