Paul, Have you taken a look at Red Hat's Basic Edition, which is available for both the ES and WS lines of the software? The price is lower, and includes patches/updates, but no support. http://www.redhat.com/software/rhel/purchase/ Erich On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 18:15, Paul Gear wrote: > Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > > On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 15:45, Paul Gear wrote: > > > >>Here's my explanation of what i'm looking for: > >>http://paulgear.webhop.net/the_page_formerly_known_as_rhel.html > > ... > > The costs of producing your distribution would cause Red Hat to lose > > money on every box set produced. The Red Hat Linux box set model was not > > profitable. Red Hat is a corporate entity, and we are in this to make > > money. > > :-( It seems that many people are not understanding what i am talking > about here. I'm not asking for you to bring back the RHL boxed set. > I'm asking for a suitable combination of FC and RHEL, or more to the > point, more suitable .org/.edu pricing on RHEL in exchange for fewer > features/less support. > > > That means that we might not have a product that fits your needs, and > > yes, that sucks. But we put source code for everything in the > > distribution out there for you to use under a license that lets you do > > whatever you want with it. Most corporations would be horrified at the > > thought of such a thing. > > I understand why people keep mentioning this, but it's not an option for > 95% of us. If i could make "Paul's Perfect Distribution", i would have > already done it. I don't have time to make a distro, and it's not my > job anyway: i'm a school IT manager, not a build engineer. > > > Red Hat doesn't have to do a Fedora Core. We could focus all our > > efforts on RHEL and tell everyone who doesn't want to pay us $$$ to > > stop bothering us. We are doing a Fedora Core. We're trying to make > > the developers and the open source community happy. We're trying to > > give them a chance to make a really good Linux distribution in the > > spirit and style of Red Hat Linux. > > And what i'm trying to do here is explain how the amount of money you > want for RHEL is out of reach for certain types of organisations, but > RHEL is the only product you are offering with sufficient stability (in > terms of product releases, not reliability) for our needs. Thus we will > have to look elsewhere unless something changes. > > > And undoubtedly, this is going to piss off a lot of people who were > > quite happily taking advantage of Red Hat Linux with 3 years of > > errata without paying a cent. > > I'm not asking for that. I *want* to pay you for maintenance, but not > support. We just can't afford it. > > >From the various replies i've received, people seem to be > misunderstanding what i'm asking for in financial terms, except Richard > Ames, who wrote: > > ... > > I currently have 14 systems subscribed to RHN which I hope results in > > profit for Redhat. These are RH 7.3 through 9 boxes serving small > > businesses. > > > > Do I have to take that money elsewhere???? > > That is the issue. I want an option for giving money to Red Hat: > - One boxed set per year for all my servers is an option. > - Paying for RHN service on RHL9 (or something with equivalent release > timeframes) is an option. > - >$1000 per server per year for RHEL with support isn't an option. > > > ... > > If you want updates beyond what Red Hat builds for the > > Fedora project, volunteer to maintain it yourself. > > Fedora is targeted at the wrong market. > http://fedora.redhat.com/about/rhel.html says that Fedora is targeted at > "Early adopters, enthusiasts, developers", which the .edu market is none > of (despite what some people might tell you). > > > If you want to > > build an RPM that violates 14 patent laws and the Geneva convention, > > we can't support you or link to you, but we can't stop you either. > > I'm struggling to understand what you're talking about here and why it's > relevant to the discussion. Maybe you were trying to be funny. If so, > i don't get it. Sorry. :-) > -- > Paul > http://paulgear.webhop.net > > A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right. > Q: Why should i start my reply below the quoted text? -- Erich Morisse emorisse@xxxxxxxxxx Red Hat, Inc. cell: 917-239-0157 Sales Engineer http://www.redhat.com
