> On Tue, 2004-02-03 at 23:26, James Drabb wrote: > > > He does have some good points. Linux is starting to cost MORE then a MS > > solution. What Free version of Linux can I use that is supported by > > vendors? I don't need paid support. Basically, I have to spend $1,000s > > on RHEL or SuSE EL. I do like FC and have been using it at home since > > the beginning of Fedora. However, IMO, it is not stable enough for a > > production system since it is constantly being developed. After seeing so many posts about the future of Fedora, I feel I have to jump in. Yes, Fedora is probably not stable enough for a production system. "Stable" in the sense of "not changing", but not necessarily in the sense of "Blue Screen of Death". If I am running a server that my livelihood depends on, I don't want to be dealing with updates every week. > > That's why there are three RHEL clones in existence at this point > (WhiteBox Linux <http://www.whiteboxlinux.org>, Tao Linux > <http://taolinux.org> & CentOS-3 > <http://caosity.org/index.php?option=displaypage&Itemid=62&op=page&SubMenu=> ) which are exceedingly able to take the place of RHEL. > > > Also, I don't know why RH gets their "Enterprise" versions certified > > and not Fedora. Doesn't RH have total control over FC? My guess is that they want to encourage business users to choose their Enterprise Linux distribution. I don't see a problem here. It costs a lot to test software, and there is no way for Red Hat to recover its costs on a free OS. I think it speaks well of Red Hat that the company continues to support the Fedora Project. > > No, not really. They have a majority stake in the project but it's not > actually part of RH. It really is much closer to Debian. > > > IMO, the best and most fair thing for RH to do would be to have a > > "base Red Hat Linux" that gets certified and then have different > > versions based on that. There would be the certified and > > free/community supported Fedora. Red Hat does not offer any updates > > or services for this version. Then there could be the paid versions > > that have updates and different levels of support up to Enterprise > > grade 24x7 support. > > I don't see any real value in this, either for RH or for the community. I can see value for the community. This would be the traditional Red Hat model, where the OS might be free, but paid-for support is available (this is the old $60/year RHN model). But perhaps Red Hat decided that they can't make this a profitable business. As much as I would like this, I can't force Red Hat to make a different business decision. > > > This seems more fair to me since Red Hat is based on tons of software > > that they did not develop and RH now has a lot of free Fedora > > volunteers doing work for them that they can roll into their > > "Enterprise" line. > > You have to also remember that a vast amount of the work done by RH on > RHEL is being rolled back into the Linux community so it's an equal > trade. Free software means "free as in freedom, not as in beer". Fedora volunteers are not "working for Red Hat", but contributing to the community and gaining a lot of recognition, experience, and respect around the world. They are satisfying their need to do something worthwhile. Some are students working on degree requirements, some are employees whose companies use Fedora, some are consultants who make money serving Linux users. Red Hat has done a lot to make Linux easy to install and easy to use. I agree with the point that Red Hat has rolled a lot of its work back to the community. > > Most companies can get MS Windows rolled out cheaper then Red Hat/SuSE > > Linux and Linux IS FREE! It seems like RH and SuSE are turning Linux > > into an OS that is no longer a cost effective alternative to MS and now > > only a cost effective alternative to expensive Unix. > > Contrary to popular belief, Linux is not really competing against MS. > It's competing against the commercial/proprietary UNIX variants. The > fact that it can compete against MS is a wonderful bonus. If you want > to look at alternatives for WinXX in the Linux world then you are > looking at Lycoris, Xandros and Lindows (and others). I can envision several situations where Windows is a better alternative than Linux on certain systems and for certain users. Many people on this list identify Linux configuration problems by making their hardware run on Windows. If a company can roll out Windows cheaper than Linux, and it is willing to deal with the restrictions and limitations Windows imposes (such as activation, bloat, susceptibility to viruses, and performance overhead), then they made a reasonable choice. When you choose Linux, you are choosing to trade your willingness and ability to learn and to contribute to the community for saving money on the cost of your OS and its maintenance; as well as having a lot of freedom to use whatever software you wish. But if having a "polished desktop and lots of plugs" available without a lot of fuss is important to you, then you might make a different choice. > > > I know it sounds like I am coming down on Red Hat, though I do want to > > state that I have used RH Linux for a long time now and find it the best > > Linux distro to use. I just am not happy how RH dumped the home user > > and the small business user. > I was disappointed to see the end of RHL9, but again, I can't fault Red Hat for wanting to build a sustainable business. And I do appreciate that Red Hat is continuing to support Fedora. ... > > Even on the RH web site, they make Fedora sound like a toy to tinker > > with compared to Red Hat "Enterprise" Linux. > > > > This reads, to me, that Fedora is a Linux distro in the older/community > sense and RHEL is a new concept developed for the high-end customer > needs. I see no hint of Fedora being a toy. I also don't see "toy" in Red Hat's description of Fedora. But I do see "risk". When you run a distro like Fedora, you have a level of risk to deal with because you have to actively seek support and your solutions. If you can't do that, you might prefer to have a vendor take over that responsibility. > > > Also, RH no longer has a Linux available that is cost effective compared > > to MS. You can get MS Windows XP home for $99, while Red Hat > > Professional Workstation is around $110. MS Windows XP Pro is cheaper > > then RHEL WS. This pricing point is actually hurting Linux. More > > home-users, IT manager, etc are familiar with MS then with Linux. If > > they look at trying a switch to Linux and see that it now COSTS MORE, > > most will not make the switch. I disagree with this point entirely. It's possible to purchase an UPGRADE to Windows XP for about $99 USD. The full version of Windows XP is much more expensive. The same is true for MS Office. When you consider the cost of the upgrade and the cost of the prior version you must buy, RHPW still looks good. It's more expensive that the old "box-set" RHL, but this is Red Hat's decision. When I began teaching two years ago, I looked at purchasing a system to work on. I found a nice second-hand laptop and discovered that legal licenses for Microsoft software would cost me twice as much as my hardware (about $1500 US). I didn't have $1500 to spend, and so Linux went from my "experiment" to my livelihood.
