Slashdot Mirror
No More Free Updates For Red Hat
An anonymous user wrote in to tell us (and Timothy called RH and confirmed, this change was made a few weeks ago) that you no longer can Freely and Anonymously use Red Hat's Update Agent to download updated package DBs, and update packages. You must register, and pay $9.95 for the service. Of course you can still update manually, but how long before other services pop up to take its place? And Debian still does apt without me having to tell them where I live. This is unfortunate, but not unsurprising. I want RH to make a buck too, but this seems like a pretty crappy way to do it. Update: 03/19 03:21 PM by T : An unnamed reader points to this FAQ on the change, too.
No, RH isn't stupid. You are for failing to grasp a simple concept called signatures. Every file is signed with the RH GPG key and the program compares the RH public key with the key that was used to sign the file.
In such a way, the origin of the files can be verified.
Though I agree that this initially appears to fit well with RedHat's desire to make money off of service, I think it is incredibably shortsighted. Most automated update tools are made because they help offset service cost for known issues especially in consumer space where there the cost overshadows the potential revenue. RedHat is in the public eye as well and they need to ensure that people are upgrading promptly when new security holes are found. The Ramen worm could have easily been avoided if people had kept up with security updates. I personally don't have the time to keep up with security advisories and also compare whats on my system with every new update. I'll use red-carpet for now but I may consider switching back to Debian.
And you think that Red Carpet will remain free? then think again...
Ximian will give some free updates of course, but their major updates will cost money. Same with Eazel..
Go read their business plan...
Hetz (Heunique)
Call IDC, Giga or any other firm that check market share and ask them about Mandrake VS Redhat in corporate market share...
I'll save you the phone cost:
Redhat: 70%
SuSE: 10%
Caldera: 7%
Mandrake: 3%
Turbo Linux: 3%
The rest - other distributors..
The numbers are from the latest IDC pulication..
Hetz (Heunique)
Oh really?
Lets check what you get with typical Windows installation:
Windows OS, maybe few freebies applications that your hardware gave you, and if you paid for - Office
Linux: OS, X windows, KDE, GNOME, compilers, editors, games, multimedia applications (players etc), languages (python, perl, etc), and the list goes on...
You know, when you install SuSE - you can use the "CUSTOM" option to select what you want to install - and get less then 300MB disk usage. Just read the damn instuctions!
Hetz (Heunique)
This is something I've been kinda expecting for a while now. Redhat is a bit like a .com, and are searching for new revenue streams. Originally it was enough to say "we'll make money off of service", and they probably did quite well at this. However, now, because of unpopularity, or drying up of *other* revenue streams (ads, partnerships, .coms), they've been forced to go this way.
:)
My company just did something similar. After saying that upgrades will always be free the salesguys (note this, it wasn't the developers idea) decided they wanted to track things better, and the only way to do it was to sell upgrades on a yearly basis. Now in some ways it gives us great things, ie: a way of tracking who is up to date (and when you're producing a security device this is a good idea) as well as a revenue stream. Of course, as a Open Source guy, I'd much rather have seen things stay always free.
It'll be interesting to see how redhat does, and if they are more or less popular. I'm a debian user and as much as a zelot as I seem, apt does rock. Redhat is probably heading towards a similar system, the question is, will it be free?
Personally, if up2date quits working, it's that much more motivation to go with Mandrake or Debian or some other distribution. The notion that I should be contented downloading patches and manually applying them is one that would have been fine in 1995, but this is not 1995. I am currently beta-testing Red Hat 7.0.91, but I can easily use any Linux distribution without any big hassles (my systems are set up so that I can change Linux distributions at will).
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
So let's see: Red Hat is going to make themselves harder to install security patches on than Windows. Duh. Like that's smart. (Insert sound of Red Hat putting pistol to head, pulling trigger).
Apparently Red Hat believes that, since they have so much marketshare, they can make their Linux harder to use than competing Linux distributions while retaining market share. That doesn't make sense to anybody with half a brain, but (duh) nobody ever accused Red Hat of anything except a lot of luck.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
Posted by nachas:
Why not? I'd like to see RedHat alive and well 10 years from now and this is a small price to pay to make that happen.
Posted by alci:
... they don't have a market share, they don't exist cause they have no turnover...
Question : it's a free distribution, operated by volonteers.
IDC : It's free, and people contribute to it, but still one of the best solution... I don't understand what what are talking about !
Question : What about Debian ? IDC : Deb..., what ? How much business do they make ? We don't know them
Posted by alci:
...
Well... I understand that, that's exactly my point.
The 'all is money' paradigm does not apply to free software.
Nobody can sell it, so nobody can make money out of it.
It's a tool out of which you can eventually make usefull and non free products (that is the sense of GPL). That's why IBM or Sun go for it. Their core business is elsewhere.
That doesn't mean that free software it not worthwhile...
Is science worthwhile, is education worthwhile, are arts worthwhile, philosophy, poetry, feeding poeple that can't buy their food, teaching children to read and write..? What is the market share of CERN, MIT, UNESCO, Medecins Sans Frontieres, Heinrich Heine,
That's what free software is about : giving people tools to live freely in a computerized world, and not to depend on some few western major companies.
People did 'invest' money in Red Hat... Well, then RedHat will have to produce really value added products, not just try to make a monopoly and bother everybody. Cause then free software will live elsewhere.
MSVC, as in C and ONLY C.
If you want support for the other languages that the IDE itself supports you're going to be installing a few more CD's.
DevStudio has been a multi-CD monster for YEARS. Just when is the last time you even used the bugger?
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
How precisely are the Windows variants of what gets shipped with a 1.5 Linux distro any better than the Linux equivalents. Also, just WHICH formats are mising from the Linux media players.
Codecs that require extra downloads from Microsoft or Apple don't count.
Also, if there's quite a bit of stuff that "mere mortal users" would have no interest in then one cannot really say that a Linux distribution is "bloated".
It contains many tools that a random user may or may not want or need. Those tools can be safely removed or not installed in the first place.
This isn't what "Bloat" means.
Adding a Simtel CD in a WinDOS box doesn't automagically make WinDOS any more bloated because of it.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
MORE flexible while still not confounding novice end users? You've been exposed to Microsoft propaganda for too long. The more options you expose to the end user, the more confused the total novice is going to be. There's just no getting around it. The more choices you give the end user, the more intelligent that end user is going to need to be in order to wade through those choices.
You can already pick and choose every package. There is already documentation available for what all of those packages do. There are also canned installations available for those that don't want to do any thinking at all.
The system is not going to be "flexible" without the potential to "confuse" people with multiple options like vi versus pico versus emacs.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
With Linux (or Unix in general) such "features" would be nothing more than a new device driver or kernel patch. The transition between Win98 and Win99 does NOT constitute a major version upgrade or anything else that might justify soaking end users for new licenses.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
You could do the same thing with Linux since at least 1994.
Microsoft is soaking you for something that we've been able to do for free for half a decade already.
Besides, if you have to pay extra for the functionality what is the point of avoiding the purchase of a 3rd party addon?
Infact, the fact that those 3rd party addons exist soundly refutes the notion that this is the sort of thing that deserves an OS version change.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Here I mus note that if they would spend the same thousands on getting code right and QAed on the first run, they probably would not need so much updates...
-- Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
Well even if you have a unix guy on staff it might be worth it, Unix guru's are not cheap. If you can free you admin up from this he can do other things.
Remember that is a business setting people's time costs money.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
Many would find it ethically questionable for Red Hat, or any other software manufacturer, to deliberately withhold known-good security updates from the majority of its users for any length of time. Red Hat, of course, has no financial or legal obligation to non-paying users; the question is one of good will. Red Hat receives updates from upstream software maintainers at no cost, because the upstream maintainers want their products to be secure and useful. To refrain from passing along the good will, in order to maintain the value of a paid service, seems inherently to be an act of questionable, if not ill, motive.
Furthermore, there is the matter of reputation. Many security-conscious users and sysadmins already hold Red Hat in less than the highest esteem -- because Red Hat's releases have a history of installing unnecessary and potentially risky software by default; and because Red Hat appears to trade off security for ease-of-use for the novice, when novices are the users in greatest need of help with security. Some outside the Linux user base take these problems to be marks on the reputation of Linux at large. Any move on Red Hat's part which further worsens the security of Red Hat systems on the Net -- even poorly-maintained ones operated by novices -- will do Red Hat's reputation, and Linux's, more harm.
All in all, I suspect that Red Hat would do more good for its product's reputation, its users, and for the Internet at large, by making it as easy as possible for all its users to make and keep their systems secure. So far, Red Hat has not -- I repeat, has not -- withheld security updates from non-paying users in order to promote a paid service. That is a good state of affairs; not the best possible, but certainly not a bad one. Let's hope things get better, not worse.
http://www.redhat.com/products/network/service_cha nges.html
:)
"Software Manager is a subscription offering priced at $19.95 per month for each system. "
"special introductory offer: every system subscribed before April 6 is only $9.95 per month until September 1. "
It's only $9.95 if you sign up now, and then that only lasts thru September.
Odd thing is, Windowsupdate.microsoft.com is still free.
Guess it's a case of pay me now, or pay me later. If Redhat can't make money off this subscription service, then what's left for them to try?
Which of course doesn't invalidate what you said, it just makes it a poor simile.
Vermifax
Vermifax
Logout
frogs are smarter than your average redhat user.
Vermifax
Vermifax
Logout
Sure, it could be bad grammer, but it be an apt use of litotes for effect. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
>K
Simple, really. Businesses will happily pay through the nose to be able to have guaranteed access to the latest software updates and releases _right now_, rather than whenever the public ftp servers have a space free. And for 9.95/month, it's very much so within the budgetary reach of both small business and Sysadmins wishing to maintain their home systems.
What we are currently seeing is the cost of being a popular distribution. RedHat's public ftp servers are constantly operating at close to capacity, and all those bandwidth costs add up very, very quickly.
RedHat's not admitting to any business model flaws either. It's entire business model is based off of providing paid support for the software distributions it releases. I don't see how this either differs in any way from they're trying to do, or how it shows any flaws. RedHat is expanding its subscription service (in the direction they _told_ us at the outset it would go), and that's life. You're very likely to see more distributions doing things like this as they become more popular and come into more wide-spread use.
Oh really? New features, huh? Name some. Please. I'd like to know what all these "New Features" are that justify an entirely new release of their operating system.
And no, bundling a newer version of IE with it by default does not count as a feature.
Don't nay-say the nay-sayers of Microsoft because it's the trollish thing to do on Slashdot.
I dislike Microsoft for many valid reasons. I don't nay-say them 100% of the time, but I _do_ nay-say them when its valid. This is one of those points.
Funny, though. For something that wasn't "a new OS" they certainly charged people the "new OS" price for it.
And your point? Of course you're not forced to upgrade. Nobody's holding a gun to your head.
HOWEVER. if you want security patches and upgrades, you sure as hell are forced to upgrade. Funny that we don't see security or bugfix announcements for your beloved Windows 95 anymore, huh?
Amusingly enough, this isn't the case in the Linux community. RedHat, for example (since it's also sharing the slashdot front page at the moment), is currently maintaining its distributions all the way back to 5.2. That's right, 5.2. For those non-historians among us, 5.2 was released in _1998_, and is currently _5_ versions behind the leading one. If you take into account that all of the 5.2 upgrades are perfectly applicable to 5.0 and 5.1, that number becomes _7_ versions and the date becomes November 1997.
Hmm, lets see, how many versions back does Microsoft support Windows 9x? How about NT/2000? Hmm... I leave the math to the reader, as I don't want to start a war over details. But no matter how you slice it, it certainly isn't 5, and 7 puts you back into the days of Windows 3.x...
I don't know what software industry you live in, but I know that here at my job we like to get bugfixes and security updates promptly. "Promptly" seems to be missing from the Microsoft dictionary.
As for Mandrake and RedHat "fighting" each other, you really ought to do some brain-checking first. Exactly how many releases of Mandrake and RedHat have occurred so far this year? Oh, that's right. 1. Not much of a war, huh?
And as for the 4-to-6 month cycle time on distributions, I hate to break it to you, but that's the pace that the software industry moves at. New software is released all the time, and since your average Linux distribution is a _huge_ collection of software packages that _far_ exceeds the out-of-box content of any OS Microsoft has ever offered, I think a higher refresh time is perfectly valid. And as you said before, nobody is forcing you to upgrade. Only in this case, nobody's is forcing you to upgrade at all, even for security and bugfix releases. Funny thing, that open-source software stuff. It's so easy to get security fixes when the code's available for anyone to use...
Sure it does. It just calls them new OSes. What do you think Windows 98 SE was?
For those who are even more paranoid about disk space, one can use the Slackware Zipslack installation. It fits in under a hundred megs. It doesn't come with much beyond a basic Linux installation, but it's nice to start with something small and efficient, and add only what one needs.
Bull. freesoftware.com and all the other mirrors will always have "free updates" for Red Hat. It's just that you might have to click 4 times instead of once. And if you've seen Helix^wXimian's "Red Carpet" software, it just might end up working better than up2date.
And isn't up2date source code available? Run your own up2date server if it's that important...
---
Crikeys! Red Hat's not blocking access to updates. They're not preventing anyone from running AutoRPM or any of the other half dozen or so Red Hat-compatible updaters, either. They're charging for their own version of the service, with bandwidth and uptime guarantees, automated distribution to multiple machines on a network, and their pretty GUI tool, as opposed to Eazel's, Ximian's, or whoever's.
If you want to get your updates straight from Red Hat, off a Red Hat-run server, and want to have an easy time connecting and have good speed when you do connect for those updates, this is your friend. If you're happy getting updates from a mirror site not maintained by Red Hat, using a tool that Red Hat's paid tech support people won't help you much with, as plenty of us are, that's fine, too.
Sheesh.
Right, then they lose much of the user base thats using RH, as they try out Mandrake or Debian or ___. Doesnt sound like a good business move.
Oh really? New features, huh? Name some. Please. I'd like to know what all these "New Features" are that justify an entirely new release of their operating system.
Okay, howabout Internet Connection Sharing? It elminated the need to purchase a proxy server for many people interested in sharing their cable/DSL/modem connections between two computers. Sure, you wouldn't want to run a corporate intranet through it, but if you just want a second computer for your wife/kids to surf the web on, it's a great solution. Yes, I know you can do the same thing with a linux box, etc.
---
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout. --Robert A. Heinlein
Exactly; in fact, on a larger network, I could have my test boxen connect to their service, and then see what it wants to do before I use my own script to do it.
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
$9.95 is considerably less than I charge for one hour's time. Pretending that downloads of files over either their network service or plain ol' FTP, then a single weekly invocation of this program is far, far, far cheaper than having me do the work by hand.
I would never *personally* use this, as I prefer to do things "my way" but you can bet in a minute I would reccomend this to clients. If there's a problem, they're going to have to call me anyway, but why bother if it works? I set up a cron job and let it be.
I say, good for Red Hat. Let's give this a fair shake.
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
Distributions install multiple editors by default because they can't be certain which one you would want. The logic is that it is better to install stuff people won't need than for them to want it and it not be there. Many people don't know which editor they want, the 4 you listed seems like a reasonable set of them. If you know what you want installed, you're welcome and able to edit the install list better than someone who isn't certain.
Lack of information - John Q. User will probably go with the quick-and-easy update process that's readily visible after installing
RedHat.
[snip]
Remember that "lack of information" is a pretty good description of why a lot of people buy windows (instead of Mac, of course :). So it's believable that this will result in a reasonable amount of revenue.
Also, this is the sort of thing that will get pushed in by third parties--"Yeah, we'll come in and set you up, and then for this low fee you can get updates every month from the Big Fedora", and then the big fedora kicks them back a few bucks for adding a subscriber.
I would venture to say that most of the money made in the computer industry is a result of "relative ignorance".
Not unlike a lot of the postings on slashdot...
--
Liberty uber alles.
Why would RH (or anyone) go down a business model that everyone knows will have to change in a couple of years?
And I'm still upset that I have to update my 4.2 and 3.0.3 boxen by hand. 5.2 wasn't that long ago. As the saying goes, "If it aint broke..."
Up until 7.0 I didn't see a compelling reason to upgrade the 4.2 machines I have around here, now the configuration has become so customized, it will be quite difficult to duplicate their functionality from 7.0.
Sorry, I just had to say it.....
I've been running Red-Carpet on my RedHat box since it's release and have found it very useful. It still is having some troubles on my Mandrake box but I was told how to fix this and just haven't gotten to it yet. It'd be nice if this was handled by some installer as I doubt newbies (the target audience?) would like switching apckages in and out to make it work. Haven't had a chance to try it under SuSE yet but I will someday soon. :)
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Not unlike the "volunteer" work that some high schools are forcing students to do to graduate.
Contributions must be given freely, or they are not contributions. You can't force someone to consent to having sex with you.
I don't think that RedHat doing this is that big of a deal. As long as one can still FTP updated RPMs, then you are paying for the convience for easily installing updates.
Also, I'd like to see someone modify the MandrakeUpdate code to do RedHat updates.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
What is Taco smoking? The business model generally suggested to make money of of Free Software is through services. This is a service that RedHat is offering. They're trying to make money for their service. Which part doesn't make sense?
I've wondered for a while, but it really seems like Taco is one of the tiny minority who's giving Free Software a bad name because he's too cheap to pay for anything.
Giving the source to software that you distribute is one thing - it's a good idea, and benefits prettymuch everyone at very little real expense to the author(s). Allowing these tools to be circulated and improved is also good as it benefits nearly everyone again at very little real expense to the author(s) (I'm not concerned with lost potential income. also, I'm talking about once the tool is written, not using a write-for-distribution-only model).
However, giving away processor time and bandwidth benefits everyone but at a high real cost to the person who's doing the giving. It's completely right for someone to ask for reimbursement in exchange for things that cost them. With GPL software, it's goodness on the part of the author to give it away, but it's also economically viable. Giving away free bandwidth is in general not economically viable and to acuse someone of doing something wrong because they're asking for money to use their service is the height of stupidity.
Without the source, you can get locked in to a vendor. Without automatic updates by redhat, you have to go and do the updates yourself from a mirror. Also, RedHat isn't prohibiting people from rolling their own service (many do), they're simply asking for money in return for what they do. They're not trying to restrict the flow of information or ideas.
Slash should institute a system whereby every editor does a writeup about the news story and we get to choose in our slashbox which ones we want to see (randomly selected from among our pool of acceptable editors). This way none of us would ever have to listen to the childish wrants of Malda. Grow up, Taco. The world doesn't owe you everything.
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
Well, that much was evident from your previous post :) Maybe you should check it out and discover why big software doesn't have to cost $millions?
It's amazing how a while back Linux proponents would argue that Big Business could make great use out of Linux if they'd just have an open mind about it, and today now that Big Business has started to figure it out, you're a Linux proponent without an open mind about different distros!
I agree with you that RH should charge whatever they want for their services and software, but you do yourself a disservice to not understand the alternatives to RH that exit.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
"Nix gurus" don't necessarily have time to check for, download, and install every single RPM. I see this as a very valuable tool for some companies (definitely NOT individuals). It's something I can pay for and purchase - which is usually how businesses operate. Now, as far as automatic updates to production systems go, I have to say a big NO to that. I just get visions of hellish late nights trying to figure out WTF RedHat just installed....
No, Taco is just very much a Debian-bigot. If it ain't Debian and (Taco's favorite gushing item right now) apt-get, then it must be evil.
What do you expect? Windows ME is for playing winamp, games, running napster, and downloading pr0n. Linux (BSD, etc) is for running ftp/http/nntp/dns/mail/ntp/smb/print/etc/etc servers, research systems, military applications, office desktops, routers, firewalls, learning unix, systems/application/web development AND playing mp3s, games, napster, pr0n, etc.
I don't know why it should be any more lame and dangerous for Red Hat to do this than for Debian, and this is the basis of their famous apt-get, with a bit of extra security added (which I understand Debian is planning on adding in their next rev.).
The difference is that Red Hat is a commercial firm. Ximian is trying for exactly the same piece of the pie. Could be interesting.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
--
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Nice, I hope you copied and pasted that froms somwhere though.
With all the folks who can't manage to put their money where their mouth is, I'd just consider $9 my contribution to open source.
This is what's called a SERVICE.
They are *not* charging you for updates, new versions, etc. THat's still free.
They are charging for a specific SERVICE they are providing to keep your systems updated automatically. If that service isn't worth money to you, and you'd rather do it your own way, that's absolutely fine.
I don't understand how Red Hat can withdraw the free system update feature seeing as more and more competing distros have the same feature without the need for registration etc. Mentioning Debian is not necessary of course, but the upcoming Linux-Mandrake 8.0 will come with the choice of apt-get and urpmi. It will also have the Mandrake Update Robot (not sure of the name) that can do automatic upgrades non-interactively (like in cron jobs etc). All of this for free and decentralized. Oh well.
--
"Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
This will mean less home users will use red-hat. This is a problem, because this is also the type of user that convinces their employers to adopt linux. And which distribution will they recommend? Exactly, the one they use at home. Red-hat won't get rich from this small fee. However, they will loose a lot of customers who will simply use something else since they don't like to cough up the money. It seems like a stupid thing to do.
The main source of revenue for Red Hat should be support contracts. A secondary source is retail sales of Red Hat CDs. Asking money for updates (a potential third revenue source)will harm those two revenue sources so it is a bad idea.
Jilles
Not yet they don't. You should read up on BG "vision" of dot Net etc. You are soon gonna have the idea of "software as a service" rammed down your throat. Its coming allright.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Ximian's Red Carpet utility do the same this as Redhat's update agent? I don't see the problem, since someone else is providing a _free_ means to the same end. Plus Red Carpet is a far more attractive, professional looking utility, IMNSHO.
The agent is GPL. If you don't trust the binary, use the source.
GNU/Linux. The Freshmaker.
It would bypass it, and it would be perfectly ok as I understand it. But you have to consider that RHN is more than just doing a rpm -Fvh on every system - it lets you tailor the upgrades and upgrade policys for every machine, tell exactly what should be upgraded when there's upgrades and how and when, and what upgrades should be notified upon, etc.
So you'd have to implement a "RHN" of your own on your local net to replace all of that functionality, even with that single master that uses RHN "for real".
Hey, I am all for RedHat to make money - and I agree that this is a value added service, and should be charged for. No problems here with that. But they better hope their normal business users are all dumb, or have incompetent admins (running Linux - hah - probably some MCSE who picked up a book on RedHat and now thinks he knows something - that or a management type trying to get ahead)...
Don't confuse convenience and simple economics with being dumb. For some companies it might be cheaper to use RHN than hire a code monkey to implement an equally competent update-distribution mechanism (yes, RHN is more than just the functionality of apt-get).
Most of the services that Red Hat offers can be had for free (in fact, all I know of). You can download the OS free of charge - but many people don't have the bandwidth/time/patience/burner or want the printed manuals/support. Consider this a similar thing - it's a ready-to-go update deployment/tracking system for those who need it and don't want to or have the time or resources to implement it on their own.
GNU/Linux. The Freshmaker.
all of a sudden the cost of one movie ticket and a soda
I don't know where you live but here in New York, Sony recently anounced a hike in the Movie prices from $8.50 to $9.00. I WISH that it was the cost of a movie ticket and a soda, but it barely covers the cost of a ticket.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
You're right, but it's not only the linux arena in which software versions exist.
.|` Clouds cross the black moonlight,
The whole commercial `venduh' world has thrived off it, or rather off victims' laziness, for decades now; updatability is something that comes with all software, but awareness of the need for updatability is particularly prevalent in the open-source world.
It's the "release" phenomenon that I've been harping on against for the last couple of years now; all software gets improved over time (and occasionally forked): all a distribution does is to slice specific versions of the software, compile the lot together, do some testing and say "this works".
This is why unsubstantiated talk like "RH7.0 is unstable, it's a 7-point-0 release, I'm going to avoid it" is bogus: the release is as good as any other and in terms of upgrading from there to the current bleeding edge, you've got less far to go than if you start from 6.2.
~Tim
--
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
True, a lot of companies running Linux will have a Unix guru. Still, at internal charges of $50 per hour, for access to that unix guru, the unix guru is likely to suggest to his boss that his time is better spent automating the fault recovery system than installing a piddly update. (we usually calculate 20 hours per year at $50 for basic system maintenance, mainly patching, per server (this is for ordinary unix buisness application servers tho, Linux would probably get away with about 10 hours.).)
People cost a lot of money.
I cant really see the flaw in RedHats buisness model here...
Last I looked, the buisness model was to expand the Linux market and establish RedHat as a premium brand name for services and support in that market. Much like Evian in the bottled water market.
People pay the premium for Evian, they pay the premium for Heinz, they pay the premium for Coke or Pepsi... and they will likely pay the premium for Redhat, with associated services. You're very welcome to use HomeRolled Linux, but a lot of people will be just as leery of that as they are of JokaCola. Id say their model is progressing very well along the intended path.
I disagree. I like Red Hat as a company, and respect their need to make money. However, I am suspicious of the "hey, we have to make money somehow" justification. I did not accept this article at its face and assume that RH were being bastards. Instead, I thought good and hard about it.
Here's what I came up with:
1. Yes, they should charge for this service.
2. They should also make a VERY public show of giving free access to anyone credited with developing any part of their software. This is good policy AND good press.
That's pretty odd, I registered like 3 hours ago and updated (for free).
Unable to read configuration file '/bigassraid/htdig//conf/14229.conf'
Geocrawler error message.
You're not, AC - if this is how it works, it doesn't sound that safe. I would much rather the process is a user process, and root has to go in every now and then and manually run the update, selecting which packages to update. Maybe the system uses sudo or similar to give access to a user process only to certain areas - who knows?
What I don't understand, if the original poster of this thread is correct, is why someone at said "client" doesn't just set up a single server (and a single license with RedHat), set up for free updates, then use that machine to update all the other machines on the network running a copy of RedHat (it isn't necessary for each machine to auto update - talk about a waste of bandwidth)? This shouldn't be that difficult to set up, and bypasses the monthly fee - right?
Hey, I am all for RedHat to make money - and I agree that this is a value added service, and should be charged for. No problems here with that. But they better hope their normal business users are all dumb, or have incompetent admins (running Linux - hah - probably some MCSE who picked up a book on RedHat and now thinks he knows something - that or a management type trying to get ahead)...
Worldcom - Generation Duh!
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Even the shuttle software-meisters - fantastic job though they do - aren't 100% bug free. According to the linked article, "The last 11 versions of this software had a total of 17 errors." Fantastic, amazing, well-done, but not perfect.
It's not just a question of accepting it...it's a question of paying for it, in time and dollars.
They say "Fast, cheap, good - pick two", but it's more like pick one. The Space Shuttle avionics code has taken an enormous effort of time and dollars. They're still using machines with ferrite core memory, because a hardware change would mean massive software changes; try floating that idea to your boss - "We can't upgrade the server because doing so might introduce bugs. We have to stick with that 25 MHz '486 running NetBSD 0.9."
Admittedly, a lot of the upgrading going on is for the sake of flash, not substance; if we could beat it into PHB's heads that reliability is more important than special effects and dancing paperclips, we could proceed with greater focus.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Oh great, here we go again...is John Travolta going to be waking up CmdrTaco up in the middle of the night with another threatening letter from Co$ lawyers?
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
You're right, they can do whatever they want. No one is saying they can't. The fact is though, that it depreciates the value of Red Hat. I can get Debian or Mandrake for free, and get a similar service, with no extra charge.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
There's always Red Carpet, as well... I wonder if it will continue to work for free.
I would encourage people to pay free software companies when possible, so that they stay in business. It's good for us all.
- - - - -
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
With RHN you specify exactly which updates will be sent to which systems. So, hopefully, you've tested this update on a test system at some point before rolling it out.
If you are worried about someone putting a backdoored package on the site, any packaging method could have that happen. But RHN does do checking of the packages to make sure they haven't been tampered with.
Windows Update does NOT compete with Red Hat Network. I can't push updates to my workstations using Windows Update. I can't check to see which versions of software they have instaleld with Windows Update.
Different service.
Look up the difference between push and pull. Using Windows Update, how do I push an update to Bob's machine in another state? You can't. I can with Red Hat Network.
It was free during the trial period while they worked the bugs out. It was never going to be a free server. I knew it was going to be $10/month ages ago.
But, each person gets one free system on the network. So if all you run is a Red Hat workstation you don't have to spend anything. Only people with multiple systems do.
I can see the benefits of RHN. I like the single console view, and I like being able to push updates to clients, but at $10/month/workstation that can get pricey if you have a lot. Then again, I'm sure if you have 500 or 1000 workstations you can work a better deal with them.
They are selling a support service. You can either get the updates yourself and apply them to your systems, or use the easy push method from Red Hat Network.
What's the problem? They have to make money somehow, and supposedly support is the way it should be done with open source. Support them.
Just because it makes sense makes it no less news. RedHat is taking a very helpful service that they have provided for free, and decided to charge for it. I'd have no difficulty in downloading all of the RPMS and installing them myself, but there are a lot of new users who get a copy of redhat and might have a difficult time keeping up to date. Before it was a simple as running the up2date utility, now it's figure out what updates you need, download them, Install all of them, dealing with dependencies.
treke
--
assert(expired(knowledge));
heh, my full install of msdn takes about 800 megs (its an old version though, newer ones are on dvd's), msvc is only about 180 megs, but visual studio is around 800. you can install all the gcc, glibc, python, perl, and about 7 other languages, in about 200 megs. Yes, I do like msdn, but it's beginning to become bloatware.
The point is... Everything should be free! Movie tickets, soda, beer, etc.
for Debian.
Red Hat was starting to show some of the hallmarks of Microsoft. Lots of security announcements, overly money hungry, etc.
Debian and OpenBSD are so quick to fix problems, and have awesome system update mechanisms, not to mention the stability and in OpenBSD's case the extreme security (not that Debian can't be secured).
I have Red Hat to thank for holding my hand while I got into Linux (though it was'nt a very firm grip with RH5.0!), I could'nt imagine EVER going back to them.
The sad thing is, a flood of stories in the media along the lines of "Linux not "free" any more!" are bound to be coming from journo's that either are clueless, are paid to cast Linux in a bad light or are simply afraid of the very technology they write about.
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
I can see the need for the RH Network if you're updating a lot of machines but for personal use there are a lot of alternatives (see Freshmeat) that do the job perfectly. I for example run a little utility called "frmps" as a cron job - it simply checks every night if there are any new rpms available, installs them and mails me a report. That's all I need to keep my system current automatically.
And come on folks, their business model is to sell support. Of course they will charge for it, and they should. This is no news.
It's just a special introductory offer for every system that subscribes before April 6. If you get your system logged in before that date, it's 9.95/month until September 1.
Regular price is $19.95/month. Much like paying for another dial-up service. A casual user might find this service useful enough to be willing to pay for it. They may be trying to get business customers to use it, but I have a feeling that most business customers have a *nix guru that takes care of their systems already.
Class, by now some of the brighter among you may be realizing that we have yet to pass the quarter mark this year.
-----------------------
Nicotine free Amish .sig.
Isn't RedHat's update agent essentially part of ximian's red-carpet?
Yikes, wake up guy. Free Software is about Freedom, not money. Lots of "Free Software fanatics" posted before you did, and we're saying that this was exactly the sort of thing Redhat is supposed to do to make money and keep working.
How well it will work remains to be seen, but I wish em the best.
Cmdr Taco is trolling again... *yawn*
Taco:
Just why is this a crappy way to do it, Taco? Huh? What the hell is wrong with selling optional services to support the company? What better ideas do you have for a business model?
With Editors like this who needs trolls?
"That old saw about the early bird just goes to show that the worm should have stayed in bed."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Because of its all in all crappy command line interface, I gave up on up2date on my machines that don't have X.
I use rhup, a free (you don't get charged ten bucks to use it) utility to download updates for you.
its $20/month/workstation for all systems you sign up after april 6, or after september 1 for all systems you sign up before april 6.
"I don't need a compass to tell me which way the wind shines." - Mr. Furious, Mystery Men
Here is the link to the script. Please mirror, etc, as this is a cable line, and my wife's website (the reptile shelter in my sig) will go down if this site goes down.
-no broken link
Updateme is free, and does the same basic function.
--
Free Mac Mini
1) This is a documented way to make money from Free software. (One of the documents from MIT/AI stated this)
2) Microsoft chares for the application in the beginning and their every 4 year updates. They also charge for the developers network updates.
3) You can still get the updates for free, you just have to pay to use thier service. --Angus
...so THAT's the reason I'm still running RH 5.1...
The whole MSVC AND enterprise tools install takes 851 MB (893.008.094 Bytes) (including full install of MSDN) ..
GCC with it tools comes close to that, and doesnt have a as good help as MSVC does
Before you email me, remember: "There is no god!"
This story leaves me wondering:
Is this for customers who haven't bought a boxed version and registered it or just people who download redhat for free?
I looked on RedHat's website and I don't see anything about it.
I meant:
Will customers who have bought a boxed version be able to register and download without paying another 9$?
The updated faq explains the answer:
How is the free trial different?
Previously, you could receive a basic level of service free up to five systems. Starting February 26, you can try the full version of Software Manager for free, but only on one system.
So if you are a registered customer you can update your machine for free on one system instead of five.
Looks like slashdot didn't get the facts straight.
"Anyways, the only bug-free program anymore might be hello world...."
OK, time for a personal rant.
I keep hearing this--hearing that bugs are inevitable, and that bug-free software is impossible. This leads to the development of software with bugs, because "we can't catch everything!"
Hogwash!
Check out this article for proof to the contrary.
We have become FAR too accepting of bugs in commercial software. It's only because we accept it that the companies can get away with it.
OK, rant over. Back to watching the snow.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
And how about:
3. They should give it free to all non-profits and charities.
They should charge such a low price that everyone should be happy to pay it! e.g. $10/annum/machine. $120/annum/machine is hefty and many people will run RH and not buy and many others will choose another distro or even OS. At $10/annum how many people would think it an unreasonable deterrent for choosing a distro?
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
Do you think that RH makes money by people having their distro installed? It's not like market share == cash flow. So you install Debian on your box instead of RH. How does that hurt them?
I'd bet that anyone who balks at $10/month is someone who has never given RH a dime anyway.
--
Did I misunderstand the whole deal here? I thought all they wanted to do was charge for a service, not the package manager itself?
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Didn't they have around 65000 new bug..hummm I mean "features"?
"I'm not a procrastinator, I'm temporally challenged"
Exactly right. Unfortunately, from what I read, a lot of people only pay lip service to the different OSS philosophies and the ideal "business models" suggested or tried by the linux world...underneath all they care about is getting everything for free. It IS sad, especially (it has been said before in this discussion) when you can just download and apply the updates yourself at no cost still.
"I'm not a procrastinator, I'm temporally challenged"
Ummmm:
Also, if there's quite a bit of stuff that "mere mortal users" would have no interest in then [sic] one cannot really say that a Microsoft Office distribution is "bloated".
So what's your definition of "bloated" again?
[|]
The choice is difficult: beer, update redhat, beer, update redhat, beer, mmm... Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!
--
Je t'aime Stéphanie
And how is the source any safer? Did you read through every single line to make sure? Opensource is no good unless people actually read it and not assume the next guy will.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
You can still download the RPM's for free and install them yourself. Anyways, the only bug-free program anymore might be hello world....
Since the poster doesn't like the charge for update agent, what other ways would he/she have them make money? Look, the redhat update agent is the very definition of "Value Added Service" and it seems very reasonable to charge for it. They noted in the post that the old way of getting the files and applying updates still works just fine. Why not charge a (in my mind) paltry 10 bucks to make it easier? Look, not everyone has their linux server hacked together from 486 parts and hooked to a cable service. Some folks are trying to push it into the enterprise and services like this are great for that.
"I want RH to make a buck too, but this seems like a pretty crappy way to do it."
Of course it seems crappy to you. If it affects a user in any way that involves touching someones pocket book, then it must be crappy. Everyone likes everything, just as long as it is free. I'm sure there are many people out there who run webservers and ftp servers who know just how expensive bandwidth can be. Everyone wants Red Hat to be profitable. But no one, at least the majority here, wants to pay for anything related to it. It's always, "oh, the other guy will pay for it." It seems that a small minority of people are funding these projects and the rest are leaching off of it. (Gee, why does that sound familiar?)
I'm still looking for a company that has a working business model based on giving away products for free.
I use Mandrake. Red Hat has been leaning towards something like this for a while now.
Warning! Keep Out of Eyes! Wash Out with Water! Don't Drink Soap! Dilute! Dilute!
I don't envy those companies trying to make money in an opensource arena, but I can say that trying a microsoft "squeeze" tactic will backfire every time.
________
Oh no... someone said Money in the same paragraph as Linux, someone better prepare for the onslaught of free software fanatics from Slashdot...
...who are also going to try and mod this down.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
Red Hat is a profit-seeking corporation staffed by people who expect to get paid. The fact that they want to charge for upgrades is less an ethical issue than it is a comment on their business model and the risky business of trying to make money selling something that is "free".
This business of treating Linux and friends as a Moral Crusade is annoying and misplaced, and thwarts real efforts to improve it. (E.g., "If your secretary won't use EMACS, don't whine about it, rewrite the code!."
Sure...
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Stop telling people why they should use Linux and start giving them reasons to buy Linux if you want it to survive as a desktop. Red Hat, Suse and Caldera may survive by selling into the server market, but that will leave Microsoft with all the rest.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
> You can still get the updates for free
Sure, but they can, (and probably will) make this arbitrary difficult.
Cheers,
--fred
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
> quick point. boiling frog urban legend
:-)
Or maybe makes the point of the original poster. RH want to boil frog its supporters, but it won't works
Cheers,
--fred
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
> Right, then they lose much of the user base thats using RH, as they try out Mandrake or Debian or ___.
Like when you boil a frog. They have to make it slowly more and more difficult to upgrade.
> Doesnt sound like a good business move.
Well, they _have_ to make money one way or another.
They are market leaders, the have a slightly incompatible product (as everyone else), and they represent the _real_ "linux" in the eyes of US corporates. All commercial software that runs on "linux" runs mostly on redhat GNU/Linux. They are taking advantage of this, but will try to keep they barrier of entry as low as possible (like microsoft does by encouraging so-called 'piracy') by chargin only automagic updates. They will probably have a scheme so non-commercial users can still update.
So maybe it is a good business move...
Cheers,
--fred
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Geeze - my copy of MSDN has gotta be close to a gig and a half - I did do a full installation of it thought.
Like sex? Read and write about it! Indecent Blogging
well, at least Mandrake still has a free update agent so if you are just using your redhat box as a workstation and really want an auto update switching is pretty painless. However, if it's a server you probably should be updating it manually anyway so it's no big deal. I have to admit it's sad that one must pay for something like that, but if people are willing then businesses will try it.
1) Microsoft supplies software with bugs
2) My software crashes and there's no way I can find the bug.
3) I mention this bug to Microsoft and they blame someone else
4) I pay for the upgrade just in case only to find that the same bug exists in the new version and Microsoft are still blaming someone else.
Why am I happier using Linux?
Just as a matter of interest, isn't Windows.NET going to be available on a subscription basis? And aren't Microsofties the world over going on about how brilliant it is, even though it's still semi-vapour at the moment. Of course if you actually read the Changes FAQs you'll find the following words:
Starting February 26, you can try the full version of Software Manager for free, but only on one system.
So basically for every RedHat box you buy, you get free updates. It's only if you use the one box set to set up several PCs that you have to pay. This is obviously aimed at businesses, but for those of us with more than one PC at home there are still plenty of distros to choose from.
BTW if this change happened nearly a month ago, why has it only just become news?
All the incremental updates from 98 to 98SE were free. There were, however, some new features added that could justify a new product.
"
Microsoft does NOT call it's incremental updates "new OSes." They call them service packs. They did not even call Win98SE a new OS, they called it a new version of the OS.
"
The difference between 98 -> 98SE is about the same as 98SE -> ME
How come ME is a new OS and 98SE isn't?
Because market research says that 3 years is the correct interval between OS's.
If Microsoft thought they could maximise their profit by releasing a new OS based on each internal build they would.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)
$10 / month for guaranteed high bandwidth, guaranteed connection server.
Yep, I can see companies paying for that.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. (Einstein)
Huh. There are other update services already, and have been for a long time. autorpm is the first I saw (and tried) - and Ximian's Red Carpet is also perfectly able to provide update services for Red Hat Linux.
e ry =autorpm
http://rpmfind.net/linux/rpm2html/search.php?qu
http://www.ximian.com/apps/redcarpet.php3
Ask a silly person, get a silly answer.
E4 and USB support installed with the OS - $90
Bug fixes to repair the broken IE4 and USB update - $90
Dumbing down the interface even more and being able to call your software "Me" - $100
Reliablity update to fix everything that was wrong with the previous "must-have" updates, particularly the BSOD - $170
Having a penguin for you OS Mascot: Priceless. Bill Gates wants all your money. For everything else, there's Linux.
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
Another added cost? This is an IT managers' dream! It's so much easier to sell expensive software to the boss, than to convince them that free software is better.
Thanks RedHat!
"If voting could really change things, it would be illegal. " - Revolution Books, NY
I would really like to know how something like Debian fits into your world view?
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
This is by no means a pay update.. you just pay to make it easy. But I have another point.
:) Thanks for the reminder.
This announcement reminds me to donate to the good cause. I'll pay for something by RH just to support them. Right now I'm piss poor - I just upgraded my hardware - but as soon as I'm out of school I'll donate.
Janimal
It's not like market share == cash flow
No, but market share helps with future cash flow. Think of all the people who, when you say Linux, think of a red hat. I know we all think of Tux, but Joe Public IT Guy sees the hat.
When they eventually decide to try out Linux, they go to PC World (or it's equivalent stateside) and seek the hat.
Anyway, sensible people use Debian.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. It's not like they're still not providing the source code, and the ability to modify it... they are also not preventing you in anyway from distributing it. They're charging for the acti of downloading a distribution they've put together. Notice too, that unlike a certain OTHER company, they actually have competitors for what is generally the same product. Now, I like free things, and I am a RH user, but it's not like you can expect RH to survive on charity. Notice, that this is completely within the spirit of opensource software. Charging for a service.
:-p
/. is a great site, and open source is wonderful, but sometimes the opensource community can be a bit whiney.... esp when no crime has been committed.
On the other hand, I do hope RH understands when I start using another distribution.
Humorless sig goes here.
Did you forget this Mr. Taco.
Isn't this what America is all about right now, convenience = money?
You can still get the updates for free. It's like buying a Mandrake distro at Wal-Mart. You could download it for free (not including broadband costs), or your could spend $25 to get it right away.
By charging for incremental update services, Red Hat is implicitly admitting that it's business model has some serious flaws. Linux is explicitly free; anyone with a modem or a CD-burner can have Linux for the cost of some time and effort. Why would people pay for something that is -- by intention -- free?
If anything, the nature of Linux requires free updates, simply because Linux is a conglomerate of various packages with their own update schedules and releases. I can install Debian 2.2r2, update the XFree 86 to 4.03, add the latest gcc 2.95.3, and tailor my system to my needs. Such a model simply doesn't fit with the Red Hat idea of "Linux releases." The only true Linux "release" is the kernel...
--
Scott Robert Ladd
Master of Complexity
Destroyer of Order and Chaos
All about me
--
But aren't this kind of extra-value services (packaging, customization, documentation, etc.) just how free software / open source is supposed to make money. Even if you ask RMS.
Couldn't someone set up their own server to do the automatic updates if he wanted to pay for the bandwidth of giving away free updates? Would it be very hard to do? Red Hat's software is mostly GPL, so I don't think there would be legal problems with someone setting up this server. I don't think $10 is a bad deal for the convenience they provide.
Besides, I feel that if one actively supports open-source software, then they'll be decent enough to put some money into it. Eventually, no money == no open-source software.
/*drunk.. fix later*/
i'm moving everything to debian this week.
check cheapbytes' debian 2.2 binary cd (intel, 3 cd's).
My .02,
My .02,
zencode
iactivist.org/jason
So now we can all start dreaming. And here are some tips on dreaming well and enjoying your experience.
There's always sufficient, but not always at the right place nor for the right folks.
will this grow into RPM's for Redhat systems becoming "SPECIAL"? Won't I be able to go to rpmfind.net and locate updated RPM's by platform because they won't have REDHAT RPM's? I can't see RedHat placing restrictions on redistributing the updates, it just wouldn't be 'Linuxish' of them.
If there isn't one now, somebody will code us a tool that uses rpmfind.net to inventory system packages and check for updates automatically. There's nothing that will slow down the Linux Movement, I doubt a major distributor charging for updates will make much difference.
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
Even Microsoft doesn't charge for it's incremental updates...
This thread is about why RedHat is charging for updates, not about some other linux distro.
-
Software costs thousands of dollars to produce, because you must pay the developers. While this is not true of the volunteer software, of course, it is true for companies such as RedHat.
With linux, they cannot charge for the software itself, because of the GPL. Thus, they come up with flaky plans such as selling "support" (unless your software is really really poor, you're not going to make a ton of money from support. Plus you also have to pay your support personnel).
Selling distribution mediums, such as CDs and Books. Well with the great internet, you can download the software, so theres no need for a CD, and the books are available online too. So why spend money buying the distribution mediums? Frankly, not many people do.
So, you have a very high input price - the developers, going into a product you can't legally sell, and try to make up the difference through product complements. Basic economics will tell you that this doesnt work.
So, back a couple years ago when the economy was really hot, and venture capitalists would throw money at anything marked "computer" despite the lack of a decent business plan, linux companies flourished. Today, the economy is suffering, investors are looking hard at business plans and seeing the fact that linux company's Rate of Return is lower than that of "traditional" software companies, and investors are pulling out.
Mark my words, the linux software corps days are numbered. The only way you can survive with linux, is if you have more products and you develop linux ALONG with them. IBM is the perfect example of this.
-
Linux is a better server OS. Less overhead for more long-term stability.
I don't care about distros. I'm not close minded or open minded about it really. I'd use Joe Bob Blow's Linux if they decided to load it on my work servers.
That said, I take a neutral, realistic viewpoint on Linux. That makes it unpopular around here, because if you're not a zealot, you're the enemy.
-
You need a real product you can sell that makes up for the cost for development of linux. Whether it be some other software, or hardware. But just support and distribution medium is NOT ENOUGH.
-
i don't know the size of the RedHat team, how much they get paid, and how long it takes to develop the updates themselves. Figure a routine update takes 3 weeks to develop, at 70,000 a year for each developer, and 15 developers. This comes to (70,000 / 52 weeks) * 3weeks * 15people =~ $60576 per update, in salary. RedHat of course has many other expenses to consider as well, so figure an update is probably a $100,000 investment. That's probably on the low-end, really.
-
It costs thousands, nay, millions to develop big pieces of software. This kind of cost cannot be made up by selling "support" (unless you're software is so shitty it requires users to sit on the phone with you for hours everyday) nor distribution costs.
-
you mean, after spending thousands and thousands of dollars for developing updates..they're going to charge?? How dare they follow economic reality!
-
I bet the next version of "windowsupdate" becomes a subscription service now. Imagine that; sell crap software and then charge for the fixes. Kinda like symantec does with their "upgrade insurance". (Best godfather voice)"Pay us and we'll protect your mission critical systems". I hate all these companies. -ted
$man microsoft
Crowded elevator smell different to midget. -Chinese Proverb
I just learned about this service on Saturday, and now they're cancelling it. "We'll tell you, but then we'll have to cancel you."
-- Nerds on toast in the new millenium
Launch every zig!
(Score:-1, Underranted)
"What's the problem? they have to make money somehow, and supposedly support is the way it should be done with open source. Support them."
The fact of the matter is a system is pratically unmanageable these days without automatic update tools. I certainly wouldn't call automatic system updates "support" -- I'd call it paying for basic necessity.
Redhat would be wise to include lifetime RHN subscription per a boxed set -- even with the most basic one that's around $30. Instead, they purpose RHN for a limited amount of time which doesn't make much sense, in my opinion.
If Redhat wants to survive past its name recognition expiration date it had better start innovating instead of playing copy-cat to an organization that offers a far better product to begin with.
mwtr / THIS SIG HAS BEEN PRAYED OVER AND MAY BE USED AS A POINT OF CONTACT (ACTS 19:12)
I would like to suggest an often over-looked means of raising money for publicly specified intellectual property endeavours: Donations. I know the Free Software Foundation (http://www.fsf.org) accepts donations and are strictly not-for-profit (which makes them so much more trustworthy), and they really are very productive and efficient with their funds. These efforts need our support. Many of the programmers for the FSF are volunteers, but they really do need our help and they do a very good job of providing free excellent software tools for the community.
My fear is that if volunteer and not-for-profit groups like the FSF should fold because of a lack of funding, all we would be left with is money-based interests seeking to control and monopolize our software tools. Although this does not necessarily translate into a bad thing per se, it is still always a greater benefit for the public to have an alternative and one that is open and free to keep the rest in check.
So please make an effort to support these community-oriented groups. It is only to our benefit.
1) RH supplies software with bugs
2) My software crashes: I find bug and tell RH about it. I lose money because of downtime
3) RH fixes bugs (i.e. finally does the job right)
4) I pay money because they couldn't get it right the first time
Why am I not happy about this?
If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
i dunno about you guys, but the last time i went to wal-mart windows me was teh same price as redhat/mandrake on the shelf.. and windowsupdate is free in addition, the recently added faq states that the price will be $19.95 a month after april 9th(?) which is a little over half what it costs off the shelf .. i think if they are interested in pursuing this the best way to do it would be to only charge commerical companies the fees.. since they can afford it and leave it free for non-commercial use.. my $.02
Everybody knows that Mandrake has surpassed RedHat qualitywise a long time ago, and there update tool is still free. If anything this is going to accelerate the marketshare slide towards Mandrake Linux.
/* And you'll never guess what the dog had */
And it's a good thing too.
Advantages of Mandrake vs. RedHat:
- qmail vs sendmail
- rpms compiled for nonarcheologic procs (see 586)
- cute
- no desktop environment bigotry, kde and gnome with a nice default setup
- did I mention cute? and sexy...
Mandrake 8.0 Beta is out now. Test it.
/* in its mouth... */
/* And you'll never guess what the dog had */
/* in its mouth... */
--Larry Wall in stab.c from perl
Red Had provides you with a service and convenience and you pay for it.
This isn't news. It's how our economy works.
- qpt
--
Domine Deus, creator coeli et terrae respice humilitatem nostram.
This is unfortunate, but not unsurprising.
Did CmdrTaco ever learn about double negatives in school? If it's not unsurprising, doesn't that make it surprising? in this language anyway?
I guess he's free to use double negatives if he likes. That don't make me no never mind.
Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
Could RH and other distros be following Microsoft's lead and slowly evolving into a subscription based business model? This looks like an 'Easing In' to me.
Slashdot: rejecting tech news in favor of rubber band guns since 1997.
Most packages are not useful for everybody, but they are useful for somebody. What would make everyone happy is a really good dependency model so that instead of making impossible choices at the beginning, it can be done whenever needed. Like
make install editor
!!! Three alternatives:
1) emacs: 40MB + 59MB (5 dependent pkg)
2) vi: 10MB + 30MB (3 depedent pkg)
3) pico: 12MB + 40MB (2 depedent pkg)
All) 62MB + 86MB (7 dependent pkg)
??? Go ahead with 1/2/3/All [A]?
!!! installed all.