Red Hat Announces Enterprise Linux

OldBen writes "RedHat has announced the product stable to replace the mainstream releases for enterprise use. RedHat Enterprise Linux AS replaces Advanced Server (with quite a price hike to go along), ES is targeted at "entry-level" servers, and WS is for workstations. See the details at RedHat's website."

Comments

What's this?

[B3ryllium]

The linux distro they run on Star Trek?

Does it include Majel Barrett-Rodenbery's voice?

Neato

[blitzoid]

Perhaps all these fancy titles with words like "Enterprise" in them will make large corporations see Linux as a solution for their projects. That's the main thing stopping linux... recognition.

Re:Neato

[Ed Avis]

I've usually found the word 'Enterprise' in the title to be a sure indication of a crap product. It sounds so 1999.

Re:Neato

[Telastyn]

Wait, I thought what was stopping Linux was the lack of a proper email/calendaring/contacts solution (server and client side, nicely integrated) that actually works. Every IT director and their dog knows about Linux given all the business magazine press it's gotten over the past few years.

Re:Neato

[j_kenpo]

Sure, and with my handy-dandy corporate buzz word generater, I came up with this description for it.
After all, if you cant dazzle them with briliance, baffle them with bullshit.

"Red Hat Enterprise Server

Through a top-down, proactive approach we can remain customer focused and goal-directed, innovate and be an inside-out organization which facilitates sticky web-readiness transforming turnkey eyeballs to brand 24/365 paradigms with benchmark turnkey channels implementing viral e-services and dot-com action-items while we take that action item off-line and raise a red flag and remember touch base as you think about the red tape outside of the box and seize B2B e-tailers and re-envisioneer innovative partnerships that evolve dot-com initiatives delivering synergistic earballs."

Re:Neato

[belloc]

Wait, I thought what was stopping Linux was the lack of a proper email/calendaring/contacts solution (server and client side, nicely integrated) that actually works.

Samsung Contact. It works. Server runs on Unix variants or Linux (currently RH and SuSE). You can use their PC client, their Linux client, their web client, or Outlook 98/2k/XP (with the Samsung MAPI drivers). I've been using it on linux since it was HP Openmail. Back then, there were some issues with MAPI driver functionality, but it worked pretty well. Since Samsung has gotten their hands on it, it is fantastic, no reservations whatsoever.

No, it's not free (beer/speech). Until someone is able to do this under some sort of OSS license, I'll gladly pay for Samsung Contact.

Re:Neato

[hackstraw]

Nah, thats not what is stopping Linux. What is stopping Linux is: "It will just fucking work". Only now are companies like IBM, HP, Oracle, and RedHat are putting their rep where their mouth is. One would have to live in the middle of the desert not to recognise Linux now.

An example of "It will just fucking work" in action. I just paid NetApp something like $1,300 dollars for a GigE card in a NAS box, and then paid some guy $375 to put the card in the box. Now the NetApp is going fine at GigE. (Btw, the $1,300 card is an Intel e1000 card that you can get for under $200). Where did all that $$ go to? In making sure that "It will just fucking work". That is where, although it could have been much cheaper IMHO.

An example of "It will eventually work after I dink around with it Linux style". I bought a Linux server for $5,000. I specified that I wanted a GigE card, RedHat 7.1, and the hardisk partitioned according to a dump of fdisk -l on another machine. The machine did not come with a power cord. The machine came with RH 7.2, and partitioned incorrectly. The machine also came with the wrong GigE card. I contacted the company, and for $145 they sent me the "right" GigE card. The only problem, is that the driver for the card is only ported to kernel 2.4.20 and I have to run 2.4.9, so I must now contact either the people that sold me the card and/or the card people for some kind of backport of the driver to kernel 2.4.9. The machine is still not in production because of the GigE card.

Announcements like RH's Enterprise Linux and the previous Advanced Server are welcome to me. I hope that soon I can pay someone for a real Linux solution, not parts of one. One that will "just fucking work!"

Re:Neato

[fishbowl]

"I thought the main thing stopping Linux is the fact that is simply isn't as good as other operating systems."

It's fabulously superior in some aspects, and wholly inadequate in others. There's no "simply" to it. It depends on your application.

Re:Neato

[attobyte]

Well I have a MS "It will just fucking work", NOT. We hired a developer to write a web page for us and he happened to write it in .net. Well now our company has to upgrade to IE 6 to get it to work. So needing a newer version of software for something to "just fucking work" is no different in Linux, MS, Sun, HP.

Also I had to buy a V480 for work. They don't sell the E450 anymore :) buy any ways I have to run at least Solaris 8 02/02. I was on 8 10/00 well I had to test 02/02 to see if it "just fucking worked"

You have to do homework up front if you dont then you are just fucked when it doesn't work. But this is not a problem of Linux it is a industry problem its your fucking job to make sure it __will__ work.

Enterprise AS

[Visaris]

The price hike sounds entirely reasonable because of the increased support responsibilities involved. I'm actually kind of supprised they didn't raise the prices more.. Just my 2 cents.

Re:Enterprise AS

[verch]

Actually I see this announcement as a huge price drop. We've been paying $1200 per machine for 2 CPU machines. Now that goes down to $350 or $800. I suspect 99% of the licenses they sell in the near future will be for the lower end line. Most of the linux in corporate america right now is on 2 CPU pizza boxes. Anyone using these is getting a discount from the original (ridiculous.. $1200 os license for a $2000 machine) Advanced Server pricing.

Pricing themselves out of the market?

[afidel]

ES server is $800 ???? I know that most of that is for the support, but on the face of it that is a lot more expensive then MS server would be for a similar sized box (2000 server with 5 CAL's is considerably less). Of course once CAL's are calculated in it might be slightly cheaper, but large server software costs + large workstation costs($300) = too expensive. One of the big advantages of linux is the cost, if it is only going to save you a small % vs. windows I doubt many organizations will bother to switch.

Re:Pricing themselves out of the market?

[dissy]

> One of the big advantages of linux is the cost

But one of the big advantages of Windows is support.

Now in the linux camp you can get free and supportless, or pricy and supported.
In the windows camp you only have pricy and supported.

Two vs One is still a win for linux over windows at that game.

Re:Pricing themselves out of the market?

[dr-suess-fan]

The 800$ is only for the product, If you want support, that is 1500US/year for a 'silver' contract.

The product placement for AS is for Enterprise applications i.e. Oracle. For those of us considering moving Oracle from Sun to Redhat, this is a sweet deal.

Your comments about Microsoft pricing are valid, and I believe RedHat thinks so too. The new offering of ES, is I think 800$/yr for support.

And I don't work for RedHat. ;)

Re:Pricing themselves out of the market?

[Telastyn]

Remember too that with Linux you're not just getting the OS. You'll also get all of your office tools and apps you'll ever need for $800 too.

Re:Pricing themselves out of the market?

[Chewie]

Um, last I checked, Win2K server (with 5 CALs) lists for $999, and you're not going to find it for $800 or less from many people (I am talking retail version, not academic or OEM, and this is the price point that RH's website is addressing: retail). Another poster has noted that there are also many server programs and utilities included that you would have to pay extra for with Windows. Finally, CIOs who don't know much don't like stuff that's dirt cheap. They seem to associate it with bad or unprofessional. Dumb, but true.

Re:Pricing themselves out of the market?

[Chewie]

Yes, if you want to pay $800 for each installation. Take a look at the license agreements for the relevant software. Lots of talk of subscriptions and audits.

Re:Pricing themselves out of the market?

[secolactico]

But one of the big advantages of Windows is support.

Where? The only good thing about MS' support is the knowledge base. And ever since google has newsgroup support, I find it just as easy to find answers for my Linux/FreeBSD problems.

Windowsupdate? "apt-get dist-upgrade"

I *do* like Windows, but support is definitely not Microsoft's forte.

Re:Pricing themselves out of the market?

[Pharmboy]

But one of the big advantages of Windows is support.

Adding to your comment, another factor is that Linux can GENERALLY run a bit faster on the same hardware, assuming you run a server at init 3 (who wouldnt?) This gives you a little more horsepower per server.

Also, a company MAY pay the $800 for a few boxes, but install a free version of Linux for other boxes. Maybe their dedicated DNS boxes don't need the support, or their POP boxes. As you stated, they don't have this option with windows. They can PAY for support on the ones they need, get the other free, and run the same basic OS on all of them.

Personally, I have a few servers, all running Linux, and I pay $60 from Redhat for up2date priority access (a freaking bargain). It also keeps with with ALL my servers, telling me what servers need what patches, i just have to download and install the other servers manually, which is no biggie. I gladly have the $60 annual on autorenew, because I have the choice to run one for pay, the others for free. From my experience, RedHat offers good value.

Re:Pricing themselves out of the market?

[Tony-A]

Finally, CIOs who don't know much don't like stuff that's dirt cheap. They seem to associate it with bad or unprofessional. Dumb, but true.
Not that dumb.
They have a problem. They want it fixed. Fast. They want it fixed because they have a problem and do not want to have to research it themselves.
This takes resources, and the resources take money. To be able to supply the required support, Red Hat needs to be profitable, even lucratively profitable.

What Red Hat is doing is offering a wide array of different price points from very cheap to very expensive. (I suppose you could get IBM to support it for even more;)

The "dumb" CIO can target the price, and the support will fall nicely into line with what is reasonable at that price level.

Re:Pricing themselves out of the market?

[attobyte]

I bet you could pay Linus or Alan Cox or who ever the same amount of money and get them to come out and fix your problems too. ( I don't think Alan will come to the US thou :) )

Mike

Re:Pricing themselves out of the market?

[PerryMason]

Part of the reason i have the account is to get these test servers 'up to speed' to keep from getting hacked while i am testing.

Hi,

Really late come to the party so to speak, but you sound like you could use apt-rpm. I do a lot of building test servers and there is nothing that makes it easier than running your own local ftp/apt server.

I mirror the RedHat 6.2, 7.1, 7.2 and 8.0 distros and update folders from my local redhat mirror. Keep it up to date with rsync and all you need to do to get an 'up to speed' server is throw in a floppy with the build requirements which includes a post install command to update via apt.

I can get a server from nothing to fully installed and patched up in the space of 10-15 minutes without any intervention whatsoever. I've got kickstart floppies with comp files setup to install each of the basic type of servers that I test on and do ftp installs across the network.

You get the advantage of speed, plus you only end up downloading the update packages once, instead of each time you update a new test box. Add to this that you can have cron jobs running on any of your permanent boxes to update themselves via apt instead of the RedHat network stuff. I personally package up anything I _would_ have installed as a tarball to an rpm and plonk it in my apt tree and can roll it out fromt there. It really does make life easier.

Well just a few thoughts for you that you probably won't even read, but it needs to be said.

Re:Pricing themselves out of the market?

[christophersaul]

True, but for the vast majority of IT managers and staff too, the source code being available to them is utterly irrelevant. The fact it is avaialble is good for Red Hat, who will be supporting these 'products', but most sys admins/IT guys have no interest whatsoever in ploughing through source code to fix something they paid money for in the first place.

Clarification requested

[m_evanchik]

Are Red Hat Enterprise Edition versions protected by any licensing requirements?

What parts are not open-source?

What's to stop someone from just posting ISO images online?

I'm just a little fuzzy on what's being paid for.

Thanks in advance for the answers

Re:Clarification requested

[Tack]

From RedHat's licence agreement:

• 4. REPORTING AND AUDIT. If Customer wishes to increase the number of Installed System, then Customer will purchase from Red Hat additional Services for each additional Installed System. During the term of this Agreement and for one (1) year thereafter, Customer expressly grants to Red Hat the right to audit Customer's facilities and records from time to time in order to verify Customer's compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

Can RedHat enforce this considering the software they're selling me is under open source licenses?

If so, then it seems that the costs are per year, per server. For RHL ES, at $350/year/server, my modest 4 server shop would cost me $1400 USD/year, or over $2200 CAD/year. I just don't have the budget for this.

Really, all I want is access to errata. I don't need phone support, or email support, or any fancy RHN monitoring. Just let me download errata binaries so I can upgrade my servers and I'm happy. I'm willing to pay for that, but not to the tune of $2200 a year. There doesn't seem to be such a solution offered by RedHat.

Jason.

Re:Clarification requested

[negyvenot]

If I pay for the support only, why aren't the ISO images publicly available? Why do I have to obtain a "warez" copy of it and not download it directly from RedHat, if it contains GPLed software anyway? Or did I miss something?

Re:Clarification requested

[Tack]

You'll just have to update every year instead of every five unless you are going to get updated rpms from somwhere else.

So let me recap what you're saying:

1. Pay $350 per year per server, which for my 4 RH server setup (and we're a small, poor university) will cost me $1400 USD or $2200 CAD per year. This is so that I can patch my servers with security and major bug fixes.
2. Reinstall RHL's mainline distro every year on four servers.

Are you serious? Is RedHat serious? I've got to be missing something.

Re:Clarification requested

[ajs]

I can migrate to Slackware or Mandrake or Debian silently and avoid the redhat screwing.

How, exactly are you screwed? What did you lose?

You still get source with Red Hat.

You can still download and burn ISOs of their software.

When I got started in the biz, I would have given an eye-tooth for a company that would provide an OS on just the above 2 terms, but there's more!

You can still get access to security and bug-fix updates for free.

You can pay a small fee to get automated access to the above updates, but there are also equivalent free services from third parties (see freshrpms' apt-rpm service). This is essentially a free service, which RH is covering network costs on. Everyone knows you don't *need* to sign up for RHN, it's basically there as a way to say thanks.

You can pay increasingly larger fees to get increasingly larger services. This is a no brainer. Any company that doesn't give their customers the option of paying as much as they like should be taken out to the street and fed to the pigeons.

This is a sound and reasonable model, and it does not take your shiny toys away or cause you to lose access to something you once had.

Why is everyone flipping out because Red Hat has added a pricing structure for upper-teir enterprises that is on-par with every other vendor? Should we all act shocked that a company doing business in the U.S. is actually trying to make money? Should we run around pretending that they're now somehow "evil" because they are making money?

At a higher level, why is there this slashdot knee-jerk reaction to any announcement concerning Red Hat? They come out with bluecurve and they're bad guys. They charge for automated access to RHN and they're bad guys. They announce an expensive product and they're bad guys. I swear sometimes I honestly think that if Red Hat donated a million dollars to fund cancer research the Slashdot headline would be "Red Hat Snubs Diabetes Research"!

Re:Why the cost?

[ShwAsasin]

A company who purchases these expensive versions of Red Hat are getting support. When you download a distro off the net you don't get good support from the company. In a corporate world you can't dick around with things if a critical server is not running. It's better to have the support in the event something happens, then not have it at all...

Re:Price Hike?

[-Surak-]

Large companies buy it - it helps them get past the idea of using "free software". Other users buy it to get installation support, which is worth it if you've never touched *nix before.

Personally, I download the free version and subscribe systems I manage to the RHN service, which makes updates simple, and is well worth the $60/year.

Walking a tightrope

[TopShelf]

Red Hat is attempting to both leverage the cost-advantage of Linux, but also offer enterprise-class service and support. This is an essential step for Linux to take off in the business arena, since no CIO is going to stake his career on a grassroots OS. He/She has to have a financially stable vendor that can be relied on to handle the R&D to provide regular upgrades, as well as provide emergency support as needed.

Re:Walking a tightrope

[HuguesT]

No they would still be unhappy, complaining that they didn't have the balls to stand up to Microsoft.

What price hike ??

[dr-suess-fan]

Sorry, But....

Our shop has been evaluating the purchase of AS for some time now. It's been 1500US/yr and 2500US/yr
for a few months at least.

This latest offering is only adding ES and WS for
those who still need/want support but don't want the
full enterprise price.

Re:What price hike ??

[Anonymous Coward]

We have several AS seats in house, and I basically agree with you. I should point out a couple of things:

1) ES will work for most people (those who do not need extra large memory, cpu, or clustering support). In fact, most of our servers do not use OS clustering and have 4 or less cpus, so ES would seem to work. But, we do run a fair number of 6gb ram Oracle boxes. And we would have to pay the AS prices for these boxes, even though we really do not need the greater support/features. We could build our own kernels with the necessary mods, but that gets troublesome with any large number of boxes, and we want them to take care of revisioning after all.

2) For those of you saying you can use apt-get, or freshmeat or whatever else, remember that the binaries for AS 2.1, for example, are not available via these means. If you do not want to compile yourself, you have to have the correct entitlement (and RH seems to have prevented advanced users from switch machine to machin at rhn.redhat.com, like you can do with workstations or demos). All is fair in love and war, and since I have been playing in the UNIX world for quite a while now, I am not too surprised. I would like the "download binaries/updates for $60 a year with no other support for the AS versions" option, though. Many of the 7.3 packages work for AC 2.1, but enough of them do not to make it a pain.

Re:Why do people continue to use red hat?

[nenolod]

And, you go around and troll.

RPM is actually a pretty good packaging system, and RPM-based distros are what will bring linux to the consumer, because the common idiot can run the system.

You _CAN_ use a stock kernel, and they offer many precompiled kernels that you can use. The files are in an acceptable location (i.e. configs are in /etc, so what do you mean there?)

Also, you can DOWNLOAD it, so you arent paying $$$$$. Anyhow, I prefer Debian/Gentoo, so dont call this a redhat plug.

If only there was a perfect operating system...

[Omega's Wildfire]

Open source is great, but crappy source really does suck. Hey why don't you just run a Microsoft operati... Sorry my computer crashed. What was I say? Oh yeah, never mind.

Nice support options

[jarrod.smith]

The top tier costs $2500 and you get one year of 24x7 support with a one-hour response time and unlimited incedents.

For a mission-critical business system (like one that MAKES REAL MONEY for a company) this is not a bad price to pay to keep running.

ALso, if you've only got one or two boxes like this, paying RedHat $2500 a year would be a lot cheaper than keeping a really good UNIX sysadmin around.

I think if you look at the competition (Microsoft and Commercial UNIX vendors), this would be pretty good deal.

Good but not great.

[FatherOfONe]

I am glad that they have made this change. We were kinda screwed when Oracle said that they would ONLY support the "Advanced Server" version of RedHat and RedHat said that they were only going to support 7.1 until the end of the year.

However, I cannot believe that they don't offer some type of per incident support basis. There are a number of places here in Indiana that want to add RedHat instead of NT and or NetWare, for say 20-30 servers, but they don't want to pay $2,500.00 a server for 7X24 support! Both Novell and Microsoft offer a per incident support, and when I called to complain about this I was told that RedHat isn't competing with Novell or Microsoft, but Sun. I don't see it that way.

Re:Good but not great.

[Zathrus]

So why not go with the Standard service for $1500?

I'm guessing you're wanting 24x7 support, but not with 1 hour turn around or unlimited incidents. And if web support isn't sufficient (and, in general, I can't imagine a 4 business day turnaround being sufficient) then, yeah, I guess you're out of options.

But just how many calls would you need to put into MS or Novell before Redhat becomes cheaper? What about turnaround time? How long do your servers need to be down before that 1 hour turnaround starts paying back?

The second question is really the key one -- I suspect most shops could get along just fine with the Standard option, which is pretty dang cheap. And if you're just replacing a file server or the like then go with ES - which is $350 or $800 depending on your support needs.

As for who they're targeting - I'm not a sysadmin, but it would seem to me that ES is targeted more toward the Novell/MS and AS more toward Solaris/AIX/HP-UX. It's certainly not a hard line though. But, in general, it's a lot easier to port an application from another Unix to Linux than it is from Windows/Novell to Linux.

Why it costs so much

[Hellraisr]

It's because they're offering 5 years of service with the software, which is pretty good if you ask me.

Completely cuts out the middle group of users

[vondo]

I understand why Redhat wants to try to collect money from its vast user base that uses RH to get actual work done, but there doesn't seem to be a reasonably priced option for non-power users.

For home/hobbiest users, there is the free downloadable Standard Linux. But, with at most 12 months of security updates, this isn't really a viable option for use in any environment outside the home (and not even for a lot of them). Personally, I want to use my computer, not be updating it all the time.

My situation at work is this: I'm a researcher. Since I'm one of just a few with any expertise, I'm the de facto sysadm for about 25-30 machines running RH 7.2 which we installed just about a year ago. We use the machines mostly as desktops. Lots of people don't run anything besides ssh, mozilla, and OpenOffice plus the usual suite of calculators, CD players, etc.

Since my real job isn't taking care of these machines, and since I don't want to interupt people's work, upgrading every 12 months is out of the question. But, spending $180/yr/machine on support I really don't need is also not a great option. All we need is security updates for these systems so we don't get hacked. That's it. I don't need Oracle certification, etc.

But, I don't see any way in RedHat's plan to give me minimal support for a long period of time (2-3 years) for a reasonable cost. Of course maybe their update RPMs will be available somewhere since, after all, this is free (open source) software. Barring that, it looks like RedHat will cost us a lot more than MS would.

I'm also of the opinion that this model of release every 4 months is not viable anymore. Things just aren't progressing that quickly any more. IMO, RedHat should be making a new release of their standard product every 18-24 months and releasing service packs that update critical packages like the kernel and X (to deal with hardware compatibility), security updates, and maybe essential applications like KDE, GNOME, mozilla. I'd be more than happy to pay a reasonable amount ($50/yr/machine) for something like this.

Re:Completely cuts out the middle group of users

[Yort]

But, I don't see any way in RedHat's plan to give me minimal support for a long period of time (2-3 years) for a reasonable cost.

Ah, but that's the beauty of Open Source - you don't *need* RedHat to give you 2-3 years of support for reasonable cost. You can get that from someone else. If there are enough people like you out there to support a business model that satisfies your needs, then someone will probably start one (if there isn't one already).

Re:Completely cuts out the middle group of users

[Turadg]

I'd be more than happy to pay a reasonable amount ($50/yr/machine) for something like this.

How about $60?
Red Hat Network Purchase Information

Red Hat Network Basic service level: $60/year per system subscription

Red Hat Network Basic service provides software management, priority service, and access to Instant ISOs (full versions of Red Hat Linux) for individuals with one or more systems. A Basic subscription is required for each system supported on Red Hat Network. A Basic subscription to Red Hat Network provides:

• Email notifications of available updates (errata)
• Flexible scheduling of updates
• Delivery of the actual updated files (packages)
• Summaries of update results

Re:Completely cuts out the middle group of users

[vondo]

I don't think so, because as I understand it, that's for the Standard version of linux which has a 12-month lifetime (which means 9 or less by the time we get it rolled out). I'd love to be wrong and that one could get errata for several years for standard Linux or Enterprise that way.

Re:Why the cost?

[1984]

The last 5%. Hell, perhaps even the last 1%.

Ever notice the difference in working with software that nearly works, and software that does work? It's a lot easier if you buy something that end-to-end works out of the box. Not remembering a lot of custom compile options, specific setup preferences. Pissing about in meetings deciding whether to use /usr/local/etc/ssh or /etc/ssh for SSH configs? And then making all those little tweaks work together. All that stuff costs staff time, which is really, really expensive, requires more knowledge management in house, and means you may or may not be in the mainstream -- and the closer you are to the mainstream, the easier it is to find cheap support.

And it's a familiar Linux environment for your admins.

(Of course, this all assumes that the new Red Hat stuff actually satisfies all that.)

Still Too Much

[lal]

I'm happy to pay for errata. $349 per server is too much for errata. I don't want any kind of support from RH other than errata.

I use RH now, and have for years. But I'm actively looking for another distro. Plus, I'm tired of the marketing b.s. that accompanies their segmentation of the market.

Re:Price Hike?

[FrostedWheat]

Does somebody actually pay money for Red Hat. I thought everybody downloaded for free from their web site.

We do both!

Normally download the .0 or .1 releases, and buying the boxed .2 (normally stable) version. You get a lot more CD's with it plus a really handy 'survival CD' that contains some very useful tools if your having a non-boot day ;)

Oh, and my computer now has a nice "Powered by RedHat" sticker now! Worth the price alone!

This is a serious question

[ralphus]

Can someone please explain to me why it makes sense to buy specific versions of redhat? What makes them different from just downloading the ISO's yourself and customizing via the install program?

Do they do heavy system modification to change how Advanced server handles memory or threads or something? Sorry, I'm ignorant here, I have always used redhat from the ISOs and pay for entitlement.

Re:This is a serious question

[ewilts]

1.It's the support.

2. There are no binary ISOs

Red Hat does to lots of customizations, and if download the source rpms, you can look at the changelogs to see what they've done.

If you download the source rpms and build a system yourself, you'll have trouble getting patches for that system - in fact, they're not available at all via RHN unless you pay the subscription fee to the right channel.

TWENTY-NINE

[jms258]

the number of RHCEs at the red hat operations building pouring buckets of water over their web server to keep it from exploding from the brutal, merciless slashdotting it is now receiving. -jms258

Cheating?

[buddha42]

What's going to stop me from buying "WS" for $300 and using it as a server? Will WS refuse to download certian RPMs from up2date or something?

OK, I'll bite.

[Dthoma]

As far as I can tell, Red Hat does not have "files in the wrong place" any more than any other Linux distro - instructions for a lot of things intended for other distros are still very useful guidance for RH users like myself.

The packaging system may not automatically resolve dependencies, but it's bloody good as it is. I download an RPM, and use 'rpm -ivh' and I'm up and running 99.9% of the time. If I need some other RPMs, it'll tell me. If I need to su to root to install, it'll tell me. If it can't or shouldn't uninstall a package it'll tell me. Plus I can override it's warnings if I like.

If by stock kernel you mean the kernel that comes with the OS, then you are completely and utterly incorrect. If the kernel didn't work then why the heck would they ship this system? You can even download 'pure' kernels from if you like. No one's stopping you, but the stock kernel is perfectly fine and recompilable as is!

And I'm not paying massive amounts of "$$$$$" for Red Hat either. RH 8.0 cost me only £35 (about $55), which is a whole heck of a lot cheaper than Windows 2000/XP. Heck, if you like, you can download the entire thing for very little or nothing.

Well, it just goes to show...

[somethingwicked]

You can't put RedHat in the Enterprise, but you can put Enterprise in the RedHat.

No, wait, you CAN put RedHat in the Enterprise, but you-no wait...crap...nevermind

This isnt bad

[bludstone]

I work for a company (that will go nameless) that offers 24/7, 1 hour callback tech support on the product.

No, its not redhat.

We charge over $20,000 for A SINGLE USER.

This is very _very_ competatively priced.

If you don't like it don't buy it

[karearea]

We hear/see a lot of comments about not wanting to pay the M$ tax when buying workstations.

I think the simple solution to people not wanting to pay the Redhat (damn where can I put the $) tax, is to not pay it - use another distro.

That's what's so great about linux, you don't like redhat don't use it, you don't like Slackware don't use it, you don't like Debian don't use it etc etc etc.

I thought the whole thing about OSS was choice, we just need to convince those brainwashed by Redhat (such as Oracle) that they should aim to support other distros, come up with a certification program so that people can build their own that is supported by Oracle.

Just my humble opinion.

updating made easy, w/o the RHAT

[bongoras]

I would suggest installing apt for rpm. See http://freshrpms.net/apt for details. Once that is installed and configured, updating to the latest redhat patches is as simple as:

apt-get update; apt-get dist-upgrade

Re:updating made easy, w/o the RHAT

[vondo]

Yes, but someone has to produce the patches. I don't use up-to-date currently, I do wget of a mirror and then do rpm -Fvh commands to upgrade what I want. That's not the problem, it's the existence of updates in the first place.

And as I understand it, won't one of those commands update me to the latest distribution of RH not just fixing the software I have, but replacing a bunch of things that don't necessarily have problems? That means new things break, people come asking "How do I do this now? It used to work." etc.

Does stock RedHat change?

[Yort]

All this buzz is only for the "Enterprise" products, right? I mean, won't RedHat continue to release its usual RedHat 8.1 type product (although perhaps not quite as often?). I would think this would still be a viable option for many of those folks for whom the Enterprise Server is overkill.

For many companies, tho, the certification for standard vendors like Oracle are extremely important. If you don't have these, it doesn't matter how free your operating system is.

Per machine?

[gamartin]

Can anyone clarify for me whether these "subscriptions" are explicitly licensed for exactly one machine? Am I allowed to download the workstation product for $179, create CD's, and then install it on 100 machines? I understand the problem of only having purchased 1 entitlement for the Red Hat Network; the question is am I permitted to install it on N machines for $179, or am I required to pay N times $179?

The Red Hat WWW site is surprisingly uninformative about this question.

Re:Per machine?

[Tack]

Can anyone clarify for me whether these "subscriptions" are explicitly licensed for exactly one machine?

From RedHat's License Page:

• 4. REPORTING AND AUDIT. If Customer wishes to
• increase the number of Installed System, then Customer will purchase from Red Hat additional Services for each additional Installed System. During the term of this Agreement and for one (1) year thereafter, Customer expressly grants to Red Hat the right to audit Customer's facilities and records from time to time in order to verify Customer's compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

(Emphasis mine.)

So the answer is, it is X dollars ($1500, $800, 350, $180, whichever product / service level you want) per year, per system. That may be competitive if you want or need business hours or 24-hour phone support, all the fancy certifications and other features you get with RHEL, but if you just want access to binary erratas for a 3-5 year product life span, that's not realistic pricing, IMHO.

Jason.

Red Hat is inching up

[LinuxParanoid]

Red Hat has definitely been inching up the scale.

Journal filesystems hitting maturity, logical volume management, asynchronous I/O for the database guys, TPC-C benchmarks (unaudited though?), improved clustering

There are still things Linux lacks (last I checked) that the conventional UNIX vendors have added to their systems over the last five years: things like hot-swap memory, hot-swap CPUs, memory failure resiliency (OS quits using memory if recoverable but warning-sign single-bit ECC memory errors get too great), kernel hot-patching, multipath IO, workload management stuff, and ever-more SMP/NUMA scalability.

Still, seems like Red Hat is making great strides. Hat's off! (ugh, sorry about that, couldn't resist. ;-)

--LP

Re:Red Hat is inching up

[stratjakt]

No, that stuff exists in the PC world. Linux support for it doesnt.

Re:Red Hat is inching up

[LinuxParanoid]

Or in short, all those things that make an enterprise server an enterprise server.

Well, I sort of agree with you. However, Sun/HP/IBM were calling their Unix offerings five years ago 'enterprise' without having any of those features (even though the mainframe mostly did). I've never seen a really firm definition, although I certainly have my own views about what the phrase should mean. While I agree a bit with your point, it's also not quite fair for the 'enterprise' guys to constantly redefine the enterprise feature set to include whatever the low-end guys don't have.

You may of course disagree. The important thing is recognizing what Red Hat's enterprise solution does and does not provide.

The real question to me is, do Red Hat's 'enterprise' enhancements effectively help Linux extend dominance beyond the web-server niche which Microsoft can, should, and will try to position it into. (Promptly before Microsoft offers a low-cost version of NT server with IIS-only.)

--LP

I just keep liking Red Hat less and less

[double_h]

I once thought of Red Hat as a geuninely good thing, and I do have to give them a lot of credit for helping make Linux more widely accepted in the workplace.

But over the past year or two, based on their activities as a company and the merits of their distribution, I've been trying to convert all of the Red Hat servers at my workplace to Debian as time permits.

I simply cannot bring myself to pay the up2date tax when apt-get is free and just plain works better. So instead I waste a lot of time tracking down and trying to install release-specific RPMs, which is a huge pain. Even Microsoft provides free updates for their operating systems (which, in many cases, cost less than an equivilant Red Hat license).

I'd still rather administer a Red Hat server than a Windows server because it IS still Linux after all. But as a company, I really can't see much difference these days between RH and any of their enterprise-level competitors.

Re:Tell me how...

[42forty-two42]

I just hope they'll continue to release community editions ala Redhat8...

If they stop, just switch to another, like Debian, Mandrake, or (my personal favorite) Gentoo. That's one of the strengths of Linux. If Microsoft discontinued XP Home, you'd have no choice but to but XP Pro. Not so here.

Differences between Enterprise and other Redhats

[tarkin]

There's a nice page here explaining the differences between normal and Enterprise versions.

Very useful for the suit to choose which Redhat is suited for him ;-)

RedHat raises their rates...

[mattb47]

The real story underneath this all seems to be that if you want stable, long-term support for your RedHat installations, you will be forced to purchase their new Enterprise products. Support for their SOHO/Community products will be more limited, and versions will be only supported for 12 months or so.

If you *need* the support for your servers, this might not be the worst deal.

But for workstations, this seems to be terrible. $299 for a basic workstation? I can get Win2k Pro for $150 or so with limited support, or I can get Debian (or other various Linux distros) for free. Yes I would get good added support for that $299, but how often do you need that level of support for workstations? Buy an alternative with a longer life cycle (Win2k/XP, Linux, whatever) and buy per-incident support. Workstations are usually not monolithic -- you have a whole forest of them (tens, hundreds, thousands, depending on the size of the organization). The more workstations supported by that orginization, the less monetary sense this seems to make.

Paying for Linux

[towaz]

Your not paying for Linux your paying for the support. Also companies have someone other then microsoft to point the blame at when something goes wrong... :)

Does Enterprise offer Indemnity protection?

[spookymonster]

My company won't go to Linux until they find a vendor willing to offer indemnity protection against lawsuits claiming we're using copyrighted software. To date, Red Hat has refused to do so. Our opinion is that it's the distro's responsibility, not the end-user. Does the Enterprise edition offer anything like this?

Re:Does Enterprise offer Indemnity protection?

[Todd Knarr]

Then you may have a problem, because most non-Linux vendors won't offer you that indemnity either. As MS customers are finding out with the SQL Server lawsuits, for example. At least with RedHat you have the ability to produce the source to prove it's not the suing party's software.

Re:Does Enterprise offer Indemnity protection?

[spookymonster]

At least with RedHat you have the ability to produce the source to prove it's not the suing party's software.

But that still means I'm the one wasting time and resources to defend someone else's code. If I'm using an M$ product, I may not have access to the source code, but then again, I don't need it - M$ is going to court, not me.

Re:Does Enterprise offer Indemnity protection?

[iiioxx]

Timeline vs. Microsoft Final Judgement.

confusing

[asv108]

Red Hat Enterprise Linux WS provides support for workstation/desktop systems with up to two CPUs and 4GB of main memory. Designed with the desktop environment in mind, Red Hat Enterprise Linux WS does not include many server applications found in Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS and Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES.

So does this mean if I want to run a test server on my Redhat WS system, I won't find server packages on the CD? So how many flavors of Redhat are their going to be now, five? 3 Enterprise flavors, desktop, and download edition? Are they all going to use different packages? Will 8.1 download packages work on WS? So far the press releases have been really confusing, RH might want to think about clarifying what will be changed/allowed/restricted.

The big advantage of Linux is that is supposed to be cheaper and less restrictive! I realize that Redhat comes with lots of software besides the OS, but lets face it, it is free software, so your not going to convince many hobbyists that paying $250 for Redhat WS is a bargain. I realize on the enterprise level $250/machine isn't bad, but it sure as hell isn't a bargain.

Debian

[ArmorFiend]

my big beef I guess is the End Of Life being so short. What if I want to keep running RH7.3 for a while?

cough *Debian* cough ;)

Re:Tell me how...

[Zathrus]

I personally think that people will install one version of this per server farm and call RH when any of the boxes has a problem

I suggest reading the license - it states that the licensing is one copy of software per system (search for "Installed Systems"). Underreporting of systems can lead to a 20% fine.

Your licensing prices exclude support costs. That's all well and good for home users, but businesses generally want support. Bundle in support costs on that Win2k Server and you're well over $800.

If you're building a file server, then the client access libraries are going to kill you fast... even at $180 per WS license you'll end up ahead with RH.

As far as going with another distro - you're simply missing the point. What's costing money here isn't the software - it's the support. Most of the other distros don't offer support to the level that RH does, and that's why businesses gravitate toward RH if they're going to do Linux at all.

Re:Good but not great. MS support

[Anonymous Coward]

You know absolutely nothing about computers, do you?

"different incompatible version of Windows 2000 Server, Professional, etc different version of IIS"

Fucking moron. Your IIS server didnt break, you were too stupid to use it. You deserve to pay a grand an hour to get it 'fixed' (or installed)

Seriously, if you cant run IIS, what makes you think it's going to be easier to run Apache? A fucking chimpanzee can run IIS.

Idiots are idiots, changing the OS doesnt make you any smarter.

Mindshare

[Larry_Dillon]

I think this is going to cost Redhat mindshare as newbies (and perhaps CS departments) shy away from their expensive distros. I'm not sure how many they actually sold, but it was nice to see a boxed Redhat at BestBuy for around $50. If you don't have broadband, it's probably worth $50 for the CD's and the printed install guide.

If the free download and the "Enterprise" what-ever are too different, it will have an impact.

I wonder what situation this leaves Cheap Bytes and other CD copiers in?

Re:Why the cost?

[tekBuddha]

As more and more vendors begin to port their applications to Linux, there's more interest from the shirt and tie folks in our companies that say, "Well, maybe we can give Linux a try. But, how do I know it will work?"

The way the vendors of these large products (let's use Oracle as an example) cover their asses in "product reliability" is to "certify" specific versions of Linux that they've tested and feel pretty confident about saying, "Yes, this will run stable and we believe we can recommend it."

So we end up with products like RHAS (and now RHES) and SLES 7/8 from the major Linux players. This helps make sure that -everyone- has covered their asses.

See, you and I know that we can take a copy of Oracle 9i and put it on a copy of RedHat 7.3 and expect it to perform rather reliably, right? We've worked with both the products enough to understand their quirks and how to support them. But if something does go wrong along the way your boss wants to hear something more than, "I've done this before and it worked! I have faith in the setup I've recommended." Your boss wants someone he can point a finger at and expect that they're going to provide a solution.

I've had a very hard time in the past few months bowing down to the concept of paying $799 for a copy of something I can pretty much download and patch-up myself. But the guys with the shirts and ties still think it's cheaper than a Sun/Veritas licensing solution, and it definately is cheaper than a Win32 alternative, so they're willing to shell out the cash. Why should I argue with them when after it's all paid for, it's still Linux. ;)

Bottom line? All of these certifications and extra costs for support we'll probably never use is a way to generate revenue while everyone is covering their ass and their product.

My $.02 anyway...

Re:Unbelievable

[bogie]

"Monopolistic practices that push other competitors out of the server business"

Don't be a liar/drama queen that doesn't even happen.. Red Hat does not have nor will they ever have a monopoly on linux. They sure as shit don't have a desktop monopoly like MS does. So what was your point again?

Oh but I forget your own of the resident Microsofties who regularly trolls Slashdot defending MS and spreading semi-FUD about linux in every post.

Re:Don't forget to upgrade your OS

[Wee]

Actually, up2date defaults to NOT upgrading the kernel. You CAN force update the kernel. I have done this twice (on a test box, while sitting in front of it) and it worked great. rebooted and it actually worked. but generally it tells you it is skipping the kernel because it is marked to skip.

I wasn't very clear in my original statement. Get a testing box, install 7.2. Now download, patch, configure, build, and install a new kernel. Now put a 7.3 CD in the drive, reboot, select "Upgrade" from the installer and see how far you get.

I had to do these very steps to get a better VM and a new IDE (a driver that let me use DMA) driver for a machine at work. In order to get that box functioning, I basically had to make it "un-upgradeable". Therefore when support runs out in December, I will have to either:

a) re-image it, and reconfigure everything on it (at which point I should just buy Advanced Workstation, right?)
b) upgrade packages by hand
c) twiddle with up2date's config so that it think it's a newer release
d) done nothing, switch distros, hope, use apt4rpm, etc.

You wil be forced to do something. Red Hat has decided it.

As to them not supporting after a year, I need to check into this.

From http://redhat.com/apps/support/errata/:

Beginning with the 8.0 release, Red Hat will provide errata maintenance for at least 12 months from the date of initial release. At certain times, Red Hat may extend errata maintenance for certain popular releases of the operating system. End of Life dates for errata maintenance for currently supported products are listed below:

Red Hat Linux 8.0 (Psyche) December 31, 2003
Red Hat Linux 7.3 (Valhalla) December 31, 2003
Red Hat Linux 7.2 (Enigma) December 31, 2003
Red Hat Linux 7.1 (Seawolf) December 31, 2003

I use, and PREFER 7.2. I have installed 8.0 on a couple machines, and don't like it quite as well, perhaps because I am just used to 7.2.

Pardon my French, but tough shit. You'll have to either constantly upgrade, buy AW, or you'll upgrade everything by hand. See the list above. My big beef with Red Hat is that in their move to get everyone on AW/AS, they have forgotten the "little guy" like you and me. You don't even have the option to pay for errata support, no matter how badly you need it. Even thought they'll still be making packages for the same release of AW (which will be almost completely compatible with the free version of Red Hat), they won't be making them available to people who want to install packages by hand. It's not just that up2date will stop working -- there won't be any packages anymore.

I worry about upgrading my RENTED RACKSHACK boxes. Its not advisable to update a box that is located 1300 miles away via ssh.

Agreed. That's a sticky issue. I'd make sure someone around there will be able to powercycle if you need them too. I'd also see about getting a failover box or a hot spare similarly configured.

Now if they follow thru with their EOL products 12 months after new release, then my opinion of RH would change, and I would be looking at other distros.

Their EOL plans are certain and definite. Start looking. I've been looking at KRUD (although I wonder where they will get packages), SuSE and Gentoo. The KRUD people, BTW, are evaluating EOL contracts to support older Red Hat releases. That may be a way out for you (and me), provided it's cheap enough.

Outside of building new kernels, which i can do by hand, i see no reason to switch from 7.2, period.

Really? Again, tough shit. Red Hat has made that decision for you. Or, at very least, forced you to decide. That force comes from business needs, not your needs. I'm personally fed up with Red Hat. I've been using it since 4.2, and I own RHAT stock. The thing I liked about Linux was that decisi

what world? Pricing themselves out of the market?

[mabhatter654]

$700 for MS win 2k server? what world do you live in?

With the MS Win2k server all you get is the server and 5 accesses! No support [MS phone support is more $$ than phone SE#!], magrinal quality updates, and a system that cuts you off after 5 connections!

The $700 license doesn't include Software Assurance. It dosen't include email or management tools either! For an MS network you will pay another $150 per box just to connect to the server [actual windows licenses not included!] Just posted at HardOCP was MS finally changing their licensing to allow multiple partitions on the same box. Previously, you had to pay "per instance per processor" of Windows on your boxes!

In short, It's a steal. If you can't see that you obviously don't actually work in IT to see how bad MS has gotten! As you learn your way around, you get experience that doesn't go away--then you can fully support you own boxes for real savings. [even after your big raise for saving the Co $$$]

Red Hat Small Business Edition... or else!

[gamartin]

I predict Red Hat will round out it's product line with a Small Business Edition with the following features:

1. Slow releases -- small businesses don't care about bleeding edge features
2. Security/errata updates -- small businesses need someone else to monitor these complex issues
3. Support available for at least 3 years -- small businesses do care about stability
4. No per-machine licensing restrictions -- small businesses look to linux for cost savings and will not tolerate per-machine licensing; product must be installable on multiple machines to realize cost savings
5. Metered support options -- small businesses are willing to pay for actual support services used
6. No compliance audits -- small businesses do not have time for that type of crap

Why will Red Hat do this?

1. Already producing slow releases for Enterprise Editions
2. Already producing security/errata updates for other products
3. Already doing long-lived support for Enterprise Editions
4. No per-machine licensing because small businesses absolutely demand it
5. Metered support is a compromise on support costs acceptable to small business
6. Small businesses will not tolerate compliance audits

This is a warning to Red Hat: you are alienating your small business customers! Give me a product that meets my business needs as outlined above, or I am going to take my business elsewhere.

You have been warned.

Re:Unbelievable

[shdragon]

While I appreciate your glancing similarities between Red Hat and Microsoft, a closer examination of the facts reveals some questions which need answering.

Price Hikes?

What do you believe would be a fair price for what Red Hat is offering?

Draconian licenses

First, nobody's forcing you to. Second, seeing how they must give you 10 days written notice, it must take place during the business's normal business hours, this is not the only license offered for their product line, and the maximum penalty is 20% for taking advantage of them. I hardly view this as Draconian given that Red Hat's total market share of their target market is still smaller than most of their competitors. Red Hat is putting a lot behind their product, and I personally would be more shocked if there wasn't some enforceability clause in there. The honors-system & capitalism just don't mix. Again, I would like to reinfoce the fact that this offering is geared specifically towards businesses, not individuals.

"Enterprise"?? What's that, a buzzword to sell more licenses?

Absolutely. And probably a very smart move. Adopting your product to your customers habits is almost always a good idea.

And the licensing, oh boy. What do you mean I can't install my copy everywhere??? I already paid for it, damn it!!

This version of redhat is targeted at businesses, not home/power users, hobbyists, and all others who would get no added benefit from their offering. In most people's view, businesses should play by different rules than neighbors. A quick analogy: Neighbor Bob asks me if I will teach him to use widget X. I gladly show Bob free of charge. I am always glad to help out a neighbor. Next, Business Bill's shop comes to me and asks that I teach them to use widget X. Now, I would be glad to. For a price.

Monopolistic practices that push other competitors out of the server business

Would you care to elaborate on this point? For generalization purposes, the 3 main branches of GNU/Linux stem from redhat, slackware, and debian. All of these are alive and kicking. Let's not forget SuSE. Though not as popuplar in the U.S., SuSE has garnered a substantial portion of the international market. IMHO, suse is redhat's nearest "enterprise-level" linux competitor.

And yes, if you don't like it, your can run Debian. Or SuSE, or slackware, or any of the other 150+ distributions. Oh, you want an engineer to go along with all that piece of software? I'm sure the company that sold you your hardware will be glad to help you out. Redhat is just another choice.

And for the record, I am a jaded linux/slashdot user. >:b

Re:Windows Server 2003 price comparison

[cranos]

Ummm no the cheapest Web Server package you can get from RedHat? Free. Just download the ISO's and burn away.

It's all about the pricing...

[Quixadhal]

$2500 USD a year for 24/7 tech support with a 1 hour response time is well worth it IF you're a business that is making lots of money, and thus has lots of customers, and cannot afford downtime.

$800 USD a year is worth it IFF you're a medium to large company which is doing well and has a good established client base. A little downtime is acceptable, but tech support is still vital so it's as minimal as possible.

$60 USD a year is the price they should sell Red Hat Linux at with up2date support, and perhaps a month of phone support to let new sysadmins call in with setup questions. This, almost anyone can afford, and it's a good bargin *IF* you get permenant access to errata.

I work for a startup company, we cannot afford the $800 price point for Enterprise Server, and we have competant people here who don't need phone support (well, once in a blue moon for things like PERCRAID3 controllers...), but without the up2date access... it's not worth $5.

Red Hat.... you are in a position that Bill Gates wishes he was in. You can afford to charge big money for all the support that costs you money to maintain, AND you can still collect peanuts from individuals who would like an easy-to-maintain system that isn't windows. Wise up!

Windows XP is something like $300 retail, and it will have a good 5 years of free online updates. That works out to about $50 a year plus $50 for the box. Multiply that by a few million home users, and that's the market you're ignoring.

Think about it... you already do the work to generate the errata, all you need to do is keep mirror sites up to date (most mirrors do this automatically), and keep your up2date network functioning.

Current - Redhat Up2date Server Clone

[Karn]

I saw it mentioned briefly before, but I think most people have missed it. I saw it mentioned some time ago on Linux.com:

Current is an open-source implementation of an up2date server.

I've used it, and it does work, however I'm waiting for multple channel functionality and some other features before I switch to using it instead of apt.