Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 Released

Posted by simoniker on from the how-enterprising dept.

OrenWolf writes "CNET is running an article on the release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3, which is Red Hat's shiny new 'enterprise' version of Linux. Major changes include more IBM Mainframe support, support for AMD64 (x86_64) processors (aka Opteron, Athlon64 and AthlonFX), changes to support options, integration of Stronghold Apache, and much more."

3 of 340 comments (clear)

  1. 3 different versions by Dreadlord · · Score: 5, Informative

    which is Red Hat's shiny new 'enterprise' version of Linux
    Actually, there are three versions of Red Hat Enterprise, WS, ES, and AS, WS is supposed to be a desktop OS, while AS is the most advanced version, WS price starts at 179$, and AS price at 1499$ for the Intel x86 platform.

    --
    The IT section color scheme sucks.
  2. Re:Do you HAVE to pay the $149...legally that is? by Vellmont · · Score: 5, Informative


    Of course if Redhat is simply charging $149 for the service of being able to download their distro and aren't looking to prevent you from installing it on as many systems as you'd like (sans support obviously), then I'll be more than happy to pay the money to get those ISO images
    This is the question I had. The sales guy on the phone said this is exactly what they're doing. It's still open source software, so you can install it on as many machines as you want, but you can't buy one support contract and install the updates on 100 machines. They still have to provide the source for the updates of course. So you could DL each source update RPM and compile it yourself.

    I'd encourage you to call them though. For 100 machines they may have a better option for you (they also have some kind of satelite service where you can sort of create your own distribution and updates).

    --
    AccountKiller
  3. a few applicable points from the GPL by xenotrout · · Score: 5, Informative
    GPL'd software in a proprietary system: Free and non-free parts of a system must be clearly distinguished.
    If people were to distribute GPL-covered software calling it "part of" a system that users know is partly proprietary, users might be uncertain of their rights regarding the GPL-covered software. But if they know that what they have received is a free program plus another program, side by side, their rights will be clear.
    Can GPL'd software require a per-user/per-machine price? No.
    The GPL is a free software license, and therefore it permits people to use and even redistribute the software without being required to pay anyone a fee for doing so.
    It seems to me that if installing RedHat on multiple systems (making a "good faith" effort to not include proprietary software) is copyright infringement, that's RedHat's fault, and they should be legally responsible if anyone tries to collect.