Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat CEO Matthew Szulik Responds
1a) up2date - by aldousd666
Is the up2date service going to continue to work for us end users who still use RH9, or are we going to have to go Fedora treating our existing installations as defunct? I've spent quite a lot of hours configuring my systems, and I think you're going to make a lot of angry users if things change too drastically. I know a number of people who are already shunning the name red hat in favor of the other flavors.
Szulik:
up2date as shipped with Red Hat Linux 9 will continue to function against the RHN servers for up to six months after RHL9 goes out of maintenance on April 30, 2004. Fedora includes an up2date that can speak with Yum and Apt repositories and can work completely without using the RHN servers. From a sysadmin's perspective, the tool is nearly identical to what was used before; it simply pulls the packages and data from a different location. It also lets you pull both official Fedora packages as well as third party packages created by other Fedora users and developers as well as create your own repository for packages you want to distribute among your own systems.
Users continuing with RHL9 past the end of its maintenance window will be interested in the Fedora Legacy Project, a community-driven continuation of updates for RHL9 and RHL7.3.
1b) Return on RHN Entitlements? - by Anonymous Coward
I would like to consider myself a red hat advocate. It was largely based on my recommendation that 50 RHN Entitlements for updating non-enterprise version of red hat GNU/Linux. My boss has since been rubbed the wrong way when RHN failed to "work as advertised" on August 29th. The best explanation that I have gotten from red hat is that it is "the nature of SSL" that forced manual upgrades of up2date & up2date-gnome for each system. In October, red hat charged a renew fee on the 50 RHN Entitlements for another year of service. So, now that my boss has gotten the bill, he is asking what type of return on investment he should expect from May 2004 to October 2004. To make a long story short, the question is, are we being charged a full year for only 7 months of updates? If non-enterprise contracts aren't fully honored as advertised (automated updates require manual updates after Aug 28th and a full year charge only provide 7 months of updates) then how does red hat expect advocates of red hat to successfully encourage the companies that have gotten burned to pay out even more for enterprise contracts?
Szulik:
The SSL issue in August was an unfortunate result of transition inside of RHN. Although it was a significant inconvenience to our users, it was actually the result of our own tight security policies, and at no time was the security of our service at risk. Numerous steps have been taken to ensure this does not reoccur.
The entitlement renewals that occurred shortly before our recent announcements were limited and stopped when the changes were announced. Although the end of life for RHL9 was announced when RHL9 was first released, many users are in a situation with entitlements going past the end of life for Red Hat Linux. For those in this position, entitlements to both Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES and WS will be made available for the remainder of the subscriptions. in addition, discounts are available for Red Hat Enterprise Linux to any RHN customer.
2) Opportunity for small business - by salesgeek
Matthew - If you were looking for an opportunity to start a small business (size at peak $25 Million revenue, perhaps 250 employees) in the Linux world, where would you go?
Szulik:
$25M is not a small business. It's about the size when someone crazy in your organization suggests that you go public. I believe that the IT industry has increasingly adopted a transactional and services model. Differentiated service skills around Open Source software will be in demand based upon the large transition which will occur over the next 10 years as businesses transition from proprietary to commodity hardware and open source software.
3) What's next? - by Mr. Sketch
For the average person, RedHat _is_ Linux. Who do you believe will replace you as being the defacto Linux distribution for the average person?
Szulik:
The definition of average should be clear. For the 'average' reader of Slashdot, the Fedora Project is the ideal Linux distribution. For the average knowledge worker in an office setting, we believe Red Hat Enterprise Linux v.3 WS is appropriate. For the average person that needs to be able to plug in their digital camera without going into the terminal window, we think that the user's experience with any brand of Linux will be sub-par. We hope that consumer-focused technologies will thrive and mature in the Fedora Project setting. When the code is production quality, Red Hat will make them available as part of a supported distribution.
4) Server without Desktop? - by drinkypoo
One of the (many) factors leading to Microsoft dominance was that they had, from the user's perspective, essentially the same operating system on the desktop and the server, in that they ran the same software; And recently, Microsoft has provided literally the same software on desktop and server. red hat began with a general-purpose product, and then moved to an artificial separation between desktop and server as Microsoft now has, and has since moved to providing only the Server. Do you feel that this is a necessary product of the differences between open and closed source models, or is it simply the right position for red hat to take, and not the rest of the Open Source Unix community?
Szulik:
Recently we launched a statement of direction - Open Source Architecture for the enterprise. As more large customers move to distributed computing architectures, firms will want to leverage the flexibility and independence a integrated stack can create for a business. Our product line is being built through the delivery of software sold modularly. For example, our cluster suite.
5) If you could go back in time - by AftanGustur
If you could go back in time with the knowledge you have to day, and live the dot-com years for a second time. What would you change in Red Hat's business model?
Szulik:
Nothing. Three critical events occured during 1997-2000. Red Hat was able to capitalize itself for the long term. The Linux kernel continued to scale in performance and application availability with each increase in performance which helped to drive the enterprise adoption of Red Hat. These were matters of when and not if.
6) Will Red Hat become more proprietary? - by divec
One of the strengths of Red Hat has always been its emphasis on Free software. Unlike, say, SuSE, which contains significant pieces of SuSE-only infrastructure (such as YaST), Red Hat has always been more careful not to "Weld The Hood Shut". This is one reason we recommend Red Hat to customers at work.
Will we continue to see this, or will Red Hat start trying to beat the competition with proprietary add-ons?
Szulik:
No. For over 10 years Red Hat has built relationships with developers, ISVs and customers on the brand promise of delivering software based upon the GPL license in collaboration with the Open Source community. If you look back over the past 5 years, you will see the failure of companies that were building hybrid models which could not deliver the consistent value of open source code over time.
7) Diverse Hardware Support - by capt.Hij
One of the biggest issues for putting gnu/linux on the desktop is more support for hardware. I understand why Red Hat is supporting Fedora and focusing more on industrial clients, but I am concerned about the long term implications. What will Red Hat be doing to increase hardware compatibility and support? Without an official Red Hat "civilian" distribution do you feel that you will have the ability to sway hardware manufacturers to support gnu/linux?
Szulik:
3 important activites will have to take place before we see a significant increase in GPL'd hardware driver support. A large marketplace develops, customer demand and a viable supplier exists to deliver and service the integration. I'd say we are at the early stages worldwide to respond to these requirements. Increasingly we are receiving more support as compared to 24 months ago. I believe the civilian version will be filled by Fedora which will develop into a solution for many.
8) Did The Consumer Stream Make A Profit? - by reallocate
Has Red Hat's shrinkwrapped consumer-level product stream ever made a profit? To your knowledge, has SUSE or anyone else over made a profit from consumer sales?
Szulik:
Profitable yes. Was a shrink wrapped version sold at retail an economic model to grow a company? No. discounts leave a small amount of available profit. I can not speak for SuSE economics as until recently they were private.
9) personal OS choice? - by BigGerman
Which OS and desktop environments you, your colleagues and friends use every day?
thanks in advance for your honest and direct answer.
Szulik:
I have not used proprietary software for many years. I run a 5 node Linux cluster at home. I use Gnome.
10a) Education and Research Markets - by Frater
I work for a world-renowned research institution. We have ~500 Red Hat Linux systems in labs and on desktops, mostly administered by scientists and technicians rather than central IT staff -- so keeping them up to date is a challenge.
We have twice, over the past few years, attempted to contact Red Hat regarding site licensing or educational volume licensing for access to Red Hat Network. Both times the answer has been that -- unlike Sun, Microsoft, Apple, and our other OS suppliers -- Red Hat has no licensing programs for the education and science markets. For this reason, we have turned our Red Hat Linux users away from Red Hat Network and towards FreshRPMs APT [freshrpms.net] as a source of regular software updates.
With the discontinuation of the Red Hat Linux product line, we are now at an impasse. We do not expect FreshRPMs to conjure up security and bug-fix updates for a system that will no longer be supported upstream. My clients would prefer a more guaranteed solution than FreshRPMs. However, Red Hat still shows no signs of interest in the education and research market. Fedora is not an option, as we can't expect our science staff to accept major upgrades every 2-3 months -- they are science nerds, not Linux nerds.
Is there any chance that your plans for Red Hat Enterprise Linux include site- and volume-licensing oriented at the educational and research community? For if not, my colleagues and I will have a hard row to hoe -- migrating existing Red Hat Linux users to supportable distributions such as SuSE or Mandrake.
10b) Academics... - by PseudononymousCoward
Mr. Szulik,
As a professor at a Big-10 University, I now find myself in the curious situation that RedHat, for either server or workstation usage, is more expensive than Windows, owing to the terms that MS offers academia and the new licensing of RH products. Most Universities can _purchase_ Win2k3 Server for the price of one year of RHEL WS support.
Does academia constitute one more market segment that RH is no longer contesting?
We have rolled out an education plan which was priced between $25 and $50 for client and server quantity one for an annual subscription. I believe the pricing and service relationship will begin to address a void filled by the Red Hat Linux transition at an affordable price.
10c) licensing issues - by painehope
when will RedHat have a more reasonable licensing scheme? Your licensing is excellent for corporate enterprise workstations, and I realize that you are moving away from home users, but what about clusters and universities?
For example, I run Redhat across a rather large (> 4000 CPUs) cluster, and have never bothered doing more than buying a few boxed sets due to the fact that I have never been able to get a reasonable price from your sales team. Cluster support tends to be more like dealing w/ a single machine, since the hardware is generational (if you add 512 CPUs to the system, their hardware is going to be exactly the same if you ordered it that way). Why should I pay a license for each machine, when I can just get a license for one that is having the same problem as the others (for example, a bizarre problem we had w/ the eepro100 driver + PVM - and yes, I know PVM is generally used for > 1 machine, but technically I probably could have addressed the support problem w/ 1 license). I wouldn't have a problem buying cluster support if you had a decent sliding scale (ex. : 512 nodes @ $50/node, 1024 nodes @ $35/node, etc.). And of course, have a caching update server for the site.
And for universities: if you want brand recognition, try offering site licenses or educational discounts. Don't count on all CS/EE students to be clued in enough to install Fedora on their laptop and then debug any problems that come up. Offer a site-wide license to all students for $50k, or a department for $10k, or something like that. That would probably give you a lot of name recognition in the future. You already offer site licenses for corporations, right?
So when will RedHat come up w/ some decent licensing schemes for those environments?
Szulik:
Painhope, my view of reasonable and your view of reasonable might be different. And I would like to take you up on your offer. Send me an e-mail and we will take you up on your offer. Keep in mind that we do not sell licenses. We sell subscriptions where the value of the bits are integrated with service levels. I believe our educational subscription plan will be seen as a good solution to opportunities like yours. And you are correct, most student computing activities must be supported by campus IT to get plugged into the campus network. Site license for $50k. For many public schools and university, this is a large sum.
Painhope, my view of reasonable and your view of reasonable might be different. And I would like to take you up on your offer. Send me an e-mail and we will take you up on your offer. Keep in mind that we do not sell licenses. We sell subscriptions where the value of the bits are integrated with service levels.
How much is Redhat going to ask for per CPU? painehope gave an example of $50 per CPU for a 512 node machine, $35 per CPU for a 1024 CPU machine, etc. How much is his 4000 node machine going to cost?
All in all, a good interview. Szulik even runs a Linux cluster at home! very nice.
Perhaps for Interview questions, the moderation system might be modified to remove the limit of +5?
"Nothing. Three critical events occured during 1997-2000 ... These were matters of when and not if."
:-)
That's a powerful statement from any company exec. Hope it all pans out for them as they think it will
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
It's a catch-22 - the average Joe on the street doesn't want to touch Linux until it's friendly, but companies don't want to invest the time and money to get their goods working on Linux unless the user base is big enough to give them a good return on their investment.
Hell, I can see why the average person won't touch Linux - I bought a Radeon 9200 dual head video card 2 weeks ago, and after off-and-on screwing with it, I still haven't gotten both heads working at once, excluding cloned mode. Some soccer mom isn't going to want to be dicking with XF86Config while her kids are bitching about wanting to play Pokemon...she's going to want to boot into Windows, pop in the CD that came with the product, and have it work.
I'm not amused. Clearly, Red Hat isn't doing enough to accommodate educational facilities with discounted volume licensing.
My original comment from the Q&A article.
Why isn't Red Hat actively marketing their Professional Workstation Product? Apparently, this is a newly-released offering that hasn't been receiving much attention. It's odd, because it's not even displayed prominently on their site.
However, a Google cache of the page shows the relationship of Professional Workstation to the rest of the RHEL line.
The Red Hat Professional Workstation isn't available online, or through Red Hat, but through a few selected retail channels. Buy.com has it for $82.57, which includes one year of up2date service. It's the same product as Red Hat Enterprise Workstation. I purchased it from my local Microcenter for $99. Here's the RPM list.
It looks like this product was a last-minute addition.... Apparently, it's not crippled or relabeled.
Given my previous rants on Slashdot about the Red Hat shadiness, this looks like a good option.
Even more interesting is the fact that Red Hat didn't put much effort into product differentiation with this Professional Workstation product. I opened the box and the CDs were labeled "Red Hat Enterprise Linux WS". Well, only the first CD was labeled as such. The other CDs are identical to the Red Hat Enterprise AS/ES offering and include the same RPMS/SRPMS. SRPMS build cleanly in every test case I tried. So, buying this and using Enterprise 3.0 SRPMS for future updates is entirely possible. The same RHEL patched 2.4.21 kernel is there, too. Nifty.
Another issues that bugged me about the Red Hat Enterprise Linux move was the poor upgrade path. Reinstalling the OS on production servers that are running Red Hat 7.x or 8 ain't pretty. So, my final test with the Professional Workstation was prompted by a half-page paragraph in the manual that came with the box set.... It stated that in-place OS upgrades were only available for Red Hat Enterprise 2.1 -> Red Hat Enterprise 3.0 systems (via "linux update" at boot)...... however, you have the option of booting the install CD with "linux updateany" to relax the restriction "in case your /etc/issue file is damaged". Hmm.... No version-checking, eh? So I performed a test in-place upgrade on an existing Red Hat 8.0-equipped Proliant server...... It totally worked without a hitch!
This, along with the education and bulk-pricing deals leads me to believe that the Red Hat marketing department is working hard to appeal to the people it alienated with its announcements over the past few weeks. But it may not be enough. How can enyone plan for the future when Red Hat seems to be a moving target? We'll see what happens come December 31.
Edmund White
http://flickr.com/ewwhite
I have that same Camera, and was able to get Digikam to work very well with it. I didn't even have to select the camera model in KDE's peripheral's configuration in the Control Panel, the automatic button was able to detect it.
Epson in the past has seemed to be the best in terms of opening up specifications to write drivers for scanners and printers. I bought an epson scanner for that reason, and it works great under USB. I wish the other's would be as open as Epson seems to be.
Redhat wants us to develop and test fedora for free, turn around sell it to enteprise for big bucks. That is obvious, not redundant you crazy moderators. What I'm trying to get at is, that I don't see this as a good thing, but it must be the model for development if OSS is to thrive. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't want to develop for free. Linus took quite a gamble that sorta paid off for him( not big, but he will always have plenty of job oppertunites).
What about a model where OSS developers get paid for the quality of code they check in? I guess that would be freelancing,which we would still get the stick in terms of benifits ect. But, that would be better than the current state of affairs. I bet a company that set up a simular structure could do well if it didn't burn up its cash first. On second thought, the GPL would allow any competitor to just take the source the company just paid for. It would have to be an industry wide thing. I'm sure there are many other flaws that other posters will point out. Well, have at it.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
It seems like the three main issues that I identified are:
Licensing, particularly for educational institutions,
Support, especially for the soon-deprecated RH9 series, and
Updates, and the continuation of the up2date network.
Many of the users of Red Hat seem understandably confused and upset about the direction that the company is taking. I would like to, humbly, suggest that none of these issues are pertinent to the Debian distribution. I would personally encourage users in a situation where they feel tramelled to do some research in this respect.
I think it would be inappropriate, in the context of posting to this interview, for me to suggest Debian as an alternative to Red Hat Enterprise edition. However, I do believe it to be a substantial alternative to the soon defunct consumer Red Hat series. In time, Fedora may also be a valid alternative, but at the moment its capacity to act as a valuable, low risk distribution has not been substantiated.
So downloading and compiling an additional program to try to get accessories to work properly isn't "sub-par"? In this day and age, if I plug a standard device into my PC, and it doesn't work right away, that's sub-par. It would be back at the store *long* before I tried to download some kind of intermediary program. In my mind, that's totally unacceptable.
What can I say.... I loved RedHat but then RH said go take a flying leap! Basically, Fedora is the same as Debian, but Deb as been around for years and successfully community driven. RH keeps changing their tune every so often. I paid for RHN and now I get robbed of my money -- upgrade offer isn't good enough for me. I honestly don't think WS or ES will be around -- eventually they will also be EOLed which forces everyone to pay $$$ for AS. Why shoot a profitable business? Even if it doesn't greatly grow your business -- at least you have name recognition -- other distributions would do ANYTHING to have the RH name recongition. You can't buy Good Will!
SPAM solution made easy: 1 spammer, 5 cords of rope, 5 hourses, and fireworks. Be creative.
Console commands aren't normally needed. That isn't to say that you can do everything without them, but the majority of Linux users would rather have it that way. It allows for flexibility. Unless people with complaints start writing GUI-based apps that change that, there will never be a change... And the geeks won't care.
/mnt as mentioned. It would make no sense for a program to default to "/mnt/users/username/home/pictures".
Mounting a harddrive isn't necessary to do by hand with Automount. Most "user-friendly" distributions use it. Windows also "mounts devices" but the way the file system structure works is different. Drives (most often) get letter assingments, while UNIX devices get attached (or mounted) to a directory on the tree. Either way, with automount, it doesn't matter. Many distributions detect when a new drive is installed. From there, it configured the fstab for the device so it mounts on bootup.
In comparison to Windows machines, in which you have something like "C:\My Documents\Username\My Pictures", Linux isn't really any different. A lot of programs default to "/home/username/" for file storage. Is it hard to add a "Documents" folder with Nautilus? I use one on my machine, and it works rather well. Nautilus (and other file managers) default to opening the user's home directory... Not some directory in
Yes. Linux has install files. They are generally with the extension SH, BIN or RUN. Theyrun the same way that Windows EXE files work. Most commercial Linux games come this way. They are self extracting and have graphical installers in the majority of situations. The difficult part is that you often have to launch them from a shell window. Programs like Nautilus tend to load SH script files up as text files, unless you teach it to work differently. Not sure about the KDE side of things though.
Not soccer moms, but clueless graphic designers and photographers. But of course, they have Macs to play with.
More advanced than Oracle ?
And now that their are interfaces, people are going to try and put out applications in *nix with Mono. Only forcing companies in the long run to buy Microsoft Servers and might as well buy Desktops too, because .Net will be .Net where ever you go.
Personally, I never plan to develop with mono. Gtk+ works well enough for me. And I don't know of any other Linux developers who plan on using mono either.
Besides, if RH are pulling out of the desktop market, that just leaves more room for the other distro's.
I guess I can stop studying for my RHCE. I'll be concentrating on the cross-distro certifications instead.
One of the things that attracted me to the idea of becomming a RHCE was that I could use my home LAN to experiment with the concepts presented in my book and observe changes in each new version of Red Hat as it came out.
Somehow, I don't think the idea of a FCE (Federoa Certified Engineer) is going to catch on.
At my future interview: "No, sir. I haven't had any experience with the latest Red Hat ES, but I've used Fedora for years."
Of my 7 systems, 2 had been converted to Red Hat for my studies. I'm thinking I'll swap them over to other distros now. I've got Mandrake on 3 already, so perhaps a Debian, Gentoo, or Slackware.
I seem to remember owing Gentoo some updates on a shell script I wrote...
(1) The proxy server idea is stupid since apt is ported over to redhat. If we know how to setup a ftp server we automagically get a "proxy" server. Unless they are not going to let us grab the updated rpms (from
our $25 per node licensed "up2dates") and copy it to the server which if they dont as far as I can tell violates the gpl (unless they do an "endrun" by providing rpm's w/ "trademarked" pictures in it).
(2) $25 a machine/year is more expensive than windows for updates! Yes redhat is a smaller company BUT at microsoft is writing their own gui, writing their own kernel, writing their own patches,
writing their own driver specs. Redhat is NOT doing these things on their own (but to be fair they are contributing but having per machine licensing is a trick worthy of SCO not a linux company).
(3) We are in a physics dept and run "oscared" images for a smallish beowulf cluster (50 dual nodes) and have two more beowulf clusters and one public access workstation cluster in our department alone. It makes *no* sense to pay $25 a node for this since we "automirror" when things go awry. I personally will move over to debian (or wait and see what fermilabs etc is going to do). This redhat fiasco is a fiasco. Using "trademarked" pictures to do an endrun around the gpl to get "per processor" licensing is an end run around the GPL and ought to be treated as such. (This is, as far as I can tell, what they are doing w/ "enterprise" redhat to prevent me from buying one "enterprise" redhat and apt-proxying my other nodes). Feel free to correct me if I am mistaken.
best regards,
-bloo
I imagine this can be attributed to the disease that inflicts every company after it goes public. They stop prioritizing making good products and cultivating happy customers who in turn give them money with joy in their hearts because they like the product.
Instead, like most public companies, the only people they start caring about are the analysts sitting in Wall Street and the one and only priority is making the revenue projections each quarter so the stock price goes up and they get rich when they cash in the options. Just being profitable isn't good enough either. MUST GROW FAST AND CONSTANTLY whether its sound business or not. Customers, rather than being the top priority, turn in to a necessary evil who must be constantly milk for cash and they must be constantly manipulated.
Priority #1, must get customers to sign up for subscriptions. Just selling good software is too unpredictable. If we screw the pooch and a new release sucks people don't buy it, we miss our numbers and Wall Street is unhappy. If we make customers pay us a constant amount of money each year then we ALWAYS make our numbers even if our product sucks sometimes.
Priority #2, a key component of subscriptions is support. But damnit support is expensive. Must cut support costs. Lets hire a bunch of people in India who are dirt cheap. Nothing wrong with that if they actually know what they are doing. The problem is they are usually hired iike cattle and handed a bunch of preprinted FAQ's. As long as the customers question is precisely answered on the FAQ service is great, unfortunately the FAQ's only work half the time and the rest of the time your support staff exercises their one true skill, using the buttons on their phone to constantly forward or put on hold anyone who has an actual problem until they eventually give up and hang up.
Priority #3, make sure all your competitors are also publicly traded and also implement Priority #1 and #2 so they suck just as bad as you do so customers are left choosing between the lesser evils and will pay you even though your company's products have started to suck. Thats what competition is all about. Everybody competes to be equally shitty.
After some consideration I've deduced that Capitalism was an interesting experiment but its reached the point its flaws are starting to far outweigh its benefits. Fact is its become 100% about overpaid and unscrupulous execs striving to make as much money as possible as easily as possible. Screwing labor and customers is job 1. Those with ethics and interested in producing a good product at a fair price need not apply. All of Capitalism's competitors have also proven to suck so maybe we should go back to the drawing board and try to come up with a economic system where people are actually rewarded based on the merit of their work.
@de_machina
Note also that RH does make SRPMs of updates to RHEL freely available for download. So such a distribution can benefit from RH's updates/patches/security fixes.
One of these I have here is "White Box Linux". Its web page specifically asks that it not be linked to from /., and I'll comply with that request. Use Google to find it, if you really do want to get a copy (via BitTorrent) of its RC1 ISOs.
There is also a mini-HOWTO on rebuilding RHEL at
http://www.uibk.ac.at/zid/software/unix/linux/rhel -rebuild.htm
and an associated mailing list at
http://www.uibk.ac.at/zid/software/unix/linux/rhel -rebuild-l.html.
For some ex-RH users, this kind of "unsupported forked varient from RHEL3" may be a better choice than Fedora, without paying $$$ for official RHEL.
Jonathan
Then somebody at Red Hat is lying. My account rep (who I'll be nice and not name for now)told me yesterday, when discussing this exact subject, that we WERE buying (well, renting) a license, and that we most emphatically could NOT install it on multiple machines. (Which is 180 degrees from what a different account exec told me 6 months ago.)
This is the major gripe I have with the new scheme. If I want to put Linux on an unimportant box (say, an X station for the operators), or a temporary box, I must pay Red Hat $350 (absolute minimum) AND I must wait a week to ten days for them to process my order and send me the boxed set. (That statement is per the aforementioned account rep.)
Here's the way I'd like it to work:
You could install it as many times as desired, but get no support at all (not even RHN) for free
For a reasonable price (say $100), you get RHN only -- no support at all.
THEN get to the $350 if you actually want any kind of support
What we've got (per the account exec I mentioned) is item #3 as a option, and ONLY number 3.