Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat News: Edu Prices, Progeny Support for 7.X
thx2001r writes "According to News.com, Matthew Szulik (perhaps driven by recent slashdot questions in this regard) of Red Hat has set educational pricing for Red Hat Enterprise Linux Workstation ($25 per year for students) and (RHEL AS) server ($50 per year for the schools). Here are the details of the versions available at educational discounts." And for business users wary of Red Hat's high-priced Enterprise version (and happy using an older version), iroberts writes "Beginning January 1, 2004, Progeny will offer software updates for users of Red Hat(R) Linux(R) 7.2 and 7.3. Pricing is $5 per machine per month; or a flat rate of $2,500 per month for unlimited machines. The Fedora Legacy Project is discussing how this will impact their work."
...because of up2date, it's just too good to manage to live without it, it automatically detects updates for installed software, downloads, and installs them, works great when a security patch is released.
I remember that it saved me the hassle when sendmail bug was discovered a while back...
The IT section color scheme sucks.
I'm surprised there hasn't been much info in the way of RedHat Enterprise Rebuild Projects. There is both a mailing list and a few projects that have succeeded.
c .at/
http://www.whiteboxlinux.org/ was the first freely distributable RedHat Enterprise 3.0 Rebuild
http://www.caosity.net/ was the second project to finish and distribute.
The mailing list archive is @ http://www.mail-archive.com/rhel-rebuild-l@uibk.a
Frankly, all it takes is a quick script to download, rpmbuild --rebuild updatepkg.src.rpm and install. I would recommend against doing this on machines that will be running Oracle or what not, but for most uses, this is an awesome approach the likes of which is impossible with proprietary software.
Can I get an eye poke?
Dog House Forum
Becasue the 'official' iso images of RHL are thier copyright and they choose not to allow distribution of the iso. Thier CD layout is a new work of art and therefore isn't covered under the the same license(s) of the software found within.
As RH makes the binary packages publicly available (up to RHEL), which is not a requirement of the GPL but they were nice to the community in this respect. Becasue of this there's absolutly NOTHING stopping you me or anyone else from assembling our own iso layout and distributing it under GPL (or BSD or MyWhackyLicense for that matter).
It's well within thier right to do what they have done. I don't like nor do I have to.
Of course you're well within your rights to counteract this change and I see several members of the community already stepping-up to fill this void. This can only be a Good Thing(tm) long term though I'll be the first to admit it's going to be a bumpy ride for a bit.
Short answer: yes. Since you are testing Redhat 8 and you mentioned that you aren't considering Redhat Enterprise then you don't care about long-term vendor support; a SuSE release is supported for 2 years. You can easily purchase one copy of SuSE professional for $80 and install it as many times as you want wherever you want.
It's very user-friendly (priority #1), secure (#2), and compatible with the software (#3).
SuSE is all of the above. Software updates can be automated using YaST or by using apt-rpm which kicks ass by the way. I'm really excited to see what Novell is going to do with Ximian + SuSE. So far I've been loving everything that's been released by the Ximian camp and now that they'll probably primarily support SuSE..... well that's just icing on the cake =)
Incidentally, I got the ($7+$7)*FTE speech as well.
It is obvious they'd like universities just to pay $14*FTE as it is actually vaguely in the noise for a large university. However..
It makes absolutely no sense to purchase the enterprise edition AND the workstation edition since the two versions are exactly the same except for a few additional rpm's stuck in the server versions. Since in essence you are basically paying get proxyable (via the $2500 proxy server license) security patches it makes more sense for any university to just purchase to the ES version and turn off the services you don't need.
-bloo
It's the RedHat trademarks that are used to control re-distribution.
If you want to get the source, strip out the RH trademarks, compile/build everything, etc., you are free to so do.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Are they selling it to students or the public at that price?
At many universities Microsoft gives a very large academic discount to students studying IT (if the university computer labs have a Microsoft academic partnership). The CDs typically look like OEM versions, but they are upgrade/oem with really weird license restrictions (you can only install the software once, you can't reinstall it -- AFAIK you can reinstall normal XP distributions around 5 times before you have to call the Microsoft activation people).
quite easy. check their ftp site and surf around the enterprise directory.
have a look at this (this is actually one of the mirror sites as ftp.redhat.com was busy).
1 year = 12 months
Progeny cost = $5/month
RHN cost = $60/year
12 months x $5/month = $60/year
Did I miss something on the website that's screwing up my math?
Raptor
"Procrastination is great. It gives me a lot more time to do things that I'm never going to do."
"perhaps driven by recent slashdot questions in this regard"
Don't pride yourselfs too much. It wasn't because of you. As you reported earlier RedHat was going to do this already, but a timeline hadn't been set, until now.
Write legal@redhat.com for a copy of their license agreement for ES or AS. I have a feeling that its mostly intimidation and not really stopping anything.
It says quite clearly in the firstboot app when you load RHE that redistribution of RHE is allowed as long as you remove all Red Hat logos.
I downloaded RHE from suprnova.org. I like the new LVM changes very much.
I would add in gentoo, as it is also all based on OSS/GPL. It is also one of the easiest to use with new software that often there isn't a rh/deb/etc package, and if there isn't writing ebuilds is easier than writing rpms. (Honestly can't comment on debs, except by heresay which is that they are tougher than both.)
.deb packages is extremely easy; making good .debs is a little bit harder, and making Debian Policy-compliant .debs is a lot more difficult.
.deb, at least from my experience.
Just FYI, making
Any tarball which you can do "./configure; make; make install" to can be made into a
Section 2.4 of the Debian New Maintainer's Guide covers what needs to be done for the initial package. Section 9.2 covers new upstream versions.
I maintain a couple of semi-useful packages (all other people's software) for Debian unstable on my own at http://www.crystalwind.org/debs/. They're not 100% policy-compliant, but in my limited testing, they don't seem to mess anything up.
Jay (=
Oh dear.
After insulting the intelligence of their entire developer base (not to mention openly scoffing at their hard work and commitment) did Red Hat honestly expect people to flock to Fedora in droves? You've got to be kidding me..We're penguins, not friggin' LEMMINGS.
The whole damn thing with Red Hat stinks like ass and catfish, to the point where I will intentionally avoid doing what Red Hat would like for me to do. I'd even go so far as to say that anyone who pursues contributing code to Fedora is performing the equivalent of dropping their pants, spreading their cheeks, and hanging a sign on their nutsack saying "FREE AS IN BEER" with an arrow pointing up. Anybody who comes along, particularly Red Hat, is gonna take advantage of your willingness to get porked.
By {participating in/contributing to} Red Hat's 'Cousin Oliver' pee-on project, you're effectively agreeing to be kicked out of a playground you helped build, and forced to make do with a cat-shit filled sandbox down the street. Red Hat is our work, not theirs.
I can't speak for anyone but myself, but, if someone comes along and says "Oh, hey, thanks for building our skyscraper, kids! It's really quite lovely. As a thank you, we've graciously provided you with a cat-shit-filled sandbox down the street so you can continue making us rich, giving us beautiful things while getting nothing in return, not even the right to say you contribute directly to the project you helped build. Have a nice day, security will escort you to the parking lot."
Remind yourself that without us, they wouldn't even have a product to sell in the first place.
My advice? Let Red Hat go stale. Literally. Don't make an effort to contribute to Red Hat's distrib, or any other distrib which Red Hat directly benefits from (i.e. Fedora)..Move your efforts into helping build a competing distribution, one who's popularity would ultimately detract from Red Hat's dick-play. Ultimately, you cant prevent them from taking your work, obviously, but you can sure as hell make life difficult for them.
I never thought i'd say this, but, fuck this sandbox bullshit. I'm going Debian.
Cheers,
Bowie J. Poag
1.Get apt-rpm
http://apt4rpm.sourceforge.net/
2.This following will be the contents of /etc/apt/sources.list.d/fedora.list:
#--
# Apt sources.list from http://www.xades.com/proj/fedora_repos.html
# Fedora Core
rpm http://download.fedora.us/fedora fedora/1/i386 os updates
rpm http://download.fedora.us/fedora fedora/1/i386 stable unstable testing
# Livna 3rd party packages with questionable licenses -- use at your own risk
rpm http://rpm.livna.org/ fedora/1/i386 stable unstable testing
# Dag Apt Repository for Red Hat Fedora Core 1
rpm http://apt.sw.be redhat/fc1/en/i386 dag
#--
Now do apt-get dist-upgrade
And you will have Fedora Core 1 from Red Hat 9.
"...for a collection of software of which they contributed at most 5%."
Bwuahahaha!
Alan Cox, David Miller, Owen Taylon, Havoc Pennington, Alexander Larsson, Jonathan Blandford, Bastien Nocera, Daniel Veillard, Jason Merrill, and more...
Don't forget, Red Hat distributes a limited subset of software. I'd say that they contribute a fair amount of code for their distribution.