Posted by
michael
on from the switch-to-debian dept.
jeremy writes "In a followup to his original interview, Jeremy Hogan discusses some of the reasons Red Hat had for EOL'ing RHL, future licensing options for RHEL (including free devel copies), the most common Fedora misconception, his take on UserLinux and more."
Good show....
by
IamTheRealMike
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Clear, reasonably informative, posted to community websites and more importantly it sounds like it was written by a real person who just wants to do the right thing.
That's a very rare thing in corporates. I really hope that as Red Hat expands, they keep it up. So far they have, and even with the new splits between their community work and enterprise stuff, I feel pretty confident they won't slip.
I wish all companies were like this. It's too easy for them to slip behind the mask of anonymity.
Re:Good show....
by
Saeger
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I wish all companies were like this. It's too easy for them to slip behind the mask of anonymity.
I know the meme has been retired, but the cluetrain manifesto is still relevant. People don't want to deal with bland, PR-washed, faceless megacorps that pander to the lowest common denominator, they want humanity.
The saddest thing to see is small businesses who act like these megacorps early on because it's deemed "professional" soulless behavior.
--
-- Power to the Peaceful
SHUT IT MICHAEL
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
from the switch-to-debian dept.
Ok michael, you've added "witty" tidbits like this numerous times, and it's got to stop.
We get it. You like debian, do you have to keep shouting it into our ear? It's not funny, and just annoying to have to see.
If I could I'd mod you -1 troll, but since you've posted this as a story I can't. Please come down from you almighty perch next time you want to be an ass.
Thanks.
Re:Redhat ES3 - White Box Linux
by
CrazyLion
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I think RedHat would only benefit from White Box. RH is going after corporate IT departments that have budget and want hand-holding. These guys would pay rather than use something less than perfectly "official". People who will use White Box are those who wouldn't have bought RHEL in the first place. If thse people choose to use White Box, RH would benefit since more users would learn to use their software (making it more of a standard). RH will also benefit from debugging efforts and improvements of White Box - GPL works both ways.
Over the years, I have really become a Redhat fan, not so much in terms of their products, given that I have not really used their Enterprise Suite, but more in terms of the company itself. Here's why...
They seem to truly believe in the Open Source model. Many companies have paid lip service, tried dial licensing, and so on, but Redhat has stuck to their guns.
They portray a very respectable image for Open Source to the rest of the world.
They have proven beyond a doubt that it is possible to create and run a profitable company with the Open Source model.
I think this company has a great potential, and I hope their culture and values as a company do not change as they grow.
-- All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be... Dark side of the moon
Re:Redhat ES3 - White Box Linux
by
hubertt
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
You have to understand that it's not software that you pay for in RedHat Enterprise Server.
Re-compiling it or re-packaging does not bring the added value you get for that 349 USD or so. This added value is the technical support - and that's a basic idea behind earning money on GPL-ed software. So it's not only RedHat logo what you are missing from whiteboxlinux.org.
But it's perfectly fair, in my opinion. You have money - you buy support and knowledge. But if you have the knowledge - you can use the software and not pay for it - you invest your time and skills. That's the power of open software - you're not getting money for the code but for the knowledge.
I switched to Debian
by
jtotheh
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I was a loyal Red Hat guy, with a laptop and a home server running 7.3, up2date/RHN subscriptions, etc - then the word was that 8 was not a good upgrade ("don't try the brown acid")* so I waited and stayed at 7.3, and then the word started coming out about RHEL/RHAS/whatever and that they would cease supporting regular Red Hat.
So I switched. I've been pretty pleased, Debian takes a little more digging to find answers sometimes and there are a few things that seem overly complex - but then you learn the reason for the complexity and it's a good one.
I guess people get into Linux for different reasons, for me it was a way to have my own UNIX-like box for free (as in GNU software freedom number 2, see GNU's Free Software Definition -- later I realized it was cool that that could be shared with others gratis.
Sometimes in the computer field you have situations where people sort of say "can't touch this" about some expensive shit (hardware, software, root access) - I wasted a lot of time trying to get around things like Lotus 1-2-3 copy protection and the cost of a PC back in the day, etc. Wasn't even clued in to be trying to get root on a VAX or whatever. Once I saw what the GNU people were doing I've never found a higher philosophy of computing. They just cut through all the BS and get to what's important.
Red Hat certainly helps Linux, making it credible, employing kernel coders, etc, etc. So I know they're not some totally evil entity. Nonetheless, if someone does good and bad, the good doesn't completely negate the bad. Their position is I believe that their "free software" cannot be freely copied** because of various embedded bits of intellectual property that are supposedly not software (they are of course bits and bytes) such as the logos and trademarks. I think this is a scam to avoid adhering to the GNU freedom #2 above.
It ends up with Red Hat, which is built in large part out of the GNU project, being a "can't touch this" kind of product. Somehow that doesn't sit well with me. Also the argument that there has to be some kind of unity among Linux people so don't criticize Red Hat, that makes you equivalent to Microsoft does not seem valid to me either. It sounds from this interview that they are opening some cracks in the wall, developer licensing, academic pricing, etc. This is good to see. It still doesn't seem that different from other commercial software companies though. I wish they could keep the software free and make money from selling services and consulting etc.
* gratuitous reference to Woodstock vinyl recordings
** yes I know you can get SRPMs. I'm talking about the kind of copying one would do normally, if one wasn't forced to jump through these hoops.
Re:I switched to Debian
by
sparrow_hawk
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Umm... dude, the whole purpose of Fedora was to open up the development of their distribution to more people.
Fedora Core 1 = RedHat Linux 10
Circular argument
by
pavon
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
JH) The EOL was due to the split, if we didn't EOL, we'd have three distros. I think companies sized right to support their focus can find a market. For us to continue RHL support would either mean not delivering on our enterprise line or our commitment to Fedora. Or both.
This didn't really answer the question, because the whole reason they started Fedora was to take RHL's place when they discontinued it. The interviewer should of followed up with the question - "So why did you decide to split in the first place?"
Re:Circular argument
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
There's very valid engineering reasons for the Fedora project. They can't just wait for 2 years, and then try to figure out what the state of every open source project is so that they can do a new Enterprise release. They need to get real world feedback on this stuff.
Nothing wrong with that
by
sterno
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
There's not reason you can't do that, but my guess is that there's going to be two things that will ultimately be different with Redhat ES:
1) Incorporation of non-free software in the distribution. This isn't possible if they are giving away ISO's. Now they are obligated to provide source for the GPL stuff, but not everything, and this saves them the hassle of trying to create a packaged but cripled distro
2) RedHat support - whiteboxlinux may have just about everything redhat has, but it won't have some guy at redhat that you can call.
My assumption is that redhat went this route because of the first issue. I mean, they've never had to offer support for any of their downloadble software, so the second issue seems moot.
--
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Re:Redhat ES3 - White Box Linux
by
provoix
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Let them charge whatever they want. It's the branding and support you're paying for, not necessarily the software.
My clients would never allow me to house their mission critical websites on Gentoo just because it sounds silly. But RedHat, yeah...they read about them in an article, and know they have support...they'll pay for that...
Beyond the expense, the law of supply and demand will guard against inflating costs (well, unless you purchasing from MS);D
I for one am glad that RH has the forsight to acknowledge the need for branding. FINALLY, I can bring Linux to my clients!
Re:I guess I am lucky...
by
FattMattP
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
When I read about the December EOL for RH7.x (currently in use on our two large DNS & DHCP boxes) I was a bit miffed - some slightly more advanced notification would have been nice through the usual Red Hat channels.
How much advanced notification do you want? They announced it on the usual Red Hat channels a year ago. It was covered on news sites including Linux Weekly News and Slashdot. Just because you've been dragging your feet on planning your migration or were not paying attention doesn't mean that Red Hat is at fault.
Re:Redhat ES3 - White Box Linux
by
elvesRgay
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
349 dollars does NOT get you support. You have to pay for the subscription to RH Enterprise Server to use the binaries and to get updates. This is within RH's rights. What you don't have an option to do is to use their binaries without a subscription.
What you do have an option of doing is to download the source code like the white box linux guy is doing. I think you may need a subscription to access the source RPM's for the distribution. I know you need a subscription to access the source RPM's for the updates.
So knowledge in this case doesn't get you anything. Again, this is within RH's rights. What I find very unlikable about it is that they waited untill they where widely adopted and then said effectively, now we have you, now you must pay or migrate, you have five or six months to do this.
I don't need their support beyond their patches. I was willing to pay for those patches, but not 349 dollars per server per year. 50 dollars per server per year was OK, but not 349. That makes it more expensive than windows, (So says the pointy hairs). So I have migrated off RedHat to debian. There are a few applications that still need RedHat or Solaris, and for those White box Linux may be the way to go.
Re:Fedora is redhat
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0, Insightful
Fedora is test-ware. If it was RH, they would continue to sell RH. The whole deal with Fedora is to trick developers into a distro that CANNOT compete with their more expensive offering. Very bad intention on RH part, extremely shallow and really disapointing. This kind of "triks" is what puts the community off.
"probably" doesn't cut it. RH does not put their name behind it, they promise nothing, so it IS nothing.
Re:Redhat ES3 - White Box Linux
by
Robert+The+Coward
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Because if you have a server that is running well and doing what you want it to do you don't want to break it. So RedHat backport secuirty fixes to eailier version instead of fource you to use CVS or New Releases that could break things in your server. That Process of backporting is what they are paying for. If you start with Apache 2.05 you keep Apache 2.05 with patches for secuity. That are then tested to confirm that nothing apears to break and if things break redhat fixes them and release a new package update all based on 2.05 not 2.xx instead.
Re:Fedora is redhat
by
the+unbeliever
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Yes, because people who install computer games don't make money off of them running 24/7 in production environments.
And anyone who installs driver updates the day they are released is smoking something.:P
Re:Ahemm. Cough! Cough!
by
sparrow_hawk
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I can't say as I would know anything about that, seeing as I've been running RedHat and now Fedora as a desktop quite happily for four or five years now...
Quoth the FA:
The consumer desktop is a pretty big market, and we already have a chunk of it, but it's fickle, it's full of folks happy enough, or used to what they have. It's full of people using technology because they have to, or using an OS because it came installed. A number of things have to be right to really get into that, technological superiority, as we've seen is not enough or else OSX would have the desktop.
Translation: from a business standpoint, a desktop version of RedHat/Fedora doesn't make sense right now. The market inertia is too great. When something big enough -- the fabled killer app -- comes along, they'll move. It has very little to do with how good desktop Linux is *on its own merits*.
You'll know when we think it's ready.
What was your point again?
Re:Enterprise class: RHEL: Yes, Redhat: No
by
BiggerIsBetter
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The thing I dislike about it is that it blows off the users who only want the patches. I care not about "support" per se, only that security patches are applied in a timely manner and that the system is going to be reasonably stable. I was getting that for 60 USD, and now it costs 349 USD minimum. And what about next year? Or the year after that? RedHat lost a lot of trust by pulling the plug on small users who don't want to run a beta distro on their servers.
-- Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
Re:Ahemm. Cough! Cough!
by
rhavyn
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
So which version of Linux should I install so that I can use an iPod out of the box? Which version should I install so that any random web cam I purchase will work with it? Which will be able to run the latest game released? The answer is, none of them will do that. Linux is ready for some people's desktops (like mine) because I'm willing to make things work when they don't, and I'm willing to be careful about what hardware and software I purchase. Many other people. on the other hand, are not capable of doing that. When they buy the newest game or some random piece of hardware, they expect it to work. Red Hat understands this, so they're targetting places like the corporate desktop which requires a limited, known set of apps and have a consistent set of hardware and an IT staff to support the "end users". When more companies support Linux the way they do Windows (and I'm sure it will happen) then Linux will be "ready for the desktop".
Re:Enterprise class: RHEL: Yes, Redhat: No
by
T-Ranger
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
When is the end of life of Windows XP? I havent a fucking clue. And even if MS has anounced a date, that date is based on when they will release Longhorn.. Its not like that date is going to slip or anything.
RHEL is all up front. You pay for 1 year of support, you get 1 year of support. You want support next year you pay for support for next year.
Per Year Support from RedHat is less then (Inital License Cost + Support Calls / Lifespan) for MS stuff.
Its infinitly easier to move from RH to Debian, Solaris, HPUX, or anything other Unix(ish) system if RedHat suddently boosts there prices (or goes away)... Where else can you run those apps that require a MS OS? Right......
Re:Ahemm. Cough! Cough!
by
rhavyn
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
That's an extremely weak response. Every single thing listed is something that Windows (and to a lesser extent Mac OS X) can do right now, today. And that is the expectation of a "desktop user". If you can't recreate that expectation, that person will not be happy. Thus, Linux is not ready for the "desktop".
Unless you'd like to point out a linux distro that can do that? Otherwise, I'm going to go along with Red Hat and say that, Linux is ready for some people's desktops now and will be ready for everyone else's desktop some time in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a very rare thing in corporates. I really hope that as Red Hat expands, they keep it up. So far they have, and even with the new splits between their community work and enterprise stuff, I feel pretty confident they won't slip.
I wish all companies were like this. It's too easy for them to slip behind the mask of anonymity.
Ok michael, you've added "witty" tidbits like this numerous times, and it's got to stop.
We get it. You like debian, do you have to keep shouting it into our ear? It's not funny, and just annoying to have to see.
If I could I'd mod you -1 troll, but since you've posted this as a story I can't. Please come down from you almighty perch next time you want to be an ass.
Thanks.
I think RedHat would only benefit from White Box. RH is going after corporate IT departments that have budget and want hand-holding. These guys would pay rather than use something less than perfectly "official".
People who will use White Box are those who wouldn't have bought RHEL in the first place. If thse people choose to use White Box, RH would benefit since more users would learn to use their software (making it more of a standard). RH will also benefit from debugging efforts and improvements of White Box - GPL works both ways.
I think this company has a great potential, and I hope their culture and values as a company do not change as they grow.
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be
You have to understand that it's not software that you pay for in RedHat Enterprise Server.
Re-compiling it or re-packaging does not bring the added value you get for that 349 USD or so. This added value is the technical support - and that's a basic idea behind earning money on GPL-ed software. So it's not only RedHat logo what you are missing from whiteboxlinux.org.
But it's perfectly fair, in my opinion. You have money - you buy support and knowledge. But if you have the knowledge - you can use the software and not pay for it - you invest your time and skills. That's the power of open software - you're not getting money for the code but for the knowledge.
So I switched. I've been pretty pleased, Debian takes a little more digging to find answers sometimes and there are a few things that seem overly complex - but then you learn the reason for the complexity and it's a good one.
I guess people get into Linux for different reasons, for me it was a way to have my own UNIX-like box for free (as in GNU software freedom number 2, see GNU's Free Software Definition -- later I realized it was cool that that could be shared with others gratis.
Sometimes in the computer field you have situations where people sort of say "can't touch this" about some expensive shit (hardware, software, root access) - I wasted a lot of time trying to get around things like Lotus 1-2-3 copy protection and the cost of a PC back in the day, etc. Wasn't even clued in to be trying to get root on a VAX or whatever. Once I saw what the GNU people were doing I've never found a higher philosophy of computing. They just cut through all the BS and get to what's important.
Red Hat certainly helps Linux, making it credible, employing kernel coders, etc, etc. So I know they're not some totally evil entity. Nonetheless, if someone does good and bad, the good doesn't completely negate the bad. Their position is I believe that their "free software" cannot be freely copied** because of various embedded bits of intellectual property that are supposedly not software (they are of course bits and bytes) such as the logos and trademarks. I think this is a scam to avoid adhering to the GNU freedom #2 above.
It ends up with Red Hat, which is built in large part out of the GNU project, being a "can't touch this" kind of product. Somehow that doesn't sit well with me. Also the argument that there has to be some kind of unity among Linux people so don't criticize Red Hat, that makes you equivalent to Microsoft does not seem valid to me either. It sounds from this interview that they are opening some cracks in the wall, developer licensing, academic pricing, etc. This is good to see. It still doesn't seem that different from other commercial software companies though. I wish they could keep the software free and make money from selling services and consulting etc.
* gratuitous reference to Woodstock vinyl recordings
** yes I know you can get SRPMs. I'm talking about the kind of copying one would do normally, if one wasn't forced to jump through these hoops.
JH) The EOL was due to the split, if we didn't EOL, we'd have three distros. I think companies sized right to support their focus can find a market. For us to continue RHL support would either mean not delivering on our enterprise line or our commitment to Fedora. Or both.
This didn't really answer the question, because the whole reason they started Fedora was to take RHL's place when they discontinued it. The interviewer should of followed up with the question - "So why did you decide to split in the first place?"
There's not reason you can't do that, but my guess is that there's going to be two things that will ultimately be different with Redhat ES:
1) Incorporation of non-free software in the distribution. This isn't possible if they are giving away ISO's. Now they are obligated to provide source for the GPL stuff, but not everything, and this saves them the hassle of trying to create a packaged but cripled distro
2) RedHat support - whiteboxlinux may have just about everything redhat has, but it won't have some guy at redhat that you can call.
My assumption is that redhat went this route because of the first issue. I mean, they've never had to offer support for any of their downloadble software, so the second issue seems moot.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Let them charge whatever they want. It's the branding and support you're paying for, not necessarily the software.
My clients would never allow me to house their mission critical websites on Gentoo just because it sounds silly. But RedHat, yeah...they read about them in an article, and know they have support...they'll pay for that...
Beyond the expense, the law of supply and demand will guard against inflating costs (well, unless you purchasing from MS) ;D
I for one am glad that RH has the forsight to acknowledge the need for branding. FINALLY, I can bring Linux to my clients!
Prevent email address forgery. Publish SPF records for y
What you do have an option of doing is to download the source code like the white box linux guy is doing. I think you may need a subscription to access the source RPM's for the distribution. I know you need a subscription to access the source RPM's for the updates.
So knowledge in this case doesn't get you anything. Again, this is within RH's rights. What I find very unlikable about it is that they waited untill they where widely adopted and then said effectively, now we have you, now you must pay or migrate, you have five or six months to do this.
I don't need their support beyond their patches. I was willing to pay for those patches, but not 349 dollars per server per year. 50 dollars per server per year was OK, but not 349. That makes it more expensive than windows, (So says the pointy hairs). So I have migrated off RedHat to debian. There are a few applications that still need RedHat or Solaris, and for those White box Linux may be the way to go.
Fedora is test-ware. If it was RH, they would continue to sell RH. The whole deal with Fedora is to trick developers into a distro that CANNOT compete with their more expensive offering. Very bad intention on RH part, extremely shallow and really disapointing. This kind of "triks" is what puts the community off.
copied straight from osnews.com
"probably" doesn't cut it. RH does not put their name behind it, they promise nothing, so it IS nothing.
Because if you have a server that is running well and doing what you want it to do you don't want to break it. So RedHat backport secuirty fixes to eailier version instead of fource you to use CVS or New Releases that could break things in your server. That Process of backporting is what they are paying for. If you start with Apache 2.05 you keep Apache 2.05 with patches for secuity. That are then tested to confirm that nothing apears to break and if things break redhat fixes them and release a new package update all based on 2.05 not 2.xx instead.
Yes, because people who install computer games don't make money off of them running 24/7 in production environments.
:P
And anyone who installs driver updates the day they are released is smoking something.
I can't say as I would know anything about that, seeing as I've been running RedHat and now Fedora as a desktop quite happily for four or five years now...
Quoth the FA:
The consumer desktop is a pretty big market, and we already have a chunk of it, but it's fickle, it's full of folks happy enough, or used to what they have. It's full of people using technology because they have to, or using an OS because it came installed. A number of things have to be right to really get into that, technological superiority, as we've seen is not enough or else OSX would have the desktop.
Translation: from a business standpoint, a desktop version of RedHat/Fedora doesn't make sense right now. The market inertia is too great. When something big enough -- the fabled killer app -- comes along, they'll move. It has very little to do with how good desktop Linux is *on its own merits*.
You'll know when we think it's ready.
What was your point again?
The thing I dislike about it is that it blows off the users who only want the patches. I care not about "support" per se, only that security patches are applied in a timely manner and that the system is going to be reasonably stable. I was getting that for 60 USD, and now it costs 349 USD minimum. And what about next year? Or the year after that? RedHat lost a lot of trust by pulling the plug on small users who don't want to run a beta distro on their servers.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
So which version of Linux should I install so that I can use an iPod out of the box? Which version should I install so that any random web cam I purchase will work with it? Which will be able to run the latest game released? The answer is, none of them will do that. Linux is ready for some people's desktops (like mine) because I'm willing to make things work when they don't, and I'm willing to be careful about what hardware and software I purchase. Many other people. on the other hand, are not capable of doing that. When they buy the newest game or some random piece of hardware, they expect it to work. Red Hat understands this, so they're targetting places like the corporate desktop which requires a limited, known set of apps and have a consistent set of hardware and an IT staff to support the "end users". When more companies support Linux the way they do Windows (and I'm sure it will happen) then Linux will be "ready for the desktop".
RHEL is all up front. You pay for 1 year of support, you get 1 year of support. You want support next year you pay for support for next year.
Per Year Support from RedHat is less then (Inital License Cost + Support Calls / Lifespan) for MS stuff.
Its infinitly easier to move from RH to Debian, Solaris, HPUX, or anything other Unix(ish) system if RedHat suddently boosts there prices (or goes away)... Where else can you run those apps that require a MS OS? Right......
That's an extremely weak response. Every single thing listed is something that Windows (and to a lesser extent Mac OS X) can do right now, today. And that is the expectation of a "desktop user". If you can't recreate that expectation, that person will not be happy. Thus, Linux is not ready for the "desktop".
Unless you'd like to point out a linux distro that can do that? Otherwise, I'm going to go along with Red Hat and say that, Linux is ready for some people's desktops now and will be ready for everyone else's desktop some time in the future.