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."
This is Redhat ES recompiled with all the redhat copy righted logos and stuff removed. It's almost done (release candidate #2). And it's free.
I haven't found any interviews where Redhat comments on the possibility/inevibility of people doing this. I remember a reference made some time ago (that I can't seem to find now) by some RedHat officer about the UnitedLinux people being able to just download the sources to RedHat Linux and they would have their widely adopted Linux standard. So I suspect they must have anticipated something like this.
I know I have.
Fedora in production
by
tellurian
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
"Fedora is for developers, contributors, beta testers, hobbyists, and enthusiasts."
Not if you ask any of us who use it in production:-)
Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't make it my payroll server but for other simple services like web hosting, mail serving, and basic office functions, it's more than worthy as a production OS.
Enterprise class: RHEL: Yes, Redhat: No
by
Masarand
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
The underlying reasons for dumping RHL are sound, but the process has confused and discouraged enterprise customers.
A big company I know would have willingly paid for RHEL, but found RHL was free and had great application support, so they went for it (but struggled to understand Redhat's business model.) Now they have over 100's of machines deployed and Redhat suddenly pulls the plug with no migration path. Despite internal pressure to dump Redhat they are looking at RHEL, but the lawyers are terrified of "subscription" software (so how much is it next year, or in three years?) To make things worse, Redhat have the longest licence agreement I've ever seen for this kind of product. Oh, and the Redhat sales people are less than helpful.
Slashdot Mirror
But the software is GPL, so I would like to hear a RedHat person comment on this:
http://whiteboxlinux.org/
This is Redhat ES recompiled with all the redhat copy righted logos and stuff removed. It's almost done (release candidate #2). And it's free.
I haven't found any interviews where Redhat comments on the possibility/inevibility of people doing this. I remember a reference made some time ago (that I can't seem to find now) by some RedHat officer about the UnitedLinux people being able to just download the sources to RedHat Linux and they would have their widely adopted Linux standard. So I suspect they must have anticipated something like this.
I know I have.
Not if you ask any of us who use it in production :-)
Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't make it my payroll server but for other simple services like web hosting, mail serving, and basic office functions, it's more than worthy as a production OS.
A big company I know would have willingly paid for RHEL, but found RHL was free and had great application support, so they went for it (but struggled to understand Redhat's business model.) Now they have over 100's of machines deployed and Redhat suddenly pulls the plug with no migration path. Despite internal pressure to dump Redhat they are looking at RHEL, but the lawyers are terrified of "subscription" software (so how much is it next year, or in three years?) To make things worse, Redhat have the longest licence agreement I've ever seen for this kind of product. Oh, and the Redhat sales people are less than helpful.