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.
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.
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.
Re:Redhat ES3 - White Box Linux
by
yiantsbro
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Actually if everyone plays nice this is the situation many have wanted. For instance, if you take Windows XP sure a more corporate type of area would want to pay for the OS/support. However, why couldn't it be free for home/educational/non-profit type use?
With this setup you have the best of both worlds. "Profit" areas that can pay, want to pay (for a certain level of comfort and support) will pay. This will allow further development/enhancement to the OS.
Other groups that don't need that comfort level (or can't pay) can use basically the same (non-branded) OS.
Re:Redhat ES3 - White Box Linux
by
DA-MAN
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
> Re-compiling it or re-packaging does not bring the added value you get for that 349 USD or so.
Actually the $349 gets you the following:
# Easy ISOs: OS, Source, and Documentation ISO Images # Red Hat Network Update Module Service 1-year # Quarterly OS Updates # Available via download only
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:Redhat ES3 - White Box Linux
by
burns210
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Redhat open sources all their tools for this reason... unlike, say, Suse, who keeps their claim to fame app to themselves... Read into it what you want, but Redhat is an opensource company trying to make a profit, and build a community around their product...
I say, good for them, I will be running Fedora for quite a long time.
Re:Redhat ES3 - White Box Linux
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The whole idea is that your paying for the engineering and QA that go into keeping a product supported for 5 years.
Re:Redhat ES3 - White Box Linux
by
bobbozzo
·
· Score: 2, Informative
In addition to WhiteBox, there is another RHEL knockoff in the works: cAos -- Community Linux
-- Nothing to see here; Move along.
Re:Redhat ES3 - White Box Linux
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Informative
You need to learn to read. The $349 includes no tech support. That's no web support. That's no phone support. If you want to pay more for Standard Edition, then, yes, you get some limited support.
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:Redhat ES3 - White Box Linux
by
hubertt
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Damn, you're right! I need to learn:-) Here is the clear comparison of various RedHat options. It seems you're getting binaries only for 349 with no dedicated tech support.
Re:Redhat ES3 - White Box Linux
by
flacco
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
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.
ok, so where's the "technical support"?
we have a number of the $60 up2date subscriptions and have decided to take two basic RHEL subscriptions for the time being. i've posted queries a couple of times on the redhat-sponsored lists asking for help when the red hat how-to's failed me (stuff like getting ldap auth over ssl to work) and gotten zero help.
i mistakenly thought that perhaps RHEL came with some conveniences to make enterprise stuff easier to do, or at least some feedback from the lists.
that's just my take on it. i know i'm not a linux *god*, but if i were i wouldn't need tech support or convenience tools to begin with. given that userlinux and debian-enterprise profess the goal of providing turn-key simplicity for mid-level admins, i'm watching them very closely.
-- pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
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:Redhat ES3 - White Box Linux
by
DA-MAN
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
> then we win! we will have no money thrown into development. YAY IDIOTS!
Linux was doing just fine before RedHat came out. RedHat is not the only one developing for Linux. IBM is still pumping mad cash, so are many other companies. SuSE/Novell, Cisco, IBM, AMD, Intel, OSDL, etc are all developing linux into a bigger and badder platform every day. You are very ignorant of Linux if you believe that RedHat == Linux.
A company that turns it's back on the majority of their userbase deserves to die a quick and painful death. RedHat has done quite a bit for the community, but I mean they turned their back on even the certified RedHat Admin's. Even Microsoft doesn't have the balls to drop the relevence of a certification until after the new one has gained major ground. MCSE for NT4 was around still after 2000 was available. Once you piss off the Administrators of your software, you're going to be in a world of hurt.
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
Fedora is redhat
by
DeadSea
·
· Score: 5, Informative
They just changed the name and stopped offering telephone support. Given this, I downloaded the ISOs, burned them, and upgraded my Redhat 9 box to Fedora.
I have to say it looks great. It took a bit of prodding to get it running. I had a bunch of "3rdParty" software (3rd party to redhat that is) that I had to reinstall (Java, jhead, openmoz, openfb) etc.
I also had to tweak my XFree86 config file to add some higher resolutions (I don't know why 800x600 was the biggest by default).
Then I had to switch back from sawfish to metacity window manager. Sawfish just doesn't seem to work with the gnome desktop switcher panel. Metacity is much better now, it allows me to define the keyboard shortcuts that kept me on sawfish for redhat 9.
The best part about Fedora is no more filling out a survey every time I want to download patches using up2date. Now it just lets me on. No subscription or anything. It is now officially a better product to me just because of that.
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:Fedora is redhat
by
DeadSea
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Documentation is for wusses. Much better to just do it.
Re:Fedora is redhat
by
williamhooper
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Then come and bitch on Slashdot because you can't figure it out...
mirror
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I'll bet vBulletin won't last 10 minutes....
Followup Interview with Jeremy Hogan of Red Hat ( post #1)
With all of the recent Fedora and RHEL news, I thought another interview with Jeremy Hogan was in order. He was kind enough to agree to get badgered again. Thanks Jeremy.
--jeremy
###
LQ) Now that the dust from the RHL EOL/Fedora announcement has settled a bit, what are your thoughts on how it played out?
JH) As well as it could have in many respects. We had an awful lot of users putting Red Hat Linux (across many versions) all over the place. But it was all still Red Hat Linux by name to them, so to see that name go, is to see the whole thing go. And on came the "Red Hat throws out baby, keeps bathwater" headlines.
LQ) Did it go as planned?
JH) There was a lot we couldn't plan for, but mostly.
LQ) Do you feel that in the long run the lack of a freely downloadable RHL will hurt the "Red Hat brand"?
JH) No, I think Fedora will develop it's own distinct brand attributes, and people will gravitate, or opt-in to the solution that suits them.
Again, with RHL you had both worlds under one name, so now it's easy to tell in a lot of respects what you should use if you want a freely downloadable (and I'd add installable, ISO'd etc) since Red Hat Enterprise Linux is available for download as well.
We still have gaps to fill in the small business/home office end, but developers can have Fedora, or get RHEL for free in an upcoming program. The new education program has some great pricing, we have a great pricing incentive on ES/WS right now for those c/o price, so you see the initial complaints being addressed. In the end, I think it will strengthen the brand.
LQ) How has the announcement affected Red Hat internally?
JH) Our culture mirrors the community reaction. It ran the gamut, as you'd expect. I think folks internally thought very long and hard about how this was going to work out. This is part of a bigger plan to really promote our strengths and the strengths of open source technology while identifying and addressing the gaps.
LQ) What is the consensus from the average Red Hat employee?
JH) Well, we've known about it internally for some time, so it's down to execution for us.
LQ) Was the backlash from the Linux community a bit stronger than was anticipated?
JH) Yes and no, I think people got too alarmed by Matthew Szulik's interview. I think it was mis-interpreted starting with the article's headline and on it went.
I'm surprised that some of the people who missed the "free as in free *and* free" RHL ISOs on ftp, did not opt for Fedora.
And I think I'm always surprised at the skepticism toward Red Hat. To me Linux advocates bashing Linux advocates does Microsoft's work for them. It plays into the FUD that we are an angry mob.
LQ) What misconception(s) do you see most often?
JH) That's it's only about money for us. It's really an overt effort on our part to keep things in balance, you donate a million dollars to defend the GPL on one hand, you develop your markets on the other.
LQ) Reading between the lines a bit, a recent comment from Mr. Szulik seemed to indicate that he felt consumer desktop Linux was sufficiently immature that Red Hat doesn't want to offer it, but when it does mature enough Red Hat will get into that market. Any comments?
JH) 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. (I've decided to make it a tradition of plugging OSX in these interviews.)
Windows isn't even as seamless as some folks make it out to be as far as hardware and tech support, i
-- Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
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.
I guess I am lucky...
by
Chicane-UK
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
That I work for an educational establishment.
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.
But the information on educational discounts for RHEL Server (I forget which edition) has helped ease that pain a little. Its actually cheaper than the usual yearly subscription to the RHN, and of course it has a longer lifespan. And conveniently, the description issued for the ideal kind of role for the server edition they were releasing under an academic discount was almost exactly all those systems were used for.
I'll be filling out the purchase order, and resuming the usual business with Red Hat. Slackware nearly got in (especially now that it has swaret), but this has turned the decision back around:)
-- "Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
Re:I guess I am lucky...
by
Russ+Steffen
·
· Score: 5, Informative
some slightly more advanced notification would have been nice through the usual Red Hat channels.
The EOL dates for 7.x were announced almost a year ago. People just noticed them again when the Fedora stuff was announced.
What more were you expecting? A singing telegram? Carrier pigeon?
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.
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.
Re:Fedora in production
by
iggymanz
·
· Score: 2, Informative
it's too early to tell, what with first non-teest release, if Fedora will be stable, will really track the RedHat commercial products, or be anything other than a testbed for RedHat for things that may or may not work.
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
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
Re:Why bother?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3, Funny
What he means is Microsoft the COMPANY hasn't been hacked since October of 2000. Of course we know that's because 10/2000 was when they moved the last of the public sites to BSD. *POOF* no more hacks!
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.
Re:Enterprise class: RHEL: Yes, Redhat: No
by
Crispy+Critters
·
· Score: 4, Informative
"the lawyers are terrified of "subscription" software (so how much is it next year, or in three years?)"
How much if any subscription software is there in RHEL? The update and support service is by subscription. If you decide not to pay RH any more, you can still use any GPLed software for as long as you like. Red Hat can't hijack GPLed code any more than SCO can. The kernel and the basic system are yours forever.
If you don't need or use the proprietary stuff in RHEL, then you can stop paying Red Hat, keep using the software, and handle updates yourself. People are wetting their pants at the thought that they might need to install a program from a tarball or (heaven forfend!) create their own rpm.
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: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......
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?"
Red Hat / Fedora confusion
by
0xA
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I work for a largish Canadian University in the electrical engineering department. We have a fairly large deployed base of Red Hat workstations in labs and various research areas and most of the support staff uses Red Hat on our workstations. Some of the other departments (Computer Science for example) are big users as well.
Given the EOL of Red Hat 9 we've been working on just what we're going to do in the future. We talked with Red Hat about licensing and got back some really strange answers. There is the $2500 base site license that also requires a per FTE (full time employee or equivilent) fee of $x. This sounded pretty good until Red Hat told us that we needed to pay for every FTE in the University or have each department get it's own license. There is no way for the EE and CS departments to license together.
I can kind of understand wehre they are coming from on this but it really is a deal killer for us. Why would we license evey employee of the University for RHEL when only a small fraction actually use it? On the other hand, we've been looking at Fedora and it looks like we'll be able do deplaoy and manage it well. I don't really see why many organizations would go for RHEL given the current situation.
Re:Red Hat / Fedora confusion
by
weave
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I can't tell from their site what it takes to do this. Do you have to buy the base product for $2,500 and then add the server licenses for $50 each, or can you buy them separate? If the former, then if you only have 4 servers, it's $2,700.
And, with all that, you don't get ANY support and I'm back to counting and keeping track of number of installs. All stuff "free" (as in freedom and beer) software was supposed to get me away from.
Re:Red Hat / Fedora confusion
by
guacamole
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
RedHat just announced that RHEL WS is available for $25/per year and AS for $50/per year without requiring you to purchase the base package. You don't get phone support but that's still a pretty good deal if you just want a stable computing platoform, updates, etc.
Re:Red Hat / Fedora confusion
by
0xA
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Yeah that's the way I'm starting to feel too. I feel like I'm playing the "I need 250 windows server cals and 52 TS cals and..." game I used to go through with MS. The sad part is that now MS icensing is dirt simple for me because of the EDU package we have.
That's kind of strange isn't it.
Re:Red Hat / Fedora confusion
by
0xA
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
You're confused, I'm confused, so is the RH sales guy. None of this makes sense any more.
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
Spoken as someone who hasn't even looked at Fedora.
As part of the Fedora beta process, I would say that the Rawhide snapshot that became Fedora Core 1 probably went through more testing than any other. This was helped by creating a yum repository out of Rawhide so testers could easily see when things were updated.
Now, if you actually bothered to install Fedora, you will find that it is just as good as the "Red Hat 10" everyone was expecting it to be.
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: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".
Though I like fedora...
by
jensend
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
My two biggest complaints with it are:
1. RH, in its current state of transition and confusion, is aiming Fedora at the non-existent "bleeding-edge corporate desktop" market and thus continuing the RH8 and 9 trend of dumbing it down. Returning to techie roots should involve returning to the more sensible and *more usable* kind of interface we saw in earlier series before people got into the "usability" kicks.
2. Package management. Good grief. It starts with the install: there is no way to select individual packages for installation. After installation, the graphical "install packages" program, which has all sorts of problems up to and including frequent segfaults for many users, still doesn't allow individual package selection either (and hasn't since RH8). Its segfaults and the increasingly common RPM hangs result in locking problems and rpm db corruptions which require, at best, a rpm db rebuild, and at worst enough repair that a total reinstall is recommended instead. Ah, for the days of rpm 3.x and gnorpm! (Man, I miss that program- I've felt for some time that RH failing to put resources into it to keep gnorpm up with the move to gtk2 and later rpm versions was their worst move at least since GCC "2.96".)
What I want to know about Fedora: Support
by
sid+crimson
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
So, Fedora looks interesting. It's the next version of Redhat (v.10) and attempts to continue the "free beer" side of Linux while separating this from the Enterprise offering.
What I want to know is: will security updates be offered in the same timely manner Redhat has offered them before? Their FAQ on the Fedora site is a little ambiguous. Quote their site:
Q: What is the errata policy for The Fedora Project?
A: Security updates, bugfix updates, and new feature updates will all be available, through Red Hat and third parties. Updates may be staged (first made available for public qualification, then later for general consumption) when appropriate. In drastic cases, we may remove a package from The Fedora Project if we judge that a necessary security update is too problematic/disruptive to the larger goals of the project. Availability of updates should not be misconstrued as support for anything other than continued development and innovation of the code base. Updates will be available for two to three months after the release of the subsequent version; that is, updates for Fedora Core 1 will be provided for two to three months after the release of Fedora Core 2, and so forth.
Red Hat will not be providing an SLA (Service Level Agreement) for resolution times for updates for The Fedora Project. Security updates will take priority. For packages maintained by external parties, Red Hat may respond to security holes by deprecating packages if the external maintainers do not provide updates in a reasonable time. Users who want support, or maintenance according to an SLA, may purchase the appropriate Red Hat Enterprise Linux product for their use.
..it sounds like they may not offer timely updates. Or maybe I'm just too sensitive to the [market|lawyer]-speak...? I work in a nonprofit, and am attempting to replace Wintel with Lintel. Redhat has the name, and therefore my boss' attention. If Redhat is no longer available... then he may no longer bite.
He doesn't know what "Fedora" is.
-sid
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.
Re:Ahemm. Cough! Cough!
by
mmcguigan
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I don't think it is so weak of a response. Anyone can name some piece of hardware or some function that any given operating system will not support, especially "out of the box". Plus, the items you mentioned are specialty items in the sense that the majority of users do not have them.
"When they buy the newest game or some random piece of hardware, they expect it to work. "
This is likely true, the problem is that it doesn't just work in any system out there. If you buy Apple hardware for an Apple computer it will just work, but any random piece of hardware? No. In MS Windows most hardware is supposed to work, but how often have you heard of it not working out of the box?
What do you do when it doesn't work? Call the support department? Return it when you are unsuccessful?
That is pretty much exactly what I do when buying products for any of the OS's I support. It is up to the hardware manufacturer to make their product work.
I just think that RedHat should stick to answering for their own products instead of generalizing their products as the state of Linux in general. They evaluated their system and found that it wasn't good for the desktop. Therefore they make a press release that Linux is not ready for the desktop, but they will let us all know when it is. They didn't evaluate all Linux desktops to determine this. They evaluated RedHat Linux as a desktop to determine that all Linux is not ready, which is not a fair evaluation of Linux on the desktop. RedHat Linux is not the only Linux. Wouldn't it make more sense to let us know when they have their product ready for the desktop?
Even if you don't think Linux is ready now, don't you think it is reasonable to say that someone besides RedHat could have desktop linux ready before RedHat? Is RedHat going to let us all know when someone else has it ready or when there product is ready?
Hope you understand where I'm coming from. I've been a user of RedHat Linux since 4.0 and I still use it as a server; however, I stopped trying to use it as a desktop a long time ago.
BTW: I don't have an ipod so I don't know first hand, but the ipod pretty well works without much problems I hear. Lindows is supposed to have a one click install and debian testing can use:
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.
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.
I have to say it looks great. It took a bit of prodding to get it running. I had a bunch of "3rdParty" software (3rd party to redhat that is) that I had to reinstall (Java, jhead, openmoz, openfb) etc.
I also had to tweak my XFree86 config file to add some higher resolutions (I don't know why 800x600 was the biggest by default).
Then I had to switch back from sawfish to metacity window manager. Sawfish just doesn't seem to work with the gnome desktop switcher panel. Metacity is much better now, it allows me to define the keyboard shortcuts that kept me on sawfish for redhat 9.
The best part about Fedora is no more filling out a survey every time I want to download patches using up2date. Now it just lets me on. No subscription or anything. It is now officially a better product to me just because of that.
Followup Interview with Jeremy Hogan of Red Hat ( post #1)
With all of the recent Fedora and RHEL news, I thought another interview with Jeremy Hogan was in order. He was kind enough to agree to get badgered again. Thanks Jeremy.
--jeremy
###
LQ) Now that the dust from the RHL EOL/Fedora announcement has settled a bit, what are your thoughts on how it played out?
JH) As well as it could have in many respects. We had an awful lot of users putting Red Hat Linux (across many versions) all over the place. But it was all still Red Hat Linux by name to them, so to see that name go, is to see the whole thing go. And on came the "Red Hat throws out baby, keeps bathwater" headlines.
LQ) Did it go as planned?
JH) There was a lot we couldn't plan for, but mostly.
LQ) Do you feel that in the long run the lack of a freely downloadable RHL will hurt the "Red Hat brand"?
JH) No, I think Fedora will develop it's own distinct brand attributes, and people will gravitate, or opt-in to the solution that suits them.
Again, with RHL you had both worlds under one name, so now it's easy to tell in a lot of respects what you should use if you want a freely downloadable (and I'd add installable, ISO'd etc) since Red Hat Enterprise Linux is available for download as well.
We still have gaps to fill in the small business/home office end, but developers can have Fedora, or get RHEL for free in an upcoming program. The new education program has some great pricing, we have a great pricing incentive on ES/WS right now for those c/o price, so you see the initial complaints being addressed. In the end, I think it will
strengthen the brand.
LQ) How has the announcement affected Red Hat internally?
JH) Our culture mirrors the community reaction. It ran the gamut, as you'd expect. I think folks internally thought very long and hard about how this was going to work out. This is part of a bigger plan to really promote our strengths and the strengths of open source technology while identifying and addressing the gaps.
LQ) What is the consensus from the average Red Hat employee?
JH) Well, we've known about it internally for some time, so it's down to execution for us.
LQ) Was the backlash from the Linux community a bit stronger than was anticipated?
JH) Yes and no, I think people got too alarmed by Matthew Szulik's interview. I think it was mis-interpreted starting with the article's headline and on it went.
I'm surprised that some of the people who missed the "free as in free *and* free" RHL ISOs on ftp, did not opt for Fedora.
And I think I'm always surprised at the skepticism toward Red Hat. To me Linux advocates bashing Linux advocates does Microsoft's work for them. It plays into the FUD that we are an angry mob.
LQ) What misconception(s) do you see most often?
JH) That's it's only about money for us. It's really an overt effort on our part to keep things in balance, you donate a million dollars to defend the GPL on one hand, you develop your markets on the other.
LQ) Reading between the lines a bit, a recent comment from Mr. Szulik seemed to indicate that he felt consumer desktop Linux was sufficiently immature that Red Hat doesn't want to offer it, but when it does mature enough Red Hat will get into that market. Any comments?
JH) 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. (I've decided to make it a tradition of plugging OSX in these interviews.)
Windows isn't even as seamless as some folks make it out to be as far as hardware and tech support, i
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.
That I work for an educational establishment.
:)
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.
But the information on educational discounts for RHEL Server (I forget which edition) has helped ease that pain a little. Its actually cheaper than the usual yearly subscription to the RHN, and of course it has a longer lifespan. And conveniently, the description issued for the ideal kind of role for the server edition they were releasing under an academic discount was almost exactly all those systems were used for.
I'll be filling out the purchase order, and resuming the usual business with Red Hat. Slackware nearly got in (especially now that it has swaret), but this has turned the decision back around
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
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.
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
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.
What he means is Microsoft the COMPANY hasn't been hacked since October of 2000. Of course we know that's because 10/2000 was when they moved the last of the public sites to BSD. *POOF* no more hacks!
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.
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?"
Given the EOL of Red Hat 9 we've been working on just what we're going to do in the future. We talked with Red Hat about licensing and got back some really strange answers. There is the $2500 base site license that also requires a per FTE (full time employee or equivilent) fee of $x. This sounded pretty good until Red Hat told us that we needed to pay for every FTE in the University or have each department get it's own license. There is no way for the EE and CS departments to license together.
I can kind of understand wehre they are coming from on this but it really is a deal killer for us. Why would we license evey employee of the University for RHEL when only a small fraction actually use it? On the other hand, we've been looking at Fedora and it looks like we'll be able do deplaoy and manage it well. I don't really see why many organizations would go for RHEL given the current situation.
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
and I though it was an interview with Hulk Hogan of RedHat
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
Spoken as someone who hasn't even looked at Fedora.
As part of the Fedora beta process, I would say that the Rawhide snapshot that became Fedora Core 1 probably went through more testing than any other. This was helped by creating a yum repository out of Rawhide so testers could easily see when things were updated.
Now, if you actually bothered to install Fedora, you will find that it is just as good as the "Red Hat 10" everyone was expecting it to be.
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?
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".
My two biggest complaints with it are:
1. RH, in its current state of transition and confusion, is aiming Fedora at the non-existent "bleeding-edge corporate desktop" market and thus continuing the RH8 and 9 trend of dumbing it down. Returning to techie roots should involve returning to the more sensible and *more usable* kind of interface we saw in earlier series before people got into the "usability" kicks.
2. Package management. Good grief. It starts with the install: there is no way to select individual packages for installation. After installation, the graphical "install packages" program, which has all sorts of problems up to and including frequent segfaults for many users, still doesn't allow individual package selection either (and hasn't since RH8). Its segfaults and the increasingly common RPM hangs result in locking problems and rpm db corruptions which require, at best, a rpm db rebuild, and at worst enough repair that a total reinstall is recommended instead. Ah, for the days of rpm 3.x and gnorpm! (Man, I miss that program- I've felt for some time that RH failing to put resources into it to keep gnorpm up with the move to gtk2 and later rpm versions was their worst move at least since GCC "2.96".)
What I want to know is: will security updates be offered in the same timely manner Redhat has offered them before? Their FAQ on the Fedora site is a little ambiguous. Quote their site:
He doesn't know what "Fedora" is.
-sid
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.
I don't think it is so weak of a response. Anyone can name some piece of hardware or some function that any given operating system will not support, especially "out of the box". Plus, the items you mentioned are specialty items in the sense that the majority of users do not have them.
"When they buy the newest game or some random piece of hardware, they expect it to work. "
This is likely true, the problem is that it doesn't just work in any system out there. If you buy Apple hardware for an Apple computer it will just work, but any random piece of hardware? No. In MS Windows most hardware is supposed to work, but how often have you heard of it not working out of the box?
What do you do when it doesn't work? Call the support department? Return it when you are unsuccessful?
That is pretty much exactly what I do when buying products for any of the OS's I support. It is up to the hardware manufacturer to make their product work.
I just think that RedHat should stick to answering for their own products instead of generalizing their products as the state of Linux in general. They evaluated their system and found that it wasn't good for the desktop. Therefore they make a press release that Linux is not ready for the desktop, but they will let us all know when it is. They didn't evaluate all Linux desktops to determine this. They evaluated RedHat Linux as a desktop to determine that all Linux is not ready, which is not a fair evaluation of Linux on the desktop. RedHat Linux is not the only Linux. Wouldn't it make more sense to let us know when they have their product ready for the desktop?
Even if you don't think Linux is ready now, don't you think it is reasonable to say that someone besides RedHat could have desktop linux ready before RedHat? Is RedHat going to let us all know when someone else has it ready or when there product is ready?
Hope you understand where I'm coming from. I've been a user of RedHat Linux since 4.0 and I still use it as a server; however, I stopped trying to use it as a desktop a long time ago.
BTW: I don't have an ipod so I don't know first hand, but the ipod pretty well works without much problems I hear. Lindows is supposed to have a one click install and debian testing can use:
apt-get install gtkpod