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
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
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.
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.
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.
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 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?
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.
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.
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.
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?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.