[NTLUG:Discuss] Redhat Offerings -- the Red Hat bashing tour isback!

[Kevin Hulse]

--- Chris Cox <cjcox at acm.org> wrote:
> Kermit Jones wrote:
[deletia]
> As with all USERS of free software, Red Hat benefits
> from the work
> of the community.  Red Hat had a paid support model
> before, and they
> have one now.  The price may be a bit higher now,
> but that's the
> price of support.
> 
> Besides, Red Hat employees regularly contribute and
> help guide the
> whole Fedora(tm) process.  It's wrong to say that
> Red Hat has
> abandoned the community of free software.

It's not so much that as they are putting up a poor
fascade as the lemming designated spokes-entity for
Linux in general. If PHB's weren't involved, there
wouldn't be much reason to pay attention to Redhat's
foolishness.

> 
> 
> People running Windows 98 are people with unpatched
> systems since
> Microsoft no longer supports that product.  Of

Windows 98 isn't free software.

It's also a very poor frame of reference to compare
against. It's not useful to use the worst vendor and
products in the industry as your yardstick.

> course, in the same
> vein, you are free to run Red Hat 6.2 or whatever
> "good ole days"
> version of Linux you want.
> 
> AFAIK, Red Hat is NOT leaving anyone hanging out to
> dry.  RHELWS
> Basic is $179.  That's not terribly bad when you
> consider Red Hat's
> boxed Professional 9.0 had the same price tag (it's
> now $99).
> That $179 gets you basic support and updates (e.g.
> to the new version of RHELWS) for

Everyone doesn't have to be subjected to Redhat's
attempts to pretend that it's Microsoft or Sun. It's
simply unecessary.

> one year.  Granted, your are better off with the
> RHELWS Standard
> product (think SUSE Personal vs. SUSE Professional)
> for $299/year.
> 
> I'm sorry, but back when 9.0 was out, RH 9.0 was the
> MOST expensive
> boxed Linux product on the shelf ($189 I think).
> 
> Now most USERS downloaded a free copy... since ALL
> USERS of free
> software can USE the work of the community at NO
> COST.  So...
> here comes Fedora(tm).  Fedora(tm) is a SUPPORTED
> version of
> Red Hat... and (though some may disagree) prior to

No, Fedora is a "supported version" of Fedora.

It is has been forked into something that Redhat
is no longer comfortable in associating themselves
with directly.

> this, Red Hat's
> support pretty much was NON EXISTENT for the
> consumer based
> product.  The reasons projects like Fedora (pre-tm)
> were created
> was to fill the HUGE non-support gap created by Red
> Hat for
> their consumer product line.
> 
> If you want community based support, there's
> Fedora(tm).  If

In this context, "community based support" is 
equivalent to NO SUPPORT. Although that doesn't
really matter. Being a Sun/M$ wannabe isn't the
point at that pricepoint and never was.

> you just have to have Red Hat for support, there's
> the RHEL
> line of products.  Anyone who thinks they had better
> support
> under Red Hat's OLD consumer line than with
> Fedora(tm) is
> kidding themselves.  You had NOTHING! Zipola. Nada.
> 
> With regards to the names...
> Red Hat obviously needs two separately trade marked
> names in
> order that they can treat the two products
> independently when

This is not obvious at all actually.

Mandrake doesn't have this problem. Neither does
Debian.

[deletia]