On Mon, 2004-09-20 at 22:57, Chad Perrin wrote:
> More to the point, I have no problem with RedHat wanting to charge money
> for a service they provide.
The problem is that many other people do not actually realize what
services Red Hat is _really_ providing. The name changes due to real
trademark issues has *0* do to with any changes in the model.
In fact, Red Hat _announced_ back in _2002_ that it was _ending_ support
for more than 1 year of community Linux releases -- well before the
whole "Fedora fiasco." Red Hat _never_ made good on that promise, and
supported Red Hat Linux 7 and 8 far longer than such.
Red Hat continues to:
A) Put paid developers and testers on the development of their
"community Linux" (hereafter labeled "CL") distribution
B) Release CL in a 0-1-2[-3] revision set that are "inter-binary
compatible"
C) Use the same Development-Test-Core, fka Rawhide-Beta-Linux (even many
Red Hat employees still refer to "Development" as "Rawhide" and
"Development" as "Beta") approach of integration testing through release
of CL distributions
D) Provides an official repository for CL, now only completely free of
charge using YUM (instead of the RHN infrastructure, even if the servers
are the same)
E) CL still provides the foundation of Enterprise Linux (EL), with every
single package going through CL being pushed into EL at some point
(sometimes immediately, sometimes after locale/support considerations --
typically _removal_ of code that Red Hat does not support for locale or
other support reasons, or "holding off" on new features).
In addition, they now provide:
F) A formal "community" system for non-"steering committee" approved
software for CL
G) The build systems for these community packages built around CL (e.g.,
"Extras").
H) Full APT/YUM support in _all_ of their distributions, _including_
Enterprise releases
What Red Hat no longer does is ...
I) Support every freak'n revision, resulting in Red Hat supporting 6-7
revisions simultaneously because companies "standardize" on a ".0" or
".1" release instead of upgrading to the last ".2" (or ".3") release.
As such, Red Hat _only_ supports "current" (current CLX.0/1/2 release)
and then up to 2 "legacy" (last X-1/2.2 or X-1/2.3 of 2 previous CL
releases). This means they support only 3-4 revisions simultaneously
now.
J) Offer extremely limited support for the community releases. This was
expensive, a "moving target" and was _never_ adequate like the SLA and
other options that were introduced with EL. There is also legal issues
with the name change made for trademark purposes.
> The major problem with the software industry -- a problem created by a
> software-as-product profit model primarily pioneered by Microsoft in
> the '80s -- is that the services provided by programmers and other IT
> professionals have been drastically devalued.
Agreed. Red Hat is merely catering to what its paying customer base is
willing to shell out for. They wanted this. I believe in models like
Progeny's, and most people I've talked to at Progeny seem to be a very
pro-Red Hat in general (because of their 100% GPL focus), but customers
expect what they are used to. So Red Hat gave it to them.
At the same time, the community complained about lack of say, add-on
packages, etc... So now the community got that too. APT/YUM support in
_stock_ UP2DATE/RHN tools (even in their "Enterprise" distributions). A
new framework of "Extra" and "3rd Party" tools, etc...
Anyone who thinks Red Hat "dumped" Linux on the community in Fedora does
_not_ know the first think about how Fedora works. Unless you do, you
should _not_ comment on Red Hat's "new" model -- because it is done
from, and there is no other way to put this, ignorance. If you have Red
Hat Linux 7.3 or 9 systems and you are not getting updates, then you
need to resolve that "problem" rather quickly (and the _easiest_ way to
do it is to read up on what _all_ of Fedora encompasses).
98% of the "complaints" I've seen about Red Hat are from people who want
a "big trademark name" on a "100% redistributable distro" so their "boss
didn't say anything." That is _legally_impossible_ and Red Hat finally
had to face that. Don't blame Red Hat. It was a gift that Red Hat can
afford to give no longer. Other _commercial_ Linux distributions
_never_ had the problem Red Hat had with the massive derivatives and
other releases based on Red Hat without another license (which other
companies, like Novell-SuSE, _do_ require -- long story).
Remember who Red Hat is. They are the largest, commercial Linux
collection of 100% _GPL_ software developers (yes, 100%
_GPL_specifically_) who have a lot of cash to buy out companies who
"close up" GPL software, register patents that they release under
"perpetually open" licenses, and manage to stay in the black thanx to
their developer (1999+) and enterprise (2002+) SLA contracts. Any money
they make will be recycled back into that same development model.
Most other commercial Linux vendors put "value-add" into their Linux
distribution. Not Red Hat. Even Red Hat Enterprise Linux is still 100%
redistributable -- sans trademarks. That's not a game they play, but
one that got forced onto them -- hence the name change in the 100%
redistributable community version.
> By redefining the software industry such that software is a
> product to be sold, rather than software design being a service to pay
> for, the industry has ensured the current state of affairs wherein
> programmers in the United States are obsolete. Tearing RedHat a new one
> for daring to charge for a service rendered while offering the RedHat
> "product" essentially for free, as opposed to the Microsoft method of
> charging outrageous prices for the software "product" and offering a
> certain amount of support service for free,
People need to realize that Microsoft itself does _not_ offer the same
Service Level Agreements (SLAs) that Red Hat, SuSE, Novell and PC OEMs
do. It's ironic! Microsoft is just now thinking about getting into the
SLA business, because PC OEMs are tired to handling SLAs for them.
> Where RedHat makes little or no pretense of treating their OS as an
> exclusive property,
Not the OS, _only_ the trademark. The OS is _still_ 100%
redistributable -- yes, even the Enterprise version. People forget
that.
Most people also don't realize that RHEL is 100% based on "CL" -- with
any changes either being "hesitation" or "locale/support removal" in the
"EL" tagged packages. This was the case with Red Hat Linux before, and
now Fedora Core today. Direct, 1:1 packages.
If you look more than the 1st page deep into Red Hat's site, you'll see
this. You'll read how "EL" packages are "subsets" or "static/backport
versions" under certain considerations. Which goes to the focal point
of what the difference is between "EL" and "CL."
Trademark.
If you are not going to pay Red Hat for RHEL, then your best move is to
stick with FC. Why? So you don't have to spend all day removing
trademarks to rebuild from SRPMS. It's shocking to see, but that's
basically it!
CL2 (Red Hat Linux 7.x) is entering 4 years of support now, thanx to
continued, Legacy updates of CL2.3 (Red Hat Linux 7.3). This continued
support is natural in supporting RHEL2[.1].
CL3 (Red Hat Linux 8, 9 and Fedora Core 1) is under the same with
CL3.1/3.2 (RHL9/FC1), although only one will probably survive (should be
CL3.2/FC1, but RHL9 remains popular because most people just don't know
about _continued_ updates for RHL9). Again, this continued support in
natural in supporting RHEL3.
CL4 is now the "current" series with the release of CL4.1 (Fedora Core 3
[Test 2]), along with CL4.0 (Fedora Core 2). RHEL4 is nearing
completion and that will be tandem in updates with the CL4 series.
The obviousness is in the truth.
> If RedHat wants to move toward a more service-oriented profit model,
They have always. At first it was just for developers, which they
inherited from Cygnus when they bought them (and increased the number of
employees 3x ;-). But now it's also the "Enterprise" product series.
> I say more power to 'em. I don't much like the design philosophy behind
> their installer (anaconda) and default OS configuration,
Which is being addressed right now in Fedora Core. Seth Vidal has done
a great job of breaking down many things, including the fact that there
are no less than 5 different meta-package lists. The new installer will
definitely be built around YUM.
[ I'd personally just like to see APT and, when GTK+ is loaded,
Synaptic. Works damn fine IMHO, better than YUM, even for Fedora. ]
> and ultimately don't like RedHat-based Linux OSes very much in comparison
> with other distros,
And everyone has their preferences, nothing wrong with that. The only
time I take issue is when someone tries to excuse it by unfairly bashing
Red Hat with statements that are being proliferated by the IT media but
are simply _untrue_.
But it's nothing new. Red Hat has been getting "beat up" for years. No
matter what the technical or legal reasoning, people will make
statements that fit their agendas. But I don't see why some people who
don't prefer Red Hat's distributions feel it necessary to bash them
outside the scope of the distribution itself in such untrue regards.
> but I certainly can't fault this particular aspect of their
> profit model. Others, in fact, should follow suit.
Novell seems to be heading SuSE down that very direction. It will be
interesting to see what happens as SuSE Linux becomes near or completely
100% redistributable.
So far, Sun has signed a licensing agreement with Novell-SuSE. Prior to
that, Sun just directly ripped Red Hat Linux and didn't bother to change
the trademarks. Several other companies, big and small, did the same.
And when Red Hat got support calls and tried to ask these companies to
please change the logos in their labels, what did they get? They got
the USPTO on their back saying, "competitors charge you have not been
enforcing your trademark for years in products, allowing derivatives
without a license, so we are now considering 'Red Hat(R)' to be public
domain.
That was that. Red Hat did brilliantly in moving its community
distribution to Fedora, and opening up the development at the same time.
> If someone wants badly enough for there to be a free repository for
> update packages and patches, they can always simply copy the open-source
> software onto another server and offer it themselves.
But Red Hat itself provides _binaries_ already. Fedora Core, like Red
Hat Linux before it, have the _exact_same_ packages as Red Hat
Enterprise Linux. Right down to the version, revision, etc...
Whenever there is a change, the "EL" tag is added. 9 out of 10 times,
it's a locale, support or other _removal_ of something Red Hat doesn't
want to support in RHEL. If you hit the archives in the list, as well
as various pages on Red Hat's site (use their search), you'll see Red
Hat flat out states this fact -- it's almost always "removals."
There are extremely few exceptions. One is the kernel where Red Hat
will anally maintain a version, backporting as much as they can, not
changing anything they don't have to. But the cool thing is that you
_can_ build this same kernel on RHL/FC without issue.
The only time I saw Red Hat "withholding" things from EL in CL was
_before_ Fedora. Red Hat Linux 8/9 packages/updates might have not had
the same thing as the RHEL3 release -- because there was the "product
conflict of interest." That _changed_ with Fedora because the suits no
longer consider CL to be a "product" they sell with Fedora.
So Fedora has _all_ of the _same_ technologies and code as RHEL.
> BS pointed out (above) that the guys at RH are just protecting their
> trademark, but even if it was also a limitation of services provided
> to a for-profit provision,
Not exactly. Red Hat was already almost overnight profitable with the
Cygnus assimulation with developer services (e.g., $5K/developer is
typical). But yes, they were catering to those clients that were
willing to pay for SLAs.
Remember, Red Hat _never_ offered SLAs with the CL releases -- _never_.
EL is a _great_expansion_ of what they ever offered in CL before. And
EL predates Fedora by over 18 months. So the old RHL became a redundant
product, plauged by trademark issues because it was 100%
redistributable. Red Hat "balanced" everything into Fedora -- and it
even took me a bit to realize _all_ the community, development,
distribution and legal aspects it resolves all in one shot.
> I don't see
> any reason to paint them as bad guys for it. It would be far worse to
> see them start producing closed-source software at per-unit prices,
> enforcing copyright the way Microsoft does, and providing updates for
> "free" (also the way Microsoft does). Don't ya think?
Red Hat is the _only_ major commercial Linux distributor saying,
"Everything we produce is GPL, that's 100%, not 99.9%, you can get it
from our competitor if you don't like our terms."
Red Hat bought out Sistina when they closed up GFS and were considering
doing the same to LVM[2]. You can pay Red Hat $3K for RHEL and $2K more
for GFS, or you can get it in Fedora Core and, soon, the stock Linux
kernel as Red Hat is pushing hard to get GFS in it.
-- Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith@ieee.org ------------------------------------------------------------------ "Communities don't have rights. Only individuals in the community have rights. ... That idea of community rights is firmly rooted in the 'Communist Manifesto.'" -- Michael Badnarik----------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 17:56:13 EDT