OK - You are complaining about the cost for a linux licensing - Have you looked at your favority company MicroTrash's pricing and milking of its market... Get off your slamming horse of linux because of pricing ... MicroTrash biggots... what a work of art...
One sided article - worthless -you have better talent than this ...
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
For an operating system that works. An operating system that gets better over time. An operating system that isn't made/stolen by Microsnot.
Gates has ripped off the world, with the garbage servers and desktop OS's. Why not let someone with real software make a few bucks for a change.
Gates has ripped off the world, with the garbage servers and desktop OS's. Why not let someone with real software make a few bucks for a change.
I have read all the postings and I am not impressed by either the grammar or the content.
It seems that you really look forward to anything citing Microsoft so you can go off. You don't offer anything constructive in response.
Look at the world and, at least, be realistic.
I have only been in the computer business since 1959 and I am probably not qualified to have an opinion. However, I am have met your peers. Their contribution to the world was about as meaningful then that yours is now.
At least try to inject a little humour now and then.
It seems that you really look forward to anything citing Microsoft so you can go off. You don't offer anything constructive in response.
Look at the world and, at least, be realistic.
I have only been in the computer business since 1959 and I am probably not qualified to have an opinion. However, I am have met your peers. Their contribution to the world was about as meaningful then that yours is now.
At least try to inject a little humour now and then.
"I have read all the postings and I am not impressed by either the grammar or the content."
Maybe you should have read your own posting.
If you are referring to MY posts, keep in mind. This is an international forum, not an American forum. My grammar, although native English speaking, is not the focus of my posts, nor should it be.
Your reference to your am/having met 'my peers' indicates that you disagree with other opinions I've stated and therefore makes your response biased and off topic to this thread.
You also state that my post has no relevance to this topic, which is about the Red Hat licencing cost and how it will affect those who wish to use Linux. My post referred to the cost of Linux as opposed to the crap people are already buying, is that NOT relevant to this topic?
on the OTHER hand
YOUR post had absolutely NO REFERENCE WHATSOEVER to the topic of discussion. Your unprofessional attempts at simply negating my post completely sidestepped (or jumped clear of) the topic of discussion.
Before you go preaching the rules of debate, you should realize, these discussions are not DEBATES based on an argument of facts. They are DISCUSSIONS where someone has a view and OPINION of a given topic and others are invited to state their opinions. There is no right or wrong answer, there are no grades based on spelling or grammar accuracy but it does invite people to show personal feelings and views.
You have probably spent way too much time reading books and as a result have lost your ability to converse or share your thoughts unless from a textbook.
The bright thing outside that makes you squint when you look at it is called the sun. The other big green things are called trees. People walk among st the trees and enjoy the sun as they use their mind to create thoughts and think for themselves. This soon leads to the practise of seeing other bipedal mammals and approaching them with an open hand or smile (made when you turn both sides of your mouth upward). This is considered a greeting, now you're well on your way to becoming social and having ideas to share.
Give it a try, just start by stepping outside your mothers basement and you'll be on your way in no time.
Good luck,
OM
Maybe you should have read your own posting.
If you are referring to MY posts, keep in mind. This is an international forum, not an American forum. My grammar, although native English speaking, is not the focus of my posts, nor should it be.
Your reference to your am/having met 'my peers' indicates that you disagree with other opinions I've stated and therefore makes your response biased and off topic to this thread.
You also state that my post has no relevance to this topic, which is about the Red Hat licencing cost and how it will affect those who wish to use Linux. My post referred to the cost of Linux as opposed to the crap people are already buying, is that NOT relevant to this topic?
on the OTHER hand
YOUR post had absolutely NO REFERENCE WHATSOEVER to the topic of discussion. Your unprofessional attempts at simply negating my post completely sidestepped (or jumped clear of) the topic of discussion.
Before you go preaching the rules of debate, you should realize, these discussions are not DEBATES based on an argument of facts. They are DISCUSSIONS where someone has a view and OPINION of a given topic and others are invited to state their opinions. There is no right or wrong answer, there are no grades based on spelling or grammar accuracy but it does invite people to show personal feelings and views.
You have probably spent way too much time reading books and as a result have lost your ability to converse or share your thoughts unless from a textbook.
The bright thing outside that makes you squint when you look at it is called the sun. The other big green things are called trees. People walk among st the trees and enjoy the sun as they use their mind to create thoughts and think for themselves. This soon leads to the practise of seeing other bipedal mammals and approaching them with an open hand or smile (made when you turn both sides of your mouth upward). This is considered a greeting, now you're well on your way to becoming social and having ideas to share.
Give it a try, just start by stepping outside your mothers basement and you'll be on your way in no time.
Good luck,
OM
You should be far more familiar with Unix and still believe that it's best I know I do and I haven't been involved that long.
But lets try looking at the world realistic Microsoft has pushed all their competition out of business or to the point of them becoming irrelevant where is Lotus 123, Word Perfect, Boolean and all the rest who where the industry leaders BM {Before Microsoft?}
MS pushed them all to the point of not being considered as mainstream anymore and now we are stuck with the Microsoft less than perfect products. I'm not saying that 123 or any of the others where perfect but they did work better and if they where still around in a real fashion I'm betting that they would still be better than what MS is offering now-days.
Would they be perfect? Hell NO but then again what is? MS by their very actions have put themselves in a position of being the only real supplier and as such don't have any reason to improve their products.
Right at the moment MS is making all soughs of nice noises about Trustworthy Computing and what happened on their very first attempt {Windows 2003} they put it out knowing full well that there was a hole in it namely IE6 and then found a whole pile of other holes after it had supposedly been fully tested to prevent this from happening.
Admittedly the computer world isn't as nice and simple as it was even 20 years ago but it is a sign of the time that we live in and unfortunately Microsoft isn't catching up with these.
But lets try looking at the world realistic Microsoft has pushed all their competition out of business or to the point of them becoming irrelevant where is Lotus 123, Word Perfect, Boolean and all the rest who where the industry leaders BM {Before Microsoft?}
MS pushed them all to the point of not being considered as mainstream anymore and now we are stuck with the Microsoft less than perfect products. I'm not saying that 123 or any of the others where perfect but they did work better and if they where still around in a real fashion I'm betting that they would still be better than what MS is offering now-days.
Would they be perfect? Hell NO but then again what is? MS by their very actions have put themselves in a position of being the only real supplier and as such don't have any reason to improve their products.
Right at the moment MS is making all soughs of nice noises about Trustworthy Computing and what happened on their very first attempt {Windows 2003} they put it out knowing full well that there was a hole in it namely IE6 and then found a whole pile of other holes after it had supposedly been fully tested to prevent this from happening.
Admittedly the computer world isn't as nice and simple as it was even 20 years ago but it is a sign of the time that we live in and unfortunately Microsoft isn't catching up with these.
a professional analyzes pro/con, benefits and features, and then puts his/her money where the mouth is.
a homeless person sits on the curb expecting life to be 'free' of responsibility and economics.
apply which ever is appropriate to your needs.
a homeless person sits on the curb expecting life to be 'free' of responsibility and economics.
apply which ever is appropriate to your needs.
This is the type of crap they want to publish. I wrote two articles for them and they "edited" them to the point that they were no longer USEFUL!!! Man this place sucks, my guess is that these people would be challenged if you asked them to chagne their screensaver.
"IBM could choose to "own" Linux now in one of two ways. First, it could buy SCO outright and exert its claim on Red Hat, owning both the Linux IP and its largest distributor."
Are you high? Or just ignorant? You can't "Own" Linux. The only thing SCO has supposed claim to is a bit of code in the Kernel. Worst case scenario, Linus will have to re-write part of the Kernel. No matter what happens, SCO will have to go fly a kite.
Are you high? Or just ignorant? You can't "Own" Linux. The only thing SCO has supposed claim to is a bit of code in the Kernel. Worst case scenario, Linus will have to re-write part of the Kernel. No matter what happens, SCO will have to go fly a kite.
Go to opensource.org and read the "official manifesto" from them.
It gives the history of linux/unix and why SCO's claim is invalid.
Also, watching "Revolution OS" (great linux documentary) sheds some really cool light on the whole thing. Especially since it was made prior to the whole SCO vs IBM/Linux scandal.
It gives the history of linux/unix and why SCO's claim is invalid.
Also, watching "Revolution OS" (great linux documentary) sheds some really cool light on the whole thing. Especially since it was made prior to the whole SCO vs IBM/Linux scandal.
If you stayed awake to the end of the film, it states that several of the companies highlighted are no longer in the business of supporting or distributing Linux because of the inability to generate the revenue necessary to support a business.
But... the IPO offerings, like all of them at that time, were inflated and way out of proportion.
RedHat is still in business. While at the end of the movie their stock went down to $2. It is at $8.24 today.
So everything eventually becomes checks and balances.
Now I will agree, it is difficult to make money in the support market. If the people who are you are trying to charge support to can support it themselves.
So the GPL is a double edged sword. Which is one of the reasons why I "try" to buy a copy every time I deploy linux. I say try, because it's not always feasible. But when I use it as a firewall at a private client, I usually spend the $40 and buy them a copy. Kind of my way of supporting vendors like RedHat. But that is just me.
RedHat is still in business. While at the end of the movie their stock went down to $2. It is at $8.24 today.
So everything eventually becomes checks and balances.
Now I will agree, it is difficult to make money in the support market. If the people who are you are trying to charge support to can support it themselves.
So the GPL is a double edged sword. Which is one of the reasons why I "try" to buy a copy every time I deploy linux. I say try, because it's not always feasible. But when I use it as a firewall at a private client, I usually spend the $40 and buy them a copy. Kind of my way of supporting vendors like RedHat. But that is just me.
I agree that businesses have to make money thats why I've bought the last three Red Hat releases for running on my home systems - every business that gets a Linux server gets a Red Hat Professional version. This can then be used for other systems but they have an official distribution and printed manuals - it is up to them under the GPL.
The new Red Hat licencing/support schemes "Enterprise AS/ES/WS" make sense for medium/large organisations due to the 12 months automatic upgrades & support. Try doing an automated update with a Windows network and see how quickly problems develop with incompatibilities. Remember that the Red Hat upgrades include all software installed as part of the Red Hat release.
There are also other options like Ximian Red Carpet or Ximian Red Carpet Express - again support for all the software.
This article is just another Microsoft is bigger/better - guess what? We are starting to become sick of the endless FORCED upgrades of Windows/Office just to communicate with other businesses. Linux is already having an effect - look at how much Office 2003 has come down in price from Office XP.
The real battle should be forcing software to save data in an open standard format - then let software compete on it's features not because I need it for data other businesses send me.
The new Red Hat licencing/support schemes "Enterprise AS/ES/WS" make sense for medium/large organisations due to the 12 months automatic upgrades & support. Try doing an automated update with a Windows network and see how quickly problems develop with incompatibilities. Remember that the Red Hat upgrades include all software installed as part of the Red Hat release.
There are also other options like Ximian Red Carpet or Ximian Red Carpet Express - again support for all the software.
This article is just another Microsoft is bigger/better - guess what? We are starting to become sick of the endless FORCED upgrades of Windows/Office just to communicate with other businesses. Linux is already having an effect - look at how much Office 2003 has come down in price from Office XP.
The real battle should be forcing software to save data in an open standard format - then let software compete on it's features not because I need it for data other businesses send me.
We've done automatic updates on our Windows network without incident for 6 years. As for the drop in cost on Office 2003, I'd attribute that to the success of online activiation that began in Office XP. When the percentage of legitimate licenses goes up, the cost can come down. Actually theme of the article has nothing to do with Microsoft's products. The article simply forecasts that it is a great financial challenge to earn a living based on products that are so closely associated with the word FREE and that support may not be enough to survive on alone. I'm curious about the saved data in open format comment. We deal with companies all over the world and haven't had any issues with being able to access files we've received. Maybe we are of the fortunate few but we've had nothing but uptime and smooth sailing since we dumped the Netware portion of our network back in 2000 so I'm a bit skeptical when I read of Windows network horror stories. Sure it takes half a day to get a new server configured and updated but after that, it is relatively hands off. I'm not opposed to Linix or anything open source but I haven't seen any advantages yet.
I refuse to upgrade to WinXP or OfficeXP/03.
2K and O2K run just fine.
I will admit that XP pro does start up extremely quick. But then I look at it from another angle, what corners did they cut to get it to start up that quick.
Afterall, even a minimal install (non-X) of linux takes about 2 minutes to boot.
2K and O2K run just fine.
I will admit that XP pro does start up extremely quick. But then I look at it from another angle, what corners did they cut to get it to start up that quick.
Afterall, even a minimal install (non-X) of linux takes about 2 minutes to boot.
If you haven't noticed, the new Word Perfect Office has been making movements in the corporate world. OpenOffice has been taken note of. People are feed up with the high cost of MS products and with the budget strains of today's business entities, corporate IT execs are looking at ways to cut cost. Do you really need MS Office? They are starting to say no, X or Y office will do just fine. I for one am very happy to see this. "Competition" that what's drive prices down. Billy Deep In Your Pockets Gates has a captive market; can charge virtually whatever he wants. Buy or bankrupt the competition is his motto.
"The real battle should be forcing software to save data in an open standard format - then let software compete on it's features not because I need it for data other businesses send me. "
These words, are the most beautiful ,relevant and holistic I have ever heard. it suggests real competitions. Steve, I must say you are right on the money there.
These words, are the most beautiful ,relevant and holistic I have ever heard. it suggests real competitions. Steve, I must say you are right on the money there.
Would you buy the stock today at $8 and change? Sure, it had a nice run up from a tad over $2 to the present $8+ (a nice 400% return) , but three years ago it was trading at $150 a share. What will be the financial health of Redhat 2 years from now? 5 years from now?
RH would be among my investments. Would I bet the farm, no. But I would buy a couple thousand shares. The RH folks are smart.
All new IPO's a couple of years ago were trading at insane levels. Now it's in reverse. Companies that should be higher are still low.
The market makes no sense. Basing the price on whims, speculation and what analyst talks up the stock in some yahoo chat room.
The market simply has very few holdings in reality. I know profitiable companies with a bright future that had to do a reverse split to come out of the sub-1dollar range. Insane.
But, I like to concentrate on my 401(k) instead of playing the market. When all the 401(k)'s starting losing alot of money, I pumped in extra money. My theory was what comes down must eventually go back up. While putting extra money in meant that I lost alot more. It also meant that I bought alot of shares really low. And the funds as a whole will come back up.
Which then means that my funds will provide a greater return.
All new IPO's a couple of years ago were trading at insane levels. Now it's in reverse. Companies that should be higher are still low.
The market makes no sense. Basing the price on whims, speculation and what analyst talks up the stock in some yahoo chat room.
The market simply has very few holdings in reality. I know profitiable companies with a bright future that had to do a reverse split to come out of the sub-1dollar range. Insane.
But, I like to concentrate on my 401(k) instead of playing the market. When all the 401(k)'s starting losing alot of money, I pumped in extra money. My theory was what comes down must eventually go back up. While putting extra money in meant that I lost alot more. It also meant that I bought alot of shares really low. And the funds as a whole will come back up.
Which then means that my funds will provide a greater return.
...you would be very happy today on the surge in RHAT share price - up well over a dollar to the mid 9 range. Damn, I knew the earnings were going to increase, but I was shy on the trigger. But on the good side, I've also been watching Checkpoint, and decided to buy shares not too long ago in the $15 range. (It's now trying to break the $20 barrier.)
I too am a strong believer in the 401(k) and have been contributing the maximum allowable for over a dozen years. (Maybe in another dozen it'll be high enough for me to consider slowing down a bit.) But my interest in trading is really "on the side"; it's in addition to my 401(k), not instead of it. (Of course, I love to sit at the blackjack table in LasVegas as well.)
But back to Redhat, from what I've seen on these threads, heard from peers in my circle, and read in trade publications, Linux is (most likely) here to stay, and Redhat is emerging as one of the leading providers. With that being the case, there's still plenty of upside potential.
I think I'll go out and buy a boxed set of Redhat's Linux - just to get the sticker, you know - and build a Linux server to start playing around with it. I'm planning to integrate my own mail server pretty soon, and Linux may be a good way to go.
I too am a strong believer in the 401(k) and have been contributing the maximum allowable for over a dozen years. (Maybe in another dozen it'll be high enough for me to consider slowing down a bit.) But my interest in trading is really "on the side"; it's in addition to my 401(k), not instead of it. (Of course, I love to sit at the blackjack table in LasVegas as well.)
But back to Redhat, from what I've seen on these threads, heard from peers in my circle, and read in trade publications, Linux is (most likely) here to stay, and Redhat is emerging as one of the leading providers. With that being the case, there's still plenty of upside potential.
I think I'll go out and buy a boxed set of Redhat's Linux - just to get the sticker, you know - and build a Linux server to start playing around with it. I'm planning to integrate my own mail server pretty soon, and Linux may be a good way to go.
If you get stuck....
Instead of using sendmail though, try to run Postfix. Less vuln then sendmail. (although for mail servers I prefer exchange, but that is a whole other debate)
RH is what I learned on so I am kind of loyal to them. (just bought 2 more boxed copies for a pvt clients netwk that I had to build 2 firewall's with vpn support for)
Instead of using sendmail though, try to run Postfix. Less vuln then sendmail. (although for mail servers I prefer exchange, but that is a whole other debate)
RH is what I learned on so I am kind of loyal to them. (just bought 2 more boxed copies for a pvt clients netwk that I had to build 2 firewall's with vpn support for)
Actuallyl IBM buying SCO makes sense on two other levels, forgetting Linux for a moment.
No more royalties on the flavours of UNIX SCO cliams to own, and killing the lawsuit. Bonus all the way around.
No more royalties on the flavours of UNIX SCO cliams to own, and killing the lawsuit. Bonus all the way around.
What would happen is every failing company (ie SCO) would sue IBM in hopes of a buy out. Do you know how much it cost to fight a bogus case? Take the DirectTV and RIAA lawsuits it costs about 5000 to fight and win or settle for 2000. What do you do when you are a 12 year old girl that lives in the projects? It makes sense to the 12 year old to take the cheaper route and it makes equal sense to the multi-billion dollar international conglomerate. But what if settling sent the message to all that you wouldn't fight? You would roll over and settle because it was cheaper? Nope. IBM is going to crucify SCO as a message to all. This lawsuit will circumvent a flood of lawsuits. It is cheaper for them to fight one then to settle a hundred. They also countersued SCO citing patent violations in all 4 of SCO's products and IBM wants them prevented from distributing them. So IBM sues SCO leaving them with no products to sell (which will happen guranteed because IBM filed a PATENT violation.) SCO has no income except Linux licenses which to date have only been bought by Sun (another dying UNIX company) and Microsoft (whose server base is being eroded by Linux at an exponential rate.) No money to fight and no product to sell SCO will be having a going out of business sale. You might be able to pick up Sys V Unix for dirt cheap. That is how they are dealing with your first point of "No more royalties on the flavours of UNIX SCO cliams to own". As far as "and killing the lawsuit" is would be much more prudent and beneficial to kill SCO. "You don't screw with Big Blue." They are out for blood. The only thing that concerns me is what if IBM gets their hands on the Sys V code. Can they be trusted? Personally I think they like having thousands of developers and programmers working on the kernel 24-7 and not having to pay them a dime. I think that works for their business model and they wouldn't want to take over Linux as some have feared (and SCO has implied.) Right now they ride the Linux coat tail and make money. They respect the Linux hackers and the hackers respect them. It's kind of a symbiosis... for now.
Hello GPL (General Public License). One of the best things that happened to linux. Nobody can physically own it. Maybe some add on components the kernal along with lots of apps where given to the world to use and biuld on to make a more affordable and better computing experience.
And even at $350 is way cheaper than any MS server pushing close 1K and UP. Somebody needs to lay off the bad stuff.
And even at $350 is way cheaper than any MS server pushing close 1K and UP. Somebody needs to lay off the bad stuff.
Good point, but this begs the question(s)...
If that is so, and I agree with you, why hasn't Linus already done so? This whole thing could have been put to bed months ago.
Could it be that this has already happened in the new 2.6.x kernel?
If that is so, and I agree with you, why hasn't Linus already done so? This whole thing could have been put to bed months ago.
Could it be that this has already happened in the new 2.6.x kernel?
Totally agreed first of the kernal has contributions from many people lots are from certain individauls but again as a whole from many. These pieces of code are licensed under GPL which yes does mean nobody or organization can own it. Companies such as redhat compile their own setup programs some tools and sell them with there branding on them this does not mean they own the OS only small parts of it. If you notice most distrobutions have a working OS that is free to download it will not have some things that are compiled into the advanced versions they sell but by buying this you help out by giving money to these companies to further test and develope more things. Even in the free downloads these companies have contributed some code whether in a application or directly into the OS......
I can say I have purchased things from RH did not feel like it was to much. If anything was the least I could pay for a OS that can run without a reboot for the durations I have witnesed....
I can say I have purchased things from RH did not feel like it was to much. If anything was the least I could pay for a OS that can run without a reboot for the durations I have witnesed....
it is so hard to profess the possitives and so easy to embelish the negatives. Every time someone tries to do something good there are wolves looking to feed. Time for people all around to stop cutting others down. Do you know the addage what goes around comes around??
I remember when bill gates was fighting to gain support for his first op-system the unofficial DOS 1.0 which was stollen from CP/M source code eh! The Industry watchdogs of the time said Microsoft doesn't stand a chance! Later these same industry watchdogs advised that nobody in their right mind would ever consider using WebCams , or digital camera's to coin one such commentator "Flight of fancy ... rediculous in itself what possible reason would anyone have to want to have pictures on a computer!"
Point is to everything there is a cost, even the free stuff. It is our job to judge for ourselves when the costs are warranted, and when they are really price gouging!
I remember when bill gates was fighting to gain support for his first op-system the unofficial DOS 1.0 which was stollen from CP/M source code eh! The Industry watchdogs of the time said Microsoft doesn't stand a chance! Later these same industry watchdogs advised that nobody in their right mind would ever consider using WebCams , or digital camera's to coin one such commentator "Flight of fancy ... rediculous in itself what possible reason would anyone have to want to have pictures on a computer!"
Point is to everything there is a cost, even the free stuff. It is our job to judge for ourselves when the costs are warranted, and when they are really price gouging!
Customers are finally starting to realize that the infrastructure is not how they make their money. The customers make their money by how they use their infrastructure. Will follow the utility model that is in vogue these days. Is electricity the "thing" that makes you money ? No, it is the
steel, the article, ... that is produced by using
the electricity (infrastructure). Does it really matter (except for some rare cases) whether you use Sun or HP ? So why not have a common infrastructure to which everyone contributes. The tough part is figuring out how to get everyone to contribute. Red Hat is just another company offering support. It really can't charge a premium for this. Open Source gives us the opportunity to share the cost of the infrastructure. It allows us to tell Microsoft, HP, Sun and yes even Red Hat that we will no longer be rapped. The question is, will we take advantage of the opportunity ?
steel, the article, ... that is produced by using
the electricity (infrastructure). Does it really matter (except for some rare cases) whether you use Sun or HP ? So why not have a common infrastructure to which everyone contributes. The tough part is figuring out how to get everyone to contribute. Red Hat is just another company offering support. It really can't charge a premium for this. Open Source gives us the opportunity to share the cost of the infrastructure. It allows us to tell Microsoft, HP, Sun and yes even Red Hat that we will no longer be rapped. The question is, will we take advantage of the opportunity ?
My limited experience with Red Hat support turned me off at the beginning. I though I was talking to Microsoft. After waitinggggg, the support persons only comment was to contact the hardware manufacture for drivers. My comment was your current release supports the hardware, when will it become backward compatible, no comment. I was running the pervious release. I still use linux but not Red Hat that was my choice.
Although I see a few errors, I am not ready to bash the author for being inept. I think I can rather explain to him the problems in what he has to say.
One: Red Hat is actually bringing suit against the SCO Group (unless you know something that the rest of us do not).
Two: IBM does not want to own Linux, get a grip on that one. They actually GET the GPL. A lot of companies simply do not get it at all.
Three: I have serious doubts about the claims of a Linux "stalwart", esepcially if you are mentioning the SCO Group. They are not a stalwart by any stretch of the imagination.
Four: I have not heard anyone moaning over Red Hat, though there are some on the RHL list who have suggested it, they have been few and far between. I don't know of anyone who has suggested they have outlived their "usefulness."
What the RHEL program comes down to is this: You are paying for support, reliability and stability. You are paying for a more stable product in the same vein as more COTS software. It is a master storke to fit into the COTS model and make Linux available to ISVs and VARs.
Sure, it costs to get support, but you are NOT paying for a license - that is poppycock. You ARE paying for Enterprise Class Support and Services.
You can run the unsupported versions or not - your choice really. It is a SMART business model that the SCO Group would have been wise to try. Instead, the only business model they seem to know is FUD and litigation, though they seem to want to duck every opportunity they can find to get into a courtroom and actually fight this case.
So, other than those glaring errors, I have no problems with the article, or the author.
Hope you can take the criticism as meant. It isn't a personal attack, it's just pointing out some misconceptions.
One: Red Hat is actually bringing suit against the SCO Group (unless you know something that the rest of us do not).
Two: IBM does not want to own Linux, get a grip on that one. They actually GET the GPL. A lot of companies simply do not get it at all.
Three: I have serious doubts about the claims of a Linux "stalwart", esepcially if you are mentioning the SCO Group. They are not a stalwart by any stretch of the imagination.
Four: I have not heard anyone moaning over Red Hat, though there are some on the RHL list who have suggested it, they have been few and far between. I don't know of anyone who has suggested they have outlived their "usefulness."
What the RHEL program comes down to is this: You are paying for support, reliability and stability. You are paying for a more stable product in the same vein as more COTS software. It is a master storke to fit into the COTS model and make Linux available to ISVs and VARs.
Sure, it costs to get support, but you are NOT paying for a license - that is poppycock. You ARE paying for Enterprise Class Support and Services.
You can run the unsupported versions or not - your choice really. It is a SMART business model that the SCO Group would have been wise to try. Instead, the only business model they seem to know is FUD and litigation, though they seem to want to duck every opportunity they can find to get into a courtroom and actually fight this case.
So, other than those glaring errors, I have no problems with the article, or the author.
Hope you can take the criticism as meant. It isn't a personal attack, it's just pointing out some misconceptions.
If I understand you corectly that the licence is still free an that the $350 is only if you choose to purchess suport? I must say that I couldn't ask a for better system. this still has all of the benifits of the open sorce theam, yet it lets Red Hat generate some R&D funds.
It certainly answered a lot of questions I had. (And opened a lot more.)
My interest in Linux (at this point) is really an interest in Redhat, Inc. Their earnings are projected to increase 22% next year, and for the first time in its history have a positive cash flow. Moreover, analysts expect, at this time, for Redhat's earnings to grow at about a 30% average for the next five years. (But that could certainly change.) They've been in the red - losing money - since it's conception, and showing some positive cash flow would be a favorable development in the eyes of investors. And to think, at one time their stock was trading at $150 per share, but the irrational exuberance the market was feeling is well behind us, and Redhat is still standing.
With a share price only in the $8 dollar range, with earnings (possibly) on the rise in the future, and considering some favorable analysts' recommendations, there's quite a bit of upside potential with Redhat. I'm just not sure if I want to buy several hundred shares or several thousand.
On the other hand, if Redhat's future looks bleak, not only would I not buy the shares, but I would consider short selling them in anticipation of a decline in the share price.
I admit my ignorance when it comes to using Linux. But doing one's due diligence before considering an investment is only the prudent thing to do. By the way, what's your opinion on Redhat as an investment?
I'm also interested in what you perceived as lies in the article. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point them out. (And how could I possibly hurt you - and why would I want to do such a thing?)
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
With a share price only in the $8 dollar range, with earnings (possibly) on the rise in the future, and considering some favorable analysts' recommendations, there's quite a bit of upside potential with Redhat. I'm just not sure if I want to buy several hundred shares or several thousand.
On the other hand, if Redhat's future looks bleak, not only would I not buy the shares, but I would consider short selling them in anticipation of a decline in the share price.
I admit my ignorance when it comes to using Linux. But doing one's due diligence before considering an investment is only the prudent thing to do. By the way, what's your opinion on Redhat as an investment?
I'm also interested in what you perceived as lies in the article. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point them out. (And how could I possibly hurt you - and why would I want to do such a thing?)
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I suggest you take a long hard look at SuSE.
Their distribution is better and they have a better financial model.
If predictions are correct they will return a profit next year and they're not beholden to share holders like Redhat.
Their model relies on the venture capatalists that funded them in the first place.
Their distribution is better and they have a better financial model.
If predictions are correct they will return a profit next year and they're not beholden to share holders like Redhat.
Their model relies on the venture capatalists that funded them in the first place.
As CEO of Microsoft, Bill Gates' salary is only around $750,000, and it's never been higher. All of his vast fortune was made by having ownership in the company's stock. But regardless, compared to CEOs of other industries, it's rather dismal.
By comparison, the CEO of Redhat, Matthew Szulik, draws a salary of over $4 million. Moreover, he only owns 2 million shares of stock out of over 170 million outstanding. (I guess he sold most of his in the $150 per share days.)
By comparison, the CEO of Redhat, Matthew Szulik, draws a salary of over $4 million. Moreover, he only owns 2 million shares of stock out of over 170 million outstanding. (I guess he sold most of his in the $150 per share days.)
Bill Gates is not CEO of Microsoft he is Chief Software Architect.
Steve Ballmer is the CEO.
Steve Ballmer is the CEO.
Linux is going to be too cost too much money if they raise their prices..????? What planet are you from..?????? A viable software server that is cheaper than MICRO JUNK even if they triple the price they charge.??? Just because it doesn't go (CRASH, CRASH, CRASH) makes it worth the money they descide to charge..!!!!!!
First: You have to have more than a business model and some venture capital to have a sustainable business.
Two: You have to have some people in your company who know how to make profit.
Three: Trash MS all you want, until Sally Secretary wants to sit down and use Open Office on Debian Linux, Microsoft is going to rule the business world, percieved advantages of the mad parrots squaking "Linux On The Desktop!! Linux On The Desktop!! AWK!!!" notwithstanding.
(Also, SOMEBODY has to come up with a series of four or so fairly simple tests leading to a certification in Linux that will command high 5 figure to low six figure salaries, or sustained interest in Linux support as a career is going to wane quickly.)
Four: If Microsoft stock actually starts throwing off a dividend, it may experience a price rise to give Berkshire Hathaway a challange.
I wish RedHat all the luck in the world moving from Dot Com fiscal management to profitable sound fiscal management. (More so I wish Mandrake luck, as I prefer their distro.)
Two: You have to have some people in your company who know how to make profit.
Three: Trash MS all you want, until Sally Secretary wants to sit down and use Open Office on Debian Linux, Microsoft is going to rule the business world, percieved advantages of the mad parrots squaking "Linux On The Desktop!! Linux On The Desktop!! AWK!!!" notwithstanding.
(Also, SOMEBODY has to come up with a series of four or so fairly simple tests leading to a certification in Linux that will command high 5 figure to low six figure salaries, or sustained interest in Linux support as a career is going to wane quickly.)
Four: If Microsoft stock actually starts throwing off a dividend, it may experience a price rise to give Berkshire Hathaway a challange.
I wish RedHat all the luck in the world moving from Dot Com fiscal management to profitable sound fiscal management. (More so I wish Mandrake luck, as I prefer their distro.)
Are you people insane? Who cares? This ain't religion, morons.....
Good product at a reasonable price with decent support is all that counts. Microsoft provides that, clearly as the market has shown. Other companies probably can too. If so, the market will support them. That's the way it is and should be.
Get a grip!!
Good product at a reasonable price with decent support is all that counts. Microsoft provides that, clearly as the market has shown. Other companies probably can too. If so, the market will support them. That's the way it is and should be.
Get a grip!!
Are you people insane? Who cares? This ain't religion, morons.....
Good product at a reasonable price with decent support is all that counts. Microsoft provides that, clearly as the market has shown. Other companies probably can too. If so, the market will support them. That's the way it is and should be.
Get a grip!!
Good product at a reasonable price with decent support is all that counts. Microsoft provides that, clearly as the market has shown. Other companies probably can too. If so, the market will support them. That's the way it is and should be.
Get a grip!!
Give it 30 years and we will have another OpenSource movement - away from Linux and MS as they cost too much and are flawed.
I defy anyone to tell me of a company which purchases a copy of Redhat (or any other distro) for each system they install, assuming more than one system with the same OS.
What a crock this article was - hardly what I thought I'd signed onto.
And ever were the costs for support to skyrocket, Linux is still quite cost effective in any sensible case.
Besides, concerning "enterprise ready" and what that entails, I believe these industry pundits are missing the point entirely.
Somewhere we've lost touch with what the enterprise is.
That a Linux infrastructure requires skilled management and some customization is no barrier to its being "enterprise ready" and a good baseis for an IT infrastructure.
The enterprise isn't Joe consumer who buys a computer, takes it home and expects it to unpack itself, waddle over to the 'phone line, jack itself in and dial up AOL.
Enterprise computing was built on Unix, VMS, IBM mainframe systems and their kin, not the relative ignorance of the modern consumer.
A retail store will spend thousands of dollars on custom counters and fixtures.
A larger company might spend a quarter of a million dollars per floor on buildout when they move into a building.
The enterprise needs a reliable, flexible IT infrastructure and that requires a substantial investment. Only recently has this been poorly understood.
The advantage gained by using comodity hardware and avoiding the costs of proprietary systems is lost when companies stop using comodity operating systems in favour of a broken, proprietary system.
Many pointy hairs bought the MS Party Line about "easy to install and manage" and their bald faced lies about security and reliability.
It never entered their empty little heads that inexpensive hardware breaks more often than do server grade systems and that the "network operating system" Microsoft hawks breaks more often than a Yugo.
"That's the fault of the administrators" is the usual riff.
'Course, when the "administrator" is untrained because "MS is easy to administer," they really are in part to blame, but it is more the fault of marketroids, ignorant, "consumer grade" managers and the designers of the dysfunctional "NOS."
In reality, the enterprise needs Mack trucks, IBM or comparable servers, Snap On tools, decent shelving, durable carpet et cetera.
Cheap doesn't cut it. There are many sayings such as "the easy way out" and "the path of least resistance." There's a reason for that, and MS is the "easy way out."
People expect to expend no effort, and indeed do expend very little effort up front.
Then come SQLSlammer, MSBlast et cetera. Then comes a clogged registry and "old Windows disease." Then come weekly patches which frequently break things. Then comes Windows Hell.
The enterprise needs to get off its collective duff and remember that it gets what it pays for, and that to get things done right it needs to do them itself.
Read the above as "a real IT infrastructure and the expertise to make it work," rather than so-called "easy to use" crapware and toweringly ignorant "engineers."
Being a EE I can say that. Software "engineers" and MCS"E"s frequently operate in a consequence-free environment.
I operate in an environment of accountability. If I screw up, a building might burn down and a thousand people die.
That's what being an engineer is.
Reliability is not optional, and those who would sacrifice security and reliability in favour of convenience deserve none of the above.
Sorry - I appear to have ranted. Ah, well...
Cheers,
Bix
Power without wisdom is akin to an adze with a ruined edge, suited more to the vandal than the builder.
What a crock this article was - hardly what I thought I'd signed onto.
And ever were the costs for support to skyrocket, Linux is still quite cost effective in any sensible case.
Besides, concerning "enterprise ready" and what that entails, I believe these industry pundits are missing the point entirely.
Somewhere we've lost touch with what the enterprise is.
That a Linux infrastructure requires skilled management and some customization is no barrier to its being "enterprise ready" and a good baseis for an IT infrastructure.
The enterprise isn't Joe consumer who buys a computer, takes it home and expects it to unpack itself, waddle over to the 'phone line, jack itself in and dial up AOL.
Enterprise computing was built on Unix, VMS, IBM mainframe systems and their kin, not the relative ignorance of the modern consumer.
A retail store will spend thousands of dollars on custom counters and fixtures.
A larger company might spend a quarter of a million dollars per floor on buildout when they move into a building.
The enterprise needs a reliable, flexible IT infrastructure and that requires a substantial investment. Only recently has this been poorly understood.
The advantage gained by using comodity hardware and avoiding the costs of proprietary systems is lost when companies stop using comodity operating systems in favour of a broken, proprietary system.
Many pointy hairs bought the MS Party Line about "easy to install and manage" and their bald faced lies about security and reliability.
It never entered their empty little heads that inexpensive hardware breaks more often than do server grade systems and that the "network operating system" Microsoft hawks breaks more often than a Yugo.
"That's the fault of the administrators" is the usual riff.
'Course, when the "administrator" is untrained because "MS is easy to administer," they really are in part to blame, but it is more the fault of marketroids, ignorant, "consumer grade" managers and the designers of the dysfunctional "NOS."
In reality, the enterprise needs Mack trucks, IBM or comparable servers, Snap On tools, decent shelving, durable carpet et cetera.
Cheap doesn't cut it. There are many sayings such as "the easy way out" and "the path of least resistance." There's a reason for that, and MS is the "easy way out."
People expect to expend no effort, and indeed do expend very little effort up front.
Then come SQLSlammer, MSBlast et cetera. Then comes a clogged registry and "old Windows disease." Then come weekly patches which frequently break things. Then comes Windows Hell.
The enterprise needs to get off its collective duff and remember that it gets what it pays for, and that to get things done right it needs to do them itself.
Read the above as "a real IT infrastructure and the expertise to make it work," rather than so-called "easy to use" crapware and toweringly ignorant "engineers."
Being a EE I can say that. Software "engineers" and MCS"E"s frequently operate in a consequence-free environment.
I operate in an environment of accountability. If I screw up, a building might burn down and a thousand people die.
That's what being an engineer is.
Reliability is not optional, and those who would sacrifice security and reliability in favour of convenience deserve none of the above.
Sorry - I appear to have ranted. Ah, well...
Cheers,
Bix
Power without wisdom is akin to an adze with a ruined edge, suited more to the vandal than the builder.
...then don't pay the subscription price. But wait, the price is FREE.
Actually, if you calm down and re-read the article slowly, there is a very positive message there, just a somewhat unpalatable one, which is that there is no such thing as a free lunch! The point being made is that if we, the users are not prepared the pay the (yes, much lower than MS) prices then the independent Linux vendors will disappear and Linux will suffer the framentation that has dogged UNIX, making it a hardware vendors world again.
Do you really want that?
Do you really want that?
I think Mr. Landgrave made a very honest analysis of the state of the Linux market.
I am not sure that Redhat can succeed with its current business model. Business school 101 syas one needs to differentiate his product; one must stay away from a cost sensitive commodity market. I don't believe that Redhat can succeed in differentiating itself from other open source distributions without alienating its market. I would see Linux being embraced by the Dells and Compaqs of the world; providing hardware, operating system, and software perhaps with service contracts.
Definately a thought provoking article and a reminder there is more to software than just code; business aspects also exist.
I am not sure that Redhat can succeed with its current business model. Business school 101 syas one needs to differentiate his product; one must stay away from a cost sensitive commodity market. I don't believe that Redhat can succeed in differentiating itself from other open source distributions without alienating its market. I would see Linux being embraced by the Dells and Compaqs of the world; providing hardware, operating system, and software perhaps with service contracts.
Definately a thought provoking article and a reminder there is more to software than just code; business aspects also exist.
Can I suggest business school 202... There are alternative options to just differentiation (Porter). The basis of many successful organisations is flogging commodities and/or adding value through vertical integration. In other words, many successful businesses operate in the commodity market and grow rich through volumes, partnerships or adding value to low cost items. Hmmm - just like Redhat....
This is relatively new to the IT industry that has enjoyed scooping the cream off of differentation in an early adopter market. But, like all good things, this is coming to an end. The trend is towards commodity items in software just as it has been in hardware. This brings pain to both the innovator and the established companies as it is disruptive (see Christensen).
But we had better get used to it (higher unemployment in IT?????) as the customer has seen the benefits and once this passes critical mass, it will be the way we work in the future (IMHO).
This is relatively new to the IT industry that has enjoyed scooping the cream off of differentation in an early adopter market. But, like all good things, this is coming to an end. The trend is towards commodity items in software just as it has been in hardware. This brings pain to both the innovator and the established companies as it is disruptive (see Christensen).
But we had better get used to it (higher unemployment in IT?????) as the customer has seen the benefits and once this passes critical mass, it will be the way we work in the future (IMHO).
What these companies are paying for is "support" contracts.
There is nothing stopping these same companies from installing and configuring red hat without a support contract.
I say this because at the heart of linux is the GPL. Which means, even if you only buy 1 copy of red hat. You are allowed to install it as many times as you wish on as many machines as you have. You can give it to someone else without charging them for it, without penalities or repercussions from red hat.
I do not have a disdain for red hat. They are entitled to make money. And the only real way to make money in linux is either thru support contracts or custom programming. (administration excluded).
There is no real "license" that will expire, thus not allowing you to use Red Hat or Linux.
There is a support contract however, that is a paid service. But you do *NOT* have to purchase a support contract in order to use Red Hat!
There is nothing stopping these same companies from installing and configuring red hat without a support contract.
I say this because at the heart of linux is the GPL. Which means, even if you only buy 1 copy of red hat. You are allowed to install it as many times as you wish on as many machines as you have. You can give it to someone else without charging them for it, without penalities or repercussions from red hat.
I do not have a disdain for red hat. They are entitled to make money. And the only real way to make money in linux is either thru support contracts or custom programming. (administration excluded).
There is no real "license" that will expire, thus not allowing you to use Red Hat or Linux.
There is a support contract however, that is a paid service. But you do *NOT* have to purchase a support contract in order to use Red Hat!
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
